(06-28-2021 09:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 09:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 07:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 07:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 07:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I will type slow --- the state first said 'COD = suffocation, asphyxia' mode = knee on neck.

The asphyxia started to take hits when the tae kwon do dude started opining on chokepoints --- and none of the issues with fast choke points or slow choke points seemed to be borne out in the facts of the case, nor in the medical findings.

The 'knee on neck' then got hit by facts above and beyond that above, enough to whenever the issue of the knee came up they had to revert to a second formulation -- knee and weight on the neck and back area.

Then they turned, after the debacle with the EMT taking the pulse when it would have been impossible to do so with the knee on neck to 'well it was his heart that gave out'.

Finally, at the last turn, they started with combination breathing failure/ heart failure brought on by compression force (i.e. Chauvins weight alone) on Floyd.

They didnt avoid it -- they just turned to about three other causes in short order.

I mean, something in that smorgasborg must be it.

But one of the big switches *in trial* was having to change their story from 'knee on the neck' to having to join it continuously with the 'back area'.

Clear now? So which item in the smorgasborg are you feasting on?

All that and you still don’t recognize that your comments that started all this, by saying it was incorrect to use the word suffocate and that the prosecution shied away from using the word asphyxiation were blatantly false.

The prosecution didn’t shy away and it wasn’t incorrect to use the word suffocate, you know, given that the prosecution and multiple witnesses said he died of asphyxiation….

Go ahead and rabble on on that soap box of yours. I could care less about how the arguments changed - I didn’t argue counter to that in the slightest.

You still havent told us which of the 4 or 5 different ways that the prosecution told us that Chauvin killed Floyd you subscribe to, mind you.

And they absolutely shied away from it as 'the definitive cause of death'. Maybe they tossed out the other 3 or four methods and modes to be cute or something..... I guess if having one definitive cause of death is good, well, I guess three more is triple good in your book. Sounds fun.

The problem is, you didnt bother with the trial as a whole, now you are coming in here like some god savant telling us what they did. Sounds like an interesting take. So what *does* 3 or 4 *other* COD modes sound like to you? Embracing #1?

But back to the first line in the post --- I guess you will avoid that steadfastly, kind of like the question I ask of 'how do *you* define 'white' and 'black' for the purposes of discrimination?'

So yes, you say 'suffocate'. The problem is that even for much of the time in trial the prosecution didnt agree with you on a full time basis. is this your 'omniscient godlike knowledge' thingy rearing its head once again? Funny, if so, you might answer some of the questions noted above.

But the standard you set out above is seemingly 'if a witness says it' it must be true.

Given that standard, I assume you are all on board with the defense witness who said that Floyd was helped to his death by being too close to a tailpipe and carbon monoxide was the culprit.

I mean, that is the gold standard you state above --- a witness says it so therefore a professional opinion *must* be true.

Interesting standard to toss out there.

I am grateful for your deep incisive feel on what the prosecution did or did not do, since you are apparently a savant on this. Amazing. maybe you should talk to Keith Ellison on a savant position with the Minnesota AG office. Sound good with you?

I'm old enough to remember when "Seems like a lot of conjecture, TBH" was considered poor form by some. Oh well. The times change I guess.

When lad decides to play expert lawyer when his background is more like watching Perry Mason, and keeps going at it, a response like that is somewhat inevitable.

Yes, the HORRORS of calling him on that. The sheer unadulterated horror. You are so brave.

I don't care that you "called him out on that". I don't even mind your tone because I'm so used to it. It's just funny that you take offense to me saying "seems like a lot of conjecture, TBH" but you are apparently feeling really good about your own tone/words. I was going to ask you, "Do you not see the hypocrisy here?" but I won't bother.