(06-28-2021 11:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 09:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

(06-28-2021 09:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

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

By the way, have you read up between 'fact issues at trial' and conjecture yet? Might be a good time.

You think I’m making legal arguments here and arguing about the court case?

You prodded me by saying I was wrong to use the word suffocate and then you doubled down on the idea that the prosecution wanted to avoid the related word asphyxiation.

Actually *you* are the one that promotes this -- now.

Here is what I said: "The prosecution shied away from 'choking' or asphyxia. That wasnt one in their 4-5 reasons of death. The facts in the case dont tag along with your 'choking' or lad's 'strangled' wordings."

And I have a typo there -- the wasnt should be 'was' -- and my later examples bear out that they went down the 'choke trail' (twice in fact) then backed off. That is, when the dumb*** tae kwon do dude shot up their first theory, and the second when the 'boot NOT on the neck' shot up their second.

The prosecution charged down the asphyxia trail. In two or three modalaties. And people said it a lot. But then they had a few *real* bad witnesses, and then what? They went down another modality. The shied away from it.

But yet, now *you* argue that I said 'they wanted to avoid the word' --- I didnt say that. I said they went gung-ho down the trail, then backed off when they got a two by four across their face with a couple of witnesses in a row.

Somehow you think that the words appearing is proof that they didnt move away from it, or shy away from it. That is a dumb*** assumption, Encyclopedia Brown.

Ive tried a number of times to explpain the issue, but yuo steadfastly fing refuse to recognize what I am saying. Fine, with me. Go jump in a lake.

Quote:I simply looked up articles and kept proving both of your points wrong.

I watched a great portion of the trial son. The above is what happened. But please, tell me what did happen since you fing obviously watched a **** ton of it yourself.

Quote:There seems to be plenty of evidence that you were factually wrong on both accounts. Instead of saying mea culpa, you’ve tried to dance around or lash out as a way to distract from the very simple fact that your initial points were factually wrong.

What happened is that *you* twisted some words and concepts around. Like you invariably fing do.

Quote:I mean, how do you even think I’m playing lawyer? What legal opinion have I offered specifically? Lol

Since you are teling us exactly what happened in the course of the trial, dude. You know, the one yo probably just saw some snippets on and are now the fing expert on the course of action the prosecution and defense took.

Buried in here is that you admit to a typo that completely changes the meaning of the first post.

It also includes you quoting your own post (how the prosecution shied away from asphyxia) and then immediately saying you DIDN’T say that they shied away from it..

If you misstated that first, just like you made a typo, then say that.

Instead, dance dance dance like you so much love to accuse me of doing.

I could care less how the court case evolved - i keep telling you, im responding to your initial claims that started all this that you aren’t willing to admit you were wrong about (well, you did admit to a rather important typo, so there is that).