(06-29-2021 02:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 01:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 01:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Well, my attempt to broker a constructive conversation here has failed so I'll move on

(06-29-2021 10:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Of course it's an opinion. Of course you can't prove it. I believe doctors talk about what might be probable when the provide expert testimony? It isn't necessarily binary, correct?

But that's the point, 93... You're literally making it binary when you say what you're saying 'without Chauvin, he lives that day'. That's a purely binary outcome. While I believe one also can't say, with Fentanyl, he dies that day.... He DID die... and we're discussing a murder case. If he dies from Fentanyl, its not murder.

Now let me address the BIG issue.

With no hypoxia reported, it is extremely unlikely that Floyd dies from what Chauvin did, without the other factors.

Quote:If two people are given the same pill of Fentanyl and one has a history of taking Fentanyl on the reg and one doesn't... which of those two people are more likely to die that day?

If its a relatively low amount, like a clinical dose.... The one with the history is more likely to die.

If its a relatively high amount, it depends on lots of details that nobody knows. How high, how 'damaged' the regular user is and how 'healthy' the new guy is.

I think you assume that it is 'safer' for the habitual user to take the drug, but you're completely ignoring that a regular user is compromised... so they aren't starting from the same state of health. They have an enlarged heard, high blood pressure, likely untreated... the arteries are weakened relative to the average person.

Quote:I certainly think the Fentanyl made the situation worse. I don't think he dies that day if Chauvain acted appropriately. That's my opinion. I can't prove it.

He violated procedures for sure (it seems/testimony said)... but what you just described was 'reasonable doubt' in terms of some definitions of 'murder'.... because by the same token... someone WITHOUT Fentanyl likely doesn't die nor is even injured as a result of what Chauvin did.

This is the crux of the debate, IMO

(06-29-2021 10:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I actually did say the combination of stressors, bad heart, and reduced respiratory function due to Fentanyl was the toxic combination.

And, I did say that no one can point to any one of those. Funnily, not even the prosecution can point to a specific single modality of death.

That post, in its entirety, was written off as 'conjecture', which the last statement definitely was. The rest of that post had trial facts that were seemingly written off as 'loads conjecture' or somefink.

For the sake of honesty --- I did a back calculation on the dea data. I need to revise the 2-3 ng/mL to 5-7 or so based on the blood volume of a typical adult. I was wrong in that multiple.

In retrospect the 3-5x should not read as that. The double to almost double dosage per volume still speaks loudly as to the amount of fentanyl in Floyd.

Again, my comment was more general.... but you're right that it was a toxic combination.

IMO, It's a conversation between a layman seeking to right a wrong and a lawyer seeking to follow the laws.

What Chauvin did, despite the fact that it contributed to the death of Floyd and was beyond protocol.... was NOT by almost any definition, murder.



I'd ask those on the left... If you go running around a pool which is against the pool rules; and because you come up suddenly, you scare a woman with a heart issue and she dies... are you a murderer? If someone has a better example, please have at it.

I've not been following this back and forth, so forgive me if I missed something crucial; I just found the last few sentences to be interesting and thought provoking.

Chauvin was found guilt of second-degree and third-degree murder, so I think, by definition, it was murder.

He was convicted of three counts.

Unintentional second-degree murder while attempting to commit felony assault;
Third degree murder by engaging in a reckless action that resulted in the death of others;
2nd degree manslaughter, specifically culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.

1. Minnesota is the only jurisdiction that bootstraps the felony murder as the action itself --- most jurisdictions allow for a felony murder when a death occurs in the commission of felony, think a bank robbery (felony) that results in a death.

Minnesota allows the underlying felony assault (a lesser included charge) to be the bootstrap to this.

2. The 3rd degree charge is under review. Funnily because of lad's favorite example Noor. This charge is the depraved indifference charge -- shooting a gun into a bus. No intent to kill anyone specifically. The Noor prosecution argued that the non-general 'other' that is intended extends to people you specifically target (Noor specifically intended to shoot the woman in the gut --- mistakenly so)

3. Negligent manslaughter. Self-explanatory.


So, to those out there, for #1, what is the underlying felony assault? To those that say the restraint by itself was the 'assault', are you saying that George should have never been restrained? You pretty much have a true 'either/or' situation with this.

The problem with a conviction solely on 3 is explained by OO. A conviction on this alone and you have the BLM Air Force doing their impersonation of the firebombing of Tokyo.

Can't restraint be required but the act of restraining, in terms of how it is carried out, be considered assault? As in, if someone clearly uses an unsanctioned method to restrain someone can't it be considered assault? But if they used a sanctioned technique it wouldn't be?

I don't think it's binary in the way you're portraying it, that if the type of restraint applied by Chauvin is considered assault, then Chauvin should not have restrained him in any fashion. I don't think you have the "either or" situation at all as there is a spectrum of how restraint can be applied, right? There is a difference between restraining someone by placing their hands behind their back in a standing position, doing what Chauvin did, etc.

So is your question really "should the method of restraint that Chauvin relied on not be sanctioned by the PD?"