(04-15-2021 03:22 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: Are you saying that after he died his o2 stats went back to normal? Or after having a heart attack but prior to death his stats could have went back to normal?
Of course I'm not saying a dead person has normal sats. Be serious.
1) the blood flow to that finger may not have been impeded. We have no idea if his sats were compromised. Put a pulse ox on your finger and then wrap a tourniquet around your arm or finger... your sats will decline. That's why your finders turn blue. They may decline enough to the point where damage is done elsewhere... especially to more sensitive organs and/or if you are otherwise compromised... either chemically OR medically. Remove it and your sats in that finger will almost always return to normal, but the damage is already done. That damage may still kill you, even though the sats returned to normal. Put the tourniquet on the other hand and you can literally kill your arm... and your sats on the other hand will still register 'normal'. That's what I'm saying.
Quote:In either case, this would be a death blow for the prosecution, because a defense attorney could prop a 90 lb weight on his shoulder blade while giving his closing arguments for 9 minutes, then get up and say the only difference between what happened to me and George is that I didnt have 150% of the lethal limit of Fentanyl in me.
And this is where we disagree 100%
It doesn't matter if he would have died anyway. That is an opinion, not a fact. People who 'should have' died are saved many times every day.
What matters is that the cop violated policy designed to protect the civil liberties and lives of the community. He violated what most people would consider 'necessary' force to control a detainee/someone under arrest. Had he stopped at 30 seconds, at 2 minutes... at something that most people would consider 'necessary', I would agree with you. By engaging in what looks punitive as opposed to being defensive, he is responsible for what occurs. 100% responsible?? Of course not.... but still responsible. Some form of negligent disregard. I don't know if they charged him with something like that... and if it is your point that they don't have an appropriate charge, I don't dispute that. It is not MURDER by ANY definition I can think of... but he still bears SOME responsibility for the death, IMO.
If he had ANY inclination that the guy could have died, it is his job, his duty and his responsibility to render aid... that's why he is a 'first responder'. He did not render aid... Instead, he rendered pressure. If you say he didn't know, that's fine and I agree... That makes it 'not murder'... but when you violate policy and bad things happen, you bear responsibility.
You can't walk in and shoot someone in hospice and claim as a defense to murder that they would have died anyway... which is what you're doing here. Even for assisted suicide, where the person WANTS you to kill them, it is most often a crime to do so. Your defense absolutely applies to a civil case... because the monetary value of his remaining life is almost nothing. I personally know of a case that was settled, where a tire company put two new tires on the front and left pretty bald ones on the back (or vice versa, can't remember). This was a violation of company policy and the ads they have on their walls. Driving on a wet road, car went out of control, driver died. They settled (HUGE settlement) because the installer violated policy... even though on that road, under those conditions, they could have easily argued that with the remaining bald tires, she would have lost control anyway.
I'm not saying you're completely wrong nor that nobody would agree with you. I'm saying that I'm not an unreasonable person, and I disagree with you 100%. In NO WAY is this a 'lay down' walk away for the defense. Not even close. If you're looking to acquit the cop, this will be your excuse. If you are not, it matters, but is not overwhelming which is what you are implying.
/
[NEWS] Derek Chauvin Trial (BREAKING: Sentenced)
