You didn't miss anything. Also, the prosecutions expert witness ended up testifying that people who die from fentanyl overdoses go into comas first and that Floyd never went into a coma before death.
The doctor said it couldn't be his heart because he would have been breathing faster, but it couldn't be Fentanyl because he would have been breathing slower - but a normal rate is also what we'd expect to see if he was simultaneously compromised by both of those antagonistic forces. If he had a coronary condition which ordinarily would have increased his respiratory rate (because his heart wasn't able to deliver enough oxygen, even though it might have been available in the lungs) but the Fentanyl depressed that to a "normal" rate, it's still possible that he died from cardiac arrest due to the resulting hypoxia (and might still have done so in the absence of restraint). His heart condition is the only thing which explains why he complained about being unable to breathe before he was even removed from the car. And contrary to the doctor's testimony, at one point Floyd did complain of chest pain.
Diagnosis like this can't be reliably made at a distance. Those are educated guesses. That's really what this gets at. You'll have a witness on the stand that appears to be reasoning, ruling things in and out but if you ask just a few questions then boom permutations explode and he don't know shit, he's not a miracle doctor that can diagnose someone at a glance like House or something.
Exactly. The doctor's opinion may be a plausible explanation, but it's still just an opinion, and it's not the only plausible explanation for Floyd's death. It's enough to inject reasonable doubt sufficient for acquittal no matter which cause seems to be more likely. The defense doesn't need to prove that it was a drug overdose and/or pre-existing condition, only that it could have been. Of course, you never know what the average person might consider "reasonable" anymore, so it's anybody's guess as to what the jury will decide.
The defence doesn't really have anything to prove at this point. Proving innocence is really beyond requirement.
It's gotten ridiculous because the prosecution is trying to make out like it's impossible for anything else to have killed Floyd which is a desperate reach.
It betrays the prosecution's malice once again. Their position is absurd. Completely throwing the established lethality of intoxication and health ailments out the window. As if cops are the most deadly thing when nothing could be further than the truth.
The prosecution is knowingly using fallacious persuasion tactics on the jury that can convict an innocent man. If I were dictator I'd interject and have them all publicly executed for their crimes as a warning to other officials who are corrupt in their duty.
The impression I've gotten from the prosecution's witnesses is that they've already formed an opinion on the matter (thanks to a year of riots) and they're trying to make their testimony fit the narrative. It's also clear they've all been prepared to talk about the same points. They want the jury to think that their conclusions are settled science, but it's like molecular gastronomy - just because you used science in the process doesn't mean your cake is scientific. Actual scientific analysis would require a time machine, so "best guesses" is all we have. The defense of course will bring out their own expert witnesses, and that's when things will get really interesting. All they have to prove is that we can never really know the cause of death for certain, and even experts can disagree. Unfortunately, by that time the media will have taken a bunch of sound bites out of context to rile up the race-hustling clowns who will decide that reasonable doubt = white supremacy, and Lady Justice will be lynched in the streets of Mini-Somalia.
There are a lot of times where people don't really bother to think about things until asked. For a few witnesses I might expect that but it's clear the prosecution is in on it as well and that's beyond the scope of traditional human folly. That falls into the category of malice, clearly deliberated.
When you have a prosecution and witnesses they would question them from both angles like the defence would. They are meant to cross examine themselves.
It's basically the job requirement for prosecutors to be above this kind of thing. They're trained that way or supposed to be and that ability is meant to be what the qualification represents.
I think people need to uphold standards. Dirty tricks to win an argument or in this case a case should not be tolerated in the legal system. In this case they are throwing their full weight at Chauvin and can't even with their best resources on the job qualify/disqualify their own witnesses?
come join me on the dlivt.tv/MickHigan for some more based shit daily... this world is insane
Fake news maximizing deaths
It just goes to show that delusion is the most prized luxury of humanity.
We can't let the truth get in the way of our fake news narrative.
You didn't miss anything. Also, the prosecutions expert witness ended up testifying that people who die from fentanyl overdoses go into comas first and that Floyd never went into a coma before death.
The doctor said it couldn't be his heart because he would have been breathing faster, but it couldn't be Fentanyl because he would have been breathing slower - but a normal rate is also what we'd expect to see if he was simultaneously compromised by both of those antagonistic forces. If he had a coronary condition which ordinarily would have increased his respiratory rate (because his heart wasn't able to deliver enough oxygen, even though it might have been available in the lungs) but the Fentanyl depressed that to a "normal" rate, it's still possible that he died from cardiac arrest due to the resulting hypoxia (and might still have done so in the absence of restraint). His heart condition is the only thing which explains why he complained about being unable to breathe before he was even removed from the car. And contrary to the doctor's testimony, at one point Floyd did complain of chest pain.
Diagnosis like this can't be reliably made at a distance. Those are educated guesses. That's really what this gets at. You'll have a witness on the stand that appears to be reasoning, ruling things in and out but if you ask just a few questions then boom permutations explode and he don't know shit, he's not a miracle doctor that can diagnose someone at a glance like House or something.
Exactly. The doctor's opinion may be a plausible explanation, but it's still just an opinion, and it's not the only plausible explanation for Floyd's death. It's enough to inject reasonable doubt sufficient for acquittal no matter which cause seems to be more likely. The defense doesn't need to prove that it was a drug overdose and/or pre-existing condition, only that it could have been. Of course, you never know what the average person might consider "reasonable" anymore, so it's anybody's guess as to what the jury will decide.
The defence doesn't really have anything to prove at this point. Proving innocence is really beyond requirement.
It's gotten ridiculous because the prosecution is trying to make out like it's impossible for anything else to have killed Floyd which is a desperate reach.
It betrays the prosecution's malice once again. Their position is absurd. Completely throwing the established lethality of intoxication and health ailments out the window. As if cops are the most deadly thing when nothing could be further than the truth.
The prosecution is knowingly using fallacious persuasion tactics on the jury that can convict an innocent man. If I were dictator I'd interject and have them all publicly executed for their crimes as a warning to other officials who are corrupt in their duty.
The impression I've gotten from the prosecution's witnesses is that they've already formed an opinion on the matter (thanks to a year of riots) and they're trying to make their testimony fit the narrative. It's also clear they've all been prepared to talk about the same points. They want the jury to think that their conclusions are settled science, but it's like molecular gastronomy - just because you used science in the process doesn't mean your cake is scientific. Actual scientific analysis would require a time machine, so "best guesses" is all we have. The defense of course will bring out their own expert witnesses, and that's when things will get really interesting. All they have to prove is that we can never really know the cause of death for certain, and even experts can disagree. Unfortunately, by that time the media will have taken a bunch of sound bites out of context to rile up the race-hustling clowns who will decide that reasonable doubt = white supremacy, and Lady Justice will be lynched in the streets of Mini-Somalia.
There are a lot of times where people don't really bother to think about things until asked. For a few witnesses I might expect that but it's clear the prosecution is in on it as well and that's beyond the scope of traditional human folly. That falls into the category of malice, clearly deliberated.
When you have a prosecution and witnesses they would question them from both angles like the defence would. They are meant to cross examine themselves.
It's basically the job requirement for prosecutors to be above this kind of thing. They're trained that way or supposed to be and that ability is meant to be what the qualification represents.
I think people need to uphold standards. Dirty tricks to win an argument or in this case a case should not be tolerated in the legal system. In this case they are throwing their full weight at Chauvin and can't even with their best resources on the job qualify/disqualify their own witnesses?