Cardiac arrest is essentially the same. His heart failed, it wasn’t a blockage so not technically a heart attack but a rhythm issue caused by drugs and heart disease.
GF did not die of heart arrhythmia. That was questioned at length with Baker, who did the autopsy. 100% ruled out. How do you intend to follow that to establish it as fact?
Nothing observed by EMTs is arrhythmia, that too was questioned exhaustively.
Cause of death: not heart disease or drugs. 100% ruled out, again by Baker, in excrutiating detail. Every other medical expert concurs to the extent they can, based on their area of expertise.
Defense would have an incredibly hard time overturning any of this as fact. I think it would be foolish to try. I also think he did a great job of probing for all this and more, even though none of the lawyers knew what questions to ask any of the medical experts.
Defense will have the opportunity to try all this with their own witnesses though. It'll be interesting to see what he does
His official cause of death was cardio pulmonary arrest, which (come the fuck on) is what we would consider colloquially a heart attack. So what did Chauvin do that would’ve given this drug addict a heart attack ? Not a god damn thing.
Watch Baker on the stand for 4 hours if you can even find all of it without biased edits, or I'll break down the key parts that held up under cross-examination:
what you're thinking says "heart attack" only means he did stop breathing and his heart stopped beating at some point. That happens to everybody when they die, it just means they're dead.
His wording "complicating" is strange and he got testy about this when questioned. He played it off like everybody knows what it means when you get a medical procedure done and you have complications. It just means something went wrong.
What he wrote on the death certificate means the cause of death was "Police subdual, restraint, and compression." That's not going away.
Heart disease is a "significant contributing factor," but was not the cause of death.
You couldn't possibly know what this means without his testimony, what he wrote was confusing AF. Defense questioned all this in excrutiating detail.
Heart attack, at any time in your life, leaves visible signs. GF never had a heart attack.
How are you going to overturn any of this?
It changes the whole case.
Further, when he writes "homicide," that's a medical term. He doesn't even know what the legal term means. He uses it to mean death caused by another. There are 5 classifications, and the State keeps statistics.
Heart specialist testified today that arrhythmias create visible signs as they happen that weren't present, and GF's heart disease wouldn't cause that.
Well the state is almost done and has a weak case so let’s see how it goes once the defense gets their turn.
“the conduct itself must in some manner be legally wrongful. If the conduct was lawful, it cannot be the basis for criminal liability.”
This will be almost impossible for the state, if the jury are impartial.
“even if Chauvin’s use of force on Floyd made a significant contribution to Floyd’s death, it’s not a crime unless that use of force was not justified under the totality of the circumstances, and thus if the force was justified it is not wrongful and not the basis for criminal liability.“
Heart attack at any point in GF's life is 100% ruled out by autopsy.
Cardiac arrest is essentially the same. His heart failed, it wasn’t a blockage so not technically a heart attack but a rhythm issue caused by drugs and heart disease.
"A rhythm issue"
That's arrhythmia
GF did not die of heart arrhythmia. That was questioned at length with Baker, who did the autopsy. 100% ruled out. How do you intend to follow that to establish it as fact?
Nothing observed by EMTs is arrhythmia, that too was questioned exhaustively.
Cause of death: not heart disease or drugs. 100% ruled out, again by Baker, in excrutiating detail. Every other medical expert concurs to the extent they can, based on their area of expertise.
Defense would have an incredibly hard time overturning any of this as fact. I think it would be foolish to try. I also think he did a great job of probing for all this and more, even though none of the lawyers knew what questions to ask any of the medical experts.
Defense will have the opportunity to try all this with their own witnesses though. It'll be interesting to see what he does
His official cause of death was cardio pulmonary arrest, which (come the fuck on) is what we would consider colloquially a heart attack. So what did Chauvin do that would’ve given this drug addict a heart attack ? Not a god damn thing.
Watch Baker on the stand for 4 hours if you can even find all of it without biased edits, or I'll break down the key parts that held up under cross-examination:
what you're thinking says "heart attack" only means he did stop breathing and his heart stopped beating at some point. That happens to everybody when they die, it just means they're dead.
His wording "complicating" is strange and he got testy about this when questioned. He played it off like everybody knows what it means when you get a medical procedure done and you have complications. It just means something went wrong.
What he wrote on the death certificate means the cause of death was "Police subdual, restraint, and compression." That's not going away.
Heart disease is a "significant contributing factor," but was not the cause of death.
You couldn't possibly know what this means without his testimony, what he wrote was confusing AF. Defense questioned all this in excrutiating detail.
Heart attack, at any time in your life, leaves visible signs. GF never had a heart attack.
How are you going to overturn any of this?
It changes the whole case.
Further, when he writes "homicide," that's a medical term. He doesn't even know what the legal term means. He uses it to mean death caused by another. There are 5 classifications, and the State keeps statistics.
Heart specialist testified today that arrhythmias create visible signs as they happen that weren't present, and GF's heart disease wouldn't cause that.
Well the state is almost done and has a weak case so let’s see how it goes once the defense gets their turn.
“the conduct itself must in some manner be legally wrongful. If the conduct was lawful, it cannot be the basis for criminal liability.”
This will be almost impossible for the state, if the jury are impartial.
“even if Chauvin’s use of force on Floyd made a significant contribution to Floyd’s death, it’s not a crime unless that use of force was not justified under the totality of the circumstances, and thus if the force was justified it is not wrongful and not the basis for criminal liability.“
What are you quoting?