Disagree. Each one of those things, viewed either individually or collectively, can help establish doubt. The defense doesn’t need to prove any of those things were actual causes. They just need to establish enough doubt in the minds of the jurors to prevent the government from meeting its burden of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The prosecution has falsely asserted that nothing individually or collectively could have contributed or caused death because that's what they need to try to get a conviction.
Though there is an exception. The positional asphyxia thing is trying to say they could have simply rolled him over. They couldn't have know that would help and the recovery position isn't some kind of magical resurrection spell. They're trying to argue the cops only needed to move him.
The CO argument is a further attempt along those lines. For the prosecution any COD that they can't try to point the figure at the cops for directly or indirectly is invalid and they will make the case that it's impossible for those things to be COD.
CO may have contributed but it's not reasonable for the officers to have known that at the time so it would be moot. Most likely if it did it would only have been due to his already fragile state.
That the prosecution keeps shifting around, literally is shifty, should be enough to have the case thrown out.
I'm worried because I'm seeing people fall for fallacious arguments from the prosecution stating things like it's now been determined neither his health condition nor his intoxication would have killed him which is false and based on either lies or supposition.
It's somewhat dangerous in fact, arguing that taking a lethal dose of narcotics somehow isn't going to kill you?
When you break it down, I think you are really just describing the adversarial system in the united states. This same scenario plays out daily in courtrooms throughout the country, albeit with varying sets of facts and circumstances, but the underlying premise is the same.
Would you agree that, at a minimum, the prosecution’s case has been muddied by a host a different issues, questions and possibilities? If so, then I submit that the defense has done exactly what they are tasked to do. Create questions and raise doubt. Whether or not they have done enough in this case to sway a juror is a whole different animal. Juries are unpredictable.
That said, the prosecution has a tough burden in any criminal matter. They must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Not only that, they need to convince all 12 jurors of the same. From a defense perspective, if you can create just enough doubt to sway a single juror, you have already won half the battle.
My personal opinion in this particular case is that the defense has caused confusion and raised questions. They have steered the governments case off track into all sorts of different directions. They have effectively put the prosecution on the defense in a sense. As you pointed out, it has forced the prosecution to make conflicting arguments. I think this is a good thing from a defense perspective.
My elderly mother is a pretty reasonable person. She is a listen to the evidence kind of woman and she has watched the entire trial, every minute, every day. At first, she was thinking the officer was guilty. But after watching the trial, she now tells me if she were on that jury there is no way she could convict Chauvin of anything. She has doubt.
Disagree. Each one of those things, viewed either individually or collectively, can help establish doubt. The defense doesn’t need to prove any of those things were actual causes. They just need to establish enough doubt in the minds of the jurors to prevent the government from meeting its burden of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The prosecution has falsely asserted that nothing individually or collectively could have contributed or caused death because that's what they need to try to get a conviction.
Though there is an exception. The positional asphyxia thing is trying to say they could have simply rolled him over. They couldn't have know that would help and the recovery position isn't some kind of magical resurrection spell. They're trying to argue the cops only needed to move him.
The CO argument is a further attempt along those lines. For the prosecution any COD that they can't try to point the figure at the cops for directly or indirectly is invalid and they will make the case that it's impossible for those things to be COD.
CO may have contributed but it's not reasonable for the officers to have known that at the time so it would be moot. Most likely if it did it would only have been due to his already fragile state.
That the prosecution keeps shifting around, literally is shifty, should be enough to have the case thrown out.
I'm worried because I'm seeing people fall for fallacious arguments from the prosecution stating things like it's now been determined neither his health condition nor his intoxication would have killed him which is false and based on either lies or supposition.
It's somewhat dangerous in fact, arguing that taking a lethal dose of narcotics somehow isn't going to kill you?
When you break it down, I think you are really just describing the adversarial system in the united states. This same scenario plays out daily in courtrooms throughout the country, albeit with varying sets of facts and circumstances, but the underlying premise is the same.
Would you agree that, at a minimum, the prosecution’s case has been muddied by a host a different issues, questions and possibilities? If so, then I submit that the defense has done exactly what they are tasked to do. Create questions and raise doubt. Whether or not they have done enough in this case to sway a juror is a whole different animal. Juries are unpredictable.
That said, the prosecution has a tough burden in any criminal matter. They must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Not only that, they need to convince all 12 jurors of the same. From a defense perspective, if you can create just enough doubt to sway a single juror, you have already won half the battle.
My personal opinion in this particular case is that the defense has caused confusion and raised questions. They have steered the governments case off track into all sorts of different directions. They have effectively put the prosecution on the defense in a sense. As you pointed out, it has forced the prosecution to make conflicting arguments. I think this is a good thing from a defense perspective.
My elderly mother is a pretty reasonable person. She is a listen to the evidence kind of woman and she has watched the entire trial, every minute, every day. At first, she was thinking the officer was guilty. But after watching the trial, she now tells me if she were on that jury there is no way she could convict Chauvin of anything. She has doubt.