Death of George Floyd and Subsequent Riots.

[Vanoi]

We know that the Hennepin autopsy case title reads"cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression". As Melinek claimed (she has already been regularly cited throughout this thread), that line is "really just saying Floyd’s heart stopped while police were restraining him and pressing on his neck". This does not necessarily mean that Floyd was asphyxiated - particularly not to the extent that Floyd's circulation through the carotid arteries was completely "cut off".

It does state that restraint and neck compression were direct factors in George Floyd's death. So if the neck compression and restraint does not necessarily mean Floyd was asphyxiated or his blood flow was cut off by those compressions, then why are they considered direct factors in his death?

Moreover the article's claim that "it doesn't take physical trauma to asphyxiate someone", whilst being technically correct, is somewhat misleading. Had Floyd been asphyxiated in the manner alleged (ie. by forceful compression) we would expect there to be evidence of physical trauma. The lack of such evidence is suggestive that Chavin's hold was not unjustifiably forceful.

I didn't realize you were a medical expert. So you're saying there is no way to compress someone's neck without causing physical trauma? Sounds like a claim to me.

[Cope]

It does state that restraint and neck compression were direct factors in George Floyd's death. So if the neck compression and restraint does not necessarily mean Floyd was asphyxiated or his blood flow was cut off by those compressions, then why are they considered direct factors in his death?

The restraint and compression are mentioned in the case title because the cardiopulmonary arrest occurred under those conditions. That doesn't mean that they were the proximate cause of Floyd's death or that the officers can be found criminally responsible for the incident (although I suspect there is a reasonable chance that Chauvin could be found guilty of manslaugter based on the standards set out by MN law).

I didn't realize you were a medical expert. So you're saying there is no way to compress someone's neck without causing physical trauma? Sounds like a claim to me.

I didn't say that. I said we would expect to see some evidence of physical trauma in the neck area had Chauvin exerted unjustifiable force. It's a point in Chauvin's favour, particularly on the murder charge, but as Melinek stated, asphyxiation still isn't ruled out.

[Sir Adrian]

It does state that restraint and neck compression were direct factors in George Floyd's death. So if the neck compression and restraint does not necessarily mean Floyd was asphyxiated or his blood flow was cut off by those compressions, then why are they considered direct factors in his death?


I didn't realize you were a medical expert. So you're saying there is no way to compress someone's neck without causing physical trauma? Sounds like a claim to me.

Asphyxiation as a result of poor blood flow and air duct contraction can be caused by high levels of toxicity in your blood. For example most animal venom (that kills) kills you via asphyxiation - as your heart starts to struggle to pump enough blood your neck muscles stiffen and press down on your air trachea, which causes suffocation.

Also, direct factors and main cause are two completely different things. Direct factors imply that they sped up his death but otherwise he would have died regardless.

[Infidel144]

Peaceful Protesters attempting to peacefully provide warmth and light while decorating in Portland are viciously assaulted by 2 very experienced Nazi women, one of whom had an armored transport and the other a weapon expelling chemical agents. The Peaceful Protesters were so considerate they even helped the violent Nazi women with make-up.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

An older woman tried to stop #antifa rioters from continuing their attack on the Portland Police east precinct tonight. She stood in the front and they dumped some white liquid all over her & curse her out.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1291605805167386624
This unknown woman using a walker was confronted by the group currently outside East Precinct and paint was strewn all over her.
https://twitter.com/PortlandPolice/s...178502/photo/1
And video from the local news station KOIN 6 (at about 2:20)

[swabian]

@vanoi&cope: strangulation is the act, the medical term for the result is asphyxiation, i am fully aware of that.

Asphyxiation as a result of poor blood flow and air duct contraction can be caused by high levels of toxicity in your blood. For example most animal venom (that kills) kills you via asphyxiation - as your heart starts to struggle to pump enough blood your neck muscles stiffen and press down on your air trachea, which causes suffocation.

Also, direct factors and main cause are two completely different things. Direct factors imply that they sped up his death but otherwise he would have died regardless.

The second report (Cope called it "secondary") made it clear that the cause is asphyxiation by means of exertion of physical force.

Anyone else who wants to use this sad incident as a stage for some high quality nitpickery and embarrassment?

Cheezes kitty-rubbing Christ...

[antaeus]

I didn't say that. I said we would expect to see some evidence of physical trauma in the neck area had Chauvin exerted unjustifiable force. It's a point in Chauvin's favour, particularly on the murder charge, but as Melinek stated, asphyxiation still isn't ruled out.

In any case, I can't for the life of me see how a murder case could ever be proven here - Unless someone finds a facebook post from 2011 where Chauvin states he wants to kill someone or such like.

I stated earlier however, Chauvin's guilt of murder or manslaughter in this situation is kind of a red herring and besides the point. The protests occurred because Chauvin was seen to be yet another example of an unnecessary death of a black man at the hands of a white police officer. Whether or not Chauvin is thrown to the wolves to satisfy the mob is almost irrelevant. Rightly or wrongly, the mob wants the heads of those who established the framework Chauvin works under. Because those heads weren't given quickly, the mob has escalated things well beyond any initial sparking incident.

[swabian]

In any case, I can't for the life of me see how a murder case could ever be proven here - Unless someone finds a facebook post from 2011 where Chauvin states he wants to kill someone or such like.

Manslaughter? At least some kind of guilt, no?

I stated earlier however, Chauvin's guilt of murder or manslaughter in this situation is kind of a red herring and besides the point.

Yeah, well... some state attorney sure is using that red herring as shark bait, aren't they.

I don't know, what is wrong here in this thread... This is unusual, being that this kind of bull normally comes from an entirely different corner in this forum. I'm negatively surprised, weirded out, and yes.. actually kind of ashamed for a few people here. Can you guys please stopppp that? FFS i'm already sobering up here.

[antaeus]

Manslaughter? At least some kind of guilt, no?

I don't need to say, because I'm sure you were following the conversation (seeing as I even gave you a quote from Cope to help with context), you might have noticed Cope has been discussing discussing murder vs manslaughter. One you have to prove intent to kill, the other not.

Yeah, well... some state attorney sure is using that red herring as shark bait, aren't they.

I don't know, what is wrong here in this thread... This is unusual, being that this kind of bull normally comes from an entirely different corner in this forum. I'm negatively surprised, weirded out, and yes.. actually kind of ashamed for a few people here. Can you guys please stopppp that? FFS i'm already sobering up here.

It's called a trigger event, or straw that broke the camel's back (insert other metaphor here). When discussing the broader protest movement that has exploded since, the trigger is less consequential in the bigger picture. By all means, focus on Floyds death alone. See how that aids you in dealing with protests in say, Seattle, or Washington DC, or London for that matter - in entirely another legal jurisdiction - where they had their own set of inequality issues. Certainly, you're capable of understanding how small local event might trigger a bigger event that has little to do with that trigger other than the spark?

you want an analogy? I heard you ask for an analogy... Australia and Turkey weren't exactly fighting over the Dardanelles because some Austrian Duke got topped in Bosnia? Yay trigger events!

[swabian]

Otherwise i'm done with this douchebaggery here. I have in no way given you a reason for your clumsily put together army of strawmen, soaked with arrogance and condescension. And this after i have obviously tried to keep up a polite conversation. DIsappointing. Very disappointing. I'm not gonna waste my time with this.

Maybe you guys need to realize that not everyone considers an exchange of opinions as a potential battlefield. Good bye. Take care.

[antaeus]

I don't know, what is wrong here in this thread... This is unusual, being that this kind of bull normally comes from an entirely different corner in this forum. I'm negatively surprised, weirded out, and yes.. actually kind of ashamed for a few people here. Can you guys please stopppp that? FFS i'm already sobering up here.

...something about throwing stones in glass houses...

I made a point to try to explain how the Floyd death was a trigger for what is seen as a broader set of societal complaints. maybe instead of crying about condescension, you could explain why you disliked this idea. "actually kind of ashamed for a few people here" isn't exactly a debate worthy response?

[swabian]

Otherwise i'm done with this douchebaggery here. I have in no way given you a reason for your clumsily put together army of strawmen, soaked with arrogance and condescension. And this after i have obviously tried to keep up a polite conversation. DIsappointing. Very disappointing. I'm not gonna waste my time with this.

Maybe you guys need to realize that not everyone considers an exchange of opinions as a potential battlefield. Good bye. Take care.

EDIT: i want to clarify that this is not a holier than thou attitude of mine. I know i have been an a-hole in discussions with other users, often when i was drunk. I genuinely regret that and i do want to improve. But that doesn't mean i have to take crap from others. I was polite here, this mess is not my fault. The topic is more complex than it appears and we're actually having multiple parallel discussions, maybe this has caused some confusion.

[Cope]

In any case, I can't for the life of me see how a murder case could ever be proven here - Unless someone finds a facebook post from 2011 where Chauvin states he wants to kill someone or such like.

I agree, but there doesn't have to be an intent to kill for the act to meet the standard of Murder in the Second Degree (which is what Chauvin is being charged with).

I stated earlier however, Chauvin's guilt of murder or manslaughter in this situation is kind of a red herring and besides the point. The protests occurred because Chauvin was seen to be yet another example of an unnecessary death of a black man at the hands of a white police officer. Whether or not Chauvin is thrown to the wolves to satisfy the mob is almost irrelevant. Rightly or wrongly, the mob wants the heads of those who established the framework Chauvin works under. Because those heads weren't given quickly, the mob has escalated things well beyond any initial sparking incident.

Whereas I'm now beginning to see this incident as "yet another example" of how dangerous mob justice and confirmation bias can be. The race baiting and the opportunism has been staggering.

[antaeus]

Whereas I'm now beginning to see this incident as "yet another example" of how dangerous mob justice and confirmation bias can be. The race baiting and the opportunism has been staggering.

Apologies in advance for the idiom spray...

Undoubtedly there is a pile on occurring. And the usual suspects are making hay while the sun is shining. But at the same time where there's smoke, there's fire also rings true to me (We can agree to disagree here). There are areas in law enforcement in parts of the United States, but also in other countries who have seen protests, where systemic racism has been present, and problematic. It would have been easy to undermine the BLM protest movement or render it null before it even occurred by reconnecting police with the communities they serve as along term trust building exercise.

But here's where for me it becomes complicated. Because I think that in particular in the United States, there are broad issues with policing. Where racism is involved, it is part of a larger set of problems, whereby police have lost the trust of the communities they work with. Militarisation hasn't helped. I certainly wouldn't advocate defunding police, but systemic restructures are justified in some jurisdictions.

[Cope]

Apologies in advance for the idiom spray...

Undoubtedly there is a pile on occurring. And the usual suspects are making hay while the sun is shining. But at the same time where there's smoke, there's fire also rings true to me (We can agree to disagree here). There are areas in law enforcement in parts of the United States, but also in other countries who have seen protests, where systemic racism has been present, and problematic. It would have been easy to undermine the BLM protest movement or render it null before it even occurred by reconnecting police with the communities they serve as along term trust building exercise.

But here's where for me it becomes complicated. Because I think that in particular in the United States, there are broad issues with policing. Where racism is involved, it is part of a larger set of problems, whereby police have lost the trust of the communities they work with. Militarisation hasn't helped. I certainly wouldn't advocate defunding police, but systemic restructures are justified in some jurisdictions.

Any chance for a meaningful discussion about criminal justice reform was lost when the Floyd killing was hijacked by the liberal establishment and their radical pets. Though I've said my piece on that often enough. My interest in the specifics of the Floyd case is motivated by a desire to know the truth for its own sake.

[Cyclops]

...

But here's where for me it becomes complicated. Because I think that in particular in the United States, there are broad issues with policing. Where racism is involved, it is part of a larger set of problems, whereby police have lost the trust of the communities they work with. Militarisation hasn't helped. I certainly wouldn't advocate defunding police, but systemic restructures are justified in some jurisdictions.

Yeah can't disagree.

Has to be done well though. We had a pretty deep reform of Victoria Police (because of medium levels of corruption and incompetence) for not to much improvement. I knew a senior cop in that era (dead now), good numbers and not a corrupt POS AFAIK but he was moved on with most of his generation. In replacement we got Christine Nixon (ex NSW so obviously not corrupt /sarcasm) and Simon Overlander (oops, also apparently he was part of the Winchester "investigation" back in the day), who turned out to be no better than the previous crop. I mean at least we're not NSW or QLD but its still a disgrace, that plenty of good cops got the axe along with the bent ones and we got another batch of mixed incompetents and corrupt dogs.

Victoria is a big rich state with a lot of media attention and the feds looking over the shoulder. In the US there are 50 states with far stronger local resistance to central direction, so if they want to they'll be setting up any "cleanouts" to fail harder than Victoria's.

[swabian]

Any chance for a meaningful discussion about criminal justice reform was lost when the Floyd killing was hijacked by the liberal establishment and their radical pets. Though I've said my piece on that often enough. My interest in the specifics of the Floyd case is motivated by a desire to know the truth for its own sake.

I still don't see you coping with reality.

Two autopsies both find George Floyd died by homicide, but differ on some key details

You're putting it like your simple denial of facts has any degree of sophistication. This was murder commited by a police officer in broad daylight. It hardly can get any more outrageous.

[Cope]

I still don't see you coping with reality.

Two autopsies both find George Floyd died by homicide, but differ on some key details

You're putting it like your simple denial of facts has any degree of sophistication. This was murder commited by a police officer in broad daylight. It hardly can get any more outrageous.

There is a difference between homicide and murder. Your own source quotes the Medical Examiner's office claiming that the ruling of homicide "is not a legal determination of culpability or intent". I have already provided you the relevant MN murder statute. Simply asserting the same emotional conclusion ad infinitum without addressing any of the evidence or arguments is a waste of everyone's time.

[swabian]

There is a difference between homicide and murder. Your own source quotes the Medical Examiner's office claiming that the ruling of homicide "is not a legal determination of culpability or intent". I have already provided you the relevant MN murder statute. Simply asserting the same emotional conclusion ad infinitum without addressing any of the evidence or arguments is a waste of everyone's time.

I'm trying to establish the fundamental fact required to have any kind of sensible discussion. What has happened is an unacceptable act of violence committed by a police officer. The speculative rambling that follows from your attempt at relativization is completely worthless, if it doesn't acknowledge that what happened is unacceptable. You're the one who repeats his nonsense ad nauseum when confronted with reality. You're resorting to the typical coping mechanism, attacking the person instead of the argument, producing some vague handwavium and bombarding the opponent with a plethora of vaguely related links as a (failing) substitute for intelligent debate.

The conclusions - regarding policing policy - to be drawn if Floyd's death is regarded as homicide caused by Chauvin instead of murder in the second degree (actually i think it's murder in the first degree) is exactly the same as in the case if it is regarded as 2nd degree murder. I don't see any lucid comments on that in the entire thread. You're not the only one who doesn't get it - to my genuine astonishment.

And i'm not really emotional right now. I can't avoid to feel a little bit of gleeful entertainment, though. Haha, excuse me.

I recommend to check out the opinion of this professor for forensic psychiatry here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gkz5pCKrwk

You're claiming you're delivering a fruitful discussion of the event by questioning whether or not this act of violence was 2nd degree murder or even within the area of lawful use of force. Well, this can only result in a tactless and cynical relativization of Chauvins criminal energy and Floyd's humiliating and excruciating death. Congratulations.

Your attempt at presenting your indifference and banality as level headed calmness doesn't save your entire position in this thread from complete failure.

What i'm contributing on the other hand is rudely devaluated out of hand. We could sensibly discuss, if this was first or second degree murder and what should be done to reform policing in the United States. What cannot possibly result in something interesting is the denial of the criminal dimension of this act.

[Cope]

I'm trying to establish the fundamental fact required to have any kind of sensible discussion. What has happened is an unacceptable act of violence committed by a police officer. The speculative rambling that follows from your attempt at relativization is completely worthless, if it doesn't acknowledge that what happened is unacceptable. You're the one who repeats his nonsense ad nauseum when confronted with reality. You're resorting to the typical coping mechanism, attacking the person instead of the argument, producing some vague handwavium and bombarding the opponent with a plethora of vaguely related links as a (failing) substitute for intelligent debate.

The conclusions - regarding policing policy - to be drawn if Floyd's death is regarded as homicide caused by Chauvin instead of murder in the second degree (actually i think it's murder in the first degree) is exactly the same as in the case if it is regarded as 2nd degree murder. I don't see any lucid comments on that in the entire thread. You're not the only one who doesn't get it - to my genuine astonishment.

And i'm not really emotional right now. I can't avoid to feel a little bit of gleeful entertainment, though. Haha, excuse me.

I recommend to check out the opinion of this professor for forensic psychiatry here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gkz5pCKrwk

You're claiming you're delivering a fruitful discussion of the event by questioning whether or not this act of violence was 2nd degree murder or even withing the area of lawful use of force. Well, this can only result in a tactless and cynical relativization of Chauvins criminal energy and Floyd's humiliating and excruciating death. Congratulations.

What i'm contributing on the other hand is rudely devaluated out of hand. We could sensibly discuss, if this was first or second degree murder and what should be done to reform policing in the United States. What cannot possibly result in something interesting is the denial of the criminal dimension of this act.

Your treatment of the alleged "criminal dimension" of Floyd's death as both self-evident and beyond meaningful discussion indicates that you are unfamiliar with the standards of criminal justice in western societies. The accused is presumed to be innocent and the accuser(s) must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is both the legal and the moral way of administering justice. Demanding that I abandon these standards and defer to your subjective morale axioms (e.g. "what has happened is an unacceptable act of violence" and Chauvin was possessed by "criminal energy") provides no particular basis for a discussion. Equally, repetitiously (and falsely) insisting that my position is a "coping mechanism" predicated on personal attacks adds nothing of value to thread.

[swabian]

Your treatment of the alleged "criminal dimension" of Floyd's death as self-evident and beyond meaningful discussion indicates that you are unfamiliar with the standards of criminal justice in western societies. The accused is presumed to be innocent and the accuser(s) must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is both the legal and the moral way of administering justice. Demanding that I abandon these standards and defer to your subjective morale axioms (e.g. "what has happened is an unaccentable act of violence") provides no particular basis for a discussion. Equally, repetitiously (and falsely) insisting that my position is a "coping mechanism" predicated on personal attacks adds nothing of value to thread.

You're presenting your petty nitpicking as something meaningful when the whole world knows what happened is murder. In no way have i suggested, though, that Chauvin is not entitled to legal defense at court. I have no idea what you're talking about. This is an insulting attempt at making me look like i'm part of the mob you're supposedly so worried about. The outrage about the crime is perfectly justified, except for the riots and the plundering of course.

Please stop derailing the thread with pointing at this practically meaningless detail. As if nobody is allowed to discuss an obvious crime, because there isn't a verdict yet. Ridiculous. You are consistently off topic with that crap and childishly repetitive in your disingenuous bean counting and you cannot debate without personal attacks, of course. Rest assured that none of this fazes me in the slightest.

I am of course aware of basic legal procedures and the in dubio pro reo principle. This contributes nothing to the understanding of the events. Unlike you, i'm even aware that Chauvin was actually accused of aggravated assault and 3rd degree murder, which exists only in Minnesota and one or to other states. So much to the claim that i'd be ignorant of the legal circumstances

All you do is repeatedly pointing to indubio pro reo, as though every thought one can have about this crime is invalid until the verdict is in. This is simply a waste of space. You might as well talk about the weather at the day the crime happened.