that isn't a valid answer

the question was:



To a question with that phrasing, the response " I have reasonable doubt regarding your question" doesn't qualify as an answer.

This post was edited by Kayeto on Apr 19 2021 11:13pm

He knows lol

I doubt I could get an answer on this, because he knows delayed death is ridiculous, and no effect is very unlikely since he also stopped them from putting him in the recovery position, so he's left with only one reasonable thing. And he knows where I'm going when he gives the only reasonable answer, because it's the same road everybody else has tried to take him down but he refuses to even consider.

It's a perfectly valid answer. If there is reasonable doubt, then the answer is "not guilty".

We are not in a compromise position here. Closing statements have been made. The jury is in deliberation. Further evidence and testimony is not forthcoming.

Based on all evidence, testimony, and cross examination, it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Chauvin caused Floyd's death, hastened Floyd's death, or could have prevented Floyd's death.

The more pertinent questions, and the associated answers based on testimony and evidence: Was Chauvin following his training: Yes. Did Floyd have lethal levels of Fentanyl and Methamphetamines in his system? Yes (arguably). Was Floyd complaining he couldn't breath prior to being put on the ground? Yes. Did Floyd demand to be put on the ground, and actively resist being put in the cruiser, and indeed assault officers when they attempted to put him in the cruiser? Yes. Was GREATER FORCE within the realm of use by Chauvin? Yes, he could have tazed Floyd, as testified by Sergeant Stiger.



I provided the reasonable answer. The prosecution failed to prove Chauvin's actions had any impact positive or negative on Floyd's death. Why? There's still reasonable doubt, and nothing in the coroner's report shows any injury consistent with anything other than drug-induced heart and respiratory failure.

You're proving, yet again, you did not follow the case. You've merely grabbed whatever highlights huffpo wants to give you, and called it good. Do better.

If Chauvin is convicted on all counts, that's fine. If he's completely acquitted, that's fine too. However, knowing the level of doubt and where the doubt exists, will help you be more prepared to cope with the verdict if it is not the verdict that you would prefer. It's becoming very clear you're woefully ignorant of the testimony, cross examinations, and evidence presented in the trial, or you would stop asking stupid questions.

But the question didn't ask about doubt or guilt, so answers of doubt or guilt don't work as a response.



The word 'boots' doesn't function as an answer.



In order to answer Thor's question, you have at least mention a connected to hastened/delayed/had no effect. That's just how the English language works.

This post was edited by Kayeto on Apr 19 2021 11:45pm

You are answering the question you wish I asked, not the question I actually asked.

IMO there is only one reasonable position in the question, and that is that Chauvin clearly hastened his death. You know that's the only answer, and you won't answer it because you know that too.

To have any other position means somebody on your shoulder, back, or neck who refuses to let others help in the way they are trained to help does not hasten death. It is patently riduclous, and I think this demonstrates pretty clearly that you aren't actually approaching this in the objective way you are trying to portray yourself.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 19 2021 11:49pm

Judge said the jury will have a laptop with the full videos on it (including the bystander video). Once the jury views it, I assume they will have the source, which is in even in better quality.. there is no way a manslaughter charge will not come after watching that. Any reasonable person will be distraught over that video and want some kind of justice.

Sadly, most people haven't seen it in its entirety, and just go off what the media shows

This post was edited by IFAPTOBAALRUNS on Apr 19 2021 11:54pm

That is possible. It's also tempered with all the other evidence and testimony in the case.

It'll be an interesting verdict. At this point, the question is going to be "how long?"

I don't envy the Jury their decision. Thankfully, my stint in Jury Duty was nothing this severe. Having to balance not just the evidence, testimony, and cross examinations, but the political ramifications of this case would be a nightmare.

And yes, I watched the video. Several dozen times. Yes, the day of, I was as outraged as anyone else. Part of the reason for the trial was to out all the facts, and get beyond emotional appeal. We'll see how far that carries along.

@Kayeto and Thor: I will concede nothing, and answer no questions whatsoever not pertinent to the case. When you ask what impact Chauvin's actions had my answer is simple: Based on the evidence, testimony, and cross examinations provided in the trial, I do not know that Chauvin's actions had any impact at all. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt. That is their job. It is not the job of the defense to prove innocence. If you feel I did not answer the correct question, then rephrase your question to be relevant.

just give a damn gun to every citizen american

My question is pertinent to the case. I know you don't want to hear that, but your theory of law is wrong and it's leading you to see relavent things as irrelevant.

I also think they should have tested the knee on the neck theory in court.

If I was on a jury, I'd like to know if chauvin's knee placement could actually cut off my breathing. Then it would be binary at that point, but nope, they didn't do that all, and just made it more confusing by bringing in and wasting time with doctors on both sides.