Quote (Goomshill @ Nov 13 2021 08:33pm)
The topline conclusion that magically had zero supporting evidence laid out anywhere in the text of the autopsy, which didn't exist on the first draft and was only put in after Freeman's office went to visit the ME and 'correct' him?
You're right, we've done this ad nauseum.
And I've pointed out before, the logical observation is always the one where your conclusion is based upon the weight of the evidence. Rather than the one where you already have a conclusion and shape a wild theory that tries to nimbly pass through every small hole in the evidence and just flattens itself against several brick walls in the process anyway. There's not a single piece of evidence in the autopsy of physical harm from the restraint, but there were a dozen ways they ruled it out. They checked for everything that could be present, but wasn't, bruising, subdermal trauma, petechial hemorrhaging, etc. We can see that it didn't blood choke Floyd or cut off his airflow enough to stop him from talking freely, nor was the force enough to stop him from moving his head. There's not just one or two indicators of a drug overdose, there's every possible indicator. They have his history of near-death overdoses on the same drug, his history of chronic heart problems, the far above lethal dose in his system, the polysubstance abuse, the 90% blocked coronal artery, the 3:1 LVH, the 200% enlarged heart, the evidence at the same and witness statements that show he downed the whole bag of fentanyl when the police showed up.
In a sane world, we'd say that there is a preponderance of evidence that establishes Chauvin didn't cause Floyd's death. In a nutty world, we'd construct a wild theory to suggest its possible that Chauvin happened to use the goldilocks sweet point of force that wasn't enough to leave a mark but was just enough to restrict airflow a bit, and hovered expertly in that position for 8 minutes, and that reduction of airflow could somehow have been a causal factor in Floyd's heart failing that was not actually occurring due to the lethal dose of Fentanyl, but instead we're supposed to believe that Floyd had a tolerance to the drug. Despite the part where just months prior he was hospitalized a blood pressure of 216/160, something you'd expect from a loony toons character, the "how is he even alive" levels.
But hey we can always lower the evidence burden in our criminal system from "proved beyond a reasonable doubt" to "speculated in spite of evidence". I guess that's the difference in end goals between Libertarian and Civil Libertarian
Big words, but how come i don't find this when i search for it? Say he actually died of an opioid overdose. Why wouldn't he give him the assistance he needed after he "od'd" on opioids? A quick check shows he was holding his knee on Floyds neck for a minute after the ambulance arrivded. Apparently all documented on video. He certainly seemed content to deliberately deny him the medical help he needed, which on its own qualifies as homicide