There are other jobs for a coroner than writing reports on what happened to victims of police violence dude.

I would prefer any police incidents not be conducted by somebody who can be removed or swayed in any fashion, similar to tenure. Do our best to remove bias from the system.

I am a trained martial artist, believe me ANYONE will know when someone they have in a hold of any kind passes out, every muscle just goes loose, hands drop, its not something you do not realise.
To then hold that person down for another three minutes is murder.
He was not breathing, instead of trying to give ANY kind of aid, they held him down for long enough for him to go braindead.

You don't need a total fabrication dude. Once again, I'm talking about conflicts of interest and you're only capable of thinking about it in purely black and white, truth or lie terms. Just highlight the more convenient things, lower the importance of the less convenient things, and now you've got a favorable report. So in a case where a guy had trouble breathing and we have video of somebody on his neck and somebody else on his back, you highlight the drugs in his system and say he was a dead man anyway, even when you don't know his tolerance or drug use history to actually make an evaluation if he was on a lethal dose. It's not a matter of making things up wholesale. It's about making a favorable interpretation while staying within the realm of plausible deniability.

An examiner hired by the family has their own biases to contend with, agreed. However their career is absolutely not dependent on giving a good report to the family. I googled the name of the doctor and it seems like he's been retired from full-time practice for a while, so his career has already had its apex. It's honestly baffling to me that you would say that and then not say that the medical examiner working for the city wouldn't have his job called into question for making a similarly unfavorable report. Really shows how far you've fallen when you're making these ridiculous and one-sided arguments alongside Ghot and EndlessSky.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Mar 31 2021 11:16pm

I'm 100% in support of a trial. As long as the presumption of innocence exists. Misrepresenting me is complete idiocy.

Also, I don't know who killed Babbit. All I saw in the video was a woman get shot. Has the name of that officer even been released?

I never said shit about that other than that all the communists in PaRD seem to be thrilled to allow police to murder unarmed white women.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Mar 31 2021 11:20pm

Can you point to anybody here who's said he should be punished without the trial? I haven't. Well... maybe inkanddagger, but he's been in nothing-but-trolling mode for like 5 years now.

Inkanddagger and Melotonina. Outside of that no. Which is why the accusation surprised me.

Mostly what has been in this topic is debate over the evidence to either side, which is reasonable, given that's what the topic is for.

We can all amiably disagree over whether it's homicide or an overdose. The Trial will determine for a fact which it was.

I think some form of manslaughter is a slam dunk. IMO they clearly violated their duty of care and exascerbated his underlying condition with excessive force.

Like, if you're overdosing I don't get to sit on your chest until you're dead and then blame it on the overdose. Similarly, they clearly didn't need to have 1 officer on his neck, 1 on his back, and 2 others holding him down when he's, ya know, literally dieing. Telling the jury that for like a full minute they were holding down a corpse would be pretty convincing for demonstrating they were focused on using excessive force and never thought to let up, and it would be hard to convince me in that case that they didn't make it worse.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Mar 31 2021 11:28pm

LOL. Why would I even attempt to lie....with a true lying aficionado like you around.

You should listen to Steven Crowder talk about this exact stuff from (I believe) Monday’s podcast. He is also trained in martial arts, jujitsu I believe, and he is completely contradicting what you are saying in depth. Listen to it and get back to me, I am genuinely interested.



I agree but don’t you think a little extra cash could also persuade someone’s results? Would that not also be a problem as big as the one you are so focused on? This is why both private and state results exist. Do you think that fear of retaliation from the left is a bunk argument?

This post was edited by UmadLoL on Mar 31 2021 11:37pm

The problem, as I see it, is that I've watched the video about 30 times. After I learned that the restraint tactic used was how they're actually trained, my goal became to determine whether or not he was putting actual pressure on his neck. And the answer was no. Pressure was put on his legs, but not his neck or his back. That's what I saw from the video. I fully accept that others saw something different. But if there was no pressure, and the coroner's report confirms there was no compression of the lungs or physical evidence of asphyxiation, that tells me there's neither manslaughter or homicide of any form.

Regarding the "Oh, the family-hired ME said..." nonsense... Pay 95% of the world enough money, and they'll say whatever you want them to say. And as I mentioned in response to Matt earlier, in the one case he tried to compare, the Coroner absolutely ruled it homicide due to lung compression from the officer's knee being between the shoulder blades with weight on, which is the OPPOSITE of how that police force is trained. That's an actual case of excessive force/police brutality, where the officer got away with it. Don't see that here at all.