So its testimony and not physical evidence? Because it is the job of the jury to decide who's testimony to rely on. Its entirely reasonable and within the scope of their job to ignore that testimony if they don't think its reliable or if theyve been given evidence that Chauvin still killed him.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Dec 23 2021 09:01pm

Evidence in a criminal trial is introduced with testimony. That is how foundation is laid. The forensic evidence was introduced by the forensic analysts who searched the scene. The physical evidence takes the form of those reviews, pictures taken, reports drafted, etc, which must be attested to by the witness. George Floyd's body was not dragged into the courtroom and sliced open in front of the jury, the medical examiner conducted the autopsy and wrote a report and that report was introduced at the trial by the medical examiner. Yes, I have watched an episode of law and order, thanks

And it's up to the jury to decide what pieces of evidence have weight, which to ignore, and to sum the total evidence and make their verdict in light of ALL the facts. Juries are not slaves to every piece of evidence. When matters of judgement are not a factor it usually doesn't even go to a jury, which is why they are allowed to give some pieces of evidence zero weight and others significant weight.

Sorry you disagree with their result, but that's just how it goes. It's not like we had weeks of deliberation that came back 9/4 and ended in a mistrial. It was pretty quick and came back unanimous. That's a pretty high bar to clear and it was cleared handily.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Dec 23 2021 09:26pm

Its up to jurors to decide that Dayonte Resiles shouldn't be convicted of murder because he's black and they refuse to send a black man to prison no matter how guilty he is.
Yes, we have an unaccountable jury system that leaves the accused at the mercy of the prejudices of their peers, the idle formalities and fig leaves used to legitimize mob justice, as has been our national pastime since before even the country was founded. Pre-revolutionary jurors ignored the facts and law of their British colonial masters and acquitted Quakers and journalists on trial for their free speech. Before the civil war, northern jurors nullified charges against those clearly guilty of violating the fugitive slave act, while southern juries nullified charges against those clearly guilty of lynching. All-white juries ignored the evidence of black men being innocent and sent them to their deaths. They aren't robots on juries, they're a reflection of the common people, warts and all, products of their times including ours. Do you think people today are better than they were then?
When I look at the average person today being ignorant, prejudiced and vicious, I don't take that as the system working much less an achievement, I take that as a fact of the existence of the system and fundamental to the flawed human condition. I think its remarkable whenever people exceed their baser instincts, but its pretty uncommon.

Say the ninja word I dare you. You'll get 10%. The egos of Blacks are protected more than bald eagles in this country.

See, the problem with those comparisons is we have him on camera abusing Floyd, a medical examiner that said "that Floyd's heart disease and drug use contributed to his death, but police officers' restraint of his body and compression of his neck were the primary causes."

You're basically retreating to "the system isn't perfect, so I can just dismiss all results I don't agree with."

Floyd was NEVER getting off without at least manslaughter. There is no reasonable human that looks at the footage and facts of the case and concludes he didn't at least knowingly contribute to the death.

If you disagreed with the degree he got convicted on you might have a salvageable position, but to say that Floyd wasn't guilty of at least that much shows you are dishonest, or unreasonable, or both.

There was no medical evidence to support that assertion. They presented nothing but theories in spite of evidence. In a 'normal' trial, not one being warped by prejudice, a medical examiner would lay out the physical evidence that supports the prosecution's theory of the crime and the absence of evidence to support an alternative theory presented by the defense. In the Chauvin trial, they presented a theory without evidence, trying to argue that there exists a theoretical scenario where Chauvin could have been the primary cause of death, just one we cannot test for because the evidence doesn't exist. Inverting the burden of proof. I've compared it to the moon landing and holocaust denial conspiracy theorists, who try to come up with convoluted scenarios to explain away every contrary piece of evidence while having no foundation for their own arguments.

If Chauvin's knee on George Floyd's back of the neck was choking him to death, there would be petechial hemorrhaging in his face due to the overpressure. There would be bruising from the knee being pressed with any force. There would be subdermal trauma at the point of contact. None present. The absence of those is evidence that the knee was not pressed with any significant force, let alone enough to choke him or restrict airflow. If he had died of a drug overdose, there would be some physical evidence of medical risk factors as well as a lethal amount of unmetabolized drugs in his system. Both present. And to almost an absurd degree, it cannot be stressed just how far beyond the norm his heart disease was, George Floyd being alive in the first place with those numbers is the more exceptional fact of the case.

A rational observer interested only in the dynamics of that system would view that evidence and say its obviously an overdose death. A biased actor seeking to construct an incriminating theory would try to figure the exact goldilocks amount of pressure Chauvin could have carefully exerted to just be enough to impede airflow on one side of the neck without leaving a mark, like some kind of skilled assassin. And a rational medical examiner, knowing his license is up for a partisan board hearing and his colleagues are openly stating they will crucify him for speaking the truth and probably a little concerned his house might be burned down and family murdered, would be willing to revise his original assessment of drug overdose death and slap a homicide label on it without even bothering to come up with an explicable line of reasoning.

I'm glad your expertise outweighs the numerous doctors, pathologists and medical examiners the prosecution called to the stand. Your credentials are what? The reality is you can be asphyxiated and not have petechial hemorrhaging. The fact you're stating it as a blanket catch-all indicates you have zero idea what you're talking about and are just parroting a talking point.

This post was edited by Sioux on Dec 23 2021 10:34pm

and if that was the case the defense should have presented all of that to counter the expert opinion of the prosecution's medical examiner.

It's pretty sad that you're so unaware of your position. You are not a medical examiner. Nothing you typed here has any weight on what can be considered in the case. The jury is only allowed to rely on what was presented and it is up to the jury to decide which factors are important.



If this was a copy and paste it wouldn't be so pathetic, but I know Goom, and I know he legitimately thinks he's right and that his paragraphs actually make a point.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Dec 23 2021 10:31pm

I'd be curious if Bazi could corroborate any of this. I have no idea how these things work in the ER/autopsy.

Literally every aspect of this trial was dripping in perfunctory baseness though. $26 million? High crime area residents shouldn't be allowed to be jurors.