Chauvin Verdict

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by Maddy » Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:29 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:15 pm
And since unfair trials of young black men are about 99x more likely than the unfair trial of a cop, per your very own description, I look forward to seeing you continually share their advocate for their well-being on this forum, as well as ridicule the non-leftist police/criminal-justice forces in our system as uniquely dangerous.
What I expect to continue to do is to advocate for a principled system of justice. I don't give a damn who the defendant is.

You really don't get it, do you?
pp4me
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1190
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:12 pm

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by pp4me » Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:22 pm

glennds wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:47 pm
pp4me wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:21 pm

In regards to reasonable doubt, if the Dream Team could convince a jury that there was reasonable doubt in the O.J. Simpson case then surely some good defense lawyers could have done it in this one.

This case actually gave me a flashback to that one. Same level of interest and suspense at the end wondering what the verdict would be and if it would result in riots. And then there were all the black people rejoicing after the verdict in both cases. Despite different verdicts, the outcomes were somewhat similar to me.
This would have been an excellent point if there had been video of O.J. killing Nicole and yet the dream team still got him acquitted.
I think the trail of O.J's blood leading right up to his door, blood on his car, the bloody glove et.al was more powerful evidence than the Youtube video which is open to interpretation. If you want to say that a video of O.J. cutting up Nicole and Ron Goodman is the same as the video in this case then that's your right. It's a free country but I disagree.
glennds wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:47 pm

Maybe the better example to make your point would be the superlawyers who got the four officers acquitted in the Rodney King beating where there WAS video.

I mean, they surrounded him and mercilessly beat the f*** out of him, like an animal, all caught on video. And they still got acquitted.
Following your logic, if it was okay then, why isn't it okay now?
In both cases, the situation was escalated not by the police, but by the man resisting arrest, as are most of these stories. I don't think the constitution guarantees a right to anybody to violently resist arrest by the police without fear of consequences when there is evidence that a crime has been committed or there is an outstanding warrant. Actually, it's the duty of the police to arrest such people. They would probably get fired if they didn't do it.

As far as I can recall, some of the policemen in the Rodney King case were tried and found guilty on civil rights charges which would have almost certainly been the case with Chauvin if he had been acquitted.
Last edited by pp4me on Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
SomeDude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by SomeDude » Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:28 pm

Maddy wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:29 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:15 pm
And since unfair trials of young black men are about 99x more likely than the unfair trial of a cop, per your very own description, I look forward to seeing you continually share their advocate for their well-being on this forum, as well as ridicule the non-leftist police/criminal-justice forces in our system as uniquely dangerous.
What I expect to continue to do is to advocate for a principled system of justice. I don't give a damn who the defendant is.

You really don't get it, do you?
He's trolling you. It will get sillier and sillier if you feed it. Now we're at the point where he will call you a hypocrite if you don't take an interest in every public case and learn about it and be consistent in your outrage etc.

This is a trolling tactic. When trolls arguments fall apart or are exposed they just switch to some other nonsense, usually personal about the person who exposed their logical inconsistencies or other weakness in their fake position.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by vnatale » Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:29 pm

pp4me wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:22 pm

glennds wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:47 pm

pp4me wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:21 pm


In regards to reasonable doubt, if the Dream Team could convince a jury that there was reasonable doubt in the O.J. Simpson case then surely some good defense lawyers could have done it in this one.

This case actually gave me a flashback to that one. Same level of interest and suspense at the end wondering what the verdict would be and if it would result in riots. And then there were all the black people rejoicing after the verdict in both cases. Despite different verdicts, the outcomes were somewhat similar to me.


This would have been an excellent point if there had been video of O.J. killing Nicole and yet the dream team still got him acquitted.


I think the trail of O.J's blood leading right up to his door, blood on his car, the bloody glove et.al was more powerful evidence than the Youtube video which is open to interpretation. If you want to say that a video of O.J. cutting up Nicole and Ron Goodman is the same as the video in this case then that's your right. It's a free country but I disagree.

glennds wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:47 pm


Maybe the better example to make your point would be the superlawyers who got the four officers acquitted in the Rodney King beating where there WAS video.

I mean, they surrounded him and mercilessly beat the f*** out of him, like an animal, all caught on video. And they still got acquitted.
Following your logic, if it was okay then, why isn't it okay now?


In both cases, the situation was escalated not by the police, but by the man resisting arrest, as are most of these stories. I don't think the constitution guarantees a right to anybody to violently resist arrest by the police without fear of consequences when there is evidence that a crime has been committed or there is an outstanding warrant. Actually, it's the duty of the police to arrest such people. They would probably get fired if they didn't do it.

As far as I can recall, some of the policemen in the Rodney King case were tried and found guilty on civil rights charges which would have almost certainly been the case with Chauvin if he had been acquitted.


You must have missed this from a month ago?

Vinny


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-flo ... 7-million/

Minneapolis approves "historic" $27 million settlement with George Floyd's family
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by glennds » Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:50 pm

pp4me wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:22 pm
glennds wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:47 pm
pp4me wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:21 pm

In regards to reasonable doubt, if the Dream Team could convince a jury that there was reasonable doubt in the O.J. Simpson case then surely some good defense lawyers could have done it in this one.

This case actually gave me a flashback to that one. Same level of interest and suspense at the end wondering what the verdict would be and if it would result in riots. And then there were all the black people rejoicing after the verdict in both cases. Despite different verdicts, the outcomes were somewhat similar to me.
This would have been an excellent point if there had been video of O.J. killing Nicole and yet the dream team still got him acquitted.
I think the trail of O.J's blood leading right up to his door, blood on his car, the bloody glove et.al was more powerful evidence than the Youtube video which is open to interpretation. If you want to say that a video of O.J. cutting up Nicole and Ron Goodman is the same as the video in this case then that's your right. It's a free country but I disagree.
glennds wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:47 pm

Maybe the better example to make your point would be the superlawyers who got the four officers acquitted in the Rodney King beating where there WAS video.

I mean, they surrounded him and mercilessly beat the f*** out of him, like an animal, all caught on video. And they still got acquitted.
Following your logic, if it was okay then, why isn't it okay now?
In both cases, the situation was escalated not by the police, but by the man resisting arrest, as are most of these stories. I don't think the constitution guarantees a right to anybody to violently resist arrest by the police without fear of consequences when there is evidence that a crime has been committed or there is an outstanding warrant. Actually, it's the duty of the police to arrest such people. They would probably get fired if they didn't do it.

As far as I can recall, some of the policemen in the Rodney King case were tried and found guilty on civil rights charges which would have almost certainly been the case with Chauvin if he had been acquitted.
I suppose what I was attempting to say was that the O.J. case was a singular murder case, albeit involving a famous person. Nobody can say it was emblematic of a larger societal issue whether that issue is race anchored, or whether the issue has to do with police tactics and powers without regard to race.
Suggesting the Rodney King case as a comparison point was because it shares those very same characteristics with the Chauvin case. The act being caught on video was yet another similarity, and raised the implicit question about what we don't see police doing because no video captured it. If there had been no video, I'm not sure most of us would have ever heard of either George Floyd or Rodney King.

I just fail to see where O.J. fits in as a comparison, but if you do, hey, like you say it's a free country.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by Maddy » Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:13 am

What a self-important prick, telling me who I have to "advocate for" and who I have to "ridicule" in order to qualify as a defender of individual liberties.

This thread couldn't make more clear that, as with the proposition "All Lives Matter," the proposition that ALL are entitled to due process is, to the Left, a heresy. This is why principle itself is fundamentally a problem for progressives. Their system of thought requires the flexibility to choose, arbitrarily, what rules will apply to whom.
Last edited by Maddy on Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by WiseOne » Thu Apr 22, 2021 8:57 am

In addition to Maddy's excellent points about how critically important it is to keep judicial proceedings fair to everyone (not just selectively favored groups or people), I've been thinking about the long-term ramifications of this conviction.

If I were a police officer, I'd be terrified of what might happen every time I got a call involving a potentially violent black suspect.

The natural response is going to be to just let it go. Don't do anything. Let the violent black suspect go. In my city, they can't be held anyway as we now have effectively a "catch and release" policy for violent criminals.

Can no one understand how that is going to play out?? Obviously, crime is going to go through the roof, first and foremost in black neighborhoods but also trickling out into other, more stable areas. I remember a "Fred on Everything" column after the Ferguson shootings several years back, suggesting more or less the same thing: if black neighborhoods don't want policing, then fine. Don't send police there and everyone will be happy. Just limit police to neighborhoods who do appreciate the police and want to remain safe (like mine). Cheaper for the cities since there will be less work to do and fewer people to process through the criminal justice system.

So win-win, right? Yes of course - the left will be happy, violent criminals will be happy, cities who get to save money will be happy, and the police will be happy. Except of course for the victims of violent crime in those black neighborhoods...who, oddly enough, are mostly black themselves. They have the most to lose in this game, but of course no one is really concerned about them. As long as they reliably vote Democratic, there's no reason to alter course.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by Maddy » Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:13 am

I wonder whether Chauvin will remain alive long enough to even see his appeal. This was, effectively, a death sentence without possibility of appeal.
Last edited by Maddy on Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by I Shrugged » Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:24 am

Maddy wrote:
Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:13 am
What a self-important prick, telling me who I have to "advocate for" and who I have to "ridicule" in order to qualify as a defender of individual liberties.

This thread couldn't make more clear that, as with the proposition "All Lives Matter," the proposition that ALL are entitled to due process is, to the Left, a heresy. This is why principle itself is fundamentally a problem for progressives. Their system of thought requires the flexibility to choose, arbitrarily, what rules will apply to whom.
I have the Jacobin on ignore. Life is good.
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by I Shrugged » Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:26 am

Maddy wrote:
Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:13 am
I wonder whether Chauvin will remain alive long enough to even see his appeal. This was, effectively, a death sentence.
Well that's a different matter altogether. You can't not convict or imprison a policeman, prosecutor, or judge just because of the prison dangers.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by Maddy » Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:29 am

I Shrugged wrote:
Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:26 am
Maddy wrote:
Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:13 am
I wonder whether Chauvin will remain alive long enough to even see his appeal. This was, effectively, a death sentence.
Well that's a different matter altogether. You can't not convict or imprison a policeman, prosecutor, or judge just because of the prison dangers.
No, but it highlights the gravity of the consequences when due process protections are ignored for purposes of political expediency.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by glennds » Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:01 am

Maddy wrote:
Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:13 am
I wonder whether Chauvin will remain alive long enough to even see his appeal. This was, effectively, a death sentence without possibility of appeal.
I heard some news commentary the other day about his safety, and it was reported that the state plans to keep him in protective custody at Minnesota's only maximum security prison until sentencing. He will be in a single cell, segregated from the general population. They went on to say that eventually he would be transferred to a high security Federal penitentiary of the type that can supposedly assure safety within the general population.
His safety is definitely a concern, but I don't think I'd go so far as to call it a certain death sentence.

I've also read a post from someone who claims to be an ex-con who says Chauvin will actually be safer in prison than anywhere because the white supremacy gangs within the prison system will extend him protection owing to his hero status. Paradox of paradoxes.
Last edited by glennds on Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by WiseOne » Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:07 am

I wonder what police force members think of the conviction.

It's possible that a martyr has just been created. A "there but for the grace of God go I" situation.

There's a reason why police have enjoyed relative immunity up to now. They are put into dangerous situations on a regular basis, and bad things sometimes happen as a result. Frankly we should be grateful that there are people willing to face these situations for our benefit, for not a whole lot of pay. If the message is now that another level of personal risk has just been added to the risks they've already taken on, there will come a point where no one is going to be willing to take that on.

There's a simple way for black (and non-black) people to protect themselves against being shot by police: don't tangle with police in the first place! Not committing crimes would be helpful also. But that's apparently asking a lot.
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by I Shrugged » Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:27 am

Then there is the case of Amadou Diallo. Minding his own business, trying to get into his apartment building in the Bronx in the middle of the night. No weapon. Killed by crazy cops looking for a rape suspect. They fired 41 shots, hit him 19 times. Thought his wallet was a gun. Officers were acquitted.

There is a lot wrong with policing. If I was a black person, especially in a big city, I'd probably be very nervous around police.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by Maddy » Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:04 pm

I agree with WiseOne: You can't have an honest discussion about the subject without recognizing the part played by black culture--namely, its embracing of the badge of victimhood and its normalization of the criminal lifestyle. There's prejudice--and then there's reputation--and the latter factors appreciably into how both society and police officers respond to situations.
SomeDude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by SomeDude » Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:22 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:27 am
There is a lot wrong with policing. If I was a black person, especially in a big city, I'd probably be very nervous around police.
What do you think is the cause? The solution? Were any of the crazy cops black or just crazy white?
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by moda0306 » Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:56 pm

WiseOne wrote:
Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:07 am
I wonder what police force members think of the conviction.

It's possible that a martyr has just been created. A "there but for the grace of God go I" situation.

There's a reason why police have enjoyed relative immunity up to now. They are put into dangerous situations on a regular basis, and bad things sometimes happen as a result. Frankly we should be grateful that there are people willing to face these situations for our benefit, for not a whole lot of pay. If the message is now that another level of personal risk has just been added to the risks they've already taken on, there will come a point where no one is going to be willing to take that on.

There's a simple way for black (and non-black) people to protect themselves against being shot by police: don't tangle with police in the first place! Not committing crimes would be helpful also. But that's apparently asking a lot.
Pizza delivery, which I did for years in highschool and college, is twice as dangerous as police work at half the pay.

I don't desire to do police work, but they can go piss off with their crocodile tears. Plenty of people do far-more risky jobs for less pay, and they do so without being monumental douchebags, killing dogs, ignoring when their buddies do shady sh!t, and generally being bullies.

Police are a protection racket, and nothing more.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by Xan » Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:03 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:56 pm
Pizza delivery, which I did for years in highschool and college, is twice as dangerous as police work at half the pay.

I don't desire to do police work, but they can go piss off with their crocodile tears. Plenty of people do far-more risky jobs for less pay, and they do so without being monumental douchebags, killing dogs, ignoring when their buddies do shady sh!t, and generally being bullies.

Police are a protection racket, and nothing more.
Moda, now you're sounding a lot like technovelist, and I'm going to sound like you.

"Legitimate government" is what happens when a gang gets powerful enough to crowd out all the other gangs. Legitimate government is defined by an (effective) monopoly on violence.

Police, like government in general, may be a protection racket. But it does still protect us. The alternative is certainly worse. Sure there are things that can be improved. But to say there should be no police is as crazy (and pretty much the same) as saying there should be no government. Which is a position that you, correct me if I'm wrong, do not take?
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by Cortopassi » Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:17 pm

We've gone off on tangents here, about black society, gangster life, kangaroo court, etc.

I still haven't heard any convincing argument that Chauvin was not guilty, regardless of the how the trial proceeded and whether it was a foregone conclusion. Is there anyone here who really thinks he was not the immediate direct cause of Floyd's death?

I go back to it was over 8 minutes. I believe they said Floyd said I Can't Breathe 27 times before he lost consciousness?

He had, in the scheme of things an infinite amount of time to calm down and rethink about what he was doing.

I don't have a dog in this race. I'm a white guy. But I am either brainwashed by that darn left wing media, or there is a significantly higher chance cops would mess with me if I were black vs. white, whether I lived in the ghetto or a rich suburb. If that in itself is still debatable on this forum, we are probably too far apart to meet anywhere in the middle.

Just like I Shrugged's example, there are plenty of cases of cops harassing and even killing black people who were otherwise doing nothing wrong, seemingly at a much higher rate than it happens to whites.
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by flyingpylon » Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:50 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:17 pm
But I am either brainwashed by that darn left wing media, or there is a significantly higher chance cops would mess with me if I were black vs. white, whether I lived in the ghetto or a rich suburb. If that in itself is still debatable on this forum, we are probably too far apart to meet anywhere in the middle.

Just like I Shrugged's example, there are plenty of cases of cops harassing and even killing black people who were otherwise doing nothing wrong, seemingly at a much higher rate than it happens to whites.
Not saying you're right or wrong, but are you looking at actual data? Here's a survey that may be of interest: How Informed are Americans about Race and Policing?
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by Tortoise » Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:41 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:17 pm
I still haven't heard any convincing argument that Chauvin was not guilty, regardless of the how the trial proceeded and whether it was a foregone conclusion. Is there anyone here who really thinks he was not the immediate direct cause of Floyd's death?
In a criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense.

Acquittal does not require convincing the jury that the defendant is not guilty. It requires convincing the jury that the defendant may not be guilty. Big difference.
Cortopassi wrote:
Thu Apr 22, 2021 1:17 pm
I go back to it was over 8 minutes. I believe they said Floyd said I Can't Breathe 27 times before he lost consciousness?
I hear you. I saw the video, too, and it was hard to watch. I remember that my initial thoughts were, "Why did that cop keep his knee on the guy's neck for several minutes after he stopped moving or making any noise? How can that possibly be justified as necessary? Is he sadistic or sociopathic or something?"

But then details about the incident started to trickle out in the ensuing weeks and months, and the plot thickened.

Floyd had fentanyl in his system -- supposedly a lot of it -- and fentanyl is known to be dangerous for often making people stop breathing if they take too much of it. I seem to recall one toxicology report showed that Floyd had enough fentanyl in his system to kill three men. (Fact-check?)

I also heard about a few other interesting pieces of evidence that were presented in the trial, but to me the fentanyl in Floyd's system was the one that places the biggest question mark over the question of whether Floyd would still be alive if it hadn't been for Chauvin's actions.

I have no way of gauging the probabilities involved, but if it's true that Floyd had enough fentanyl in his system to kill at least one man, I have a really hard time not acknowledging that as reasonable doubt that Chauvin murdered Floyd. And in a criminal trial, reasonable doubt means you're supposed to acquit.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by Cortopassi » Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:42 pm

I have looked at the data, at least in some forms. The distinction you have here is "unarmed" black men, which is a separate dataset, and also percentage as a function of overall people shot is also misleading. The second graph asks what % of people shot were black and lists survey responses.

All were high, however, the actual rate is 26.7% per the notes, while the black population % is 14% of the US, so they are being shot at a higher "rate"

We've gone through this in another thread. Personally, I am convinced that blacks get profiled and looked upon with suspicion more than whites in a similar situation.

Here's another view:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585 ... e-by-race/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/112 ... nicity-us/

Image
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by Cortopassi » Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:50 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:41 pm

Floyd had fentanyl in his system -- supposedly a lot of it -- and fentanyl is known to be dangerous for often making people stop breathing if they take too much of it. I seem to recall one toxicology report showed that Floyd had enough fentanyl in his system to kill three men. (Fact-check?)

I also heard about a few other interesting pieces of evidence that were presented in the trial, but to me the fentanyl in Floyd's system was the one that places the biggest question mark over the question of whether Floyd would still be alive if it hadn't been for Chauvin's actions.

I have no way of gauging the probabilities involved, but if it's true that Floyd had enough fentanyl in his system to kill at least one man, I have a really hard time not acknowledging that as reasonable doubt that Chauvin murdered Floyd. And in a criminal trial, reasonable doubt means you're supposed to acquit.
I will give you that. But I also wonder if the guy was routinely using Fentanyl, you do build a tolerance. And was that reporting about "enough to kill three men" a purposely biased statement to talk about three average size men who never have taken it before?

From a medical site: "Yes, fentanyl can be addictive. If you use opioids a lot, you may find that you develop a tolerance and need more and more to feel the same effects. You can become mentally and physically dependent on fentanyl."

WiseOne touched on it -- it seems Floyd did put himself in the situation in the first place by committing a crime. Doesn't justify death, though.
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by flyingpylon » Thu Apr 22, 2021 3:20 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:42 pm
Personally, I am convinced that blacks get profiled and looked upon with suspicion more than whites in a similar situation.
I wasn't debating the statistics, simply pointing out the propensity of some people to grossly under or over estimate them (and that can go both ways depending on the topic). What we often refer to as "facts" are actually data+interpretation+persuasion.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by glennds » Thu Apr 22, 2021 3:27 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:41 pm

I have no way of gauging the probabilities involved, but if it's true that Floyd had enough fentanyl in his system to kill at least one man, I have a really hard time not acknowledging that as reasonable doubt that Chauvin murdered Floyd. And in a criminal trial, reasonable doubt means you're supposed to acquit.
The test for the top charge in the case was "substantial causal factor" based on MN law. So the reasonable doubt standard in this case basically means whether there is reasonable doubt as to whether Chauvin's actions were a substantial causal factor. They don't have to be the sole factor. They don't even have to be the dominant factor. Just a substantial (or material) causal factor.
In turn, the question then becomes whether a reasonable juror could conclude that George Floyd would have died at that particular moment anyway, without Chauvin doing what he did. From the verdict, the jury was not able to make that conclusion.

As to the Fentanyl, there has been internet chatter consistent with what you appear to believe. In fact Some sarcastic Dude had a viral FB post that basically said GF had enough Fentanyl in his system to kill three grown men or two Stacy Abrams'. Funny, huh?

In reality, the testimony during the trial from the expert toxicology witness (I think his name was Isenfeld) and the Hennepin County Medical Examiner was that the Fentanyl levels were not fatal nor the cause of his death. The toxicologist presented data from over 2000 Fentanyl containing blood samples from DUI cases and GF was in the lower end of this spectrum. There was also something technical to do with the amount of the Fentanyl that could be shown to have already broken down, metabolized in his body which supported the non-fatal conclusion. You can easily find this testimony and graphic for yourself if you look.

It's worth noting, that this is all based on MN law which is where the incident occurred. In another state, the outcome could have been very different because of the difference in legal tests and standards associated with the charges.
Post Reply