I appreciate your perspective but can you give me anything that’s not subjective? I mean, raw numbers or facts that depict what you’re saying? And I don’t doubt there is racism in this country, as I’ve seen it firsthand, my argument has always been against the idea that in today’s America it is a systemic problem that somehow inhibits ones ability to succeed, which you appear to be a prime example that contradicts that idea. I also don’t think it’s just a white on black issue and that racism infiltrates all races and walks of life, as again, I have seen firsthand.
If Chauvin is acquitted.....
- Thread starter bonefish1
- Start date
It’s interesting that jrcrist doesn’t hesitate to bring his occupational work knowledge/experiences into many threads but openly scoffs at someone with a medical degree offering his medical opinion on this subject.
You still don’t get it. Yes, Floyd had his issues. But George Floyd is basically a metaphor of all the blacks were historically unjustly killed by police, brutalized by police, beaten confessions by police etc. in addition, the video of his lynching clearly showed the egregious actions by Chauvin where justice was looking like it was going to finally happen and it did.
Prior to Floyd, there have been case after case where the cops were acquitted like in the Rodney King attempted lynching or never charged. Blacks just want bad cops to be held accountable for their actions.
There's a million ways, but what are you implying? I haven't looked, but what's the value of the home?
-wife makes money
-family money
-good saver/investor
-smart with debt
-co-ownership with others
etc, etc.
Having bad cops be held accountable and not putting career felons on a pedestal aren't mutually exclusive.
Why does Floyd's background of criminal activity not have a bearing on this situation? He was only in that position because he decided to break the law.
Don't negate Floyd's accountability simply because he's black. White people wouldn't do that if Floyd were white.
Not implying anything. Just don’t know any cops his age with a half million dollar vacation home.
I don’t scoff at his medical expertise, it’s that he threw that out there but then went on to essentially say that what I was questioning, about those other factors having some possible impact on his death, was indeed possible. He just used some fancy medical lingo to try to talk down to me. When have I ever used my profession or background to talk down to anyone on this board? And my profession does give me some unique insights into different aspects of society that most don’t get to see. But that doesn’t make me right or give me the right to talk down to people, who I know nothing about.
In addition to that, he was already arguing that Chauvin was guilty before the trial even started so I think it’s fair to question his views, regardless how qualified he is.
Last edited:
Do you have data that says it's worth half mil?
Are you making the assumption that he can't afford that kind of place on a cops salary and there's another source of income?
Again, there's a lot of different ways to acquire or afford real estate.
Kind of a big “if not...” though. Tobin’s testimony was particularly damning in that regard (bottom).
“Additionally, Thomas said her review of the case, including the toxicology reports, allowed her to rule out other causes of death, including a drug overdose.
Floyd's death was not "sudden" like it would be with a methamphetamine overdose, she said. And it was not slow like one would see with fentanyl, where "the death is slow, it's peaceful, they fall asleep."”
“Under cross-examination, Baker agreed with Nelson's statement that Floyd's heart disease, narrowed arteries and drug use "played a role" in Floyd's death, but he testified that those things did not directly cause him to die.
"Mr. Floyd's use of fentanyl did not cause the subdual or neck restraint," Baker said. "His heart disease did not cause the subdual or the neck restraint."
Thomas testified that such factors did not directly cause Floyd's death and that they are commonly included on death certificates for a "public health purpose."”
“Dr. Martin Tobin, a pulmonologist and critical care doctor in Chicago, also rejected the defense's claims Thursday that Floyd's drug use and underlying health conditions killed him.
"A healthy person subjected to what Mr. Floyd was subjected to would have died," said Tobin, a lung and critical care specialist at the Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital and Loyola University's medical school in Illinois.”
The Chauvin Verdict and America’s Troubled Rule of Law
The pervasive sense that cities would burn if Derek Chauvin were not convicted raises questions about whether the jury’s verdict was reached dispassionately.
Alright, I concede, this trial was completely on the up and up and there were no questions about the incident that raise reasonable doubt about the case and how the man died. Him speedballing, having heart disease, and struggling with the police had nothing to do with his death. The political pressure and threats by elected officials or by activists and the mob had no bearing on the verdict or outcome. Did I miss anything?
Over the years I have met many people that have some sort of impairment or disability. Some take the oh pity me approach and some just take it in stride and are successful.
I have never met a none white person that claimed the oh pity me approach because my skin isn’t white.
You my friend fit the latter!
I haven’t argued a damn thing about all that other crap. Only thing I’ve argued with you about is your continued insistence that the prosecution didn’t prove he died from homicide. I don’t know what else you need from the prosecution besides a line of expert witnesses testifying homicide, and the homicide caught actually on video, to prove that.
As much as you are commenting about it, it is also clear that your personal political bias has made you set the bar for burden of proof so incredibly high as to be unattainable. Fortunately, the jury was much more dispassionate than you.
Nope, unlike some of you I can actually set my political biases aside and be objective. But you’re damn right I’m passionate about our justice system and how it works. I see people get lost in and abused by the justice system every day and it’s very important to me. You all had made up your minds about the case before this trial ever started and your posting history shows that. And you understand that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is intended to be incredibly high, don’t you? Maybe the conviction was the right one, but to conclude that from what transpired during the trial is negligible IMO.
Here we go again, parroting another so called “Good Negro”. This jackass got into Yale, along with Dr. Ben Carson, Prof. Henry Louis Gates and 20 or so other blacks through affirmative action. Since then he had voted against affirmative action. He’s one of those Negroes that climb the ladder and get to the top. Then kick the ladder down so no other blacks can climb it.
So you think people like him, Larry Elder, Sowell, etc are the ones misinforming the black community but Pelosi, Harris, Biden, Schumer, etc have the black communities best interest at heart? Really?
I thought liberal white people always knew what was better for black people than black people did themselves? You mean....that's not true?
another programmed democrat who thinks nancy pelosi has black communities best interests at heart
laugh out loud
When you say things like this, and you say them all the time, it sounds to me like you believe he got what he deserved. He didn't. Even being a career criminal (not how I would describe him) shouldn't mean a death sentence is inevitable. It definitely shouldn't mean that under our justice system. Innocent until proven guilty, even for career criminals. Yes, they have rights too. They can change, millions have left a life of crime and become law abiding, productive citizens. When you speak the way you do, that isn't a possibility. That's what I hear. These people don't deserve another chance, they get what they deserve.
The man was very flawed, in all kinds of ways. But he also had been actively fighting his drug problems on and off for a long time, the same as millions of Americans. Apparently he was a Christian and had demonstrated that in Texas working with children. If you're going to judge him on his criminal record, shouldn't you also try to consider the other parts of his life? Was he incapable of change?
When people are convicted and serve their time, don't they get another chance? Floyd served his time for his crimes according to the justice system, but you want to keep punishing him. Once a criminal, always a criminal?
If he was passing counterfeit money he was committing another crime. Arrest him, serve his time, and then he gets to try again. That's how our system works. But what I hear you saying is if he gets killed committing a crime, tough shit, he shouldn't have been doing it. No. The consequences of his actions should be determined by the criminal justice system, not a cop or vigilante. The punishment should be proportional to the crime. Passing bad money doesn't deserve a death penalty.
1994 crime Bill was one of those good ideas at the time. Slow Joe, as you put it wasn’t the only one involved in the bill. Blacks constituents in high crime areas demanded congress to do something about the high crime. Therefore, the black members in congress helped draft this bill also. Even though the like most bills had good things and bad things in it. To them on paper they thought it was going to do some good.
Soon after the bill was enacted, the GOP took over leadership of the congress. Newt Gingrich and his minions took out the good stuff like drug counseling for minor drug offenses among others in the bill and left the bad stuff like mandatory minimum sentencing among others. This left people to be incarcerated for minor drug offenses and filling up the prisons. Somehow a lot white offenders of similar crimes were sent to drug abatement or counseling even though they took it out of the Bill. Therefore, there were a lot hands and moving parts in this bill, not just Slow Joe.
From the outside and watching how you post across this message board, you are no better than anyone else because your opinions don't indicate any kind of balance. They are all skewed in one particular direction. That is not "objective" in the least.
As to the reasonable doubt comment - yes, I think it's intended to be high... but the word "reasonable" has meaning. When three different medical professionals testify to the same cause of death, and two independent autopsies are provided that come to the same conclusion, you've eliminated "reasonable" if you're still "in doubt". What you're doing is called "reaching", not "reasonable doubt".
The best the defense could come up with was a guy who said cause of death should've been "undetermined". He wasn't even willing to go on the record as saying Floyd died from something other than asphyxiation. He wasn't willing to provide an alternate cause of death to the "homicide".
----
This was the star medical witnesses' testimony: ""In my opinion, Mr. Floyd had a sudden cardiac arrhythmia ... due to his atherosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease ... during his restraint and subdual by the police," Fowler said.
If I hear that, and I'm in the jury, my first question is: "Well, would he have had the cardiac arrest absent the subdual and restraint by police?"
----
Further:
"Do you feel that Mr. Floyd should have been given immediate emergency attention to try to reverse the cardiac arrest?"
"As a physician, I would agree," he said.
"Are you critical of the fact that he wasn't given immediate emergency care when he went into cardiac arrest?"
"As a physician, I would agree," Fowler repeated.
----
So again, police are trained to render aid. As a juror, if the police do not render aid once Floyd is unresponsive, they contribute to his death - man-made death... homicide.
The defense witness could not provide alternate theories to create reasonable doubt that did not exclude Chauvin's actions (and inactions) as contributing causes to Floyd's death. In order to win on Man 2, they had to prove that Floyd would have died anyway.
Case closed. After Floyd's testimony, Chauvin was going to be found guilty of Man 2, at least.
Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd. There is no one who was presented in court who testified differently. Thus, there is no reasonable doubt as pertains to "homicide". If you want to argue "Murder", then we can certainly do that. But your argument regarding the medical cause of death is "reaching", not "reasonable doubt".
Last edited:
What I believe is that when a person decides to be a violent criminal, the likelihood of them having a bad outcome because of that lifestyle choice substantially increases.
As far as changing.....The guy went to jail 9 damn times. How many chances does he get? Clearly he wasn't interested in being reformed, otherwise, he wouldn't be high on fentynal and meth trying to pass fake money.
So yeh, sometimes people do get what they deserve and I have no sympathy for them. Decisions have consequences.
How do you know he was fighting his drug problem? Because that's what his family said on MSNBC? Give me a freakin break. When I lived in Chicago, you wanna know what every gang banger's mama said after he got smoked?
"he was a good boy. He was getting his life turned around. He was talking about getting a job. He was going to church. He loved his nieces and nephews.." blah blah blah. Same story every time.
Sure, Floyd served his time, but clearly he either didn't mind jail or he wasn't learning his lesson because he kept deciding the law didn't apply to him. I'm willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt, but eventually you run out of chances. No sympathy from me for someone who doesn't want to change.
Instead of trying to pass fake money, let's say Floyd tried to rob the store by putting his hand in his coat pocket and making it look like he had a gun even though he didn't. Let's say the store owner did have a gun and shot Floyd dead. Would Floyd be responsible for his death in that situation?
So yeh, if you get killed during the commission of a crime, that is tough shit. You, as a grown ass man, decided you were going to knowingly break the law, perhaps violently. You deserve whatever outcome happens because had you decided to be a law abiding productive member of society, your outcome would be different. Again, decisions have consequences, sometimes bad ones.
Dems were in control of the House, Senate, and White House in 1994. They own it. Not Gingrich.
I can assure you, with 100% certainty that my opinions and views are in no way shaped by who I vote for. Who I vote for is 100% shaped by my opinions and views. I am capable of thinking for myself and not being told what to think by politicians or the liberal mob. I refer to this a lot in this debate, but some of you argue for grown men being allowed to use locker rooms with little girls and also support the murdering of millions of babies. You immortalize criminals as heroes and put them on pedestals. But yet I have skewed views? You may want to reconsider who looks like what from the outside looking in.
Yes, you have skewed views because you have never presented any kind of view on any topic ever on this message board that can remotely be identified as coming from anything but an extreme conservative political viewpoint. Period. You are not objective. Your personal and political biases form your opinions. Simple as that.
It's fine - you're entitled to your opinions and biases - but you are anything but objective. Very few people actually are. I am not 100% objective, readily admitted. To pretend you are anything different is ludicrous.
(I edited the post above about reasonable doubt. You should check it out, "objectively").
And why do you think Clarence Thomas would want the black community to struggle? How does that benefit him? What does he have to be gained? Now do that for Nancy Pelosi.
I highly encourage those with Netflix to watch the film 13th. Now i will preemptively state — yes, it is a film skewed by the producers and they gloss over some significant flaws of some of the people speaking, however, the discussion around the crime bill is certainly interesting.
A spoiler alert — Newt comes off in a more positive light than Bill Clinton.
It is certainly an example of what may have been a bill with good intentions that had some disastrous consequences.
If someone is socially liberal on some topics but fiscally conservative on others, what political affiliation do you assume them to be?
I never said I was always objective, but that I’m able to set my opinions and biases aside to look at a situation objectively. Hell, I do it all day every day in my professional life. I have no skin in the game and could give a rats ass what the outcome of the trial, as long as it was arrived at in an honest and fair manner. And I don’t have a “political bias”, I vote all over the board. And you consider my positions as “extreme conservative”? You get out of the house much?
And as for the “beyond a reasonable doubt”, maybe im wrong in the context of this case, but I stand by my opinion that Floyd having toxic, and as baker described, a fatal dose of fentanyl in his system at the time of his death, creates reasonable doubt, or at least it should IMO.
I told y'all, after the GOP took control, Gingrich and his minions took out the good stuff in the bill and left in the bad stuff.
I don't assume them to be anything because that's what I am. I don't identify with either of the parties.
Baker didn't describe it that way at all. You are taking his comment completely out of context, and he even emphasized after that comment - restated it - essentially saying "If not for the actual cause of death, he would've ruled it an overdose." Problem is, there was that other - actual - cause of death.
And yes, I get out of the house plenty. Like you, I can only judge you by what you write here. The next thing that I see you post that I consider to be objective and without a conservative political bias will be the first.
Yes he described it that way when asked what he told FBI agents when interviewed by them. He described it as a “fatal” dose and he confirmed that when questioned by Nelson.
If you’re definition of conservative is based on the liberal crap on this board, much of which you argue in favor of, then I’ll take that as a compliment.
I've yet to see you post anything I would consider the least bit socially liberal.
