The Derek Chauvin / George Floyd Trial

[Vic]

You think I don't know cops are pieces of shit? Hell, I might even say they should have their organs "donated" after death if they really want to prove they want to help the "community" and aren't in it for the privilege and prestige.

I've been fucked over by the police since childhood, not directly though. When fucking cops refuse to investigate and outright deny that sexual abuse occurred to my sister even though medical experts had documented abnormal hymen damage, that's something that sunk in because I would have been that victim if I didn't have a Y chromosome.

But while I can be emotional, I know damn well going into a tizzy against cops is ultimately self-destructive. They are going to hunt for some gap that they can exploit and fuck you over with and you damn better face the reality that they normally get away with it. I surmise they ignored my sister because at that time, my mom's English was poor and she didn't have much money. Plus there was a divorce going on. Meanwhile, Dad had status, resources. And possibly, the cop had a relationship with some female in Dad's law firm.

Floyd killed by drugs is wretched myth and I spent time on Youtube trying to bust. You want proof, I'll show such a convo and my Youtube handle.

Concern troll is obvious.

 

[Jaskalas]

Have you considered that some might be upset that the very idea that Floyd may have been killed by drugs is even in consideration here when the actual cause of death is so evident?

Ask the typical Trump Republican.

​

Floyd killed himself with drugs. The innocent cop is being attacked by vicious Democrats who are working hard to tear down our nation and attack our law enforcement.​

Don't know if Fox News goes the full length of that, but you'll find MANY in the alt-reality who believe that line.

 

[Vic]

If a video were broadcast to the whole world showing someone being shot to death, would it be consided reasonable to think they have may died from some drug OD?

Obviously not. And the only reason we're having this discussion right now is because Republicans are mother fucking racist pieces of shit who fear brown people more than they do the govt.

 

[Torn Mind]

Concern troll is obvious.

Believe what you want to believe or not.

The proceedings today was extremely satisfactory and the defense was downright pancaked.

 

[Vic]

Believe what you want to believe or not.

The proceedings today was extremely satisfactory and the defense was downright pancaked.

I'm glad you agree. The only concern most of us have is that justice might not be served.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Don't say "no bearing to the case." when you actually mean something else, mostly like "no relevant physiological cause". Because trial cases involves proving and disproving things, along with persuading a judge/jury. Fundamental to proofs in law is rudimentary logic.

I read you statement fairly and accurately and debated under the presumption that you were rationally disputing relevance to the case.

You are confuddling two things.

There is matter of Floyd not being killed by drugs, which there is no dispute. The matter of physiological cause, I am in agreement with. Floyd was alive and well, full grasp of senses.

The FALSEHOOD I was referring to was "George Floyd WAS KILLED BY DRUGS". That's the falsehood.

The matter of whether it is irrelevant. Perhaps you meant irrelevant to the actual cause. My conception of irrrelevant is to the case.
If someone did kill me by choking and he/she knew I was high. What's usually going to happen when they try to explain it to friends, police, other people involved? That my drugs did it and not them. Who will speak for me when I cannot since I'm dead? Oh right, the lawyers, experts, etc who have to look at what evidence is left in my body. Plus the people in the public all playing armchair doctor, some of whom who scream FAKE NEWS and blindly think I DID overdose. Well, I'm not that famous so I'd probalby trigger a mere police investigation and then they see strangulation marks.

There is the situation where someone could be having a drug reaction and the officer simply doesn't give the remedy because he didn't feel like it.

Regarding your personal attack, the one thing I will never do is think of myself as smart. It's the first step to being blinded, beaten, and defeated. Delusion is the one drug I can live without. Give me pain and reality. I welcome it. Always learn from others, even those who antagonize you.

You are an arrogant fuck aren't you? I meant exactly what I said. Not what you tell me I meant. Not sure how you are determining all on your own, that you read my statement accurately, without any input from me? That's pretty fucked up! I am pretty sure I am the only one who can make that determination. I can tell you, it's obvious you don't have a clue regardless of how much you lecture me with your twisted words.


Here is the deal, Floyd is not on trial here, he did not cause his death. HIs drug use has no relevance to the actions of Derek or his intent. Derek's actions and intent are what are on trial here. When you can tie Floyd's drugs to Derek's intent and his action of holding him down by putting his weight on his neck for 9+ minutes, you can get back to me about the relevance of Floyd's and his drugs/drug use.

 

[Torn Mind]

First, I edited my response, as my original one wasn't very nice (the one you quoted), I pretty much completely changed it. But to your response here:

Bullshit! He didn't just fall over and die. He died at the hands of those police as they ignored every opportunity and plead to give him medical help., along with using improper procedures/restraint techniques, etc. (the list is long).

It seems you need to go learn what murder and manslaughter are. They all revolve around intent, or rather whether the death happened with or without malice and aforethought. Those police officers actions, specifically Derek Chauvin's actions is what will determine if it was with or without malice (read my edit above, specifically the last paragraph).

The only way his drug use would be relevant is if Derek accidently unknowingly stood on his neck for 9+ minutes, accidently and unknowingly ignored all the pleads from both Floyd and the crowed, accidently and unknowingly ignored the paramedics for 2+ minutes........ ah hell, this is just getting stupid because Floyd's drug use has zero to do with any of that.. Derek's actions has to be justified before Floyd's Drug use even remotely scratches the surface of relevant.

This matter of debating "relevance" is NOT a wholesale negation of your entire belief paradigm, of which I'm actually in agreement with.


The drug use is not physiologically relevant, aka it did not actually cause Floyd's death; that is correct.

But since Chauvin is using it as part of his defense in the case, it then necessary to prove his assertions wrong, and completely so. Simple as that. Chauvin says "Floyd OD'd". Work must be done to dismantle this defense with facts and compelling opinion and eventually wind up with the conclusion that Floyd did NOT OD and that the state has proven that beyond a reasonable doubt to an impartial jury. That's what they did today, and quite convincingly, with excellent direct examination questions.

If I were to put into a metaphor, it's part of Chauvin's fortress, and only the truth can destroy that fortress. As for the matter of whether I want the fortress to stand or fall? I want it to fall for that POS.

I never stated I believed him or thought him innocent; I actually have judged him fully guilty; Floyd did not exhibit what fentanyl overdoses are like. The symptoms were not evident. But it is a matter of law to convince the jury with facts and compelling opinion what you, me, and many others do believe, along with nuking the myth-spreaders.



Do I want Chavuin's assertion proven false? Yes. I have personal vendetta against police irrespective of politcs.

 

[NWRMidnight]

This matter of debating "relevance" is NOT a wholesale negation of your entire belief paradigm, of which I'm actually in agreement with.


The drug use is not physiologically relevant, aka it did not actually cause Floyd's death; that is correct.

But since Chauvin is using it as part of his defense in the case, it then necessary to prove his assertions wrong, and completely so. Simple as that. Chauvin says "Floyd OD'd". Work must be done to dismantle this defense with facts and compelling opinion and eventually wind up with the conclusion that Floyd did NOT OD and that the state has proven that beyond a reasonable doubt to an impartial jury. That's what they did today, and quite convincingly, with excellent direct examination questions.

If I were to put into a metaphor, it's part of Chauvin's fortress, and only the truth can destroy that fortress. As for the matter of whether I want the fortress to stand or fall? I want it to fall for that POS.

I never stated I believed him or thought him innocent; I actually have judged him fully guilty; Floyd did not exhibit what fentanyl overdoses are like. The symptoms were not evident. But it is a matter of law to convince the jury with facts and compelling opinion what you, me, and many others do believe, along with nuking the myth-spreaders.



Do I want Chavuin's assertion proven false? Yes. I have personal vendetta against police irrespective of politcs.

Then why are you arguing with me about it other than to troll? No where did I say it wasn't part of Chauvin's defense. I said it has no relevance (this doesn't mean the idiot can't use it in his defense), and you have spent the last page trying to argue about it's relevance, only to conclude that it's part of the defense and must be disproven. Which the defense using it in their defense had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

It doesn't matter if Chauvin is trying to make it relevant, that doesn't change the fact that it's not relevant, because it's Chauvin's actions (that 9+ minutes of being on his neck and such) that's are on trial, not the state of Floyd's drug induced state. This leads us back to my first comment on the subject, and where this argument started: this is just a distraction, or a cover up to hide the truth that Chauvin murdered Floyd. (to take the focus off of Chauvin's actions that lead to Floyd's death aka murder) And what's funny, you spent the last page or so arguing about that distraction trying to argue why it's relevant when it wasn't.

 

[Torn Mind]

You are an arrogant fuck aren't you? I meant exactly what I said. Not what you tell me I meant. Not sure how you are determining all on your own, that you read my statement accurately, without any input from me? That's pretty fucked up! I am pretty sure I am the only one who can make that determination. I can tell you, it's obvious you don't have a clue regardless of how much you lecture me with your twisted words.


Here is the deal, Floyd is not on trial here, he did not cause his death. HIs drug use has no relevance to the actions of Derek or his intent. Derek's actions and intent are what are on trial here. When you can tie Floyd's drugs to Derek's intent, you can get back to me about the relevance of Floyd's and his drugs/drug use.

Perhaps I did misinterpret the context or perhaps my dictionary sense is lacking. If they are, then calling me an arrogant fuck would be justified.

I interpreted the word "case" to be in accordance within the legal definition of the term and specifically, the matter of the State of Minnesota vs. Chauvin as a whole.
What sense of case were you using then? I thought since we were discussing a legal case, it would be the one common in legal dictionaries, such as the following.

n. short for a cause of action, lawsuit, or the right to sue (as in "does he have a case against Jones?"). It is also shorthand for the reported decisions (appeals, certain decisions of federal courts and special courts such as the tax court) which can be cited as precedents. Thus, "in the case of Malarkey v. Hogwash Printing Company, the court stated the rule as…."

Various definitions of relevant:

relation to the matter at hand

bearing upon or connected with the matter in hand

Thus, with the matter of relevance, it can be a connection to any matter involved in the case.

In the most mundane, boring way, the matter of George Floyd NOT OD'ing is indeed relevant to the case. What connection? The fucking defendant in the case keeps asserting Floyd OD'ing was why Floyd died and not the defendant's own actions. In addition, the drugs do have death mechanisms and it must be shown to a sufficient extent they did not trigger.

I also do understand there is the matter/case whether the drugs did or did not cause Floyd's body to die. That is a part of the case but not the sole matter within the whole case. You did not provide any additional context that the "case" was this specific matter.

The subject "did drugs kill George Floyd" is not synonymous with the entire legal case at hand. It's a part of the case, and a significant part that litigated on and the attorneys for the state just spent the entire day on the matter .

Then why are you arguing with me about it other than to troll? No where did I say it wasn't part of Chauvin's defense. I said it has no relevance (this doesn't mean the idiot can't use it in his defense), and you have spent the last page trying to argue about it's relevance, only to conclude that it's part of the defense and must be disproven. Which the defense using it in their defense had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

It doesn't matter if Chauvin is trying to make it relevant, that doesn't change the fact that it's not relevant, because it's Chauvin's actions (that 9+ minutes of being on his neck and such) that's are on trial, not the state of Floyd's drug induced state. This leads us back to my first comment on the subject, and where this argument started: this is just a distraction, or a cover up to hide the truth that Chauvin murdered Floyd. (to take the focus off of Chauvin's actions that lead to Floyd's death aka murder) And what's funny, you spent the last page or so arguing about that distraction trying to argue why it's relevant when it wasn't.

My initial comment was mainly descriptive of the last witness's testimony during the trial on the 7th. You replied to me first. My initial post was very mundane, light analysis, with a touch of bias towards favoring the prosecution.

I know what murder is. To establish it does mean eliminating other causes of death beyond a reasonable doubt. Fentanyl has a mechanism of death. The state has to prove that mechanism did not manifest.

The only thing I see is that I was debating someone using one word to debate two different yet related points and disguising it, perhaps unintentionally, in language open to misinterpretation. .

 

[NWRMidnight]

Perhaps I did misinterpret the context or perhaps my dictionary sense is lacking. If they are, then calling me an arrogant fuck would be justified.

I interpreted the word "case" to be in accordance within the legal definition of the term and specifically, the matter of the State of Minnesota vs. Chauvin as a whole.
What sense of case were you using then? I thought since we were discussing a legal case, it would be the one common in legal dictionaries, such as the following.



Various definitions of relevant:




Thus, with the matter of relevance, it can be a connection to any matter involved in the case.

In the most mundane, boring way, the matter of George Floyd NOT OD'ing is indeed relevant to the case. What connection? The fucking defendant in the case keeps asserting Floyd OD'ing was why Floyd died and not the defendant's own actions. In addition, the drugs do have death mechanisms and it must be shown to a sufficient extent they did not trigger.

I also do understand there is the matter/case whether the drugs did or did not cause Floyd's body to die. That is a part of the case but not the sole matter within the whole case. You did not provide any additional context that the "case" was this specific matter.

The subject "did drugs kill George Floyd" is not synonymous with the entire legal case at hand. It's a part of the case, and a significant part that litigated on and the attorneys for the state just spent the entire day on the matter .


My initial comment was mainly descriptive of the last witness's testimony during the trial on the 7th. You replied to me first. My initial post was very mundane, light analysis, with a touch of bias towards favoring the prosecution.

I know what murder is. To establish it does mean eliminating other causes of death beyond a reasonable doubt. Fentanyl has a mechanism of death. The state has to prove that mechanism did not manifest.

The only thing I see is that I was debating someone using one word to debate two different yet related points and disguising it, perhaps unintentionally, in language open to misinterpretation. .

Thank you for the long drawn out answer to demonstrate you don't have have a clue about anything I have said. You keep going on about case/defense/state, ignoring the very examples I gave you that put it in perspective for you. Let me put it to you one last way and see if you can comprehend what I am mean to why Floyd's drugs are not relevant. If Derek Chauvin killed Floyd by shooting him in the head, would drugs be a relevant to his death? NO! If Derek Chauvin took a manchette and cut Floyd's head off, would drugs be relevant to his death? NO! But, for some reason, you want to argue that Derek pressing on his neck for 9+ minutes, that drugs are now relevant to his death. Yet , the only difference is the method used to kill Floyd. Just because it's part of the case and the defense is using it as part of their defense, which forces the state to argue that point, does not make it any more relevant because it's Derek Chauvin's actions and the intent behind those actions, that are on trial. Unless you are trying to say that Floyd's drug use caused Derek Chauvin to press on his neck for 9+ minutes, and dictated those actions and intent.

It's great that You know what it takes to get a non guilty verdict, but a verdict does not define murder or manslaughter. Those definitions do not change based on a verdict. All a verdict does it decide if one is guilty of murder or manslaughter. Which is not the definition of murder or manslaughter. Of course anyone on the jury should know what determines and defines murder and manslaughter.

 

[HomerJS]

Fox News not covering the trial. I guess they don't want their people to see unnecessary police abuse against people of color exists.

 

[brycejones]

I’ve noticed that someone has humbly shut up.

 

[HomerJS]

Are you saying they shut their pie-hole?

 

[Torn Mind]

Thank you for the long drawn out answer to demonstrate you don't have have a clue about anything I have said. You keep going on about case/defense/state, ignoring the very examples I gave you that put it in perspective for you. Let me put it to you one last way and see if you can comprehend what I am mean to why Floyd's drugs are not relevant. If Derek Chauvin killed Floyd by shooting him in the head, would drugs be a relevant to his death? NO! If Derek Chauvin took a manchette and cut Floyd's head off, would drugs be relevant to his death? NO! But, for some reason, you want to argue that Derek pressing on his neck for 9+ minutes, that drugs are now relevant to his death. Yet , the only difference is the method used to kill Floyd. Just because it's part of the case and the defense is using it as part of their defense, which forces the state to argue that point, does not make it any more relevant because it's Derek Chauvin's actions and the intent behind those actions, that are on trial. Unless you are trying to say that Floyd's drug use caused Derek Chauvin to press on his neck for 9+ minutes, and dictated those actions and intent.

It's great that You know what it takes to get a non guilty verdict, but a verdict does not define murder or manslaughter. Those definitions do not change based on a verdict. All a verdict does it decide if one is guilty of murder or manslaughter. Which is not the definition of murder or manslaughter. Of course anyone on the jury should know what determines and defines murder and manslaughter.

I don't appreciate putting the labor only to have be discarded like a piece of garbage. I've already held off the emotional response and stuck strictly to the logical matters of being discussion.

Finally, you have made the disambiguation between "relevant to the case" versus "relevant to his death". These are two different concepts, which I have tried to highlight in a conversational manner. What is relevant(in relation to) to Floyd's death is simply the drugs did not do anything to Floyd's body. What is relevant to the case(the trial case and not the case of Floyd's death) includes that and many other things.

You have spent plenty of time arguing via ambiguity of language to somehow try to prove those two points simultaneously.

That is the equivocation fallacy. https://effectiviology.com/equivocation.

You like short, then I'll do it short.

 

[soundforbjt]

Ask the typical Trump Republican.

​

Floyd killed himself with drugs. The innocent cop is being attacked by vicious Democrats who are working hard to tear down our nation and attack our law enforcement.​

Don't know if Fox News goes the full length of that, but you'll find MANY in the alt-reality who believe that line.

Saw a thread just like this on Facebook by some republican acquaintances of mine.

 

[sportage]

Gawd.... if ONLY Donald Trump had been scrutinized to this extent during his trial(s). Justice in America, where is it??? I can’t find it.

 

[sportage]

Lawyers are sleazy animals indeed. Defense blaming Floyd’s death on heart size, like having a cops knee on the neck had nothing to do with it. That would be like claiming that someone died from a lynching/hanging because their neck was too skinny. If Floyd had a thicker neck, he would have survived being hung from a tree. So it’s all Floyd’s fault. THIS is basically the defense argument. I wonder if Chauvin ran an electrocardiogram on Floyd before he decided to stand on Floyd’s neck?

 

[NWRMidnight]

I don't appreciate putting the labor only to have be discarded like a piece of garbage. I've already held off the emotional response and stuck strictly to the logical matters of being discussion.

Finally, you have made the disambiguation between "relevant to the case" versus "relevant to his death". These are two different concepts, which I have tried to highlight in a conversational manner. What is relevant(in relation to) to Floyd's death is simply the drugs did not do anything to Floyd's body. What is relevant to the case(the trial case and not the case of Floyd's death) includes that and many other things.

You have spent plenty of time arguing via ambiguity of language to somehow try to prove those two points simultaneously.

That is the equivocation fallacy. https://effectiviology.com/equivocation.

You like short, then I'll do it short.

Really? IF you feel like you are being disregarded, and don't appreciate it, then stop telling people their argument, what they mean, and ignoring what they said. I have explained myself multiple times in every possible way my position and my argument, only for you to keep coming back acting like an arrogant fuck, lecturing me, telling me my meaning, and acting like I have no clue on what I am saying, where you seem to have the need to tell me what I mean.

You keep lecturing me on different concepts of the argument as if I don't know what the fuck I am talking about, or an attempt to change my argument. Obviously you are aware of what I am talking about, or you wouldn't be able to differentiate between those concepts and different arguments. So you are flat out ignoring what I am saying with the only purpose of trolling. I have made it clear what I am talking about. It's on you to decide if you want to keep being an arrogant trolling fuck, or shut up!

 

[Bitek]

Pretty compelling and damning week of testimony. The two Drs were especially riveting.

On one hand I think that "this guy is fucked, he straight up killed Floyd. Send him to PMITA prison."

Then I remember he's a cop....so doubtful that he'll be held accountable.


Then there will be riots.
Then republicans will blame those savage urban people.

Then maybe some white teenage dumb fuck from out of town shows up with a gun and shoots a few. Then magas will have another hero.

Then distraction, and nothing changes.

 

[HurleyBird]

This matter of debating "relevance" is NOT a wholesale negation of your entire belief paradigm, of which I'm actually in agreement with.

Stop trying to use nuance in P&N.

 

[hal2kilo]

Fox News not covering the trial. I guess they don't want their people to see unnecessary police abuse against people of color exists.

Only if it happens in Portland or Seattle.

 

[HumblePie]

I’ve noticed that someone has humbly shut up.

I don't spend every day on this forum. I come here whenever I feel like laughing at idiots like you when I have nothing better to do. Right now my opinion is that it doesn't look good for the prosecution so far at all.

 

[Greenman]

I don't spend every day on this forum. I come here whenever I feel like laughing at idiots like you when I have nothing better to do. Right now my opinion is that it doesn't look good for the prosecution so far at all.

I was thinking the exact opposite. I don't see how the jury could come back with anything less than a manslaughter conviction. The M.E. testified that Floyd died from asphyxiation. Regardless of what other conditions he had, or drugs that he was taking, the cop choked him to death. That simply can't go unpunished.

 

[Fenixgoon]

I was thinking the exact opposite. I don't see how the jury could come back with anything less than a manslaughter conviction. The M.E. testified that Floyd died from asphyxiation. Regardless of what other conditions he had, or drugs that he was taking, the cop choked him to death. That simply can't go unpunished.

agreed. murder (at least some counts) need premeditation, which can be hard to prove. manslaughter does not. chauvin killed floyd. simple as that.

 

[brycejones]

I don't spend every day on this forum. I come here whenever I feel like laughing at idiots like you when I have nothing better to do. Right now my opinion is that it doesn't look good for the prosecution so far at all.

Lol this means you can’t even find a you tube video that tells you what you want to hear bigot.