Your reading comprehension is bad. Read the sentence in front of that statement first. I started it with the preface of
That means my statements were in relation to what the coroner stated. Those are HIS words and my paraphrase of them along with explanation to what he was saying in an laymans terms. You don't like it? Take it up with him.
I read everything you wrote. You mistook what you think was his definition of homicide for the legal one. You took it as an authoritative definition, and furthermore, you misunderstood it. He never said anything about homicide
not requiring causation. If you claim he said that, QUOTE HIM. He didn't. You went way beyond what he said and were embellishing. If homicide means anything, it means a human was a causal factor in someone's death. If it doesn't mean that, it means nothing.
He didn't state it exactly that way. He said if there are human involvement when there is a death of any sort then he lists it as homicide.
Human involvement can only mean causation. It literally cannot mean anything else.
That was also in the direct questioning by the prosecution from Jerry Blackwell. He, Jerry, even allowed the broader definition when he asked what "complications" meant on the cert. Both the prosecution and the coroner both stated a very broad definition and allowed it for why homicide was listed on the cert. This is part of where the prosecution screwed up in their case. I feel you are projecting here and I am merely reporting what happened and you don't seem to like it. Sorry it makes you feel bad or something when things aren't what you thought they were.
This has nothing to do with what I like. I think you are engaging in wishful thinking about the meaning of that testimony and the juries' reaction to it. Homicide and its elements will be defined for the jury by instruction. The ME's testimony is factual and pertains to medical causation of death, not a legal conclusion.
Snipped out the middle of the rest of the post because it is also irrelevant. You are correct in that the coroners definition may be irrelevant. It is up to the jury to decide. They may see it as relevant or not. I know if I was on the jury it would have an impact though for me.
For someone acknowledging that it may be irrelevant what the ME's definition of homicide is, you spent a lot of time apparently explaining the point. When instead what is relevant is the factual component, and specifically in regards to medical causation of death.
One would hope you would then listen to the jury instructions and correctly apply them to those facts. The ME testified that other factors primed Floyd to die that day, but he
wouldn't have died without the stress they put him under. That is causation, and not much more is required under the applicable legal standard.
And here is what I believe will be key for the jury: they didn't put him under stress by yelling "boo." They applied pressure to his body in multiple places for over 9 minutes when he clearly posed no threat at all. That is what I think the jury will find persuasive at the end of the day.
As to whether this is M2, M3, or manslaughter, I think the critical point for the prosecution is going to be that the officers failed to check his pulse. Chauvin, who was in charge, did not instruct the men to check his pulse, and did not perform CPR. He just kept going in spite of multiple pleas from onlookers. This goes directly to his state of mind. I think it's quite persuasive that this shows reckless disregard.
Then again, juries can be unpredictable, so we'll see.
Facebook
Twitter