ADVERTISEMENT

when Derek Chauvin inevitably walks ...

You really do take a juvenile approach to a lot of your arguments.
It's "juvenile" to respect that the Chief of Police, Chauvin's boss, thought Chauvin's actions were excessive?

It's "juvenile" to watch a cellphone video of police officers ignoring the dying pleas of a man who is handcuffed and on his stomach with officers on top of him for over nine minutes?

You question MY 'level of critical thinking' because...why? Because I respect the testimony of a senior police officer, Chauvin's boss, the police chief who fired him for inappropriate conduct??!? Really? You really want to wage war on THIS hill?

Funny thing is, you might have more of a case if the police chief was strongly BACKING Chauvin. Normally, we usually see a department rallying around 'one of their own.' It may be another "juvenile" thought, but I find the fact that so many officers are testifying against him to be telling in and of itself.
 
Last edited:
It's "juvenile" to respect that the Chief of Police, Chauvin's boss, thought Chauvin's actions were excessive?

It's "juvenile" to watch a cellphone video of police officers ignoring the dying pleas of a man who is handcuffed and on his stomach with officers on top of him for over nine minutes?

You question MY 'level of critical thinking' because...why? Because I respect the testimony of a senior police officer, Chauvin's boss, the police chief who fired him for inappropriate conduct??!? Really? You really want to wage war on THIS hill?

Funny thing is, you might have more of a case if the police chief was strongly BACKING Chauvin. Normally, we usually see a department rallying around 'one of their own.' It may be another "juvenile" thought, but I find the fact that so many officers are testifying against him is telling in and of itself.
What you don't seem to grasp is that they aren't explicitly testifying against him. Almost every one of the officers on cross examination have actually also defended his actions, including the chief.
 
1617815219765.jpg
 
What you don't seem to grasp is that they aren't explicitly testifying against him. Almost every one of the officers on cross examination have actually also defended his actions, including the chief.
What I don't seem to grasp??!? :)

I don't care what you THINK you've heard on cross-examination, the witnesses were called by the prosecution. If the Chief was "defending Chauvin's actions" as you think you heard, why the hell did he fire him from the force for crying out loud?
 
What I don't seem to grasp??!? :)

I don't care what you THINK you've heard on cross-examination, the witnesses were called by the prosecution. If the Chief was "defending Chauvin's actions" as you think you heard, why the hell did he fire him from the force for crying out loud?
everytime you do this feigning incredulity thing, you come off as a dog barking at grizzly bears from inside a house. just give it a f.uckin rest for a day
 
everytime you do this feigning incredulity thing, you come off as a dog barking at grizzly bears from inside a house. just give it a f.uckin rest for a day
ROTFLMAO. :)

This is like getting advice on how best to treat women from Harvey Weinstein.
 
What I don't seem to grasp??!? :)

I don't care what you THINK you've heard on cross-examination, the witnesses were called by the prosecution. If the Chief was "defending Chauvin's actions" as you think you heard, why the hell did he fire him from the force for crying out loud?
The fact that you haven't watched any of the cross examination makes you less than an absolute authority on what I've heard.
 
Stuff like the testimony right now is just annoying to the jury. Why is it an important line of questioning to ask about the police cruisers being towed and investigated?
 
Lol. "What is the function of a catalytic converter" is a question that the prosecution actually asked.
 
Lol. "What is the function of a catalytic converter" is a question that the prosecution actually asked.
They’re searching for something to stick. They went from knee on the neck asphyxiation to didn’t reassess and provide medical help to both knees on the back positional asphyxiation and none of it is supported by the evidence and that’s why they’re being destroyed on cross. Nelson is doing a great job against huge odds.

One thing that the jury is definitely going to take away from today is the recording of Floyd saying “I ate too many drugs.” Whether the prosecution can spin that into Chauvin not responding to that is murder, I don’t know. They certainly have enough legal horsepower on that side of the aisle to mount a strong comeback. But all of these are state’s witnesses. Wait until the defense calls it’s witnesses that will clearly and without reservation make the case that he’s innocent.
 
It also occurs to me that the last time I saw a shotgun approach such as this was Jose Baez for Casey Anthony’s defense. That worked because they were able to confuse the jury into having doubts. But for a prosecution team to do it, seems like a bold strategy Cotton.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
They’re searching for something to stick. They went from knee on the neck asphyxiation to didn’t reassess and provide medical help to both knees on the back positional asphyxiation and none of it is supported by the evidence and that’s why they’re being destroyed on cross. Nelson is doing a great job against huge odds.

One thing that the jury is definitely going to take away from today is the recording of Floyd saying “I ate too many drugs.” Whether the prosecution can spin that into Chauvin not responding to that is murder, I don’t know. They certainly have enough legal horsepower on that side of the aisle to mount a strong comeback. But all of these are state’s witnesses. Wait until the defense calls it’s witnesses that will clearly and without reservation make the case that he’s innocent.
For a second I thought that might be a "dazzle them with bullshit" tactic, but ended up being a WTF? question. Are they trying to make the case that Floyd pissed himself? And if so, how is that relevant?
 
Lol. The prosecution now claims that Floyd said "I ain't do no drugs".

How does that help them?
 
Lol. The prosecution now claims that Floyd said "I ain't do no drugs".

How does that help them?
It’s almost worse because it undermines their claim that Chauvin should’ve recognized the distress and done something, like Narcan. Also, the more they play it the more the jurors will hear the defenses version of it, drug use, and overdoses.
 
It’s almost worse because it undermines their claim that Chauvin should’ve recognized the distress and done something, like Narcan. Also, the more they play it the more the jurors will hear the defenses version of it, drug use, and overdoses.
That's exactly what I was thinking. They would have been better off just leaving that sleeping dog lay. With toxicology proving that Floyd had a ton of drugs in his system, this just proves that he was lying. Why should the police believe him when he was saying he can't breathe when they just proved that he was lying about a pretty important detail.
 
So the last witness for the prosecution testified that George Floyd's DNA was on all 8 samples of the drugs found in the car.

Why would the prosecution call this person as a witness?
 
The doctor from Loyola is doing a lot of damage to the defense. By far the most effective witness they have called so far.
 
The doctor from Loyola is doing a lot of damage to the defense. By far the most effective witness they have called so far.
I would definitely agree. He has been compelling. There are things there for cross to pick apart, though, and he doesn't address that fentanyl overdose causes death by asphyxia in the same manner. The issue for the state with this witness is that they are back to the theory that Chauvin's knee was the cause of Floyd's death. We'll see what Nelson does on cross. Regardless, there's a bunch of testimony here that a defense expert will refute later and that's why experts often cancel each other out at the end of the day.

When closing statements are made, the defense is going to ask the jury if they think that is possible that it was triple the lethal dose of fentanyl in Floyd's system that killed him. If it is possible (or even likely) that the overdose killed him then the state hasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin killed Floyd.

Now, given the threat of violence, riots, and probably personal assault that these jurors will obviously feel will occur if Chauvin is acquitted, who really knows what verdict they'll return. But don't go out yelling that justice is served because this witness is the only one so far that didn't line up with the defense's case that Floyd killed himself consuming drugs to avoid arrest.
 
And on cue, their expert says that he measured Floyd's breathing from the video and deduced that "there wasn't fentanyl on board" and that it "didn't have an effect on the respiratory centers." I guarantee that Nelson is going to cross on this and try to get this Dr. to explain how a 3x-more-than-fatal dose of fentanyl would have no effect on someone's respiration. This isn't a de-sensitization issue because it doesn't matter how often you use the drug, the fatal dose doesn't change and Floyd was well above it in any case.
 
And on cue, their expert says that he measured Floyd's breathing from the video and deduced that "there wasn't fentanyl on board" and that it "didn't have an effect on the respiratory centers." I guarantee that Nelson is going to cross on this and try to get this Dr. to explain how a 3x-more-than-fatal dose of fentanyl would have no effect on someone's respiration. This isn't a de-sensitization issue because it doesn't matter how often you use the drug, the fatal dose doesn't change and Floyd was well above it in any case.
I caught that, and the defense will probably hammer that point pretty hard in an attempt to discredit everything he said. It doesn't take an expert to tell you that having that level of drugs in your system is probably a factor, but he seemed to claim that it doesn't.
 
Here's an example of an inconsistency. Earlier in his testimony, the Dr. stated that Floyd was breathing 4:50 in when he said that he can't breathe.

"Blackwell: Jurors may have heard officer say, if you can speak you can breath. Is that true statement?

Tobin: True statement but false sense of security. When speaking, breathing, but doesn't tell you that you'll be breathing 5 seconds later.

Blackwell: What's required for speaking.

Tobin: Only when exhaling, have to blow air out, then vibrate vocal cords.
...
Blackwell: Time Floyd speaking important to your analysis?

Tobin: Yes, speaks 4 minutes 51 seconds, could not have been complete compression, total occlusion of the neck.
That exhalation of air moved the vocal cords. "


But now, he just stated this:

"Tobin: It's a second reason why you know fentanyl not causing depression of respiration. Increase in his CO2 found in ER is solely explained by what you expect to happen with somebody who has no ventilation for 9m and 50s."

I don't know how he can say that Floyd was breathing 4m 50s into the 9m 50s and then use not breathing for the entire 9m 50s in his calculations. Maybe he's got a good reason for that, or maybe I'm misreading the times, but it sure seems like an obvious inconsistency.
 
Pulling at this thread, here's more testimony:

"Blackwell: Other things significant related to rate of respiration, talked about fentanyl, anything else?

Tobin: Two, you saw it with your own eyes, respiratory rate, first is if you have someone with underlying heart disease, so severe causing shortness of breath, difficulty with breathing, virtually all of those patients will have very high respiratory rates, over 30, over 40. Instead we find respiratory rate is normal at 22. Second thing important about 22, if you have someone where primary problem is airway narrowing, somebody where airways being compressed, narrowing in neck or chest, what the physiological response to airway narrowing is a normal respiratory rate, and that is what he has. The expected physiological response."

So, Floyd should've had an elevated respiratory rate due to his underlying conditions, should've had a depressed rate due to the fentanyl in his system, but this Dr. calculated a normal rate and built his entire conclusion on normal respiration. He also totally ignored the foaming at the mouth that is a clear sign of a drug overdose when he disqualified fentanyl as a factor. The foaming is caused by pulmonary edema and the fluid in the lungs keeps the lungs from exchanging air for CO2. IOW, just this one OD symptoms causes many of the same things as the Dr. is saying occurred. Pulmonary edema was found on autopsy, and while positional asphyxiation can cause the same thing, Dr. Tobin absolutely ignores it. If the defense brings an expert, that expert will have Tobin's testimony as well as their own analysis and I'm sure that Tobin won't look quite so good at the end of all of this.
 
Here's an example of an inconsistency. Earlier in his testimony, the Dr. stated that Floyd was breathing 4:50 in when he said that he can't breathe.

"Blackwell: Jurors may have heard officer say, if you can speak you can breath. Is that true statement?

Tobin: True statement but false sense of security. When speaking, breathing, but doesn't tell you that you'll be breathing 5 seconds later.

Blackwell: What's required for speaking.

Tobin: Only when exhaling, have to blow air out, then vibrate vocal cords.
...
Blackwell: Time Floyd speaking important to your analysis?

Tobin: Yes, speaks 4 minutes 51 seconds, could not have been complete compression, total occlusion of the neck.
That exhalation of air moved the vocal cords. "


But now, he just stated this:

"Tobin: It's a second reason why you know fentanyl not causing depression of respiration. Increase in his CO2 found in ER is solely explained by what you expect to happen with somebody who has no ventilation for 9m and 50s."

I don't know how he can say that Floyd was breathing 4m 50s into the 9m 50s and then use not breathing for the entire 9m 50s in his calculations. Maybe he's got a good reason for that, or maybe I'm misreading the times, but it sure seems like an obvious inconsistency.
He also said it can take as little as 8 seconds to make someone go unconscious using the technique that Chauvin used. That peaked my curiosity a little bit. Can he point out at what time that 8 seconds occurred?
 
One more interesting thing, at the beginning of the day there was a sidebar about admitting the Dr. Michael Baden report on the state's side. Nelson objected unless they were going to actually call Dr. Baden to testify. The state said that they were, in fact, going to call Dr. Baden.

This is striking to me because the state has their own ME that performed an autopsy and put out a report. This was paid for by the state and should have been sufficient. Instead, they are going to pile onto that a report paid for by the lawyer for the victim's family. This seems highly controversial as we at least think that the state has to follow some ethical rules when gathering evidence while the family and anyone they hire does not. So we'll see what happens with the testimony. Baden will also be responsible for any statements that he made in any interviews and he made a lot of them. So it'll be interesting to see where that goes.
 
And here is one doctor's quick observation of Dr. Tobin's theory that upper airway constriction killed Floyd:

"One problem with this line of “hypopharyngeal obstruction” reasoning is that there actually is a pathognomic finding on post-mortem that supports a diagnosis of upper airway compromise as the cause of death, and that finding is absent in this case.

In cases of death from upper airway obstruction, we typically see the alveoli filled with fluid on autopsy. Mr. Floyd’s lungs had interstitial fluid (pulmonary edema) but did not have fluid present inside the alveoli.

Pulmonary edema is consistent with asphyxia, from drugs or from compression, but absent fluid in the alveoli, is not consistent with upper airway obstruction."
 
He also said it can take as little as 8 seconds to make someone go unconscious using the technique that Chauvin used. That peaked my curiosity a little bit. Can he point out at what time that 8 seconds occurred?
From the same doctor as above about when Floyd went unconscious:
“Blackwell: Point in time you determined Floyd did not have enough oxygen to maintain consciousness?

Tobin: Yes, 24:53, can tell precisely. Do this as ICU doctor, patient features to tell how conscious someone is, flick eyes, move muscles in face.”

The biggest pile of whore’s excrement so far in this trial. I watch people go unconscious multiple times per day. ICU docs, almost never. And no, you can’t just watch a video and see when it happens.
 
I dont know if this doctor is an expert on the issue, but I'm interested to find out how long it takes between the time someone becomes unconscious, the time they stop breathing, and the time their brain stops generating the pulse for the heart. This all seemed to have happened so fast that it almost seems impossible that lack of breathing is what caused his heart to stop.
 
From the same doctor as above about when Floyd went unconscious:
“Blackwell: Point in time you determined Floyd did not have enough oxygen to maintain consciousness?

Tobin: Yes, 24:53, can tell precisely. Do this as ICU doctor, patient features to tell how conscious someone is, flick eyes, move muscles in face.”

The biggest pile of whore’s excrement so far in this trial. I watch people go unconscious multiple times per day. ICU docs, almost never. And no, you can’t just watch a video and see when it happens.
He said he's seen it millions of times, lol.
 
Since Blackwell tried to get Dr. Tobin to disqualify studies with a stawman of a study that used gym weights, I thought I'd post one study and the conditions they applied: https://www.forcescience.org/2019/01/new-study-more-evidence-against-the-myth-of-restraint-asphyxia/

"Six academy recruits and 35 active-duty male and female officers in Minnesota were the volunteers for Kroll’s testing. Their weight ranged from under 150 lbs. to over 260 lbs., with most weighing between 175 and 200 lbs.

One at a time they applied four standard restraint-and-stabilization handcuffing techniques involving knee placement to the back of a training mannequin that was lying prone on a sophisticated electronic scale.

They were “instructed to do their best to hold each position with consistent normal downward pressure for 30 seconds,” Kroll explains. The scale was programmed to record multiple readings during this period and to average “the actual weight force transferred” to the “arrestee” through each knee contact.

One technique required an officer to face the subject’s side and apply both knees to the subject’s back. The other three maneuvers were single-knee restraints, with the officer variously positioned at the side or up by the suspect’s head and one knee applied to the back at different angles, avoiding direct contact with the neck or spine. The unengaged knee was kept on the floor or butted against the suspect’s side or shoulder for support and principal weight bearing.

KEY RESULTS

In prior scientific studies, weights of up to 225 lbs. have been placed on a prone subject’s back without causing any clinically significant respiratory impairment, Kroll points out. For fatal consequences to be likely “would take two or more LEOs, weighing 287 lbs., each standing on the back of a prone subject,” he writes.

The measurements from his study were nowhere near those levels.
 
Since Blackwell tried to get Dr. Tobin to disqualify studies with a stawman of a study that used gym weights, I thought I'd post one study and the conditions they applied: https://www.forcescience.org/2019/01/new-study-more-evidence-against-the-myth-of-restraint-asphyxia/

"Six academy recruits and 35 active-duty male and female officers in Minnesota were the volunteers for Kroll’s testing. Their weight ranged from under 150 lbs. to over 260 lbs., with most weighing between 175 and 200 lbs.

One at a time they applied four standard restraint-and-stabilization handcuffing techniques involving knee placement to the back of a training mannequin that was lying prone on a sophisticated electronic scale.

They were “instructed to do their best to hold each position with consistent normal downward pressure for 30 seconds,” Kroll explains. The scale was programmed to record multiple readings during this period and to average “the actual weight force transferred” to the “arrestee” through each knee contact.

One technique required an officer to face the subject’s side and apply both knees to the subject’s back. The other three maneuvers were single-knee restraints, with the officer variously positioned at the side or up by the suspect’s head and one knee applied to the back at different angles, avoiding direct contact with the neck or spine. The unengaged knee was kept on the floor or butted against the suspect’s side or shoulder for support and principal weight bearing.

KEY RESULTS

In prior scientific studies, weights of up to 225 lbs. have been placed on a prone subject’s back without causing any clinically significant respiratory impairment, Kroll points out. For fatal consequences to be likely “would take two or more LEOs, weighing 287 lbs., each standing on the back of a prone subject,” he writes.

The measurements from his study were nowhere near those levels.
You're in here drafting up enough words for a novel. Seems like you have a rooting interest here?
 
Lol, the state is objecting to the use of one of their own expert witnesses testimony.
 
Felt like this was Nelson's least effective cross, insofar as he was not able to turn the witness from trying to present the state's case to actually presenting the defense's case. This witness maintained his conviction to his report. He did state a couple of things favorable to the defense, such as saying that it's reasonable for physicians to not recognize respiratory distress and also that its reasonable the officers could mistake anoxic seizures as resistance. I thought that Nelson could've picked apart the assumptions made for the calculations as they seemed cherry-picked to result in the desired answer. That never really came out and so Tobin's testimony will stand unchallenged until the defense expert presents the counter argument. Maybe that's where they'll refute.
 
How do we reconcile the expert saying that Floyd's breathing was totally normal with Floyd saying that he can't breathe?
 
Does it seem right that the prosecution can update evidence in the middle of the trial and not inform the defense of what the updates are specifically? That seems like foul play.
 
2 witnesses in a row now have testified that George floyd didn't have any trouble breathing until 5 minutes into him being pinned.

So I guess he had to have been lying when he said "I can't breathe" all of those times beforehand.
 
All biases aside, what started out as a really good day for the prosecution kind of ended up being a wash. They did a really good job of crafting their questions so that the defense would be limited in the cross examination, but to his credit Nelson really did thread the needle on it.

To the direct point, since Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe before, during, and after his time in the cruiser, is it reasonable to think that the officers should have been able to recognize when he was lying and when he was being honest? If he was being honest from the start, doesn't that indicate that the drugs were a pretty big factor in his death?
 
All biases aside, what started out as a really good day for the prosecution kind of ended up being a wash.
Oh, it ending up being 'a wash?' Good to know.

Guess it's a damn good thing I checked out this thread then for an 'unbiased' take. Tonight on the evening news the MSM was reporting this was a devastating day for the Chauvin defense as a result of the testimony of an expert witness who was crystal clear that Chauvin's actions prevented Floyd from being able to breathe. They also said the defense wasn't able to get him to move him off that expert opinion.

I'm tickled I've got our Chauvin Channel reporters to give me a 'reality check.' :)
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT