patrick.net

richwicks says

The media lied about him not resisting arrest, they lied about the drugs that were in his system, they never reported that a year before he did the same stunt (ingesting all the drugs he had on him to prevent a possession charge) a year befo

I am not the media. I am not defending or arguing in support of any media report you heard. I did not say Floyd didnt resist arrest... I know he did, I watched the video. The whole video... bodycams and bystander cams. He was being very difficult and was definitely resisting arrest.

I dont care what happened the previous year, or what drugs the guy took... I dont care if he falsly said he had claustrophobia... all of those background stories dont change the facts of the event itself. None of this changes the fact that the officer kept a knee on the neck of a man for 9 minutes, even continuing after he knew the person wasnt moving and wasnt breathing.

Floyd wasnt a threat, he was face down and unconscious. The knee on neck was a risky/life threatening restraint, which was not appropriate for the situation according to his chief. The officer knew the person was unconscious, but persisted in keeping the knee on the neck. I can definitely make an allowance for a police officer who was just in a difficult struggle to take some time to calm down and realize the resistance/threat is removed and take a moment to adjust his level of force... but the officer kept the restraint on for way way longer than is reasonable even giving generous allowance for 'cooling down'.

DeficitHawk says

I dont care what happened the previous year, or what drugs the guy took... I dont care if he falsly said he had claustrophobia... all of those background stories dont change the facts of the event itself.

It gives you an idea of what is most likely to have killed him.

Same thing happened to him a year before, but he survived his OD that time and this time, he didn't.

You're ignoring data. It's not PROOF that he died of a drug overdose, it's just circumstantial evidence he did and you insist it's not worthy of even considering.

DeficitHawk says

I am not the media. I am not defending or arguing in support of any media report you heard. I did not say Floyd didnt resist arrest...

I have a good advantage over you. I haven't seen "mainstream media" except in snippets in 2 decades. I completely gave up on it when the "mistook" our way into the Iraq War. It took me to about 2005 or so to realize it's not making "errors", it's just lying. You know how I hear the "mainstream media" today? People mindlessly repeat it. Word for word sometimes, but always the same idea.

DeficitHawk says

He hadnt been resisting arrest for a long time, he was face down and unconscious. He wasnt a threat, he was face down and unconscious. The knee on neck was a risky/life threatening restraint,

Again, blame the police department for that. Chauvin was just following his training.

How do YOU know it was a "risky/life threatening restraint"?

When I first heard about the death of Floyd, I remember thinking "well, he was handcuffed! Why restrain him? What was he going to do? Run away?"

Yes, he would have. The police should have released the video ASAP, not weeks later. The corner was correct as well. Floyd has OD many times before, he just got unlucky on this one.

DeficitHawk says

1) George Floyd case
2) Kyle Rittenhouse case
3) Ahmaud Arbery case

I think the juries got all three exactly right. Gives me some confidence in the justice system.

Of the three court cases I mentioned, Im only catching flack for the first one. Does everyone agree on the other two?

DeficitHawk says

Of the three court cases I mentioned, Im only catching flack for the first one. Does everyone agree on the other two?

Floyd they got wrong, but we're already talking about that.

Kyle Rittenhouse I think was correct, in fact, there shouldn't even have been a trial.

I don't know enough about the Ahmaud Arbery case. There was a lot of misinformation with regard to that case, to the point I just got sick of trying to figure out what was true.

DeficitHawk says

DeficitHawk says

1) George Floyd case
2) Kyle Rittenhouse case
3) Ahmaud Arbery case

I think the juries got all three exactly right. Gives me some confidence in the justice system.

Of the three court cases I mentioned, Im only catching flack for the first one. Does everyone agree on the other two?

1) drug addled thug who died of his drug addiction, got what he deserved after pointing a gun onto a pregnant woman's belly during a home invasion and many more crimes.
2) self defense
3) thug who messed with the wrong people. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

DeficitHawk says

some guy had a knee on his neck for 9 minutes.

Would that have killed him without all the drugs in his system?
DeficitHawk says

I am not defending or arguing in support of any media

Actually, you are.

Chauvin was a victim of politics. Floyd was a thug. Chauvin did not intend to kill Floyd.
https://spectator.org/chauvin-floyd-evidence/

If justice were the goal, prosecutors would have taken two critical steps to assure that the medical testimony supported the charge of murder. The first was to run a controlled experiment to see if Chauvin’s actions could possibly have resulted in the death of George Floyd. The second was to make the court and the defense aware of the potential compromise of its star medical witness, Hennepin County Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker.

Dr. John Dunn did run such an experiment, and he made a video of the same. Dr. Dunn comes well credentialed. He is a former member and chair of the medico-legal committee for the American College of Emergency Physicians, board certified in legal medicine, and co-author with a pathologist of a chapter on forensics for a text published by the American College of Legal Medicine. He has followed the case from the beginning, studied the videos, and reviewed Floyd’s autopsy report.

Not content to speculate, Dr. Dunn enlisted the help of two men to determine whether or not the prone restraint used by Chauvin on Floyd could have asphyxiated and killed him. He recruited a 230-pound man to play the role of Floyd and a 170-pound man to play Chauvin’s role. At the time of the incident, Floyd weighed 223 pounds, and Chauvin, with his gear, weighed about 170.

The Chauvin proxy applied the handcuffs and placed the “suspect” in the prone restraint position. For a 10-minute period, he put his left knee on the man’s neck and shoulder, matching the pressure Chauvin put on Floyd. Throughout the experiment, Dunn used a pulse oximeter to monitor the oxygen level and pulse of the man being held in this prone restraint.

As Dunn attests and the video shows, “The results were that there was no impact on the oxygen level or the pulse of the restrained man for the full 10 minutes, and no ill effects at the time or two days later when he was interviewed.” Arguably, Dunn’s experiment has more evidentiary value than any contrary proof offered by the State.

Dunn believes that Floyd died from cardiac arrhythmia — a lethal heart rhythm. He observes that Floyd was suffering from severe cardiac disease aggravated by the drugs in his system including methamphetamine and fentanyl. “Exertion and excitement from intoxication and the arrest situation along with the amphetamine stimulant drug effects increase the arrhythmia risk,” says Dunn.

As the State’s charging documents make clear, even the officers on the scene were aware that Floyd may have been suffering from the severe effects of intoxicants. While restraining Floyd, rookie officer Thomas Lane said to Chauvin, “I am worried about excited delirium or whatever.” Chauvin responded, “That’s why we have him on his stomach.” Chauvin was acting in the interest of Floyd’s safety in his positioning, not acting to kill him.

DeficitHawk says

1) George Floyd case
2) Kyle Rittenhouse case
3) Ahmaud Arbery case

I think the juries got all three exactly right. Gives me some confidence in the justice system.

I don't think the jury ever needed to see these three cases. They were all politically motivated prosecutions meant to perpetuate the myth that innocent blacks are being killed for no reason.

Onvacation says

I don't think the jury ever needed to see these three cases. They were all politically motivated prosecutions

I dont agree. I think its important to have laws and enforce them.

Rittenhouse didnt commit a crime, but he did kill people, and it is not uncommon to have a trial in self defense cases that kill people. The facts supported the self defense claim and the jury agreed. Though, I do understand the opinion of some who thought this should not have gone to trial... the particular video evidence of Rittenhouse running away from the first person he would shoot was pretty strong evidence that self defense would be justified... and if I had been the prosecutor I would not have brought the case after seeing that.

The other two cases I think definitely needed to go to trial, and I think the juries got all three right.

DeficitHawk says

Absolutely it does. Cardiopulmonary arrest means his heart and lungs stopped functioning. No dispute that his heart and lungs stopped functioning. But the question is Why? Was it caused by a drug overdose? or was it caused by neck compression?

The medical examiner was explicit on the death certificate and in testimony. Neck compression was the primary cause. Drugs was a contributing factor.

So the phrase that a cop cannot be judge, jury and executioner is valid right? I agree with it. Therefore how can one person determine cause of death 100% factually as in the medical examiner? Sure he can be trained. So was Chauvin. Who had better training? Chauvin made a mistake. Maybe the medical examiner made a mistake? Maybe the ME had someone in his ear hoping to make this go away? Maybe he feared for his own life if he gave his honest and educated opinion.

We have ZERO clue if any of what I just said happened. So it's not just fact because a single medical examiner says so. Our judicial system puts so many innocent people behind bars which is something I think you'd agree with. A jury is unlikely to have any medical experts in it. So that doesn't even matter. They're just going to believe what ONE medical examiner testified. The video was damning obviously, BUT both Chauvin and the medical examiner were EXPERTS in their respective field. You cannot discount that the ME was wrong. And don't bring up the past. Did the ME's past get looked into and factored in?

Fact is his lungs and heart stopped working. No way an ME could determine it wasn't the Fentanyl. If he was actually choking him out in the state he was already in, he'd have been dead or out in a minute. People die not moving sitting on a couch from Fentanyl. He was resisting arrest. His BP and heart rate had to be through the roof leading up to the knee. It's a high probability if they let him go he'd collapse dead 10 minutes later.

No single person can prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. It was an unfortunate case. Dealing with the criminal element on a daily basis is not a glorious job. Fact is, Floyd should not have been taking illegal substances. I have myself. Never been arrested. There are ways to have fun with stuff, but he was on a highly dangerous drug and freaked out. Your heart explodes and you stop breathing. He was likely having a heart attacked before the knee if you've witnessed one.

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/the-act-of-submitting-engenders-submission

when you are faced with dire danger and act the coward, you need an excuse for your actions. you never want to admit your fear and your tepid inaction. so you decide "it must not really be dangerous. those people saying it is are crazy." the phrase “conspiracy theorist” often pops up. you tell yourself “it’s not really that oppressive or we would not all be putting up with it.”

and that way you can still see yourself as a good person.

if you accepted the magnitude of the threat, you'd have to do something about it or feel like a craven and a failure for doing nothing. and very few are willing to do that, especially if the cost of standing up is high.

but this means that the very act of compliance makes you more compliant. wearing a mask makes you more likely to do other things you’re told and (perversely) the more you disbelieve that a mask works, the more potent this effect becomes on you. if you believed it protected you, you’d already have a reason. if you don’t, the reason must be “because you have to do what you are told.” ...

the flipside of this is REALLY potent as well because the more you stand up and act, be brave, do something about it, the more you can and will see what’s coming.

your brain wants justification. so it looks and finds. what your brain was not allowing you to see comes into focus because your actions now align with that reality. the more you speak and act in opposition to tyranny, the more you will be able to see the tyranny that is being imposed. ...

if one seeks to control the prevailing mores of a society, what actions are allowed and which banned becomes a critical and dispositive matter:

burn a car dealership and a police station to the ground and it smiles indulgently. maybe you get probation. probably not. those ideals are OK.

loiter peacefully in a buffalo hat in the capitol rotunda, and they drop the world on your head. terrorist. treason. confess and repent and maybe, just maybe, we’ll let you out of prison in 5 years. these ideals are anathema.

WookieMan says

Therefore how can one person determine cause of death 100% factually as in the medical examiner? Sure he can be trained. So was Chauvin. Who had better training? Chauvin made a mistake. Maybe the medical examiner made a mistake?

Oh of course a person can make a mistake. Its totally valid to question the ME report. Its totally valid to get 2nd opinion. Its totally valid to have different doctors debate the observations and conclusions. No one is saying this whole case rested on the text in the death certificate. Certainly I am not.

The reason I am being somewhat pedantic about the death certificate and official cause of death is simple: I am frustrated with people on this forum being loose and inaccurate with facts. I feel like someone makes a false/misleading/inaccurate statement and then I go chase down the actual truth and everyone is fighting me when I bring the facts. Its hard to have honest debate when people wont even acknowledge documented facts. The question asked was "Wasnt the offical cause of death fentanyl overdose?". The cause of death, literally on the death certificate is neck compression during police restraint leading to a complication of heart and lung stoppage. NOT drug overdose. Just getting to agreement on simple fact has taken ~50 comments and counting... STILL no one will acknowledge it. But it is true.

Can the ME have made a mistake? Sure people make mistakes all the time, and normally a case will hinge on more than the opinion of one person who didnt witness the crime.
It should, in order to achieve a standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. And in this case, the main evidence was video evidence of the crime itself, and testimony that the conduct of the officer was inappropriate by his own police chief.

WookieMan says

Maybe the ME had someone in his ear hoping to make this go away? Maybe he feared for his own life if he gave his honest and educated opinion

Could be, but there is no evidence of this, and he testified in court that this didnt happen.

DeficitHawk says

The medical examiner was explicit on the death certificate and in testimony.

@DeficitHawk

Can you show us the death certificate?

Here is George Floyd's autopsy results:

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/ExhibitMtD08282020.pdf

An important part of that is:



Now I read that as:

Autopsy performed May 26 in am. Showed slides/photos
from autopsy. Abrasions or force consistent w(ith) being
on face & on left side. No (illegible) in eyelids. No
bruising in neck or any muscles or injuries to structures
Bruise (R) shoulder, abrasion (C) shoulder. Wrists show
typical marks from handcuffs. Sternum is fractured(?) ...

I told you, our media lies. Track down the original documents and you often discover you've been ruthlessly and repetitively lied to.

richwicks says

Can you show us the death certificate?

I literally posted this in a previous comment. It is literally what the last 50 comments have been discussing. Here it is again.

DeficitHawk says

richwicks says

Can you show us the death certificate?

I literally posted this in a previous comment. It is literally what the last 50 comments have been discussing. Here it is again.

Include link.

Want me to quickly falsify a document? I'm on a computer than can do nuclear bomb simulation, and here's something funny, SO ARE YOU.

It completely contradicts the autopsy report as well. I don't care about a picture, I want to see a source that has something that can possibly be real. We are constantly fed false information, I don't know why people see a fucking PICTURE and run with it thinking "well this must be true!".

No link, no credibility. Simple as that.

richwicks says

No link, no credibility. Simple as that.

If I provide a link, and it confirms that the cause of death as shown in the image below, will you dedicate a full comment to acknowledging that the official cause of death was NOT drug overdose?

DeficitHawk says

richwicks says

No link, no credibility. Simple as that.

If I provide a link, and

Fuck you. If you don't provide a link, I'll simply think you didn't do your due diligence and are repeating something that conforms to your programmed beliefs given to you by a propaganda outlet.

We created HTML links 30 YEARS ago. If you can't fucking use them after 3 decades, FUCK YOU.

Here, you want to see something I regularly consume as information?


original link

And in the description, he includes this:

https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/us-foreign-policy-covid-19-great-reset-all-unseen-tabs

That contains all his sources - you'd see them listed in chronological order 1/4 way down the page.

I'm fucking tired of people making claims, and then insisting I believe them, or passing on "what they heard" and insisting I'm crazy not to believe the same thing. I have the Mueller report downloaded. It's in two parts. Do you have ANY idea how many times people claimed that "but the Mueller Report said X"? My response is "Really? What page?" - They have no idea. Our media lies CONSTANTLY, what is called "fact checkers" are propagandists. Don't you realize this by NOW?

I'm fucking tired of people repeating RUMOR endlessly.

I'm tired of this. If you can't put up, just shut up. "Your" ideas aren't your OWN, they are somebody else's. Could be a FBI spook propagandist, they've been inciting racial hatred for 5 decades at least.

OK richwicks. If you demand links, data and information, but wont acknowledge the facts even if they are provided... then you are not worth my time.

You are my first 'ignore'.

DeficitHawk says

OK richwicks. If you demand links, data and information, but wont acknowledge the facts

Dude, if you can't produce links, I have no reason to even possibly assess if they are "facts".

If, for example, you link back to MSNBC or something, I will IGNORE that. They lie openly and blatantly. Do you have any idea to what extent they lie?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LQMvABRTLQ

Is ANY of that right? It's not "misinformation". Rachael Maddow is the HIGHEST paid "news" broadcaster in the United States.

DeficitHawk says

You are my first 'ignore'.

Oh great, then you don't have to listen to my responses as I point out your logic and reasoning errors but other people can read them. That way, I don't have to deal with your stubbornness in ignoring reality and I can just tear you apart behind your back, because you prefer that. You won't be bothering me with false information I have to refute, I won't have to bother with dealing with logical fallacies or obfuscation of yours.

In this day and age, ignorance and stupidity is a CHOICE. You're no longer relegated to it.

Although I have ignored richwicks because I dont think he is able to acknowledge facts even if there is a link, still, here is the link:

https://apnews.com/article/death-of-george-floyd-racial-injustice-faddce75c2e073a88653dacb0ce3d860

DeficitHawk says

Although I have ignored richwicks because I dont think he is able to acknowledge facts even if there is a link, still, here is the link:

https://apnews.com/article/death-of-george-floyd-racial-injustice-faddce75c2e073a88653dacb0ce3d860

HAHA - APNews! Not a court document, NOT a government document, AP "news"!

AP stands for American Propaganda. It's been worthless since at least 2001. Find that weapons of mass destruction in Iraq yet?

cisTits says

AP also pitched the bullshit RUSSIA BOMBED POLAND propaganda atory.

They pitched the idea that Assad was gassing his own people, that Qaddafi was "about to cause a humanitarian crisis" and that Saddam Hussein had a secret weapons of mass destruction program.

It's all just BS.

I used to scour through news articles until I realized, it's all bullshit and propaganda. Operation Mockingbird was completed sometime in the late 1990's. It was Clinton that ended the prohibition of news agencies from being owned centrally, and it was the FCC that enabled that, headed by Michael Powell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Powell(lobbyist)

Powell was appointed to the FCC by President Bill Clinton on November 3, 1997, and was chosen by President George W. Bush to serve as chair of the commission on January 22, 2001. Powell is the son of former Secretary of State Colin Powell and his wife Alma Powell.

AP has been garbage for a very long time. It, and Reuters, are the two main sources of American propaganda I think today.

Patrick says

Blue says

Thanks Patrick for great analogy.

Actually I kind of regret taking it to the logical extreme now.

It's more like this: "No one is required to follow any law. They are required only if they don't want to be punished for breaking the law."

Actually, we should take the demand for injection of unknown substances to its logical extreme:

DeficitHawk says

Although I have ignored richwicks because I dont think he is able to acknowledge facts even if there is a link, still, here is the link:

https://apnews.com/article/death-of-george-floyd-racial-injustice-faddce75c2e073a88653dacb0ce3d860

ap isn't news, it's a propaganda outlet similar to goebbels or pravda

mell says

DeficitHawk says

Although I have ignored richwicks because I dont think he is able to acknowledge facts even if there is a link, still, here is the link:

https://apnews.com/article/death-of-george-floyd-racial-injustice-faddce75c2e073a88653dacb0ce3d860

ap isn't news, it's a propaganda outlet similar to goebbels or pravda

@DeficitHawk - I went to the court records. I know what kind of "news" agencies we have, and have had, for 2 decades, maybe my entire lifetime. Do your fucking research. I've seen the FIB lie multiple times. They tried to with-hold evidence in the Rittenhouse trial. Fuck them. Your civic duty is to be informed, not to repeat bullshit from our propaganda. Find out if it's true. MAYBE it is, but AP isn't even worth thinking about, neither is Fox News, NewsMax, CNN, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, Breitbart, NY Times, or any of that bullshit.

All corporate "news" in the US is bullshit at this point. We have links galore, where did AP get their "information"? Pulled out of an asshole most likely, but why don't they PROVE they are telling the truth? A link is simple to make.

cisTits says

AP also pitched the bullshit RUSSIA BOMBED POLAND propaganda atory.

mell says

ap isn't news, it's a propaganda outlet similar to goebbels or pravda

OK, it seems that we are still debating facts and information sources rather than policy. So I guess that's where we need to focus, and drill this down to basic truth until we can agree. It isn't going to be possible to debate on policy until we can agree on how to introduce and acknowledge facts. This one is so basic and verifiable... the words on a death certificate.

I have posted images of the death certificate and linked where I got them. I have also linked testimony of the ME confirming what was written on the death certificate. mell and cis response is that they dont trust AP, implying that AP has falsified the information.

mell and cis, please answer directly: Do you believe that the cause of death is as I typed below? OR do you believe that AP and other news agencies falsified these images, and coordinated to falsify their reporting on the ME's court testimony? If it is the latter, can you please say what YOU think the death certificate says, and how you reached that conclusion?

DeficitHawk says

Lets just type out the Medical examiners determinations in full glory so we dont argue which words are more important.
Cause of death; Immediate: Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression
Other contributing conditions: Arteriosclerotic and hyptertensive heart disease; fentanyl intoxication; recent methamphetamine use
Manner: Homicide

DeficitHawk says

cisTits says

AP also pitched the bullshit RUSSIA BOMBED POLAND propaganda atory.

mell says

ap isn't news, it's a propaganda outlet similar to goebbels or pravda

OK, it seems that we are still debating facts and information sources rather than policy. So I guess that's where we need to focus, and drill this down to basic truth until we can agree. It isn't going to be possible to debate on policy until we can agree on how to introduce and acknowledge facts. This one is so basic and verifiable... the words on a death certificate.

I have posted images of the death certificate and linked where I got them. I have also linked testimony of the ME confirming what was written on the death certificate. mell and cis response is that they dont trust AP, implying that AP has fals...

Your ap link states he didn't die of the neck restraint, so they lie blatantly in the headline. It vaguely says the neck restraint "complicated" things, but the cardiac arrest clearly wasn't primarily caused by it. Of course none of this standard procedure had anything to do with race. Ap = goebbels.

There is a difference between stupid and willfully ignorant. Not a big difference, but still.

mell says

Your ap link states he didn't die of the neck restraint, so they lie blatantly in the headline.

OK, you didnt answer my question about the death certificate. Please answer my question above about the death certificate.

BUT you did raise an interesting point about the text in the AP article, and I agree with you, they got that text wrong, by misinterpreting the word 'complicating' and interpreting it as 'complicated by'. Actually 'complicating' is the reverse of 'complicated by'... as in "X complicated by Y" is the same thing as "Y complicating X".

Nevertheless, that wasnt the question I asked about. I asked if you agreed with what i said the death certificate said.

DeficitHawk says

OK, you didnt answer my question about the death certificate. Please answer my question above about the death certificate.

They found the right doctor to write what they wanted on a piece of paper. That does not mean that Floyd didn't die from being a drug addled thug.

Kind of like when they had to get Epstein's lawyer to sign off on the search warrant at Mara Lago.

Paper just lies there and lets you put anything on it.

@DeficitHawk

Do you think it was right for the FBI to raid Mara Lago?

DeficitHawk says

mell says

Your ap link states he didn't die of the neck restraint, so they lie blatantly in the headline.

OK, you didnt answer my question about the death certificate. Please answer my question above about the death certificate.

BUT you did raise an interesting point about the text in the AP article, and I agree with you, they got that text wrong, by misinterpreting the word 'complicating' and interpreting it as 'complicated by'. Actually 'complicating' is the reverse of 'complicated by'... as in "X complicated by Y" is the same thing as "Y complicating X".

Nevertheless, that wasnt the question I asked about. I asked if you agreed with what i said the death certificate said.

Sure but homicide has to be at least reckless/involuntary manslaughter, i.e. the death, even if involuntary, was 100% caused by the persons action. In this case it's clear the neck restraint played a minor role if at all, so what the MD wrote is reckless, destroying a person's life for political pressure/reasons.

BTW, I also noticed that error in the AP article yesterday, and I went and looked up the meaning of the words so I could understand.

I found this reference for filling out death certificates and how to use the words "complicating" and "complicated by" etc.
https://www.health.state.mn.us/people/vitalrecords/physician-me/docs/capcodbook.pdf

See page 195.

The condition that sets off the chain of events 'x', can lead to complications 'y'... such as having a heart attack while swimming... "heart attack (x) complicated by drowning (y)"... means the same thing as "drowning (y) complicating heart attack (x)". The death certificate says cardiopulmonary arrest (y) complicating police restraint (x).

Police restraint is the condition that began the sequence leading to the complication of cardiopulmonary arrest. Not the other way around.

mell says

Sure but homicide has to be at least reckless/involuntary manslaughter, i.e. the death, even if involuntary, was 100% caused by the persons action. In this case it's clear the neck restraint played a minor role if at all, so what the MD wrote is reckless, destroying a person's life for political pressure/reasons.

OK so I take this statement to be an acknowledgement that the death certificate the AP posted was NOT falsified, and you agree that it says what the image shows?

Then why did you respond by critisizing the AP and not acknowledging the fact? As for your comments that you dont agree with what the ME wrote.. OK thats fine, thats valid debate, you can have that opinion. But please dont reject facts as propaganda when you actually acknowledge they are true.

DeficitHawk says

Police restraint is the condition that

happens when thugs resist arrest.

DeficitHawk says

please dont reject facts as propaganda when you actually acknowledge they are true.

Don't accept propaganda as fact just because you think it is true.

It's good that you are digging down into the "facts". Many who claim to be Democrats or progressives eventually leave this site because the cognitive dissonance is too great.

It's the little things you discover, like three towers fell on 9/11/2001, or "the vax is safe and effective and will stop you from getting and spreading covid", that make you question the narrative. Unfortunately the dive down the rabbit hole ends up on flat earth, by design. That does not make the FACTS like steel towers don't collapse from fire and the vax is unsafe and ineffective any less true.

But keep arguing and keep digging. You might learn something.

DeficitHawk says

OK so I take this statement to be an acknowledgement that the death certificate the AP posted was NOT falsified, and you agree that it says what the image shows?

Then why did you respond by critisizing the AP and not acknowledging the fact? As for your comments that you dont agree with what the ME wrote.. OK thats fine, thats valid debate, you can have that opinion. But please dont reject facts as propaganda when you actually acknowledge they are true.

yeah seems authentic. I didn't read the whole thread you had going on with someone else. Most of the that ap article is propaganda. But thats' besides the case. If a violent thug threatened you/your family by roaming around nearby infused with drugs and committing crimes you'd be all for standard police procedure to put him into custody. That's all Chauvin did. The neck restraint practice may or may not have needed reform, but that is not relevant to that specific case after the fact.

richwicks says

DeficitHawk says

The medical examiner was explicit on the death certificate and in testimony.

DeficitHawk

Can you show us the death certificate?

Here is George Floyd's autopsy results:

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/ExhibitMtD08282020.pdf

An important part of that is:




Now I read that as:

Autopsy pe...

I read the PDF report. It doesn't take too long. The fact that DH couldn't be bothered to do so, and was more concerned with digging up "counter-evidence," demonstrates to me that he is not acting in good faith. richwicks is justified in his frustration with DH. Richwicks did a great job of putting up a real document which spoke to the moment, before it became political theater. It's clear from the documents how the incident was slowly twisted into an unjustified murder charge.

Bravo @richwicks!

stereotomy says

The fact that DH couldn't be bothered to do so, and was more concerned with digging up "counter-evidence,"

Oh I read this document. But it does not contain the death certificate, official cause of death, or an opinion from the medical examiner on the cause of death. These are notes taken before the medical examiner had reached a conclusion, so he had not given an opinion yet.

The question I am trying to address is "What is the official cause of death?" in response to patricks question above. I am not trying to be pedantic, but I am trying to address a specific matter of fact so that we can agree on facts.

The only opinions on cause of death in that document are from 2nd opinion doctors (not the medical examiner), and both of them said it was neck compression, but they are not the medical examiner and they dont determine the official cause of death. So even though I read that document, I did not see how it addresses the question I am trying to answer.

I think you are conflating a hypothesis that you have with facts. I think you have a hypothesis that the medical examiner would have concluded that it was a drug overdose, but that someone intervened and pressured him to say it was neck compression. Its fine for you to have that hypothesis... and if you bring factual evidence for it, you may convince people. Maybe your hypothesis is that the 2nd opinion doctors swayed the opinion of the ME. Maybe its true. I dont know, I havent seen any facts or evidence to establish this, other than that the ME said under oath that no one pressured him. But maybe your hypothesis is that statement under oath was a lie due to still more pressure? I dont know. Your speculation is just that... speculation.

But your hypothesis is NOT a statement of fact. The fact remains, the official cause of death was "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual restraint and neck compression"

IF you havent noticed, I am pretty much a stickler for separating facts from speculation during debate. When I bring facts, and people deny facts, call the facts 'Goebbles propaganda', and substitute speculation, I am unimpressed.