US Anti-Police Protests and Riots Thread III

[Ifreann]

It might have been. Or the vandals might have had some other issue with the witness. Or with the current residents. Or with someone else entirely. And even if this was an attempt to intimidate a witness, it was completely incompetent, so there is no reason to believe that the jury would feel so intimidated by people vandalising one wrong house that they changed their verdicts. Especially since they never mentioned anything to the judge.

It was almost certainly directed at the former owner; the witness, and it was almost certainly related to the trial.

And, again, people who feel threatened often don't report issues to superiors or people of authority.

Ah, so the fact that the jury didn't say anything about feeling intimidated proves that they were intimidated.

---

Yeah the protests and riots from last year would have looked like nothing.

Nothing whatsoever justifies riots as violent as last years.

Perhaps people should learn to control themselves and not resort to violence every time something upsets them.

If people had been violent sooner then George Floyd might still be alive.

[San Lumen]

Yeah the protests and riots from last year would have looked like nothing.

Nothing whatsoever justifies riots as violent as last years.

Perhaps people should learn to control themselves and not resort to violence every time something upsets them.

I’m not condoning violence. Would you have made the argument to the jury acquit to spite people if you were his lawyer or on the jury?

Why should the actions of a few determine whether or not someone gets convicted?

[Austreylia]

Nothing whatsoever justifies riots as violent as last years.

Perhaps people should learn to control themselves and not resort to violence every time something upsets them.

I’m not condoning violence. Would you have made the argument to the jury acquit to spite people if you were his lawyer or on the jury?

Why should the actions of a few determine whether or not someone gets convicted?

I would've made the argument to the jury to acquit based off of evidence that I think exonerates Chauvin.

As for the riots, they were hardly the actions of "a few". A few people couldn't cause billions worth of damage and dozens of deaths.

[San Lumen]

I’m not condoning violence. Would you have made the argument to the jury acquit to spite people if you were his lawyer or on the jury?

Why should the actions of a few determine whether or not someone gets convicted?

I would've made the argument to the jury to acquit based off of evidence that I think exonerates Chauvin.

As for the riots, they were hardly the actions of "a few". A few people couldn't cause billions worth of damage and dozens of deaths.

What evidence is that?

You’ve also repeatedly said he should have been acquitted to spite people.

[Austreylia]

What evidence is that?

Floyd having fentanyl in his system.

Chauvins knee being knelt on Floyds back.

Floyd saying he can't breathe whilst standing up and walking around.

[San Lumen]

What evidence is that?

Floyd having fentanyl in his system.

Chauvins knee being knelt on Floyds back.

Floyd saying he can't breathe whilst standing up and walking around.

And the jury didn’t buy the first one.

The second and third aren’t supported by evidence in the slightest. Where in the world are you coming up with such utter nonsense?

[Gravlen]

Of jury intimidation.

I've said its just speculation, but its not unfair speculation.

It is unfair speculation.

You're saying that, after being immersed for weeks in the evidence,
1) one or more jurors felt there was reasonable doubt in the case, despite the overwhelming evidence presented.
2) the juror(s) in question then disregarded the direction given to them to not read or view anything about the case,
3) actually happened to see a news story about a group of black-clad people in California throwing a pig's head onto the porch of the former home of one witnesses,
4) felt intimidated by this action (which was not at the time confirmed to be an act of either intimidation or retaliation),
5) felt so intimidated that they disregarded the evidence presented to them during the trial,
6) felt so intimidated they didn't dare bring this up to their fellow jurors or the judge, and were so frightened by the pigs head being thrown that they willingly let a miscarriage of justice (in their eyes) take place.

[Ifreann]

What evidence is that?

Floyd having fentanyl in his system.

Was irrelevant.

Chauvins knee being knelt on Floyds back.

It wasn't.

Floyd saying he can't breathe whilst standing up and walking around.

Irrelevant.

[Austreylia]

Floyd having fentanyl in his system.

Chauvins knee being knelt on Floyds back.

Floyd saying he can't breathe whilst standing up and walking around.

And the jury didn’t buy the first one.

The second and third aren’t supported by evidence in the slightest. Where in the world are you coming up with such utter nonsense?

Chauvins knee appears to be placed on G.F.s back in the body-cam video.

And another body-cam video shows G.F. pacing around on the sidewalk, complaining about not being able to breathe.

[Ifreann]

And the jury didn’t buy the first one.

The second and third aren’t supported by evidence in the slightest. Where in the world are you coming up with such utter nonsense?

Chauvins knee appears to be placed on G.F.s back in the body-cam video.

This the video that you mentioned before, where people checked the time stamps you were talking about and Chauvin's knee was clearly on Floyd's neck?

And another body-cam video shows G.F. pacing around on the sidewalk, complaining about not being able to breathe.

So what?

[San Lumen]

And the jury didn’t buy the first one.

The second and third aren’t supported by evidence in the slightest. Where in the world are you coming up with such utter nonsense?

Chauvins knee appears to be placed on G.F.s back in the body-cam video.

And another body-cam video shows G.F. pacing around on the sidewalk, complaining about not being able to breathe.

Yet the jury didn’t buy it.

Was this before he was suffocated by Chauvin? Floyd was known to have to issues with anxiety if I recall correctly.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

I feel so good waking up in a world where Derek Chauvin is in prison potentially for decades. That made earth a bit of a better place to live.

[Austreylia]

Floyd was known to have to issues with anxiety if I recall correctly.

He could still breathe.

He was resisting too. if somebody stops resisting, I don't imagine that you would stop restraining them, as they could go on to resist again.

[San Lumen]

Floyd was known to have to issues with anxiety if I recall correctly.

He could still breathe.

He was resisting too. if somebody stops resisting, I don't imagine that you would stop restraining them, as they could go on to resist again.

And therefore it was justified for Chauvin to suffocate him?

[Ifreann]

Floyd was known to have to issues with anxiety if I recall correctly.

He could still breathe.

That he could breathe before being pinned to the ground with a man on his neck has no bearing on whether the man on his neck killed him.

He was resisting too. if somebody stops resisting, I don't imagine that you would stop restraining them, as they could go on to resist again.

Floyd was right to resist, he was being murdered.

[Gravlen]

What evidence is that?

Floyd having fentanyl in his system.

But fentanyl isn't what killed Floyd, and the amount in his system was similar to that found in people who took the drug and were arrested for DUI, but didn't die. Here's what we found.

Fentanyl level not fatal

Blood tests conducted as part of Floyd's post-mortem autopsy revealed 11 nanograms per milliliter, or ng/ml, of fentanyl present. According to expert witnesses, this wasn't enough to be considered fatal

Dr. Daniel Isenschmid, a toxicologist at NMS Labs in Pennsylvania, presented data at trial from more than 2,300 blood samples in fentanyl DUI cases from the last year. He showed that while the average fentanyl blood level was close to 9.6 ng/ml, a quarter of people tested had 11 ng/ml or higher. (Important to note: Blood samples were taken from drivers who tested positive for fentanyl and were alive at the time of collection.)

Isenschmid also showed that Floyd's blood ratio of fentanyl to norfentanyl, the molecule fentanyl is broken down to once in the body, was lower than the average ratio both for people who died of overdoses and those arrested for DUI who lived.

Overdose victims who die rarely have norfentanyl in their blood, since death often occurs before the body can break the drug down, he said.

Isenschmid's testimony was supported by pulmonologist and critical care specialist Dr. Martin Tobin of Loyola University Medical Center.

"Mr. Floyd died from a low level of oxygen, and this caused damage to his brain that we see. And it also caused a PEA (pulseless electrical activity) arrhythmia that caused his heart to stop," he told the court. He explained Floyd's body position on the street, handcuffs pulling his arms back and a knee on his neck, back and sides, led to his low oxygen levels.

"All of these four forces are ultimately going to result in the low tidal volume, which gives you the shallow breaths" that can't effectively bring oxygen into the lungs, Tobin said.

He stated because fentanyl typically slows down a person's breathing, the drug was not a contributing factor based on his calculations of Floyd's breathing rate based on witness video, which at the time appeared about the same as a healthy individual.

Fact check: Fentanyl present in George Floyd's system but not enough to cause his death, experts say

Chauvins knee being knelt on Floyds back.

Officer Derek Chauvin had his knee on George Floyd’s neck — and was bearing down with most of his weight — the entire 9 1/2 minutes the Black man lay facedown with his hands cuffed behind his back, a use-of-force expert testified Wednesday at Chauvin’s murder trial.

Jody Stiger, a Los Angeles Police Department sergeant serving as a prosecution witness, said that based on his review of video evidence, Chauvin applied pressure to Floyd’s neck or neck area from the time officers put Floyd on the ground until paramedics arrived.

“That particular force did not change during the entire restraint period?” prosecutor Steve Schleicher asked as he showed the jury a composite of five still images.

“Correct,” replied Stiger, who on Tuesday testified that the force used against Floyd was excessive.

Chauvin attorney Eric Nelson sought to point out moments in the video footage when, he said, Chauvin’s knee did not appear to be on Floyd’s neck but on his shoulder blade area or the base of his neck. Stiger did not give much ground, saying the officer’s knee in some of the contested photos still seemed to be near Floyd’s neck.

Expert: Derek Chauvin never took knee off George Floyd's neck

Floyd saying he can't breathe whilst standing up and walking around.

As George Floyd repeatedly pleaded “I can’t breathe” to police officers holding him down on a Minneapolis street corner, some of the officers responded by pointing out he was able to speak. One told Floyd it takes “a lot of oxygen” to talk, while another told angry bystanders that Floyd was “talking, so he can breathe.”

That reaction — seen in police restraint deaths around the country — is dangerously wrong, medical experts say. While it would be right to believe a person who can’t talk also cannot breathe, the reverse is not true — speaking does not imply that someone is getting enough air to survive.

“The ability to speak does not mean the patient is without danger,” said Dr. Mariell Jessup, chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association.

“To speak, you only have to move air through the upper airways and the vocal cords, a very small amount,” and that does not mean that enough air is getting down into the lungs where it can supply the rest of the body with oxygen, said Dr. Gary Weissman, a lung specialist at the University of Pennsylvania.

Medical experts: Floyd's speech didn't mean he could breathe

Gee, it's almost as if your objections might have been taken into account by the jury.

[Austreylia]

And therefore it was justified for Chauvin to suffocate him?

No, but restraining him was justified.

[San Lumen]

And therefore it was justified for Chauvin to suffocate him?

No, but restraining him was justified.

Ok so therefore you agree with the conviction?

[Ifreann]

And therefore it was justified for Chauvin to suffocate him?

No, but restraining him was justified.

Keeping Floyd from protecting his life was justified? Did he not have the right to self defence?

[Austreylia]

Ok so therefore you agree with the conviction?

No, I don't.

Did he not have the right to self defence?

Of course he does.

But it doesn't really apply, as he was being arrested by officers who had a valid reason to arrest him.

[Ifreann]

Ok so therefore you agree with the conviction?

No, I don't.

Did he not have the right to self defence?

Of course he does.

But it doesn't really apply, as he was being arrested by officers who had a valid reason to arrest him.

Well for one, no they didn't. Arresting someone for possibly having used a fake twenty is total bullshit. People can use counterfeit money entirely by accident, it's pure bullshit to arrest someone for that. Legal bullshit, maybe, but bullshit even so.

But regardless of that, Floyd was being killed. He had every right to resist. His resistance to being killed does not justify restraining him from resisting being killed.

[Austreylia]

His resistance to being killed does not justify restraining him from resisting being killed.

He wasn't resisting being killed, he was resisting being placed into the patrol car.

If he had just gone into the patrol car without flailing around and screaming, they wouldn't have had to restrain him on the ground.

[Ifreann]

His resistance to being killed does not justify restraining him from resisting being killed.

He wasn't resisting being killed, he was resisting being placed into the patrol car.

If he had just gone into the patrol car without flailing around and screaming, they wouldn't have had to restrain him on the ground.

They didn't have to restrain him. They didn't have to arrest him. They could have just made a note about the place that got the fake twenty and done nothing else, just waited to see if more fake money shows up.

[Warriors of Truth]

His resistance to being killed does not justify restraining him from resisting being killed.

He wasn't resisting being killed, he was resisting being placed into the patrol car.

If he had just gone into the patrol car without flailing around and screaming, they wouldn't have had to restrain him on the ground.

YES, ABSOLUTELY THIS

the modern left just wants to burn down the cities that right-wing people built, they need to be stopped

[San Lumen]

His resistance to being killed does not justify restraining him from resisting being killed.

He wasn't resisting being killed, he was resisting being placed into the patrol car.

If he had just gone into the patrol car without flailing around and screaming, they wouldn't have had to restrain him on the ground.

Floyd could have just gotten a ticket for a counterfeit money. There was no reason to arrest or restrain him and there certainly was no justification for his death and that's why Chauvin is going to jail.

You said repeatedly you wanted him acquitted to spite people. What kind of messed up argument is that?