New Article on George Floyd Death

You dopes really need to take the entire "hopped up on drugs" argument out of your narrative. Fentanyl is not a performance enhancer. The guy was not hopped up on meth or bath salts. He ingested a medication that slows you to a creep. Cops wish every drug call that they had to deal with were dudes slowed down to 33 rpm.


I'm not going to lie, I am kinda racist and certainly prejudiced but George Floyd was straight up murdered. Originally Posted by smokedog01

Fentanyl may not be a performance enhancer but if George Floyd had Fentanyl in his system at a high enough dosage it could have caused his breathing to slow down to a dangerous level or even stop which would have been a major contributing factor to his death. Being in Police Custody would have only been scenery for what would be the inevitable. Fentanyl has been responsible for many deaths in recent years and the number of deaths from this drug is rising.


https://www.drugabuse.gov/publicatio...facts/fentanyl

You dopes really need to take the entire "hopped up on drugs" argument out of your narrative. Fentanyl is not a performance enhancer. The guy was not hopped up on meth or bath salts. He ingested a medication that slows you to a creep. Cops wish every drug call that they had to deal with were dudes slowed down to 33 rpm.


I'm not going to lie, I am kinda racist and certainly prejudiced but George Floyd was straight up murdered. Originally Posted by smokedog01

I would make the following argument that substantially mitigates the criminal culpability of the officers involved, who are not trained to recognize every type of medical emergency.

A patient such as Floyd, at his age in poor physical condition with substantial coexisting medical impairments, would not be given the level of fentanyl by any competent Doctor during an monitored operation, let alone without medical supervision, as the level of fentanyl was three times the safe limit and it is known as a respiratory suppressant, and any such Doctor would be cited and admonished by their State Medical Board for practice below the standard of care, and would certainly be liable for significant monetary damages in a civil action.

Floyd substantially contributed to his own death, both by his poor health and lifestyle choices, his belligerent attitude, and his illegal use of fentanyl compounding his criminal act of using counterfeit money for the purposes of theft.

You dopes really need to take the entire "hopped up on drugs" argument out of your narrative. Fentanyl is not a performance enhancer. The guy was not hopped up on meth or bath salts. He ingested a medication that slows you to a creep. Cops wish every drug call that they had to deal with were dudes slowed down to 33 rpm.


I'm not going to lie, I am kinda racist and certainly prejudiced but George Floyd was straight up murdered. Originally Posted by smokedog01

You need to watch the body cam footage in its entirety.

Original autopsy found fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system. The combination would produce the type of behavior you will see in the body cam footage. The combination is also known to cause cardiac arrest.

Keep spreading lies. It won't do you any good. There is enough evidence out now to unequivocally throw this George Floyd garbage into the trash with all the other media hoaxes.


::

Which is why I said

As I see it, the only reason the DA included 2nd degree manslaughter was because he isn't sure he can prove murder and I don't think he can. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corporate law and contributory negligence have no bearing in a criminal matter.

Really? If you owned a reptile farm ( an actual case ) and a guy decides to jump into the alligator pit and his families lawyer is suing the owner, the jumpers "contributory negligence" won't come up? How much did the jumper contribute to his own death? You're telling me that isn't relevant to the case?

If a car hits you when you are jaywalking, that doesn't come up? The jaywalker didn't contribute to his death.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You did it AGAIN. STOP playing amateur lawyer. You are terrible at it. The alligator and jaywalker examples are both CIVIL cases, where contributory negligence does matter. But we are NOT dealing with a civil case where the only penalty is monetary damages.

Chauvin is being charged in a CRIMINAL law matter. Let's assume that 1st degree (intentional) murder is off the table and the DA is going for second degree murder - some type of manslaughter based on reckless disregard for human life. The DA will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin acted with reckless disregard for Floyd's life. That will be an easy case to make. He knelt on the man's neck for a sufficient period of time to kill him - even while the man BEGGED for mercy. AND he had NO justification for doing it. Floyd was handcuffed behind his back.

Chauvin must make the case that his life was in danger and he had no choice but to use deadly force. Good luck with that.

Chauvin either had just cause (innocent) or he did not (guilty). But, you don't split the baby in criminal law. Chauvin isn't going to be found 49% guilty, with Floyd being found 51% guilty, OK? Can you grasp that SIMPLE concept?

I'm not going to address the rest of your irrelevant arguments, since they are all repeats of the same mistake about "contributory" negligence.

But I will say that a jury isn't going to be allowed to consider the victim's fault. The charge and the jury instructions are going to be centered around whether or not Chauvin acted reasonably in defending himself.

There is another concept of criminal law to keep in mind - the "eggshell skull doctrine". It is another way of saying you take your victims as you find them.

Let's say you punch a man in the face, not intending to kill, but because you are in a heated argument and he called your mother a skank. If the man dies, it is NOT a defense to say you didn't hit him THAT hard. Or that a normal guy wouldn't even be badly hurt, let alone killed.

You hit him and he died. That is all that mattered. If he just fell backward from your punch, but hit his head on the sidewalk and fractured his skull, it is still ALL your fault.

Your lack of intent goes to the severity of the charge - 1st degree, 2nd degree, etc. You may try to claim self-defense, but the facts I gave you don't allow for self defense.

So the dead guy didn't "contribute" to his own death because he had a thin skull or was in bad physical shape or was high on drugs. If you hadn't thrown the punch, he would still be alive. The jury won't be considering whether or not the guy should have been in better shape, or shouldn't have been taking drugs, or should have known he had a fragile skull.

The police have a duty to arrest criminals, so they are not required to walk away from a confrontation the way an ordinary citizen is. And if an out-of-shape person decides to put up a fight while being arrested and dies from a heart attack, that also is not the cop's fault PROVIDED the cop acted with REASONABLE force in making the arrest.

If the cop wrestles with the suspect while cuffing him and the guy dies of a stroke, the cop will walk away.

But if the cop beats the guy with a tire iron and then puts him in a prolonged stranglehold even after the guy stops fighting - that cop is going to go to jail. Even if the dead guy did break the law. Or had heart damage from prolonged drug use.

If he tries for self-defense. Chauvin is going to have to explain why it was necessary to kneel on a man's neck for all those minutes.

While he was handcuffed.

Behind his back.

Face down on the ground.

If Floyd was such a danger, why weren't the other cops helping Chauvin subdue him? Why were they standing several feet away doing nothing?

I am not turning the discussion to abortion. Originally Posted by Levianon17

You LITERALLY did turn the discussion to abortion. Literally.

I am not turning the discussion to abortion. I was showing you how one sided your statement was. Originally Posted by Levianon17

First, how does your mentally challenged comment about abortion show how my statement was one-sided? It doesn't. In any way.

Second, my statement wasn't one-sided. It was an almost definitional description of a rule of law nation: "In rule of law nations, we don't allow macho cowboy cops to execute suspects on the sidewalk."

Is there another side to that argument? Are you saying that nations that follow the rule of law DO allow police brutality and extra-judicial killings?

Or were you just making an irrelevant comparison to your favorite single issue - abortion?

There are a few factors that must be considered with the George Floyd case. Did Chauvin have specific intent to kill George Floyd? Is there absolute proof that Chauvin's tactic was the cause of death? Originally Posted by Levianon17

No one - least of all me - is saying that Chauvin had to have specific intent. Manslaughter is sufficient. That's a strawman argument.

And there is no such thing as "absolute proof" in criminal law. The DA only needs to prove the charges "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Lastly and one that the closed minded dummies on the left will never catch onto was the George Floyd incident an authentic event or a psyop designed to create civil and racial unrest against the Police? Originally Posted by Levianon17

Holy shit. You really are a moron. You should have quit after the abortion sidetrack. That only made you look like you were obsessed by a single issue.

Now you look like an inbred, low-IQ, mope who believes the wild conspiracy theories espoused by Alex Jones. You think all bad things that contradict your view of the world are faked. They are psyops perpetrated by secret cabals.

There is not poin arguing with you. All contrary evidence is ignored in order to maintain your fantasy world.

Which is why I said
As I see it, the only reason the DA included 2nd degree manslaughter was because he isn't sure he can prove murder and I don't think he can. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Fuck it. There is still too much stupidity in the rest of your post to ignore:
-----------------------------------------------------------
There is no way that Floyd was a threat to Chauvin. His hands were cuffed behind his back and he was face down on the ground, so he was clearly NOT a threat.
Even if handcuffed, he could be a flight risk if not subdued. Any detainee can be a threat to an officer at any point, that is why an officer must be conscious of a threat at anytime like having his weapon taken even by a guy in cuffs. Just playing defense lawyer.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Every criminal is a potential flight risk. That does not justify kneeling on his neck. If that was the case then the exception would swallow the rule.

Put it this way: What if Chauvin parked the cop car on Floyd's legs while Floyd was on ground? I mean, he's a flight risk, right? Isn't Chauvin just being conscious of a threat that can happen at any time?

Park a car on his legs? Kneel on his neck? Bust his kneecaps with a nightstick? It's all justified to keep him from being a flight risk, right? I mean, he might spring up off the ground (somehow, with his hands behind his back) and grab Chauvin's gun, right? Is that the essence of your argument, counselor?

-----------------------------------------------------
And the fact that Floyd did not want to get in the cop car is irrelevant to whether or not Chauvin should have knelt on his neck.
I disagree. If Chauvin had only knelt on his neck for two minutes, do you think he would have been charged for kneeling on his neck if the manual didn't specifically forbid it?
--------------------------------------------------------

There you go again with that idiotic "the manual didn't SPECIFICALLY forbid it, therefore the cops can do it" argument.

I've got news for you, the police manual is NOT a get-out-of-jail-free pass. It does NOT overrule common sense. It establishes a FLOOR for behavior, not a CEILING.

The police manual also does not specifically forbid parking the police car on a suspect's legs to prevent the suspect from fleeing. So that means it's OK to park a squad car on a suspect, right?

-------------------------------------------------
It is inescapable that kneeling on his neck was entirely unnecessary.
No, kneeling on his neck till he died was un-necessary.
--------------------------------------------------
Wow, that's another bad argument. So you judge recklessness by the result, huh? You apply 20/20 hindsight and decide police brutality occurred only if the guy died?

So, if Chauvin parked the squad car on Floyd's legs to keep him from fleeing, it was unnecessary only if Floyd died from having his legs crushed, right? If he lived, then it was OK, because - somehow - it now wasn't unnecessary?

-----------------------------
If Chauvin and the others stood 5 feet way from him while he was cuffed on the ground, we would not be having this conversation.
If you stand 5 feet away from a cuffed man, even one on the ground, you are most likely going to see a man try to flee.
----------------------------------

And if he tries to get up, you push him back down. How fast do you think a guy in his 40s can get off the ground with his hands cuffed behind him?

Here's a test - lie face down on the ground and clasp your hands behind your back. Keep your hands clasped and try to get up on your feet. See how long it takes for you to get to your feet. If you can do it at all.

The cops could stand 5 feet away and EASILY push Floyd back down. And then just cuff his ankles as well.

There are a LOT of things that could be done to prevent him from fleeing that would not have killed him. You keep grasping at straws to excuse kneeling on a guy's neck.

---------------------------------------------------
If Chauvin had knelt on his buttocks or thighs while he was cuffed on the ground, we would not be having this conversation.
The defense will ask specifically if the manual forbid kneeling on the neck. I do not know the answer to that question.That will be the relevant question to the issue of the neck other than the time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

See my arguments above about the police manual NOT being a get out of jail free card. It sets the FLOOR for behavior, not the CEILING.

----------------------------------------------------------
If the cops pushed him into the back of the squad car and he went berserk and started kicking windows, THEN his death would have been his fault and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
But the macho asshole just HAD to show everyone that he was the dominant alpha male. So he killed or recklessly contributed to the death of George Floyd.
Recklessly "contributed". There's that word you suggest isn't relevant. I don't think recklessly contributed amounts to murder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

You got that backwards. Or to put it another way, you are confusing the "contribution" of Chauvin with the "contribution" of Floyd.

Chauvin's actions leading to - or contributing to - Floyd's death are absolutely relevant. And in a BAD way. He is being charged with Floyd's killing.

But the argument you and others made was about Floyd's contribution. Which IS irrelevant. If Chauvin used unnecessary force, it is irrelevant if Floyd had fentanyl in his system. Or had a bad heart. Got that?

Like I wrote before - STOP TRYING TO BE AN AMATEUR LAWYER. YOU ARE BAD AT IT.

Hear hear!

Thank yous!

The guy was acting erratic and claimed that he couldn't breathe and was going to die before throwing himself on the floor. The police called an ambulance for the guy and Derek attempted to subdue him while waiting for it to arrive.

Regardless of whether Derek used excessive force or whether kneeling on a grown man's neck can kill him or not, the narrative that this was a white supremacist attack on an innocent black man does not hold any water.

Fuck it. There is still too much stupidity in the rest of your post to ignore:
-----------------------------------------------------------
There is no way that Floyd was a threat to Chauvin. His hands were cuffed behind his back and he was face down on the ground, so he was clearly NOT a threat.
Even if handcuffed, he could be a flight risk if not subdued. Any detainee can be a threat to an officer at any point, that is why an officer must be conscious of a threat at anytime like having his weapon taken even by a guy in cuffs. Just playing defense lawyer.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Every criminal is a potential flight risk. That does not justify kneeling on his neck. If that was the case then the exception would swallow the rule.

Put it this way: What if Chauvin parked the cop car on Floyd's legs while Floyd was on ground? I mean, he's a flight risk, right? Isn't Chauvin just being conscious of a threat that can happen at any time?

Park a car on his legs? Kneel on his neck? Bust his kneecaps with a nightstick? It's all justified to keep him from being a flight risk, right? I mean, he might spring up off the ground (somehow, with his hands behind his back) and grab Chauvin's gun, right? Is that the essence of your argument, counselor?

-----------------------------------------------------
And the fact that Floyd did not want to get in the cop car is irrelevant to whether or not Chauvin should have knelt on his neck.
I disagree. If Chauvin had only knelt on his neck for two minutes, do you think he would have been charged for kneeling on his neck if the manual didn't specifically forbid it?
--------------------------------------------------------

There you go again with that idiotic "the manual didn't SPECIFICALLY forbid it, therefore the cops can do it" argument.

I've got news for you, the police manual is NOT a get-out-of-jail-free pass. It does NOT overrule common sense. It establishes a FLOOR for behavior, not a CEILING.

The police manual also does not specifically forbid parking the police car on a suspect's legs to prevent the suspect from fleeing. So that means it's OK to park a squad car on a suspect, right?

-------------------------------------------------
It is inescapable that kneeling on his neck was entirely unnecessary.
No, kneeling on his neck till he died was un-necessary.
--------------------------------------------------
Wow, that's another bad argument. So you judge recklessness by the result, huh? You apply 20/20 hindsight and decide police brutality occurred only if the guy died?

So, if Chauvin parked the squad car on Floyd's legs to keep him from fleeing, it was unnecessary only if Floyd died from having his legs crushed, right? If he lived, then it was OK, because - somehow - it now wasn't unnecessary?

-----------------------------
If Chauvin and the others stood 5 feet way from him while he was cuffed on the ground, we would not be having this conversation.
If you stand 5 feet away from a cuffed man, even one on the ground, you are most likely going to see a man try to flee.
----------------------------------

And if he tries to get up, you push him back down. How fast do you think a guy in his 40s can get off the ground with his hands cuffed behind him?

Here's a test - lie face down on the ground and clasp your hands behind your back. Keep your hands clasped and try to get up on your feet. See how long it takes for you to get to your feet. If you can do it at all.

The cops could stand 5 feet away and EASILY push Floyd back down. And then just cuff his ankles as well.

There are a LOT of things that could be done to prevent him from fleeing that would not have killed him. You keep grasping at straws to excuse kneeling on a guy's neck.

---------------------------------------------------
If Chauvin had knelt on his buttocks or thighs while he was cuffed on the ground, we would not be having this conversation.
The defense will ask specifically if the manual forbid kneeling on the neck. I do not know the answer to that question.That will be the relevant question to the issue of the neck other than the time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

See my arguments above about the police manual NOT being a get out of jail free card. It sets the FLOOR for behavior, not the CEILING.

----------------------------------------------------------
If the cops pushed him into the back of the squad car and he went berserk and started kicking windows, THEN his death would have been his fault and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
But the macho asshole just HAD to show everyone that he was the dominant alpha male. So he killed or recklessly contributed to the death of George Floyd.
Recklessly "contributed". There's that word you suggest isn't relevant. I don't think recklessly contributed amounts to murder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

You got that backwards. Or to put it another way, you are confusing the "contribution" of Chauvin with the "contribution" of Floyd.

Chauvin's actions leading to - or contributing to - Floyd's death are absolutely relevant. And in a BAD way. He is being charged with Floyd's killing.

But the argument you and others made was about Floyd's contribution. Which IS irrelevant. If Chauvin used unnecessary force, it is irrelevant if Floyd had fentanyl in his system. Or had a bad heart. Got that?

Like I wrote before - STOP TRYING TO BE AN AMATEUR LAWYER. YOU ARE BAD AT IT. Originally Posted by Kinkster90210

Georgie was a Fen freaker who's time in this reality ran out. he put himself in that situation. one wonders ... why didn't one of the others riding with him drag his 6'7" lardass into the back seat and drive away?


i don't give a shit if Chauvin did hold his neck down far longer than needed. if he hadn't been fubar on Fen he wouldn't have been there for it to happen in the first place.

The guy was acting erratic and claimed that he couldn't breathe and was going to die before throwing himself on the floor. The police called an ambulance for the guy and Derek attempted to subdue him while waiting for it to arrive Originally Posted by Strokey_McDingDong

How was Chauvin "attempting" to subdue him? He was face down on the ground with his hands cuffed behind his back. He was ALREADY subdued. So why was Chauvin kneeling on his neck?

Regardless of whether Derek used excessive force or whether kneeling on a grown man's neck can kill him or not, the narrative that this was a white supremacist attack on an innocent black man does not hold any water. Originally Posted by Strokey_McDingDong

Agreed. But that is a side issue isn't it?

Political agitators are always going to seize on events to grasp at power.

That doesn't mean we ignore obvious police brutality because anarchists and communists want to destroy America.

Georgie was a Fen freaker who's time in this reality ran out. he put himself in that situation. one wonders ... why didn't one of the others riding with him drag his 6'7" lardass into the back seat and drive away?

i don't give a shit if Chauvin did hold his neck down far longer than needed. if he hadn't been fubar on Fen he wouldn't have been there for it to happen in the first place. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Thank you for clarifying your support for police brutality. And your indifference regarding the deaths of people who don't look like you.

When you are discussing abuse by the government, "he had it coming" is such an ugly argument. It proves you don't really care about the rule of law.

You are perfectly willing to sacrifice principles and freedom so long as people you don't like are getting abused. But you can't foresee the consequences down the road when the worm turns and the same brutal things happen to you and people you like. Because you are a dumb cunt.

I don't know how anyone can defend that Minnesota cop. That was murder. Unless you believe it is okay to have a law officer put his full weight on your neck and you are incapable of defending yourself, that is murder. I'd rather have someone just pop me in the head with a Glock than die like that.

If you want to kill me, that's cool. Just don't make me suffer. I've said that before and now I am just saying it again. That man did nothing to deserve an immediate death sentence like that. He wasn't even a threat.

Here is the brutal video:

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=2730655

Complete disregard for human life.

If they just stood up after they cuffed him, instead of kneeling on him, and let him lie on the ground, this entire thread would be unnecessary. I don't see any way that he could have been viewed as a threat.

That video is disgusting. He was pleading for his life. He was scared. I don't care how big he was. The man was terrified. Again, he was not even a threat to them. He was on his stomach and handcuffed behind his back. How the fuck is that a threat?

I don't care what the old racist clowns in here think. But that man was murdered. Damn, that really was disgusting to watch. That man was murdered over $20. How the fuck does anyone with half a brain justify that kind of force over a measly counterfeit $20 bill?

You LITERALLY did turn the discussion to abortion. Literally.



First, how does your mentally challenged comment about abortion show how my statement was one-sided? It doesn't. In any way.

Second, my statement wasn't one-sided. It was an almost definitional description of a rule of law nation: "In rule of law nations, we don't allow macho cowboy cops to execute suspects on the sidewalk."

Is there another side to that argument? Are you saying that nations that follow the rule of law DO allow police brutality and extra-judicial killings?

Or were you just making an irrelevant comparison to your favorite single issue - abortion?


No one - least of all me - is saying that Chauvin had to have specific intent. Manslaughter is sufficient. That's a strawman argument.

And there is no such thing as "absolute proof" in criminal law. The DA only needs to prove the charges "beyond a reasonable doubt".


Holy shit. You really are a moron. You should have quit after the abortion sidetrack. That only made you look like you were obsessed by a single issue.

Now you look like an inbred, low-IQ, mope who believes the wild conspiracy theories espoused by Alex Jones. You think all bad things that contradict your view of the world are faked. They are psyops perpetrated by secret cabals.

There is not poin arguing with you. All contrary evidence is ignored in order to maintain your fantasy world. Originally Posted by Kinkster90210

You're dam right there is no point in arguing with me but you sure tried ya dumb ass. The Floyd case is a psyop anyway it doesn't make a fuck to me how ya slice it's all bullshit like everything else the media brings. Quit trying to act like you're intelligent cause you're far from it.