ironpony wrote:
There are two things to consider:
1. They say that this is a normal police procedure the knee on the kneck... But after the officers already have you cuffed, is still normal to use it? I though it was a procedure to help restrain you so they can get you into cuffs. But not if you are already in them, than the procedure is now allowed, is it?
The training slide says, "OK they are in handcuffs now what".
So, this is after handcuffs.
ironpony wrote:
2. So many people in the U.S are so mad abou this incident that it's likely a jury will not care what is proper and not proper procedure and want Chauvin to pay no matter what, won't they likely?
Defense lawyers have petitioned the judge to dismiss this before it goes to trial.
If it goes to trial, the Minneapolis attorney general says it will be very hard to convict the officers as juries don't easily convict police doing their jobs.
Mr. Floyd had a criminal and prison record, was supposedly doing a fraud crime at the time, resisting arrest, and pumped full of fentanyl . Not an ideal victim.
I showed earlier, the country medical examiner autopsy report, says there is no physical trauma evidence that Mr. Chauivin's pressure on Floyd's neck caused asphyxiation. Likely, it was the fentanyl, as it's known to cause asphyxiation.
"The medical examiner appeared to back his
conclusion that Floyd was not asphyxiated by listing a
host of injuries that were absent, in particular petechiae, or pinpoint-size red spots caused by broken blood vessels that can be a sign of asphyxiation".
https://www.startribune.com/george-floy ... 571000102/We cannot tell from the video the amount of pressure by Mr. Chauvin.
So, there is no physical evidence that Mr. Chauvin murdered Floyd.But since this murder case has caused protesting and rioting all across the country, a lot of peple hate that this happened, I mean they really really hate it. So wouldn't it be easier than usual to find jurors willing to convict therefore, if so many are protesting and rioting over it?
Also was the medical examiner able to conclude it was the fentanyl with evidence, or is he just saying likely, with no evidence from the fentanyl itself?
Also does anyone think it's a huge coincidence that pressing on someone's neck for 9 minutes didn't cause asphyxiation, but something else unrelated did, right after? The fact that he escaped a near death asphyxiation experience, but then suffered another one right after, from another source is too big of a coincidence to logically accept from a medical examiner, isn't it?