I dont think the defense lied too much. The bigger is everything they said was noise and didnt change the one core fact that made Chauvin guilty as hell.
He sat on his neck and chest strangling him.. When he went completely limp he continued to strangle him for 4 more moneys, at that point he is already guilty as you know if your strangling someone and they go unconscious death is next, the proper course of action for anyone at this point who doesnt intentionally want to kill someone would be to handcuff their feet and hands to completely immobilize them and get off them. Instead he continued to strangle him, a minute later a fellow police officer trained tot ake a pulse and in CPR informed Chauvin that Floyd's heart stopped entirely and that he should try to resuscitate him. Chauvin refused and would not let him do so and remained sitting on his chest for almost another full 3 minutes.
Nothing else changes this core fact and it makes it undeniable that the intent was to murder. What possible excuse is there to continue to sit on the chest of a man whose heart isnt beating a refuse the please of a fellow officer and a certified nurse to allow them to give him CPR?
@buttered_poasties @Weedle @ChristiJunior @sickburnbro @coolboymew
I'm more well versed in medicine than most. I have tutored dozens of nurses and a few doctors through university, so yea i think im good enough.
Why would I be obligated not to explain my answer? you high or something.
I dont watch any "media" of any kind, as strict rule. I only watched the uncut content of the case skipped over commentary. So no.
Threatening them,a re you kidding me, no one in that crowd threatened to do a damn thing. Not sure what the hell you are smoking.
Since police in their right mind never continue to sit on someones chest and neck after they are unconscious, thankfully very few... this one did, and was negligent for doing so, and even once he was told his heart stop he still continued for almost 3 more minutes... So yea, not much to argue when it comes to his guild considering.
The test for negligance as stated at the link I shared is the following:
1) the existence of a legal duty that the defendant owed to the plaintiff
2) defendant's breach of that duty
3) plaintiff's sufferance of an injury
4) proof that defendant's breach caused the injury (typically defined through proximate cause)
Can you do those things if you intend for the consequence of your actions? If I intend to kill someone, can i do something that kills someone and satisfy those 4 rules? Obviously the answer is yes.
Graph Partitioning into Hamiltonian Subgraphs on a Quantum Annealer. (arXiv:2104.09503v1 [quant-ph]) http://arxiv.org/abs/2104.09503
What what about the legal definition requires the **consequence** of the action to be unintended... no where in the legal definition does it state that must be the case.
16% of the time this hold has historically resulted in unconsciousness. Moreover Chauvin was told the man's heart stopped by his fellow officer who took his pulse so he knew the man had died and/or he had killed him and when the officer tried to offer to begin life saving procedures Chauvin refused to get off him and instead continued to sit on his neck and chest for almost another 3 minutes... so it is very clear when he is sitting ont he chest of a man whom he knows his heart isnt beating for nearly 3 more minutes that his intent is for that man to be dead.
Not the least bit true. They went over this in some detail in the case. When officers in the past have used this same hold on other people 16 percent of the time they lost consciousness, and several doctors have stated that should the hold be continued after someone looses consciousness it would result in death (luckily most officers have the good sense to stop once the person passes out).
Moreover... it doesnt even matter. As I said once Floyd's heart stop, which chauvin was told was the case by his fellow officer who took his pulse, he continued to strangle him for almost 3 minutes longer (only reason he stopped is because the EMT insisted).
No matter what slimy tactics you want to use to justified what happened the fact that he was sitting on his chest and the man's heart stopped and he prevented people, including a fellow officer, who tried to help resuscitate him shows he had every intent for Floyd to die. Everything else is noise.
You are trying to apply a common definition of negligence as the technical legal one, they are not the same. There are very specific legal tests for negligence and none of them have anything to do with intent. Legal words do not follow the same rules as common english.
You can see the legal definition I gave earlier along with a great deal more detail in this link which explains the legal tests one uses to determine if something is negligence. You can clearly see the legal definition and legal tests in no way care about intent:
His head was tilted to the side and his knee was on the neck from the side... yes of course its possible.. In fact much worse as it can cut off blood flow to the brain as well (that is were the artery that supplies the brain is at)..
Your also arguing a pretty stupid point.. his knee was on his neck and he was also sitting on his back to compress his chest for most of that. Its pretty obvious that would cause anyone to struggle to breath.. combine that with the fact that a fellow officer (who are trained in being able to take a persons pulse in their CPR training) clearly stated chauvin had no pulse (effectively was dead) and Chauvin continued to sit on him and compress his chest and neck for 3 minutes after being told the man's heart stopped.
There is literally no way you can justify his actions or intent, none.
LOL yea ok bud.. lets just kill people who are doing illegal but non violent things.. totally justified ::eye roll::
@mc welcome its great to have you. Reach out to me anytime if you want to chat.
Hi,
I'm #newhere . I'm interested in #math #physics #astronomy #programming #books #music #films
Incorrect, in fact you dont even need a knee, you can use a rope or pretty much any means that constrict the neck and prevents breathing. Dictionary definition of the word strangle:
squeeze or constrict the neck of (a person or animal), especially so as to cause death.
Incorrect, and it is quite common to be convicted of both. In states where it is allowed it is the norm.
Already posted the **legal** definition of neglegance and i will repeat it here:
A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct).
As you can clear see negligence does not imply in the definition that it is unintentional.
You can find the legal definition here with direct links citing official resources to back up the definition:
He strangled him with his knee, yea he strangled him.. and even once he was told by his fellow officer he didnt have a pulse (effectively was dead) he continued to sit on either his neck or chest for another 3 minutes and refused to let his fellow officer help him when asked...
now ay you can justify it, none.
Jeffrey Phillips Freeman
Innovator & Entrepreneur in Machine Learning, Evolutionary Computing & Big Data. Avid SCUBA diver, Open-source developer, HAM radio operator, astrophotographer, and anything nerdy.
Born and raised in Philadelphia, PA, USA, currently living in Utrecht, Netherlands, USA, and Thailand. Was also living in Israel, but left.
Pronouns: Sir / Mister
(Above pronouns are not intended to mock, i will respect any persons pronouns and only wish pronouns to show respect be used with me as well. These are called neopronouns, see an example of the word "frog" used as a neopronoun here: http://tinyurl.com/44hhej89 )
A proud member of the Penobscot Native American tribe, as well as a Mayflower passenger descendant. I sometimes post about my genealogical history.
My stance on various issues:
Education: Free to PhD, tax paid
Abortion: Protected, tax paid, limited time-frame
Welfare: Yes, no one should starve
UBI: No, use welfare
Racism: is real
Guns: Shall not be infringed
LGBT+/minorities: Support
Pronouns: Will respect
Trump: Moron, evil
Biden: Senile, racist
Police: ACAB
Drugs: Fully legal, no prescriptions needed
GPG/PGP Fingerprint: 8B23 64CD 2403 6DCB 7531 01D0 052D DA8E 0506 CBCE