Or you could be out of breath, or breathing with difficulty, due to the amount of drugs in your system, and still be killed by being strangled. Or you could be out of breath, or breathing with difficulty, due to the amount of drugs in your system, and then die from a mixture of the drugs and a knee on your neck. Is the standard still reasonable doubt here?
I believe everyone agrees that a knee to the neck is not okay, right? And most people agree that the knee was on the neck for way too long. Was he cuffed incorrectly? Was his position on the ground incorrect? Were the 3 men on his body pressing him into the asphalt doing so in a way that they should not have been? Like, I'm seriously asking. Because if those other three things you mentioned weren't wrong or done incorrectly, I'm not sure what listing them out adds, especially with regards to the specific person on trial.
If you die in custody of government, government's explanation shouldn't be "uhhh maybe we did, maybe we didn't."
My understanding of criminal court is that the defendant has to be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Feel free to correct me wherever I'm mistaken.
I don't have reasonable doubt that a knee to the neck for 9 minutes is potentially fatal and completely unwarranted, and that a knee was applied to his neck for 9 minutes. If the officer failed to notice an overdose and just applied a knee to the neck during an overdose, that doesn't magically make a knee to the neck for 9 minutes not an unjustifiable act and a potentially lethal, willful act. And since he's dead, here we are. The drug angle is utter bullshit. What if he had a heart condition? What if it was "just his time?" What if he had stage 4 cancer? Doesn't matter. Knee to neck for 9 minutes is not reasonable and is potentially lethal and the man is dead for reasons consistent with a knee to the neck for 9 minutes.
Indy, watch this starting at 104:00 (unless you want to hear about his expertise in the 15 minutes prior) and you will see and hear exactly how and why Floyd died...
There is no reasonable doubt that, regardless, the officer's actions did not help. And that's all the reasonable doubt that is needed. If he had pulled out his gun, and shot the guy in the foot, and he ultimately died due to drugs, and not blood loss from the gun shot, there would be no reasonable doubt that his actions contributed to the death, while in custody.
I've already been here longer than I can afford for the evening, so I will have to circle back. I read or heard something earlier that he died of asphyxiation. I also read and heard that the drugs in his system, as well as the amount of drugs in his system, can cause asphyxiation.
You are listening to the Defense then because the expert said that is not possible and explained why.
I've read a couple of people say that the prosecution isn't doing a great job. I've not followed it and have no idea, just saw that and was surprised.
Which expert? This is the guy (Bradford Wankhede Langenfeld) who said drug (fentanyl and meth) use can lead to asphyxia (starting at 3:10 mark):
I've read that the defense is actually planning to recall 1 or 2 of the prosecution's witnesses. I don't know a ton about how these processes work or how common certain things are, but my guess is that if you're a prosecutor, it's not a good sign when the defense wants to talk to your witness again and for a longer period of time.
There has been discussion about why none of the officers rendered any aid to GF. From my understanding, they cited the "hostile" crowd, which you are making fun of here. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the statement that the crowd was hostile. I haven't seen or heard enough about it to form a solid opinion. But I do wonder why the paramedics, upon arriving, did not immediately render aid to GF either.
