Yep. I have maintained from the start that this incident involves a personal dispute between the two that arose at work or dealing with work. Counterfeit money connection most likely.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Medical Examiner Concluded George Floyd Likely Died Of Fentanyl Overdose, Court Docs Reveal
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
- Status
Sorry, that's not why.
I would say there's no evidence on intent to kill. But the recklessness could have contributed, and I think they'll likely conclude it did.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
That story was retracted by the man who first said it. He said he was mistaken.
peace to you
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
It is untrue that the medical evidence concludes the officers did not kill Mr. Floyd. The ME report says drug overdose was “likely” cause of death, and he found no evidence of asphyxiation.
An autopsy by an another doctor hired by the family found evidence of asphyxiation. He was very detailed in articulating what medical evidence he found to come to that conclusion.
And the video is evidence the jurors will consider.
peace to you
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you can explain why Christians debating issues makes you glad to be a non-Christian?
peace to you
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Speaking of coming to conclusions without any evidence....
That story was retracted by the man who made it. He said he made a mistake.
Edit to add: However, if you believe the officer and Mr. Floyd knew each other and were involved in a dispute over counterfeit money, why not consider that as motive for staying on his neck for 2:45 sec after being informed a pulse couldn’t be found?
peace to you
Last edited:
"Could have" is not the standard of proof required for conviction in our legal system.
When the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, the M.E. slam dunk cleared the officers.
The private autopsy will not even be admitted into the criminal trial. Wait and see.
You have a slight problem with rules of evidence and trial conduct. Prosecution is bound to stick to facts closely supported by evidence. Defense is free to ramble, speculate, and propose theories supported only by the narrowest strand of evidence.
I think you need an independent examiner for it to carry any weight.
MRoss has been permanently banned - thus will not be able to answer your question
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
In the criminal trial, absolutely. The official ME is considered an independent, or at least unbiased, source. As with other officials in LEO community we should take him at his word, unless evidence suggests otherwise.
The conclusions of the ME for the cause of death seemed inconclusive to me. Saying overdose is “likely” is not the same as saying he died from an overdose.
Saying he found no evidence of asphyxiation is not the same as saying the knee on the neck and the back for 2:45 sec after the pulse was undetectable did not contribute to the death of Mr. Floyd.
I maintain that 2:45 sec will be the deciding factor in this case.
peace to you
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Well, I don’t think it’s accurate to say the defense is “free to ramble”. They have to follow rules of evidence as well.
The “narrowest” strands of evidence is probably a good way to put it. As you said, they are looking to create reasonable doubt.
Oh my goodness!!! I think I just agreed with you!!
peace to you
We pretty much did agree! So long as I clarify that the rules of evidence are much more kind to defense than prosecution.
In a civil trial, I agree with you. In a criminal trial, the M.E. just killed it.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
We agree again. It seems unlikely the prosecution would try to discredit their own ME, which they might have to do if it goes to a trial.
peace to you
That applies to a lot these days.
There is still an issue of not providing medical aid. When someone is restrained the restrainer takes responsibility for that person. A fair argument would be that the officers did not render aid or provide Mr. Floyd with the care he needed (as you note, he was screaming that he could not breathe before he was pulled out of the vehicle). That would mean that a murder charge is probably overreaching. But a negligent homicide may be more accurate.
- Status