Guilty?

[zh cohen]

And what about #3 isn’t him dying of knee to the neck?

Because a knee to the neck does not compress the lungs. The claim is that a knee to the back does.

[Lurker]

They can say whatever they want. Provide proof or it is a nothing burger.
I have yet to hear one reasonable explanation on what caused his death if it wasn't the knee.
You are right about the SCOTUS comparison. I will be right right when the court is expanded to 12 as this was a 12-0 decision!!! 

Do you believe that the drugs and heart issues played no part in his death? Do you believe that anyone else without those issues would have died under the same circumstances? People saw the same proof you did; they just came to different conclusions.

And you don't believe that the ability of 12 random jurors to parse legal arguments and apply the law is equal to the abilities of 12 Supreme Court Justices. If you did, there would be no need for SCOTUS.

[zh cohen]

They can say whatever they want. Provide proof or it is a nothing burger.
I have yet to hear one reasonable explanation on what caused his death if it wasn't the knee.

Here's three -
1 - The drugs that he chewed to hide from the police
2 - His heart condition
3 - The justified restraint he was put under for resisting arrest

[Lurker]

Here's three -
1 - The drugs that he chewed to hide from the police
2 - His heart condition
3 - The justified restraint he was put under for resisting arrest

Based on what you saw in the video, do you believe Chauvin's restraint was fully justified?

[CountValentine]

Do you believe that the drugs and heart issues played no part in his death? Do you believe that anyone else without those issues would have died under the same circumstances? People saw the same proof you did; they just came to different conclusions.

1 - yes they played a part
2 - not sure
3 - did they see the same proof or saw what they wanted to see?

And you don't believe that the ability of 12 random jurors to parse legal arguments and apply the law is equal to the abilities of 12 Supreme Court Justices. If you did, there would be no need for SCOTUS.

SCOTUS is not given a list of instructions they are required to follow. That is a major flaw.

[CountValentine]

Here's three -
1 - The drugs that he chewed to hide from the police
2 - His heart condition
3 - The justified restraint he was put under for resisting arrest

For 1 and 2 where is the testimony this was the cause of death.
3 - did the defense raise this non-sense?

[Lurker]

1 - yes they played a part
2 - not sure
3 - did they see the same proof or saw what they wanted to see?

Re 3, I don't know. But it's fair for them to ask you the same question, and to doubt your answer like you doubt theirs.

SCOTUS is not given a list of instructions they are required to follow. That is a major flaw.

There are many flaws. Ultimately, I think we agree that they are better equipped to determine the correct application of the law over 12 random people off the street.

[ChapsTheMatzav]

To me it looked like a coldblooded murder and I hope the jury wasn't brainwashed otherwise.

This guy was a criminal and was resisting arrest. He was killed by the drugs in his system not the cops.

[Lurker]

This guy was a criminal and was resisting arrest. He was killed by the drugs in his system not the cops.

If the second sentence is true, why is the first one relevant?

[zh cohen]

Based on what you saw in the video, do you believe Chauvin's restraint was fully justified?

I believe that it is possible that the justified restraint caused the death, and the unjustified restraint was not a contributing factor. I'm not sure what the law would be if that is the case.

[CountValentine]

Re 3, I don't know. But it's fair for them to ask you the same question, and to doubt your answer like you doubt theirs.

No I have the ME to back me up and their expert witness. Is there evidence from the defense that says the cause of death was something other than the knee. This is why the defense lost. They had it might be this or that and the jury rejected that.

There are many flaws. Ultimately, I think we agree that they are better equipped to determine the correct application of the law over 12 random people off the street.

If they could follow the instructions given.

[zh cohen]

For 1 and 2 where is the testimony this was the cause of death.

The defense medical expert witness.
Remember that the defense doesn't have to prove that one of these was the case of death. They just have to show that the prosecution has not brought proof beyond a reasonable doubt that these were not the cause of death.

3 - did the defense raise this non-sense?

Again n, it was the prosecutions witness that presented this as the cause of death.

[Lurker]

No I have the ME to back me up and their expert witness. Is there evidence from the defense that says the cause of death was something other than the knee. This is why the defense lost. They had it might be this or that and the jury rejected that.

And people are saying that if they were on the jury, they wouldn't have rejected the defense's explanations. They aren't on the jury, so their opinion doesn't matter in reality, but they are no less qualified to come to their own conclusions.

[Lurker]

I believe that it is possible that the justified restraint caused the death, and the unjustified restraint was not a contributing factor. I'm not sure what the law would be if that is the case.

I'm not sure how you draw the line between justified and unjustified restraint, or how you determine precisely which action caused death.

[zh cohen]

They had it might be this or that and the jury rejected that.

If that is the case, then the jury didn't follow the law. The defense does not have to prove cause of death. They only have to show that it is reasonable to say that it was something other than Chauvin's illegal actions.

[zh cohen]

how you determine precisely which action caused death.

I am not saying that I can, Dr Tobin said that. And there is a good case to be made that the actions he described as causing the death were completely lawful.

[CountValentine]

And people are saying that if they were on the jury, they wouldn't have rejected the defense's explanations. They aren't on the jury, so their opinion doesn't matter in reality, but they are no less qualified to come to their own conclusions.

Wait you have on one side the ME and an expert witness saying the cause of death was the knee. The other side has it might be this or that.
No reasonable person would come down on defense side. Now if they had some expert saying the drugs or heart was the main cause then it would be up for debate who to believe. I got to believe you are trolling at this point.

[CountValentine]

If that is the case, then the jury didn't follow the law. The defense does not have to prove cause of death. They only have to show that it is reasonable to say that it was something other than Chauvin's illegal actions.

They did follow the law. They agreed with the ME an the expert witness. The prosecution proved it was the knee and that is why they won.

[Lurker]

I am not saying that I can, Dr Tobin said that. And there is a good case to be made that the actions he described as causing the death were completely lawful.

My question is, once you determine that the restraint has crossed the line from justified to unjustified, do we attempt to parse which exact movement caused the death, or do we say that the action as a whole crossed the line and ultimately resulted in a death, and the officer is responsible for the result?

[Lurker]

Wait you have on one side the ME and an expert witness saying the cause of death was the knee. The other side has it might be this or that.
No reasonable person would come down on defense side. Now if they had some expert saying the drugs or heart was the main cause then it would be up for debate who to believe. I got to believe you are trolling at this point.

The defense doesn't need to prove anything. They need to show that there are reasonable explanations other than the one presented by the prosecutor. The jury ultimately decided the other explanations aren't reasonable. You agree with them. The issue I'm taking is in your determination that "no reasonable person would come down on defense side." I see people who I consider to be reasonable saying that they find the defense's explanations plausible. I'm not sure why you feel that their opinion makes them unreasonable or Kool-Aid drinkers or so ridiculous.