Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Minneapolis Star Tribune)   People at the addiction treatment clinic George Floyd once attended aren't loving the way Chavin's defense team is basically arguing that if someone is using drugs it's okay to murder them   (startribune.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Drug addiction, Police brutality, Police, George Floyd's drug use, Divine Mohammad, addiction treatment center Turning Point, 90-day treatment program, Black people  
•       •       •

1570 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Apr 2021 at 9:35 AM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



71 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-04-12 8:51:42 AM  
This what I have been thinking, the argument is that he had coronary plaque, and was using fentanyl, so he was so well on his way to the other side, strangulation was just a gentle shove. This would make killing folks like him a gimme. At the beginning of the trial they put it out there that he had had multiple heart attacks, which I believed, and of course turned out to be a lie.
 
2021-04-12 9:04:51 AM  
So if a cop is a fat bastard likely to die of heart disease can we legally shoot him?
You know, just a gentle shove before his next box of doughnuts?
 
2021-04-12 9:12:06 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-04-12 9:20:12 AM  

Lambskincoat: This what I have been thinking, the argument is that he had coronary plaque, and was using fentanyl, so he was so well on his way to the other side, strangulation was just a gentle shove. This would make killing folks like him a gimme. At the beginning of the trial they put it out there that he had had multiple heart attacks, which I believed, and of course turned out to be a lie.


I remember watching an episode of Law and Order and the lawyers were talking about a case and the DA guy used some legal rhetorical thing: if a man jumps off a building, and someone shoots him in the heart as he's falling, is the shooter criminally liable for the man's death even though he was going to die anyway? The answer was yes, the shooter is liable.

If someone is chronically or even terminally ill, that isn't license to give them a shove towards death.
 
2021-04-12 9:23:12 AM  
He was going to die anyway isn't a defense...that literally applies to everyone.
 
2021-04-12 9:33:46 AM  
In what world is slowly strangling someone to death in public ever acceptable?

Right, this world. Where those arguments are being made and people will defend it.

Disgusting.
 
2021-04-12 9:38:54 AM  

SoupGuru: In what world is slowly strangling someone to death in public ever acceptable?

Right, this world. Where those arguments are being made and people will defend it.

Disgusting.


Trials are like art: if you can come up with a good enough explanation, people will buy it, even if it's complete bullshiat.
 
2021-04-12 9:39:16 AM  
We all watched the dude beg for his life while he was being murdered. The only people who don't recognize it for what it is are just awful sociopaths.
 
2021-04-12 9:39:27 AM  
They want to get into his drug addiction? I say let's get into the reasons why he was addicted, then.
 
2021-04-12 9:39:51 AM  
Ain't Nothing Gonna Happen
 
2021-04-12 9:40:33 AM  

Ambivalence: Lambskincoat: This what I have been thinking, the argument is that he had coronary plaque, and was using fentanyl, so he was so well on his way to the other side, strangulation was just a gentle shove. This would make killing folks like him a gimme. At the beginning of the trial they put it out there that he had had multiple heart attacks, which I believed, and of course turned out to be a lie.

I remember watching an episode of Law and Order and the lawyers were talking about a case and the DA guy used some legal rhetorical thing: if a man jumps off a building, and someone shoots him in the heart as he's falling, is the shooter criminally liable for the man's death even though he was going to die anyway? The answer was yes, the shooter is liable.

If someone is chronically or even terminally ill, that isn't license to give them a shove towards death.


That's like the first few minutes of Magnolia.
 
2021-04-12 9:42:58 AM  
Just as long as cop-killers can use the same defense after this.

"No, judge, it wasn't my client's bullet that killed the officer. He was suffering from high stress and was abusing steroids, and I have three doctors who will testify that the bullet was merely a coincidence and that he was suffering cardiac arrest before the bullet even entered his heart."
 
2021-04-12 9:43:10 AM  

Ambivalence: if a man jumps off a building, and someone shoots him in the heart as he's falling, is the shooter criminally liable for the man's death even though he was going to die anyway?


Question 2: If a 15 year old is charged as an adult does that mean they are fair game for child molesters?
 
2021-04-12 9:45:14 AM  
The cop had a duty to exercise reasonable care. His abject failure to exercise care does not turn on whether Mr. Floyd had drugs in his systems. It's a bad defense and it's not going to work.
 
2021-04-12 9:52:21 AM  

GhostOfSavageHenry: We all watched the dude beg for his life while he was being murdered. The only people who don't recognize it for what it is are just awful sociopaths.


so cops?
 
2021-04-12 9:54:08 AM  

flucto: The cop had a duty to exercise reasonable care. His abject failure to exercise care does not turn on whether Mr. Floyd had drugs in his systems. It's a bad defense and it's not going to work.


It's a bad defense, for sure.
Has a preeeety good chance of working.
 
2021-04-12 9:55:33 AM  

GhostOfSavageHenry: We all watched the dude beg for his life while he was being murdered. The only people who don't recognize it for what it is are just awful sociopaths.


Dude begging *not* to die should be killed by police because he was dying from being a junkie anyways. Patients begging to be allowed to die because their terminal illness has made them miserable should be forced to endure because Jesus. #republicanlogic
 
2021-04-12 9:56:10 AM  

SoupGuru: In what world is slowly strangling someone to death in public ever acceptable?

Right, this world United States of America. Where those arguments are being made and people will defend it.

Disgusting.


You leave us, leaving in the rest of the world, out of your problems...
 
2021-04-12 9:57:38 AM  

Lambskincoat: This what I have been thinking, the argument is that he had coronary plaque, and was using fentanyl, so he was so well on his way to the other side, strangulation was just a gentle shove. This would make killing folks like him a gimme. At the beginning of the trial they put it out there that he had had multiple heart attacks, which I believed, and of course turned out to be a lie.


I believe their argument is "He was unknowably close to death, so much so that standard procedures were enough to kill him". Same defense that would be used if an old guy had a heart attack from lights and sirens at a traffic stop. Kinda falls apart when you point out that sitting on a suspect's neck isn't standard procedure, and if it was an officer should be able to assess and adjust to non-standard situations. But, you go to court with the arguments you have, not the arguments you want.
 
2021-04-12 10:02:03 AM  
What do you mean?  Society has been arguing that for years, by the way we do our social services.

But if you PAY enough to have a bad drug habit, like visit doctors and get legal prescriptions, then it's more acceptable.  As long as you can keep working.

It's those people who don't contribute enough to society, AND do drugs, that are the problem.
 
2021-04-12 10:02:29 AM  

johnphantom: They want to get into his drug addiction? I say let's get into the reasons why he was addicted, then.


Exactly.
 
2021-04-12 10:02:55 AM  
You all seem to believe the cop will be found guilty.
 
2021-04-12 10:04:11 AM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Lambskincoat: This what I have been thinking, the argument is that he had coronary plaque, and was using fentanyl, so he was so well on his way to the other side, strangulation was just a gentle shove. This would make killing folks like him a gimme. At the beginning of the trial they put it out there that he had had multiple heart attacks, which I believed, and of course turned out to be a lie.

I believe their argument is "He was unknowably close to death, so much so that standard procedures were enough to kill him". Same defense that would be used if an old guy had a heart attack from lights and sirens at a traffic stop. Kinda falls apart when you point out that sitting on a suspect's neck isn't standard procedure, and if it was an officer should be able to assess and adjust to non-standard situations. But, you go to court with the arguments you have, not the arguments you want.


Floyd was already claiming trouble when the cops put him in the squad car.  That alone could lend credence to the hypothesis that stress induced by being arrested was sufficient to tip him over the edge.
 
2021-04-12 10:04:38 AM  
 
2021-04-12 10:13:35 AM  

SoupGuru: In what world is slowly strangling someone to death in public ever acceptable?

Right, this world. Where those arguments are being made and people will defend it.

Disgusting.


Creating doubt is the defense attorney's sole job.  If the jury hangs on bogus arguments, good.  If they acquit, best.  Yes, it's disgusting, but that's the system we have.

Professional jurors might be the way to go.  Folks who understand both forensic science (namely, that a crime lab takes weeks, not hours, to run tests) and the law.  I'd also like to see 2 lawyers get assigned to a case, and they're presented with all the evidence.  Only after both feel confident that they have heard all of the evidence and understand what happened would one be assigned to prosecute and the other defend.  Cops would have a harder time hiding/faking evidence, since they won't know which lawyer to suck up to.
 
2021-04-12 10:15:20 AM  

kbronsito: GhostOfSavageHenry: We all watched the dude beg for his life while he was being murdered. The only people who don't recognize it for what it is are just awful sociopaths.

Dude begging *not* to die should be killed by police because he was dying from being a junkie anyways. Patients begging to be allowed to die because their terminal illness has made them miserable should be forced to endure because Jesus. #republicanlogic


Best to just mosey on down to to the booze palace and score a fifth of the protic polar solvent ethanol (vodak is good).  All the stats on VA patients who had their narcotic analgesics nixed to perk up the soccer moms and evangelics, weren't so good (OD's on alcohol tend to be far uglier than narcotic analgesics) (dead vets from alcohol don't attract attention) and heard some scum claiming that opioids killed more Americans than Booze, last year.  However, once one adds in the 9000+ killed DUI - why, the booze holds its position as number one killer.

Hope prosecution required quantitative test results - qualitative test results are bullshiat ("it's there in his blood!  Oh, how many mikes per????).
 
2021-04-12 10:19:32 AM  

dothemath: Ambivalence: if a man jumps off a building, and someone shoots him in the heart as he's falling, is the shooter criminally liable for the man's death even though he was going to die anyway?

Question 2: If a 15 year old is charged as an adult does that mean they are fair game for child molesters?


I get the point you are making but, yeah that is definitely past the line.

Ew.
 
2021-04-12 10:20:59 AM  
Chavin's defense team is basically arguing that if someone is using drugs it's okay to murder them

And that's a Factoid.
 
2021-04-12 10:22:27 AM  

SoupGuru: In what world is slowly strangling someone to death in public ever acceptable?

Right, this world. Where those arguments are being made and people will defend it.

Disgusting.


George Floyd was not strangled. The knee to his neck did not cut off his ability to breath. The position he was held in, prone on a hard surface, with pressure applied to his back caused positional asphyxia. In essence, he was held in a position where he was forced into an exhaled posture and not allowed to inhale.

One other cop specifically told Chauvin that they had to move him onto his side. Chauvin controlled the scene and didn't allow that. Chauvin in responsible for killing George Floyd but not by "strangling". I know it looked like he killed him with the knee but that's not what the evidence (and testimony) of the medical experts show.

I make a big deal out of it because the defense if going to point it out as if it means Chauvin isn't guilty. He is guilty. He was trained, specifically, that holding a man in that position risks killing them. He was warned by another cop on the scene. He held him that way until he stopped breathing and showed no pulse, and then he still kept him in that position even after an ambulance arrived. Chauvin murdered Floyd but it wasn't strangulation.
 
2021-04-12 10:23:54 AM  

holdmybones: Ambivalence: Lambskincoat: This what I have been thinking, the argument is that he had coronary plaque, and was using fentanyl, so he was so well on his way to the other side, strangulation was just a gentle shove. This would make killing folks like him a gimme. At the beginning of the trial they put it out there that he had had multiple heart attacks, which I believed, and of course turned out to be a lie.

I remember watching an episode of Law and Order and the lawyers were talking about a case and the DA guy used some legal rhetorical thing: if a man jumps off a building, and someone shoots him in the heart as he's falling, is the shooter criminally liable for the man's death even though he was going to die anyway? The answer was yes, the shooter is liable.

If someone is chronically or even terminally ill, that isn't license to give them a shove towards death.

That's like the first few minutes of Magnolia.


These things do not "just happen".
/respect the c*ck
 
2021-04-12 10:25:56 AM  

fortheloveof: dothemath: Ambivalence: if a man jumps off a building, and someone shoots him in the heart as he's falling, is the shooter criminally liable for the man's death even though he was going to die anyway?

Question 2: If a 15 year old is charged as an adult does that mean they are fair game for child molesters?

I get the point you are making but, yeah that is definitely past the line.

Ew.


I need to stop being shocked by the lower and lower threshold at which people get offended.
 
2021-04-12 10:26:05 AM  
He had lost several friends to police killings

There's evidence of a failed society right there.
 
2021-04-12 10:31:27 AM  

SoupGuru: In what world is slowly strangling someone to death in public ever acceptable?

Right, this world. Where those arguments are being made and people will defend it.

Disgusting.


The only objective is to give that one asshole on the jury his internal excuse.
They only need one.
 
2021-04-12 10:31:55 AM  

dothemath: fortheloveof: dothemath: Ambivalence: if a man jumps off a building, and someone shoots him in the heart as he's falling, is the shooter criminally liable for the man's death even though he was going to die anyway?

Question 2: If a 15 year old is charged as an adult does that mean they are fair game for child molesters?

I get the point you are making but, yeah that is definitely past the line.

Ew.

I need to stop being shocked by the lower and lower threshold at which people get offended.


No I am completely against charging minors as adults, and find it dismaying; it just happens so often that it cannot be shocking any more.

However now that you brought up using being tried as an adult as justification for why someone is not a pedophile I am just waiting for a juvie guard to try to use that in court.
 
2021-04-12 10:33:17 AM  

kbronsito: GhostOfSavageHenry: We all watched the dude beg for his life while he was being murdered. The only people who don't recognize it for what it is are just awful sociopaths.

Dude begging *not* to die should be killed by police because he was dying from being a junkie anyways. Patients begging to be allowed to die because their terminal illness has made them miserable should be forced to endure because Jesus. #republicanlogic


Fark user imageView Full Size


This is rarely the wrong answer
 
2021-04-12 10:34:53 AM  

fortheloveof: dothemath: fortheloveof: dothemath: Ambivalence: if a man jumps off a building, and someone shoots him in the heart as he's falling, is the shooter criminally liable for the man's death even though he was going to die anyway?

Question 2: If a 15 year old is charged as an adult does that mean they are fair game for child molesters?

I get the point you are making but, yeah that is definitely past the line.

Ew.

I need to stop being shocked by the lower and lower threshold at which people get offended.

No I am completely against charging minors as adults, and find it dismaying; it just happens so often that it cannot be shocking any more.

However now that you brought up using being tried as an adult as justification for why someone is not a pedophile I am just waiting for a juvie guard to try to use that in court.


Yes, it seems very odd to me that a court can just decide that this person over here is no longer a child but is now an adult. But only when it comes to violence. Its ridiculous. No child molester has ever successfully used this defense of the "adult child".
 
2021-04-12 10:41:02 AM  
They aren't the only ones.
 
2021-04-12 10:46:35 AM  

cryinoutloud: johnphantom: They want to get into his drug addiction? I say let's get into the reasons why he was addicted, then.

Exactly.


From personal experience I would say some poor life choices helped fuel his addiction.

Chauvin should fry, don't get me wrong.

I am in recovery. I had to replace people places and things. I will still always be an addict though. Some days are sunny. Some are blizzards that I don't want to shovel out of. Addiction IS a disease.

I never met George Floyd. I am not black. Guess I'm just saying the struggle is real and if I went back down that rabbit hole I wouldn't want that POS sitting on my neck if I still had the will to live because I (allegedly) went back out and passed a fake bill or whatever.

$.02
 
2021-04-12 10:49:03 AM  

dothemath: fortheloveof: dothemath: fortheloveof: dothemath: Ambivalence: if a man jumps off a building, and someone shoots him in the heart as he's falling, is the shooter criminally liable for the man's death even though he was going to die anyway?

Question 2: If a 15 year old is charged as an adult does that mean they are fair game for child molesters?

I get the point you are making but, yeah that is definitely past the line.

Ew.

I need to stop being shocked by the lower and lower threshold at which people get offended.

No I am completely against charging minors as adults, and find it dismaying; it just happens so often that it cannot be shocking any more.

However now that you brought up using being tried as an adult as justification for why someone is not a pedophile I am just waiting for a juvie guard to try to use that in court.

Yes, it seems very odd to me that a court can just decide that this person over here is no longer a child but is now an adult. But only when it comes to violence. Its ridiculous. No child molester has ever successfully used this defense of the "adult child".


The thing about this "tried as an adult" thing is that the reasoning used to do it is almost always because the crime was seen as so horrific. But it makes no sense. It amounts to saying that it doesn't matter if you are a minor, if the crime is horrible, you will face harsh consequences. So then why does the law with lesser consequences for minors exist in the first place?

What we do is create one set of laws in a dispassionate way and then decide to change our minds under the influence of the passions induced by specific crimes. It's just plain wrong.
 
2021-04-12 10:54:56 AM  

Exile On Beale Street: /respect the c*ck


I've always felt like they said "Tom, just go out there and be unfiltered you, man!" for that role.
 
2021-04-12 10:57:40 AM  

cryinoutloud: johnphantom: They want to get into his drug addiction? I say let's get into the reasons why he was addicted, then.

Exactly.


They did. The prosecution had his girlfriend explain their struggles with pain and opioid addiction.\
It was, I suspect, partly to get ahead of the drug addiction story so the defense would get less dramatic effect from it but also to humanize the struggle.
 
2021-04-12 11:04:27 AM  
We have three options:

1. Let defense attorneys make pretty much any case they want and let juries sort it out, or
2. Leave it up to politicians.
3. Leave it up to computers.

Which one do you want?

If it's option #1, then be happy when you get called for jury duty.  Lawyers only bother with these defenses because *they work* and juries accept them.
 
2021-04-12 11:15:54 AM  

State_College_Arsonist: Noticeably F.A.T.: Lambskincoat: This what I have been thinking, the argument is that he had coronary plaque, and was using fentanyl, so he was so well on his way to the other side, strangulation was just a gentle shove. This would make killing folks like him a gimme. At the beginning of the trial they put it out there that he had had multiple heart attacks, which I believed, and of course turned out to be a lie.

I believe their argument is "He was unknowably close to death, so much so that standard procedures were enough to kill him". Same defense that would be used if an old guy had a heart attack from lights and sirens at a traffic stop. Kinda falls apart when you point out that sitting on a suspect's neck isn't standard procedure, and if it was an officer should be able to assess and adjust to non-standard situations. But, you go to court with the arguments you have, not the arguments you want.

Floyd was already claiming trouble when the cops put him in the squad car.  That alone could lend credence to the hypothesis that stress induced by being arrested was sufficient to tip him over the edge.


Behind every argument in this case, is a subtle racist argument of genetic inferiority. It's not a bullhorn but a whisper, that white supremacy makes impossible to hear by white folks not paying attention. It's why BLM is a thing. For a longtime, it was argued that black people died at the slightest touch of a strong, virile white Ubermench. Exaggerating to make the point.
 
2021-04-12 11:17:36 AM  
you mean a person with a substance use disorder is still a PERSON?

this is either a shockingly modern way of thinking, or a rather old one...

let us go back to the days of the founding fathers, when everyone was drunk ALL of the time, or the days of freud and jung, when the coca-wine flowed like water and they gave all the fussy babies heroin cough syrups....

or the days of the housewives popping benzos to chase their amphetamine "diet pills" all washed down with a vodka soda.....
 
2021-04-12 11:25:22 AM  

kbronsito: GhostOfSavageHenry: We all watched the dude beg for his life while he was being murdered. The only people who don't recognize it for what it is are just awful sociopaths.

Dude begging *not* to die should be killed by police because he was dying from being a junkie anyways. Patients begging to be allowed to die because their terminal illness has made them miserable should be forced to endure because Jesus. #republicanlogic


i.imgur.comView Full Size


The more you suffer, the more Jesus loves you.
 
2021-04-12 11:30:21 AM  

Xanlexian: kbronsito: GhostOfSavageHenry: We all watched the dude beg for his life while he was being murdered. The only people who don't recognize it for what it is are just awful sociopaths.

Dude begging *not* to die should be killed by police because he was dying from being a junkie anyways. Patients begging to be allowed to die because their terminal illness has made them miserable should be forced to endure because Jesus. #republicanlogic

[i.imgur.com image 600x600]

The more you suffer, the more Jesus loves you.


that's certainly what mother teresa believed. that f*ckin biatch denied dying people even basic painkillers so they would be "closer to christ".

https://scienceblog.com/60730/mother-​t​eresa-anything-but-a-saint/
 
2021-04-12 11:37:06 AM  

awruk!: SoupGuru: In what world is slowly strangling someone to death in public ever acceptable?

Right, this world United States of America. Where those arguments are being made and people will defend it.

Disgusting.

You leave us, leaving in the rest of the world, out of your problems...


Y'all got plenty of problems.
 
2021-04-12 11:44:33 AM  

Xanlexian: kbronsito: GhostOfSavageHenry: We all watched the dude beg for his life while he was being murdered. The only people who don't recognize it for what it is are just awful sociopaths.

Dude begging *not* to die should be killed by police because he was dying from being a junkie anyways. Patients begging to be allowed to die because their terminal illness has made them miserable should be forced to endure because Jesus. #republicanlogic

[i.imgur.com image 600x600]

The more you suffer, the more Jesus loves you.


That can't be real.
 
2021-04-12 11:47:11 AM  

Ostman: Xanlexian: kbronsito: GhostOfSavageHenry: We all watched the dude beg for his life while he was being murdered. The only people who don't recognize it for what it is are just awful sociopaths.

Dude begging *not* to die should be killed by police because he was dying from being a junkie anyways. Patients begging to be allowed to die because their terminal illness has made them miserable should be forced to endure because Jesus. #republicanlogic

[i.imgur.com image 600x600]

The more you suffer, the more Jesus loves you.

That can't be real.


Yes it's real.
 
2021-04-12 11:47:52 AM  

Ambivalence: Lambskincoat: This what I have been thinking, the argument is that he had coronary plaque, and was using fentanyl, so he was so well on his way to the other side, strangulation was just a gentle shove. This would make killing folks like him a gimme. At the beginning of the trial they put it out there that he had had multiple heart attacks, which I believed, and of course turned out to be a lie.

I remember watching an episode of Law and Order and the lawyers were talking about a case and the DA guy used some legal rhetorical thing: if a man jumps off a building, and someone shoots him in the heart as he's falling, is the shooter criminally liable for the man's death even though he was going to die anyway? The answer was yes, the shooter is liable.

If someone is chronically or even terminally ill, that isn't license to give them a shove towards death.


Exactly, it's a tort law concept, but Its principles apply to criminal law too.   it's called the "eggshell skull" rule.   If you punch a person and you were unaware that they had a genetic defect that made their skull have the fagility of an eggshell, and so they die as a result of your punch, you are liable for their death, because, you had no business punching ANYONE so  you "take the victim as you found them" .   Same thing here.  Floyd could have been mid-cardiac arrest, but Chauvin's knee on his neck is what killed him, and therefore Chauvin is a murderer
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.