The dumb bastard learned about some crackpot theory and wants a new trial. It would be great if he got a new trial and a longer sentence…and a shank in his neck.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-...t=link&ICID=ref_fark

I know. Lane thinks cops should be able to murder anyone who isn’t Lane. That guy can eat shit, too.

I don't think this theory is going to get him very far. Like all convicts, he's got plenty of time to come up with novel new theories for appeal.

I saw something interesting in this article. The article is implying, heavily, that Chauvin died of asphyxia.

Asphyxia is condition arising when the body is deprived of oxygen, causing unconsciousness or death; suffocation.

Thus, I conclude the jury found Chauvin inflicted with force the means to cause asphyxia that resulted in unjustified (under the law) death of Floyd.

The fact that Dr. Easter disagrees without having the benefit of sitting through the trial, hearing jury deliberations, or jury instructions is not sufficient to call the verdict into question.

The fact the the jury rejected Defense expert testimony is not sufficient to diatribe the verdict. The choice of which and what from each witness to believe rest in the jury. The Appellate Courts are not permitted to disturb the jury verdict because the jury picked the state’s experts to make it findings.

What I think Chauvin is doing, is attacking his counsel as being ineffective for not presenting this medical theory at trial supported by this doctor. I have no idea if this medical theory would survive Daubert analysis.

The way I read it, this expert testimony that he is relying on in the appeal isn't part of the trial record. It wasn't raised. Which is just another reason an appellate court is never going to consider it.

That is correct. Hence, he is attacking the ineffectiveness of counsel in not presenting this expert, medical testimony.

That is what I think he is doing.

Court overturn my conviction bc had my lawyer done his job right and presented this medical expert I would have been found innocent.

How come they never found marks on St George’s neck? Cutting off one’s air for minutes would leave a mark I suspect.

Marks on neck do not have to be present to cause strangulation or asphyxiation.

That is well documented in medical literature.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
That is correct. Hence, he is attacking the ineffectiveness of counsel in not presenting this expert, medical testimony.

That is what I think he is doing.

Court overturn my conviction bc had my lawyer done his job right and presented this medical expert I would have been found innocent.

You're probably right. I think ineffective assistance of counsel arguments are pretty standard in cases like this one.

I mean.....you gotta try to say something, right?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Marks on neck do not have to be present to cause strangulation or asphyxiation.

That is well documented in medical literature.

However, they “usually” are and when looking at this circumstance, a man with his knee on one side of the neck and pavement on the other, it should be expected IF it were exerting the pressure needed to both hold Floyd down and cause asphyxiation. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that Floyd died from other causes…especially with the tox analysis.

The burden of beyond a reasonable doubt was not met. Chauvin is in jail for doing his job. I can agree he should be fired and banned from being a LEO but I don’t believe he should be in jail.

Well, the people who teach me say they are not present 60 percent of the time.

So, I go with them. Apparently, the jury did as well. No marks present is a red herring.

The burden is beyond “Reasonable” Doubt; not any doubt, not any speculative doubt.

A Jury is permitted to draw any reasonable inferences or desires.

What you think the law is, and what it actually is are not the same.

However, I have explained the basic controlling principles concerning the burden to overturn a jury verdict multiple times now.

The fact the jury rejected Chauvin’s experts and accepted the government’s experts is not sufficient to disturb the verdict as a matter of law.

I am not speaking of “skin marks” per se. There are other pathological changes (subcutaneous bruising, muscle bruising, localized edema, skin abrasion etc etc) that a pathologist would expect to find in this case. Not all but some would be present in a very high percentage of cases where asphyxiation was caused by a full sized man kneeling with his full weight on the neck against a hard surface like pavement. The fact that NONE of them were present IS highly suspicious.

Yes I hear you on the rest. We all have to live with the fact that we sent a cop to jail for the rest of his life for doing his job. Not perfectly but who is? Floyd had the option to sit quietly in the cruiser the first time he was put in.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I am not speaking of “skin marks” per se. There are other pathological changes (subcutaneous bruising, muscle bruising, localized edema, skin abrasion etc etc) that a pathologist would expect to find in this case. Not all but some would be present in a very high percentage of cases where asphyxiation was caused by a full sized man kneeling with his full weight on the neck against a hard surface like pavement. The fact that NONE of them were present IS highly suspicious.

Yes I hear you on the rest. We all have to live with the fact that we sent a cop to jail for the rest of his life for doing his job. Not perfectly but who is? Floyd had the option to sit quietly in the cruiser the first time he was put in.

I slept like a baby last night knowing this asshat was in prison, and anticipate no insomnia on his behalf tonight.

The people that did their job were the 12 jurors that heard all evidence, listened to the witnesses and deliberated for more than 10 hours before convicting Chauvin.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I am not speaking of “skin marks” per se. There are other pathological changes (subcutaneous bruising, muscle bruising, localized edema, skin abrasion etc etc) that a pathologist would expect to find in this case. Not all but some would be present in a very high percentage of cases where asphyxiation was caused by a full sized man kneeling with his full weight on the neck against a hard surface like pavement. The fact that NONE of them were present IS highly suspicious.

Yes I hear you on the rest. We all have to live with the fact that we sent a cop to jail for the rest of his life for doing his job. Not perfectly but who is? Floyd had the option to sit quietly in the cruiser the first time he was put in.

He wasn’t a threat, you untermensch pile of shit.

LDO
You are a psycho.

Lane,
take it easy on LDO .. he's from Austin

Speaking of Austin, has anyone dined at Black’s BBQ?

black's is okay .. franklin's is better, salt lick driftwood is best

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I am not speaking of “skin marks” per se. There are other pathological changes (subcutaneous bruising, muscle bruising, localized edema, skin abrasion etc etc) that a pathologist would expect to find in this case. Not all but some would be present in a very high percentage of cases where asphyxiation was caused by a full sized man kneeling with his full weight on the neck against a hard surface like pavement. The fact that NONE of them were present IS highly suspicious.

Yes I hear you on the rest. We all have to live with the fact that we sent a cop to jail for the rest of his life for doing his job. Not perfectly but who is? Floyd had the option to sit quietly in the cruiser the first time he was put in.

From what I saw on the videos, Chauvin knelt on Floyd's head, not his neck. Why would you expect bruising, etc., on his neck?

quote:

The burden of beyond a reasonable doubt was not met. Chauvin is in jail for doing his job. I can agree he should be fired and banned from being a LEO but I don’t believe he should be in jail.

A jury said beyond reasonable doubt was met. And the penalty for murder should not be losing a job.

God, I wish I was smart enough to second-guess a jury who heard all the evidence, just from watching the news media.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
black's is okay .. franklin's is better, salt lick driftwood is best

+1

Dr. Easter;

I just got done reading a case wherein the state medical examiner testified that 3 causes of death one bing asphyxiation, the other two natural cause of death, were equally possible.

There are no marks nor bruising.

The Jury found guilty for intentional murder. The KY Supreme Court affirmed the intentional murder based on circumstantial evidence.

Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean all doubt or the state has to be exact.

Why am I reading that case? We just got one almost identical in fact pattern last night.

Thanks to both for the bbq recommendations.

That’s why our judicial system is superior to most of the civilized world
Reasonable doubt and appellate courts and of course lawyers that cannot be bribed

Yes, our system is superior.

What is the appellate procedure in Russia, N Korea, China, and even places like Italy? Do not answer that, we know.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Dr. Easter;

I just got done reading a case wherein the state medical examiner testified that 3 causes of death one bing asphyxiation, the other two natural cause of death, were equally possible.

There are no marks nor bruising.

The Jury found guilty for intentional murder. The KY Supreme Court affirmed the intentional murder based on circumstantial evidence.

Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean all doubt or the state has to be exact.

Why am I reading that case? We just got one almost identical in fact pattern last night.

Thanks to both for the bbq recommendations.

Like I teach my hitters…never put the 3rd strike in the hands of the umpire.

I will always err on the side of setting all guilty men loose versus putting even one non-guilty in prison.

I always believed our legal system was predicated on that purpose.

I believe you prosecutors see it vice versa. That saddens me.

Then you are disqualified for cause from setting on any jury as the courts across the states have said the state is not required to prove its case beyond all doubt it any sentinel of doubt. If you absolutely will not convict based on circumstantial evidence as case law permits; you are disqualified.

You have a prejudice to law enforcement in these types of cases that overrides reason. That is not my conclusion, that is the appellate courts rationale that does not require the burden of proof you seek.

Our system relies upon reasonable doubt. It does not rely upon any or all doubt or direct evidence. Whatever direct evidence is. I can define circumstantial evidence and inferred intent. That is because my Supreme Court has defined and sanctioned convictions based solely on those principles. They go in every jury instruction I write from assault to murder.

Any one who says they need all doubt dispelled, any doubt dispelled, need 100 percent scientific proof, or the like gets struck for cause. I do not even have to use one of my strikes.

We don’t need to be wasting time and money on jury trials all across the country, we can just let Lane watch a news report or two and pronounce guilt or innocence. Easy peasy.

Mike,
I don't think Lane holds the patent on being judgemental without a trial - I mean, *I* am not paying him a royalty

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Yes, our system is superior.

What is the appellate procedure in Russia, N Korea, China, and even places like Italy? Do not answer that, we know.

???

Just examples of known corrupt legal systems that the US does not recognize judgements from.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Just examples of known corrupt legal systems that the US does not recognize judgements from.

And why does that have with me?

Been called some kinda troll so I suppose you got on that bandwagon too
Funny how judgmental people in judicial professions can be instead of being the other way around

Just responding to your post about how superior our judicial system is.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Just responding to your post about how superior our judicial system is.

No,you insinuated and you know it
Read again what you have replied

An endocrine releasing paraglioma would be a VERY rare tumor, and Floyd had not one, but two very comprehensive autopsies that didn't find evidence of a neural tumor. (Part of an autopsy is examination of the brain and structures)...

While I suppose its possible that he has a glioma of some sort, its vanishingly rare, and thus without evidence of this being there, its not within a 1:100,000 chance. I'm not sure what the courts say "reasonable" is, but as I recall it is not the same as possible.

And BTW, I don't agree that Chauvin murdered Floyd, but rather he failed in his duty to him, which essentially is a different route to get where the jury got to with him- he owed Floyd a duty to protect his life once he was no longer a threat, and he failed in that. He was grossly negligent in getting him medical assistance.

If Floyd had been such a threat, that deadly force (choke hold) was needed for so long, why didn't they shoot him?- answer- they didn't think he was that level of a threat... so at what point did Chauvin go past necessary restraint and into either negligence or gross negligence, or intentional infliction of harm?

If they had cuffed him, shackled him, and rolled him into a recovery position, then gotten the paramedics to look at him ASAP, (my understanding of what usual police policy is supposed to be) then this would be a big nothing.

In these kinda situations, I would not wanna be a cop
Sometimes no matter what, you get blamed for something as we have seen in other cop/perpetrator situations in the past
Just like in Shawshank redemption, criminals are all innocent right?
And the moment someone dies, they become Saints

Read or heard a report that one of the officers called for ems very shortly after the arrest began. The ems went to the wrong location and had trouble finding the location. I can not find a report that substantiates this

Supreme Court tossed his appeal.

Personally I think he got raw deal because that case became political hot potatoe

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
Personally I think he got raw deal because that case became political hot potatoe

. . . thank you Dan Quayle.