(Apr 8, 2021 10:58 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]Dr. Tobin, the pulmonologist for the prosecution, isn’t being paid and he basically ruled out that Fetanyl and/or pre-existing health conditions didn’t cause Floyd’s death.
The defense’s cross examination of Dr. Tobin seemed weak so I’m thinking today, was a “win” for the prosecution, all things considered.
I think the jury can only be expected to provide a verdict based on the evidence alone, not on what could have been brought in as additional evidence to help (or hurt) Chauvin’s case.
Why would an expert witness agree to testify without pay? That's an unusual situation, because the time of professional experts is usually worth something to them. So what is his time worth, if not money (he usually charges $500/hr for non-criminal cases)? Maybe peddling his own bias as fact on the witness stand? The medical examiner, who actually examined the body, concluded that Floyd had several times enough fentanyl in his system to kill him.
(Apr 9, 2021 01:07 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]It’s natural to wonder why someone commits a crime, any crime, but the prosecution isn’t required to prove a motive, I don’t think? Your take on it is curious, confused.
No, they specifically chose to charge him with unintentional crimes.
(Apr 9, 2021 01:15 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Apr 8, 2021 10:58 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]Dr. Tobin, the pulmonologist for the prosecution, isn’t being paid and he basically ruled out that Fetanyl and/or pre-existing health conditions didn’t cause Floyd’s death.
The defense’s cross examination of Dr. Tobin seemed weak so I’m thinking today, was a “win” for the prosecution, all things considered.
I think the jury can only be expected to provide a verdict based on the evidence alone, not on what could have been brought in as additional evidence to help (or hurt) Chauvin’s case.
Why would an expert witness agree to testify without pay? That's an unusual situation, because the time of professional experts is usually worth something to them. So what is his time worth, if not money (he usually charges $500/hr for non-criminal cases)? Maybe peddling his own bias as fact on the witness stand? The medical examiner, who actually examined the body, concluded that Floyd had several times enough fentanyl in his system to kill him.
From the video clip that I watched, it appears that Dr. Tobin shared this on the stand today, that he isn't getting paid. His reason being that he finds this to be ''an important case.''
(Apr 9, 2021 01:07 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]It’s natural to wonder why someone commits a crime, any crime, but the prosecution isn’t required to prove a motive, I don’t think? Your take on it is curious, confused.
No, they specifically chose to charge him with unintentional crimes.
True, but with a twist - third degree murder suggests possible malice and depravity. A defendant basically knew right from wrong, but continued to do the wrong thing. In this case for example, that could mean that Chauvin knew to shift a suspect onto his/her side after cuffing them in the prone position, but
chose not to. I think this is why the defense is bringing up the ''crowd'' as a distraction, etc. That's just one example, but according to the police officers who have testified, looks like Chauvin (and the other officers) didn't follow a lot of the typical procedural things one does when a suspect is in the prone position, and no longer resisting, let alone ...not moving at all for several minutes. Not saying I think there was malice per se, but the prosecution has that on the table.
And, here we go...
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa...story.html
It's heathen impiety, I know, but I haven't paid any attention to this trial at all in terms of media coverage. Zilch. But if I start hearing rumbling about a good possibility that the assassinator of Jesus might actually be acquitted, then my interest could perk-up a bit just to brace for another season of Rome burning. (Nah, not even that. No anomie communities run for decades by Donk ringmasters around here -- just people assembling peacefully in the streets.)
My post deleted, I just wanted to edit it.
Yea, I really didn't follow much of this story last year when it broke, other than keeping up on the riots happening all over the country in response to it. But, I've always been interested in criminal trials, and how the justice system works. I'd like to think justice will prevail and that the facts will lead to accurate verdicts.
I think it was smart to air the trial on public tv, because it completely leaves media bias out, and you can just watch it and draw your own conclusions.
(Apr 9, 2021 03:14 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]From the video clip that I watched, it appears that Dr. Tobin shared this on the stand today, that he isn't getting paid. His reason being that he finds this to be ''an important case.''
The only people who think it's "an important case" are those who've already decided Chauvin is guilty...of something, anything...and it's important for social justice, police racism, or something. Hence he's testifying for free to sway the jury toward his biased presumptions.
(Apr 9, 2021 01:07 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:No, they specifically chose to charge him with unintentional crimes.
True, but with a twist - third degree murder suggests possible malice and depravity. A defendant basically knew right from wrong, but continued to do the wrong thing. In this case for example, that could mean that Chauvin knew to shift a suspect onto his/her side after cuffing them in the prone position, but chose not to. I think this is why the defense is bringing up the ''crowd'' as a distraction, etc. That's just one example, but according to the police officers who have testified, looks like Chauvin (and the other officers) ignored a lot of the typical procedural things one does when a suspect is in the prone position, and no longer resisting, let alone ...not moving at all for several minutes. Not saying I think there was malice per se, but the prosecution has that on the table.
And, here we go...
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa...story.html
Under Minnesota law, deprived mind is effectively the same as recklessness, which is a step above gross negligence. So they wouldn't have to prove motive nor even any particular state of mind. They would have to prove that "an ordinary and reasonably prudent man would recognize [it] as involving a strong probability of injury to others". That's a high bar considering how often such a restraint is used without any harm done (237 times over 5 years in that city alone).
DON'T put casualties in the recovery position, researchers say: New first aid guide says moving patients could make it harder to spot breathing difficulties
Prosecution witness Minneapolis police medical support coordinator Nicole Mackenzie will be testifying for the defense, because under cross-examination she admitted that police have to prioritize threats over providing aid (did you hear that reported?). Even the EMTs did a "swoop and scoop", where they do not provide aid on site, due to potential danger.
Multiple witnesses agreed, on cross-examination, that Chauvin's knee was actually on Floyd's back/shoulder blades, when seen from a better angle.
It is a high bar, but we haven't heard everything yet, so just have to wait and see.
The media should tone down its reporting (I know it won't) as to not suggest that the prosecution is hitting it out of the park. They've had good and bad days during the trial, as well as the defense to be honest, so it's reckless to suggest to the public that basically this trial is a formality, and a conviction is imminent. If there is an acquittal or the jury ends up dead locked, there may be riots as a repercussion due to the media's misrepresentation of facts.
I don't have a steady diet of leftist media...it's just not entirely off the menu.
(Apr 9, 2021 04:00 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]My post deleted, I just wanted to edit it.
Yea, I really didn't follow much of this story last year when it broke, other than keeping up on the riots happening all over the country in response to it. But, I've always been interested in criminal trials, and how the justice system works. I'd like to think justice will prevail and that the facts will lead to accurate verdicts.
I think it was smart to air the trial on public tv, because it completely leaves media bias out, and you can just watch it and draw your own conclusions.
Thanks to both you and Syne for providing some updates, input, and analysis with respect to its unfolding progress. At least I seem to be bothering in a mitigated way to encounter it somewhere indirectly, if not directly.
(Apr 9, 2021 04:38 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]I don't have a steady diet of leftist media...it's just not entirely off the menu.
What non-leftist, non-establishment media do you imbibe?
Enough to watch/engage with the thread I started specifically for the trial?
https://www.scivillage.com/thread-10125.html