If you watch the actual 30nminute footage (it's on youtube from 2 different angles) it's very obvious he was fricked on drugs and did absolutely everything he possibly could to force the officer to restrain him in incrementally forceful ways. He was saying "I can't breafe" long before the officer ever pinned him to the floor, among half a dozen other semi coherent mutterings.
>Def not natty
wow, no shit the cop didn't leg go of this 300 pound drugged gorilla, what if the cop had let him go and he attacked someone, Black folk can't control their savage instincts like the whites..
It could go either way. He lifted weights and worked in security. Plus, he’s black and doing meth. However, a lot of people do gear and don’t look like it. IMO I think he was on gear. Good riddence
Can we appreciate for a minute that the only theory of the crime put forward by the prosecution is a theory-in-spite-of-evidence, requiring the defense to disprove the unprovable? A total inversion of the standard of proof.
Facts: >There was no physical evidence of any potentially lethal harm done to George Floyd whatsoever >Every possible physical indicator of lethal harm was provably not present (no petechial hemorrhaging, no bruising, no broken bones, no trauma of any kind) >Every possible indicator of a drug overdose was present, including the drugs in system and partially digested drugs and the drug dealer at the scene >Every possible indicator of a predisposition to drug overdoses was present, from an oversized heart to 90% block artery to history of near death overdoses on the same drug
Thus the theory brought forward by the prosecution was that Derek Chauvin used enough force with his knee to choke out George Floyd, but not enough that it would leave a mark. A goldilocks scenario where its just enough to kill but leave zero evidence
This is like Russell's Teapot, an unprovable claim. It exists only to construct a scenario that can't be disprove by available evidence. No amount of evidence put forward by the defense could contradict the claim, because its based on no evidence and cannot be challenged by evidence.
The prosecutor during the trial pointed to the fact George Floyd had a ratio of fentanyl : norafentanyl metabolized in his system much different than most overdoses. This is because in most overdoses, they die before they can metabolize most of the fentanyl and thus have little metabolized.
George Floyd was seen obviously high on fentanyl than morning and had polysubstance abuse markers from the night before, caffeine, THC, meth & fentanyl all at the same time. Then the police recovered partially digested fentanyl pills from the car he was handcuffed in, which could only have come from him spitting them back up. And he had an entire bag of fentanyl pills prior to being arrested.
In order for george floyd to have the ratio of metabolized fentanyl found in his blood, the only two explanations are he either initially had something like 100x the lethal dose of fentanyl in his system and enough to instantly kill an elephant, a dose completely impossible for a human to take, OR he had an earlier dose of fentanyl and followed it with another one just prior to his death, consistent with the evidence.
The prosecutors pointed to this ratio in order to say george floyd didn't overdose because it wasn't the same as single-usage deaths. They fully knew that george floyd took drugs more than once that day and chose to mislead the jury and try to bamboozle them with this irrelevant detail.
And that's what defense lawyers normally do, try to confuse jurors and get them to latch onto meaningless details. Because the prosecution had inverted the standard of proof, all they had to do was get the jury misled into a bit of confusion and they would convict based on their prejudices, instead of acquitting for reasonable doubt.
Same conviction as if he walked up to George Floyd, pulled out his gun and shot him in the head
was no physical evidence of any potentially lethal harm done to George Floyd whatsoever
Other than the 10 minute video of the cop kneeling on his neck.
which shows George Floyd able to turn his head and speak because no pressure is being exerted on his neck
was no physical evidence of any potentially lethal harm done to George Floyd whatsoever
Other than the 10 minute video of the cop kneeling on his neck.
That is a move that has been used around the world in tons of different countries for probably 50 years. Fricking morons man. Also you can even see them use it in pretty much any movie where someone violent gets arrested going back decades.
>Other than the 10 minute video of the cop kneeling on his neck.
Which you obviously haven't seen
If you watch the actual 30nminute footage (it's on youtube from 2 different angles) it's very obvious he was fricked on drugs and did absolutely everything he possibly could to force the officer to restrain him in incrementally forceful ways. He was saying "I can't breafe" long before the officer ever pinned him to the floor, among half a dozen other semi coherent mutterings.
A properly applied airchoke renders the victim unconscious in 2-5 minutes. A properly applied blood choke renders the victim unconscious in 10-30 seconds.
George Floyd had no bruising, no abrasions, no petechial hemorrhaging, no subdermal trauma, no arterial wall damage, no nothing. Literally not a single mark upon him from the restraint.
Given all the drugs he took he was probably a roidtroony as well. Some over the counter dbol pills along with a shitty routine that he half-assedly did
Okay explain to me how this 300 jacked up gymrat looking fella was completely and utterly powerless against some skinnyfat whitey that's shorter than him?
How did he get overpowered physically so easily? Despite resisting arrest. I think it's something to do with genetics.
Knee drops to failure (of your gym mat)
what did he mean by this?
I have no idea.
peak Black person lynching form
Under the knee!
jej
Black people look like that naturally due to their superior athletic genes
>tfw you’ll never kneel on George’s neck until he’s dead
I want to do it so bad
W-wait
/misc/ told me he died from drugs...?
If you watch the actual 30nminute footage (it's on youtube from 2 different angles) it's very obvious he was fricked on drugs and did absolutely everything he possibly could to force the officer to restrain him in incrementally forceful ways. He was saying "I can't breafe" long before the officer ever pinned him to the floor, among half a dozen other semi coherent mutterings.
Watch it and be your own judge.
Surely a criminal drug addict wouldn't use steroids, right?
Be tall and have a large frame
Be 40ish years old
That’s it. He probably never seriously lifted in his life
Stealing TVs is mad gains
this racist thread is actually thinly veiled this time, good job OP
Def not natty
>Meth
>Fent
>Caffeine
>AND weed
He was jus having a good day
Why the popo gotta ruin dat shit?
>Def not natty
wow, no shit the cop didn't leg go of this 300 pound drugged gorilla, what if the cop had let him go and he attacked someone, Black folk can't control their savage instincts like the whites..
that's not very nice to say
My arms look better than that natty and not a Black person.
Post arms
It could go either way. He lifted weights and worked in security. Plus, he’s black and doing meth. However, a lot of people do gear and don’t look like it. IMO I think he was on gear. Good riddence
>drug addict is also a roid troony
only in America where the Black person is the sacred cow could this shock people
Can we appreciate for a minute that the only theory of the crime put forward by the prosecution is a theory-in-spite-of-evidence, requiring the defense to disprove the unprovable? A total inversion of the standard of proof.
Facts:
>There was no physical evidence of any potentially lethal harm done to George Floyd whatsoever
>Every possible physical indicator of lethal harm was provably not present (no petechial hemorrhaging, no bruising, no broken bones, no trauma of any kind)
>Every possible indicator of a drug overdose was present, including the drugs in system and partially digested drugs and the drug dealer at the scene
>Every possible indicator of a predisposition to drug overdoses was present, from an oversized heart to 90% block artery to history of near death overdoses on the same drug
Thus the theory brought forward by the prosecution was that Derek Chauvin used enough force with his knee to choke out George Floyd, but not enough that it would leave a mark. A goldilocks scenario where its just enough to kill but leave zero evidence
This is like Russell's Teapot, an unprovable claim. It exists only to construct a scenario that can't be disprove by available evidence. No amount of evidence put forward by the defense could contradict the claim, because its based on no evidence and cannot be challenged by evidence.
The prosecutor also said that Floyd didn't look like someone who would OD on drugs so therefore he couldn't have OD'd
The prosecutor during the trial pointed to the fact George Floyd had a ratio of fentanyl : norafentanyl metabolized in his system much different than most overdoses. This is because in most overdoses, they die before they can metabolize most of the fentanyl and thus have little metabolized.
George Floyd was seen obviously high on fentanyl than morning and had polysubstance abuse markers from the night before, caffeine, THC, meth & fentanyl all at the same time. Then the police recovered partially digested fentanyl pills from the car he was handcuffed in, which could only have come from him spitting them back up. And he had an entire bag of fentanyl pills prior to being arrested.
In order for george floyd to have the ratio of metabolized fentanyl found in his blood, the only two explanations are he either initially had something like 100x the lethal dose of fentanyl in his system and enough to instantly kill an elephant, a dose completely impossible for a human to take, OR he had an earlier dose of fentanyl and followed it with another one just prior to his death, consistent with the evidence.
The prosecutors pointed to this ratio in order to say george floyd didn't overdose because it wasn't the same as single-usage deaths. They fully knew that george floyd took drugs more than once that day and chose to mislead the jury and try to bamboozle them with this irrelevant detail.
And that's what defense lawyers normally do, try to confuse jurors and get them to latch onto meaningless details. Because the prosecution had inverted the standard of proof, all they had to do was get the jury misled into a bit of confusion and they would convict based on their prejudices, instead of acquitting for reasonable doubt.
Yep I just didn't want to type all that out. Just a fricking joke and murder? Not even manslaughter? Like does no one see how stupid that is?
Same conviction as if he walked up to George Floyd, pulled out his gun and shot him in the head
which shows George Floyd able to turn his head and speak because no pressure is being exerted on his neck
was no physical evidence of any potentially lethal harm done to George Floyd whatsoever
Other than the 10 minute video of the cop kneeling on his neck.
That is a move that has been used around the world in tons of different countries for probably 50 years. Fricking morons man. Also you can even see them use it in pretty much any movie where someone violent gets arrested going back decades.
and it was specifically adopted because its a less risky way to restrain someone, because it doesn't impair their breathing.
>Other than the 10 minute video of the cop kneeling on his neck.
Which you obviously haven't seen
A properly applied airchoke renders the victim unconscious in 2-5 minutes. A properly applied blood choke renders the victim unconscious in 10-30 seconds.
Both render the victim unable speak immediately.
and also leave marks
George Floyd had no bruising, no abrasions, no petechial hemorrhaging, no subdermal trauma, no arterial wall damage, no nothing. Literally not a single mark upon him from the restraint.
So much zogbot ITT, unironically FRICK THE COPS.
Given all the drugs he took he was probably a roidtroony as well. Some over the counter dbol pills along with a shitty routine that he half-assedly did
Okay explain to me how this 300 jacked up gymrat looking fella was completely and utterly powerless against some skinnyfat whitey that's shorter than him?
How did he get overpowered physically so easily? Despite resisting arrest. I think it's something to do with genetics.
>90% blocked coronal arteries
>3:1 left ventricular hypertrophy
>2 std deviations abnormal heart size
>extreme hypertension
All the muscle mass in the world won't do jack shit if you have zero cardio