Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Can you justify a Chauvin guilty verdict using logic and facts?
Both sides called doctors and pathologists who gave conflicting testimony. The problem for the prosecution though is that the medical examiner said that Chauvin didn't kill Floyd and he was the best witness because he's the only one who actually examined Floyd and the only one without a bias.
I would say the defense has slightly better evidence but even if you disagree and think Tobin is the greatest thing since sliced bread, the standard is reasonable doubt.
The only way you can look at the evidence and not have doubts is to completely ignore the testimony of the medical examiner. Maybe if the prosecution had tried to show he was wrong that one be one thing but they actually called him as a witness.
If Chauvin didn't kill Floyd then the prosecution loses all three charges.
On top of that, even if you ignore those facts and still think Chauvin was a factor in Floyd's death the problem is there were a lot of factors in his death- heart disease, fentanyl, meth, covid, stress, carbon monoxide etc. The prosecution has to prove that Chauvin's actions were a substantial cause of Floyd's death. I don't think anyone can say with certainty how much of a role any of these factors played. Even the experts couldn't agree. At best, based on the witness testimony, you could say Chauvin was a factor but there's no way you could say the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin's actions were a substantial factor.
@anonatard- Homicide doesn't mean the same thing as murder. All that it means is someone else was involved. The medical examiner testified that Floyd died of a heart attack because of the stress of the situation. He also testified that Floyd did NOT die from asphyxiation and that Chauvin did not obstruct his breathing. Therefore, all Chauvin did to contribute to his death was create stress.
@Not you- No, my facts are exactly right. See my above response to anonatard.
@eengefan- I'm talking about what the verdict SHOULD be not necessarily what it WILL be. I fully expect the jury to ignore the facts and at least convict him of manslaughter.
@Troi- Sure. I agree Chauvin did a lousy job and should have been reprimanded or maybe even fired. Doing a lousy job isn't the same as murder though or even manslaughter.
@Disco- Not really. The evidence says he had a high probability of dying regardless. He had covid which by itself would have been a 5-10% chance of dying (at that time). He also took a fatal level dose of fentanyl minutes before. One of his arteries was 90% blocked and others were 75%. Now throw the meth on top of it and I'd give him a 50/50 shot of making it a week.
@Kathy, John, anon, anon- So I take it your answer to the question is no.
By the way, the evidence in the trial showed Chauvin's knee was not on his neck the entire time. It was on his back but because of constant shifting of weight may have ended up on his neck a couple of times.
@Rick- You're repeating a lot of the same stupidity that was already proven wrong.
"None of the defense...experts" Does it matter who called the witness?
"The medical examiner..." I repeat. Homicide is not the same thing as murder.��
"The toxicolgist..." and there's a lot of better evidence to the contrary
"The cardiologist..." ...is not qualified to give a cause of death and did NOT examine him.
@rick(con)- "Evidence did NOT show..." Uhhh...yeah it did and even the prosecution agreed it did.
16 Answers
- Obi Wan KnievelLv 72 weeks ago
By the standard of reasonable doubt, he should not be found guilty on the charges of 2nd and 3rd degree murder. On the 2nd degree manslaughter charge, it's extremely possible given his profession at the time. There's a technicality you're missing in legal cases like this.
The technicality is called an elevated standard of care, which applies to trained professionals while performing their jobs. Cops are no exception to that rule, and you can bet the prosecution is pounding on it in the courtroom.
If you or I (assuming you're not a cop) got into an altercation with George Floyd and he ended up dying, we would probably not be facing the barrage of charges filed against Chauvin. That's because we don't have the training and certification a cop has, and because we didn't agree to the "elevated standard" of anything when we went to work that day. When the police take an individual into custody, they (the cop(s) at the scene, the police force itself, and the jurisdiction they work for) are legally responsible for that person's safety. Chauvin knew that when he wrote the exams, he knew it when he got hired on the force, and he knew it when he put his badge on that morning. If the prosecution isn't hammering that over and over into the jury, they're idiots. Elevated standard of care means there is less room for reasonable doubt.
While I don't think Chauvin should be found guilty of the first two charges, I think he probably will be. Not because of any legal technicalities, but purely because of pressure from the threats of mass "peaceful demonstrations" from the dindu community and their trained seals.
- KathyLv 72 weeks ago
He is guilty, plain and simple. He had his knee on George Floyd's neck for over 9 minutes.
- ?Lv 42 weeks ago
9 minutes 29 seconds, 4 of those minutes after he was already dead. I watched the video evidence and did not see the cop REASSESS
THE SITUATION. His superiors said that was not a technique used by MPD.
Share with us how white privledge rationalize 4 minutes on the man's neck after he was dead.
- Not YouLv 62 weeks ago
You have your facts mixed up. The medical examiner who conducted the autopsy ruled it a homicide. He did say that Floyd's health was a contributing factor, but it's not what killed him.
You do have a point bringing up reasonable doubt though. I could see Floyd's health casting enough of a doubt to get a not guilty verdict.
- ?Lv 72 weeks ago
Before anyone gets too certain about the verdict. Let's wait for the verdict, and what ever it turns out to be, there won't be bullsh*t coming from this forum. Bye, Bye, "Yahoo Answers". The heart attack was due to lack of oxygen, technically, Floyd DID die from asphyxiation. The verdict should be "guilty". How severe the sentence? We will see what the jury has to say.
- Anonymous2 weeks ago
It's a biased trial. Floyd deserved what he got. Cockaroach.
- Anonymous2 weeks ago
I think you've been watching the wrong trial.
- Anonymous2 weeks ago
Looks like an innocent verdict coming in.
