anyone paying attention

[William one eye]

Unless it can be proven that he would have died at appriximately the same time of day on that day with no police action.
I still am quite certain it is not relevant.

If you are aware of some existing case judgements or legal code that says otherwise, i will be happy to listen.

And furthermore if i am correct once you are sucessfully detained your health and saftey become the burden of those that have detained you.

[Meliva]

What you condition was like before you were detained, is an important factor. Unless you think he got all doped up, after, he was arrested. After all, there is only so much police can do for people they arrest, when that person is doped up, or in bad shape.

I am sure that for the jury, it is a very important factor to consider about the state he was in and what drugs he was on. Regardless, the burden of proof is on you, not me. You made the claim that being on drugs during his death are not relevant. I disagree with that, and say it is very relevant. So what laws exist that say a persons condition and what drugs if any they are on, is completely irrelevant when holding a murder trial?

[William one eye]

Without even opening a book, I can sight at least one legal precident in which a detainee under the influence of drugs was murdered and the drugs in his system were not considered relevant to out come of the trail by the jury.


So i say if you disagree with me the burdon of proof lies on you.

[Meliva]

Burden of proof lies on the person who makes a claim. You made the claim that drugs are not relevant. I disagreed with that, so no, burden of proof is on you.

I could also say that I know a trial in which drugs did factor in for a detainee's death. Very easy to say things without providing details/links to back it up. Regardless, I am also not saying that every case is the same- If someone was in nearly perfect health, and only smoked a little weed, and then a cop arrested them, and, while had them handcuffed, shot them with every bullet they had in the head, then in a case like that, yeah, that little bit of weed is no longer relevant in that case.

Hence, why cases are looked at with numerous factors and angles. Some cases are pretty clear cut, black and white, and some are not. Ultimately, drugs do have relevance in many cases, and are an imporant factor to consider in many of them. So unless you know a law that says otherwise, the burden of proof of you claim that drugs are not relevant, is on you.

[William one eye]

State v. Chauvin

What trial are you citing?

[William one eye]

Cases are not looked at with numerous factors and angles.
Assuming no one is messing about with the judge or jury.

One side presents a case and the other side defends agains that case.

The judge and jury are expected to deliberate based upon legal codes and precidents combined with the information provided in the case presentations and only that information.

If someone presents valid medical evidence stating he would have died that day, due to health conditions and or intoxicants in his system. Than it certainly becomes relevant.



Dont get me wrong if you get killed after taking an officers weapon, you get killed while shooting an officer, or you get killed while actively trying to stab or shoot someone else, I believe its your own fault.

When you are kneeling on a face down handcuffed person who is already unconcious to detain them i have a very hard time, believing it is their fault.

[Meliva]

Looks like you missed my point completely. I really do not see how you are not getting this. A trial is supposed to look at numerous factors. Drugs in a person system is a very relevant factor, for many trials. Just because Chauvin was found guilty, does not magically make drugs an irrelevant factor in all trials.

What law, states that a person's condition in regards to drugs, is completely irrelevant to all trials? That is quite literally the only thing, I am arguing against you here. You claimed that drugs are not relevant. Not to mention, unless you were on that jury, you do not know, if they talked about or considered the drugs in his system while trying to decide a verdict. I wouldn't be surprised if the drugs were at the very least discussed to see how much relevance, if any they had on his death.

Also, depending on the case, there can be many factors and angles to look at. Where was the murder weapon found? How did the victim die, hell, each piece of evidence alone is a factor.

if drugs are present in a person's system when they die, then you at the very LEAST, have to figure out, if the drugs are what killed them, or if it was something else-after all, if I ran over a man who was passed out on the road, who passed out there drunk, what if he was already dead from alchohol poisoning before I even ran him over? Even if I backed up and ran him over a dozen times, It's not murder if he was already a corpse. Course, that would be desecrating a corpse, and probably some other crimes, but it is not murder. . If it's found out that, no, the drugs were not the cause of death, then they lose their relevance in regards to cause of death though may be relevant for other reasons or factors in determining things. Until you find that out however and can completely rule out drugs as having nothing more to do with a trial, you can not say drugs are irrelevant to trials.

Once again- literally just saying that drugs are relevant to certain trials. There is no law saying otherwise. I am not saying that chauvin is innocent, or he is blameless. That is not the point I am making. You stated drugs are not relevant. That is not true at all. They are relevant for many trials, and to determine certain things.

[William one eye]

I did not miss your point, i just do not agree, that it was deemed relevant in this case. Perhaphs is was a failure of the defense team to prove so. You have a man killed in an an arrest after allegedly commiting a felony. However the deceased is not on trial. The actions of a person applying seemingly excessive force to an already detained person were.

"What law, states that a person's condition in regards to drugs, is completely irrelevant to all trials?"

None, however impaired persons condition needs to place them in a position of liability in the incident, for it to be relevant.
Then the legal team must also convincingly prove it directly affected the outcome of the situation


The defense failed to prove his health or the drugs were relevant to his death. The jury is not supposed to say hmmm. But what if this or what if that.

If he appeals and can prove in an appeal that drugs could have had a significant and direct affect on the deadly outcome of the situation and liability was shared than a reduction in charges is possible. Most likely he would still end up with 3rd degree.

If it was proven that Floyd was dying and the restraint accelerated the condition. He might get a reduction to negligent homicide.



Chauvins best option is to claim he has
Paraphillia and that homo erotic aspyhixiation is his thing.
Then he can claim he was passionatly aroused and it was all to do with his sexual orientation. Then a bunch of PC SJWs might petetion to get his charges expunged and the they can celebrate him as a hero who was a victim of unfair societal pressures.

[Captain of the Seas]

Floyd isn't the first person to die in police custody, due to positional asphyxia. Which is why police officers are trained, in order to prevent that. Chauvin had received such training, so he knew what he was doing. Because he knew what he was doing would kill the man, this isn't excessive force, not even manslaughter, this is murder. And it wasn't even the first time he did that, he did it before, to a 14 year old , who went unconscious, due to the lack of oxygen, but survived. The man is a cold blooded killer and there should be no place for people like him in the police force.

I think because of that, the DOJ is investigating how they teach officers there. So hopefully we can figure out if it was just Chauvin or if he was taught poorly.

And on the issue with the drugs, I do think drugs play a large factor in this, but I think it was more that Floyd could not breath than drugs. Part of the issue was that Floyd was arrested for a counterfeit $20 bill and the neck part was to excessive(I don't think Floyd was trying to resist, but I could be wrong.)

Also, Meliva asked " However, did he kneel on his neck as hard as possible with intent to kill? Or did he simply do a stupid thing, thinking it wouldn't kill him, but due to drugs in his system ended up causing his death?" and I just wanted to add that the charges include second-degree unintentional murder.

[William one eye]

Intent to kill would have been intentional murder.

The unintentional 2nd degree charge imply the prosecution and jury believes he intentionally used excess force without the intent to kill.

The drugs or possibly just the victims poor health are very likley to have played a major role in his demise. Body cam footage and bystander footage show little resistance from the victim.
With the exception of his resitance to being placed in the police suv. It should be noted the victim was complaining he could not breath long before he was physically restrained on the ground.

Some of the injuries he sustained appear likely to have been caused when he jumped or fell or was pulled out of the suv. This is just my opinion.

However none of this explains continued excessive restraint of an already handcuffed detainee who was face down on the pavement. Including several minutes after he lost consiousness. Poor training or bad training does not explain a careless disreguard for life.


Passing a counterfit bill of any denomination is a fedral crime.
However the victim is no longer available to stand trial for that accusation.