It shouldn’t matter, but it will…

NPR. George FLoyd autopsy.

George Floyd was recovering from COVID-19, and had fentanyl and cannaboids, respiratory depressants, and methamphetamine, known to trigger fatal arrhythmia, in his bloodstream. He also carried the sickle cell trait, which can also contribute to respiratory collapse.That does not in any way excuse the way he was pinned down and choked, but any defense attorney worth his Bentley is going to raise the issue that Chauvin could not have known of the very healthy looking Floyd’s medical fragility. 2nd and 3rd degree murder require intent to kill.

It’s going to be hard to sell anything more than manslaughter to a jury presented with evidence.

So, hang on for Riots, the Sequel.

21 thoughts on “It shouldn’t matter, but it will…

  1. Wouldn’t be the first time a jury is presented with competing autopsies. Think John Bulushi.

    I thought I heard that the private autopsy is also running a full panel workup. They already say their examination of tissue samples, given to them by the ME, don’t support the existence of heart disease. They said at that time last week, they will rerun examinations on their own samplings taken once the body is returned.

    One thing for sure, IN THIS CASE, the family will not be outgunned because of a disparity of financial resources. My dime to your dollar, the CV of the family pathologists will read like the collective of the Mayo Clinic.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. So based on what you are saying, Don, if none of those pre-exisitng conditions didn’t exist, Chauvin could have stayed on Floyd’s neck a lot longer before he passed out and stopped moving.

    One really big word: BULLSHIT!

    It appears you’re trying really hard it seems to find a way to make the officers’ actions OK, even though you add the statement “That does not in any way excuse the way he was pinned down and choked”…

    How about we let a decent sized cop kneel on your son’s neck for almost 9 minutes and see the outcomes.


    1. Again, I’m not saying it was OK, but it can be presented to a jury in a way that will leave them little choice but to see his death as unintentional.

      Brutalizing a handcuffed as ‘street justice’ is NOT OK even when it doesn’t result in death or permanent injury, but I’m not talking about OK, I’m talking about the legal elements of 2nd or 3rd degree murder(Minn law, not VA) and they just aren’t there.


      1. …they just aren’t there.”

        Seeing as you are a retired dentist in Chesapeake, VA and Keith Ellison is the Attorney General in Minnesota, I tend to believe that he is confident he can make the case for 2nd degree murder. He would not have upgraded the original charges if that were not the case.


        1. Of course he would, he has been a panderer all of his political life. He would charge Chauvin with being the anti-Christ and then blame racism in the Jury when they couldn’t find 666 tattooed on him.


  3. Well it’s classic. The victim has to be smeared to show that he deserved to die.

    “The SOB died on purpose to screw the loyal public servant.”

    “Off with his head!“

    “I don’t care if he is dead.”

    And so goes the great American tragedy.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You are the problem.

      You are so obsessed with your team winning that you are incapable of dealing with the facts, which do not support the charge.

      So, you build a straw man to knock down instead of addressing the issue .


      1. It is NOT about “winning”; it about justice. It appears that if Mr. Floyd were white and the cop was black, you would be screaming the exact opposite. Check for your own prejudices.

        The issue is cops killing unarmed individuals with impunity. Extrajudicial killing of people is the issue. Trying to take the killing of a human being and trying to decide the fate as a dentist and not a lawyer is the issue.

        A man who POSSIBLY committed the crime of passing a bad $20 is dead at the hands of the police, while handcuffed, is THE issue. Justifying it because the perpetrator was a cop (or cops), and trying to bring into play the individual medical information without mentioning the several complaints filed against Chauvin is misleading dangerous and wrongheaded.


        1. RE: “Check for your own prejudices.”

          You should take your own advice. You might also do a little research into how police handle suspects who are high on drugs. A doped-up human being can be a dangerous animal.

          To Dr. Tabor’s point, the fact that George Floyd might have been using PCP for all the police knew at the time of arrest will likely be an element of the officers’ defense.


          1. My prejudices are against unnecessary brutal actions taken against an individual who was in custody and under control. This was not a violent offender who was caught car jacking a vehicle, doing an armed robbery, or raping someone. He was accused of passing a forged @20 bill. Quick get the stun guns out!

            He was cuffed and on the ground. Period. IN CUSTODY. UNDER CONTROL. There is no defense for what was done to him.

            Of the three items listed in Don’s post, three are depressants. Your backing of his statement is misguided.


          2. RE: “My prejudices are against unnecessary brutal actions taken against an individual who was in custody and under control.”

            Consider your virtue signaled.


        2. Again what does that have to do with whether the necessary elements for a 2nd or 3rd degree murder charge are met?

          The law is what it is, or do you want to start convicting people of crimes based on polls?


          1. An attorney knows a helluva lot more about the laws in his state than you do. Ellison was quite specific that he felt the merits of the case resulted in upgrading the charges.

            But if Mr. Floyd were white and the cop were black…. You know the rest.


          2. YOu are the one obsessed with race

            What I pointed out was that in view of the medical examiner’s report, there was too much underlying fragility to preclude reasonable doubt that Chauvin did not intend to kill.

            Chauvin’s treatment of a man in custody is still criminal but making the case for intent is going to be pretty much impossible.


          3. “YOu are the one obsessed with race”

            Not really. I am just pointing out your hypocrisy. You can deny all you want, but it is on full display regularly here.

            And it is not up to you to decide whether intent can be proven or not. If Ellison did not think it was possible, then he would not have upgraded the charges. Or are you calling into question his abilities as a prosecutor? He has a reputation to maintain in that position.

            WRT to the ME report, the initial findings was that no homicide was committed. However, as soon as the private forensic report came out, all of a sudden, the official report changed. If the ME had any credibility, he would have stood by his initial report. Apparently he isn’t as good at his job as he should be.


          4. So, you’re saying the ME faked a positive SARS-Cov2 test, sickle cell trait, and drugs that depress respiration and stimulate arrythmia?

            Not even considering why, how would he do that?

            Could Chauvin have known of that medical fragility?

            Keep in mind that Floyd was able to say ‘I can’t breathe’ which requires breathing, even of short of breath. Three other officers are going to say that Chauvin might have been overdoing it but that they didn’t think Floyd was in danger, because it’s in their interest to do so.

            So. Mr Prosecutor. tell the jury how, beyond reasonable doubt, you can establish Chauvin intended Floyd to die? Reckless endangerment pretty easy, but intent?

            Take your best shot.


          5. …”you’re saying the ME faked a positive SARS-Cov2 test,”…

            No. I am saying his origianl report said not a homicide. He changed his ruling AFTER the private autopsy showed otherwise.


          6. So?

            The officers on the scene did not have the benefit of either, not that of hindsight.

            The prosecutor must prove intent.

            And in MN, the jury cannot convict of lesser included charges unless the defense agrees to that in the jury instructions, so if he goes with murder 2 or 3, he risks not getting a conviction for manslaughter, which was the appropriate charge.

            So he could put the jury in the position of having to acquit, with prejudice.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s