Preconceived notions

[Bud]

My brother and sister-in-law called to see how I was making out with all
the nonsense going on in Philly. My sister-in-law is a liberal who I have
gotten into it with many times on a variety of issues. I remember way back
with Rodney King her asking me why they were beating him when he was
already handcuffed. I pointed out to her he wasn`t handcuffed, but of
course the fact that she was totally wrong on a major aspect didn`t matter
to her anyway, impacted her ideas not one bit. So I kind of laid back and
waited for the topic of the video to come up (as I knew it would), and I
told her what I`ve been telling people here, the heart attack that killed
Floyd started before Chauvin`s knee was on Floyd`s neck. She got *very*
upset, sputtering mad. And it occurred to me that people get very upset if
you challenge their preconceived notions. I`ve noticed this before, of
course, especially in regards to the assassination, but also in my
discussions with bpete on the Arbery case. People have a notion about what
happened, and the more you challenge them the tighter their grasp on that
notion.

Also, I was going to start a different post, but I think I`ll include
this here. Before the Floyd autopsy came out, probably about 99% of the
people thought what they saw was Chauvin`s knee cutting off oxygen so that
Floyd suffocated. I said that the autopsy would likely show that he dies
from a heart attack. Even with the autopsy released, probably 90% of the
people still believe that it was Chauvin`s knee depriving Floyd of oxygen
that killed him.

Now, I want to revisit some exchanges I had with DVP. He said...

"DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

"The autopsy shows that Mr. Floyd had no underlying medical problem that
caused or contributed to his death. He was in good health." -- Dr. Michael
Baden; June 1, 2020 [via video below]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1TS9c68VRE

So somebody's lying with regard to Floyd's health conditions. Either the
Minneapolis medical examiner....or Dr. Baden.

Who do you think is the liar, Bud?"

To which I replied...

"What I suppose what I would do if I was this cop`s defense lawyer is
subpoena all of Floyd`s medical records. And that will have a history of
his blood pressure and any signs of hypertension, and if he was ever on
blood pressure medicine. I think I have a idea what they are going to
find."

And of course Floyd`s medical records did indeed show a history of
hypertension and heart disease. So my question is twofold, why am I right
so much, yet my ideas are wrong? And why are the people I discuss these
issues with wrong so much, yet it doesn`t seem to impact their overall
ideas?

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

Your entire argument is premised on your assumption that Floyd was having
a heart attack before Chauvin knelt on his throat. If your assumption is
correct, it does not exonerate Chauvin. It makes what he did even worse.

[Bud]

Your original perception was that it was Chauvin`s knee that was
preventing Floyd from breathing, correct?

> If your assumption is
> correct, it does not exonerate Chauvin. It makes what he did even worse.

Not if he thought what he was actually dealing with was a panic attack.

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

My original perception is that Floyd was telling Chauvin he couldn't
breathe and Chauvin still kept his knee on Floyd's throat. That makes
Chauvin a scumbag in my book.

> > If your assumption is
> > correct, it does not exonerate Chauvin. It makes what he did even worse.
>
> Not if he thought what he was actually dealing with was a panic attack.

Common sense alone should tell you if somebody is telling you they can't
breathe you take them at their word and take your damn knee off their
throat. To do otherwise displays a wanton disregard for that person's
health and safety. To keep the knee on his throat even after you have been
told he has no pulse is an atrocity.

[Bud]

Nice dodge. Seems my premise that people stick to their preconceived
notions no matter what is holding up.

You didn`t give any thought to the fact that Floyd was saying he
couldn`t breathe before Chauvin had his knee on Floyd`s throat, and when
that important detail is brought to your attention it has no impact on
your perception of the event.

> > > If your assumption is
> > > correct, it does not exonerate Chauvin. It makes what he did even worse.
> >
> > Not if he thought what he was actually dealing with was a panic attack.
>
> Common sense alone should tell you if somebody is telling you they can't
> breathe you take them at their word and take your damn knee off their
> throat.

You assume a connection. If Floyd knew he was putting any pressure on
Floyd`s neck he would know there was no connection between the two things.

> To do otherwise displays a wanton disregard for that person's
> health and safety. To keep the knee on his throat even after you have been
> told he has no pulse is an atrocity.

Floyd`s death of a heart attack might not have anything to do with any
action by the police other than the initial lawful arrest.

[Steven M. Galbraith]

Particularly since Floyd had been secured, he posed no threat. He had no
weapons, the situation was under control. There were three other officers
around.

Again, I've read and seen numerous accounts from police officers who say
that is simply not how you respond, that you're not trained to treat
suspects that way. Are they lying?

Bud's a smart guy; I'm really not sure what he's looking at here.

[Bud]

Should have been "If Chauvin knew he wasn`t putting any pressure on

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

You are stealing a page from the conspiracy hobbyist's playbook. You
offered me a leading question and I don't go where you were trying to
lead. You were given an answer you didn't like, so you pretended your
question wasn't answered.

> You didn`t give any thought to the fact that Floyd was saying he
> couldn`t breathe before Chauvin had his knee on Floyd`s throat, and when
> that important detail is brought to your attention it has no impact on
> your perception of the event.
>

We are judging Chauvin's conduct. A man tells him he can't breathe so
Chauvin puts his knee on the man's throat. The man continues to tell him
he can't breathe so Chauvin keeps his knee on the man's throat. Chauvin is
told Floyd has no pulse so Chauvin leaves his knee on the man's throat for
nearly three more minutes. When Chauvin finally takes his knee off the
man's throat, the man is dead. If that isn't criminal behavior, I don't
know what is.

> > > > If your assumption is
> > > > correct, it does not exonerate Chauvin. It makes what he did even worse.
> > >
> > > Not if he thought what he was actually dealing with was a panic attack.
> >
> > Common sense alone should tell you if somebody is telling you they can't
> > breathe you take them at their word and take your damn knee off their
> > throat.
>
> You assume a connection. If Floyd knew he was putting any pressure on
> Floyd`s neck he would know there was no connection between the two things.
>

The medical examiner ruled there was a connection and his expert opinion
carries more weight than your laymen's opinion. You are acting like Marsh
thinking that you with no medical expertise and no access to the body can
render a better judgement about the cause of death than the professional
who examined the body.

> > To do otherwise displays a wanton disregard for that person's
> > health and safety. To keep the knee on his throat even after you have been
> > told he has no pulse is an atrocity.
>
> Floyd`s death of a heart attack might not have anything to do with any
> action by the police other than the initial lawful arrest.

The medical examiner ruled it was a homicide. It was his expert opinion
that there was connection. I expect Chauvin's defense team to resort to
the same sort of games you are to try to hoodwink the jury. All they need
is one person to buy it. This is in the ballpark with, "If the glove
doesn't fit, you must acquit.".

[David Von Pein]

BUD SAID:

You [John Corbett] didn't give any thought to the fact that Floyd was

saying he couldn't breathe before Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's throat,
and when that important detail is brought to your attention it has no
impact on your perception of the event.

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

The impact it has on John's perception of the event is exactly the same as
mine --- i.e., it makes Chauvin look much much WORSE. If he KNEW that the
man he had pinned underneath him was possibly having a heart attack (or
was experiencing ANY kind of a medical emergency), then that is all the
more reason to NOT do what Chauvin did to George Floyd. (And does the
recommended treatment for a "panic attack" really require the patient to
be pinned down with his face scraping the pavement? Sounds odd to me.)

And we know that Chauvin WAS definitely aware of Floyd having SOME type of
medical problem. And that's because the officers called for an ambulance
for Floyd. And waiting for the ambulance, in fact, was most likely the
ONLY reason they waited for 9 minutes to take Floyd up off the ground. If
the ambulance had arrived 3 or 4 minutes earlier, George Floyd would
likely still be alive right now.

BUD SAID:

Floyd's death of a heart attack might not have anything to do with any
action by the police other than the initial lawful arrest.

DAVID V.P. SAYS:

The initial Hennepin County press release is very confusing when it comes
to trying to decipher what they mean in the "Cause of Death" section. It
says:

"Cause of death: Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement
subdual, restraint, and neck compression."

https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd,%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf

The word "complicating" there makes no sense. It makes it sound as if the
"cardiopulmonary arrest" is actually making it difficult for the cops to
subdue Floyd. Ridiculous wording there. They probably meant to say
"complicated by" instead of "complicating".

And I'm still unsure if the term "cardiopulmonary arrest" in that report
is actually referring to a "heart attack" (per se), or whether it's simply
technical coroner-like language which means: The patient's heart stopped.

Also note this part of the same press release:

"How injury occurred: Decedent experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest while
being restrained by law enforcement officer(s)."

So that language above certainly gives the impression that the
"cardiopulmonary arrest" occurred DURING the period when Floyd was being
restrained by the police---not before then. Although I don't know how any
medical examiner could determine exactly WHEN such a heart problem
STARTED. Which, again, makes me think the term "arrest" in that particular
report is merely referring to this definition of the word "arrest":

ARREST -- "To bring to a stop."

[Bud]

What was leading about it? Did you think that Chauvin had used his knee
to suffocate Floyd when you first watched the video?

> > You didn`t give any thought to the fact that Floyd was saying he
> > couldn`t breathe before Chauvin had his knee on Floyd`s throat, and when
> > that important detail is brought to your attention it has no impact on
> > your perception of the event.
> >
>
> We are judging Chauvin's conduct. A man tells him he can't breathe so
> Chauvin puts his knee on the man's throat. The man continues to tell him
> he can't breathe so Chauvin keeps his knee on the man's throat. Chauvin is
> told Floyd has no pulse so Chauvin leaves his knee on the man's throat for
> nearly three more minutes. When Chauvin finally takes his knee off the
> man's throat, the man is dead. If that isn't criminal behavior, I don't
> know what is.

But was it Chauvin`s knee that ended Floyd`s life?

> > > > > If your assumption is correct, it does not exonerate Chauvin. It
> > > > > makes what he did even worse.
> > > >
> > > > Not if he thought what he was actually dealing with was a panic
> > > > attack.
> > >
> > > Common sense alone should tell you if somebody is telling you they can't
> > > breathe you take them at their word and take your damn knee off their
> > > throat.
> >
> > You assume a connection. If Floyd knew he was putting any pressure on
> > Floyd`s neck he would know there was no connection between the two things.
> >
>
> The medical examiner ruled there was a connection and his expert opinion
> carries more weight than your laymen's opinion.

Did the medical examiner say that Chauvin`s knee caused Floyd to have a
heart attack?

>You are acting like Marsh
> thinking that you with no medical expertise and no access to the body can
> render a better judgement about the cause of death than the professional
> who examined the body.

How would the medical examiner know when Floyd`s heart attack started?

> > > To do otherwise displays a wanton disregard for that person's
> > > health and safety. To keep the knee on his throat even after you have been
> > > told he has no pulse is an atrocity.
> >
> > Floyd`s death of a heart attack might not have anything to do with any
> > action by the police other than the initial lawful arrest.
>
> The medical examiner ruled it was a homicide.

As he would have if Floyd died of a heart attack as soon as the cuffs
were put on him.

> It was his expert opinion
> that there was connection. I expect Chauvin's defense team to resort to
> the same sort of games you are to try to hoodwink the jury.

It isn`t pertinent to understanding the event to know when the heart
attack that killed Floyd started?

> All they need
> is one person to buy it. This is in the ballpark with, "If the glove
> doesn't fit, you must acquit.".

It could be you are upset at having your preconceived notions challenged.

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

Yes he is but he also seems to be one of those people who will
automatically defend the cops no matter what the circumstances are. This
is the reason it has become very difficult to hold cops accountable for
their crimes. In South Carolina a cop was caught on video shooting an
unarmed fleeing suspect in the back and still they could not get a
conviction for murder because one person on the jury was willing to excuse
the cop's behavior. Fortunately the Justice Department intervened by
bringing a civil rights violation against the killer cop and a judge
dropped the hammer on him when he pled guilty. He will be in jail for a
long time. Let's hope Chauvin gets the same, one way or another.

[JUDGE HOLDEN]

J. Alexnder Kueng,the black cop, held his knee into Floyd’s back.
The pressure on the back prevented Floyd's diaphragm from moving.

[recip...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 2:50:30 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:

[...]

> Floyd`s death of a heart attack might not have anything to do with any
> action by the police other than the initial lawful arrest.

Speaking of presumption....

Ever since the preliminary autopsy press release came out, you have glued
yourself to the idea that Floyd died of a heart attack. Did the autopsy
show direct evidence of a heart attack? No. Just like there is no direct
evidence that Floyd was the victim of what they to call "mechanical
asphyxiation." Floyd also had a considerable amount of Fentanyl in his
system, three times what a maximum strength fentanyl patch will do for an
average-size human being, and fentanyl is a last ditch painkiller used
when morphine and --where permitted-- heroin can't cut the mustard.
Fentanyl interferes with breathing, and opiate overdose typically kills by
arresting breathing. However, the concentration of Fentanyl in Floyd's
body is about half of what would normally be expected to kill someone.
There's no clear evidence for a single cause of death, just conjecture. I
don't see a good case for the cops asphyxiating Floyd, though I would
guess that Baden's theory might actually be possible. It could have been a
heart attack, like you like to believe. Or maybe it was a synergistic
effect of the cocktail of drugs in his system. Or a some combination of
two or more of these things. We just don't know, because the evidence that
would point directly to a neat conclusion just isn't there.

And that's going to be a problem. I have this suspicion that the lack of a
nice, tidy cause of death is going to become a big deal in the trial. And
that it will lead to a verdict that no one on whatever side will accept.
The result will be an open wound that takes forever to close.

All of that being said, before you spend so much time chastising others
for their presumptions, maybe you should revisit your own.

[recip...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 6:59:51 PM UTC-5, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 3:50:30 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

[...]

> We are judging Chauvin's conduct. A man tells him he can't breathe so
> Chauvin puts his knee on the man's throat. The man continues to tell him
> he can't breathe so Chauvin keeps his knee on the man's throat. Chauvin is
> told Floyd has no pulse so Chauvin leaves his knee on the man's throat for
> nearly three more minutes. When Chauvin finally takes his knee off the
> man's throat, the man is dead. If that isn't criminal behavior, I don't
> know what is.

Forgive me for playing the devil's advocate here, but exactly what law
would Chauvin have broken here, assuming that he and his cohort hadn't
asphyxiated Floyd themselves? How often do people complain of breathing
issues, or being ill, etc while being arrested? I honestly don't know, not
ever having been a cop. Have you ever been one? I have this feeling that
the everyday experience of a beat cop on patrol is substantially different
from what I'm used to. They may not have the luxury of believing what a
perp tells them. It may be the same for you. Yeah, Chauvin comes off like
a major-league, total dick in the video, but I've see cops that before,
and I sometimes suspect that it may be part of what they're trained to do.


[...]

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

The coroner ruled it was a contributing factor. The prosecutor will have
to prove that in court and the defense will challenge it. The jury will
make the final call. Chauvin's advantage is he will only need one person
on the jury predisposed to rule in the cop's favor no matter what.

> > > > > > If your assumption is correct, it does not exonerate Chauvin. It
> > > > > > makes what he did even worse.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not if he thought what he was actually dealing with was a panic
> > > > > attack.
> > > >
> > > > Common sense alone should tell you if somebody is telling you they can't
> > > > breathe you take them at their word and take your damn knee off their
> > > > throat.
> > >
> > > You assume a connection. If Floyd knew he was putting any pressure on
> > > Floyd`s neck he would know there was no connection between the two things.
> > >
> >
> > The medical examiner ruled there was a connection and his expert opinion
> > carries more weight than your laymen's opinion.
>
> Did the medical examiner say that Chauvin`s knee caused Floyd to have a
> heart attack?
>

That seemed to be what he was saying. He wouldn't have ruled it a homicide
if he didn't think that.

> >You are acting like Marsh
> > thinking that you with no medical expertise and no access to the body can
> > render a better judgement about the cause of death than the professional
> > who examined the body.
>
> How would the medical examiner know when Floyd`s heart attack started?
>

I don't know because I am not qualified in the area of forensic medicine.
It doesn't matter when the heart attack started. It only matters if
Chauvin contributed to Floyd's demise and whether he did that
intentionally, recklessly, or negligently. Any of those three makes it a
crime.

> > > > To do otherwise displays a wanton disregard for that person's
> > > > health and safety. To keep the knee on his throat even after you have been
> > > > told he has no pulse is an atrocity.
> > >
> > > Floyd`s death of a heart attack might not have anything to do with any
> > > action by the police other than the initial lawful arrest.
> >
> > The medical examiner ruled it was a homicide.
>
> As he would have if Floyd died of a heart attack as soon as the cuffs
> were put on him.
>

Now you're being ridiculous.

> > It was his expert opinion
> > that there was connection. I expect Chauvin's defense team to resort to
> > the same sort of games you are to try to hoodwink the jury.
>
> It isn`t pertinent to understanding the event to know when the heart
> attack that killed Floyd started?
>

All that is pertinent is whether Chauvin's action were a contributing
factor to Floyd's demise.

> > All they need
> > is one person to buy it. This is in the ballpark with, "If the glove
> > doesn't fit, you must acquit.".
>
> It could be you are upset at having your preconceived notions challenged.

The only thing that upsets me is there are too many people with the
mindset that the cop is always in the right making it extremely difficult
to hold them accountable for their violent crimes.

[Bud]

Of course I think that the cops should be given every benefit of the
doubt. Especially in shootings, when things play out in split seconds.
Look at the second guessing of refs (or umps) and players in sports when a
play is looked at time and time again in slow motion, this is completely
out of context.

Look at the cop who got 20 years for shooting the guy he was fighting
with. Now, if you look at murders, you hardly ever see this much time.
This is the kind of time you get for driving down the street shooting
people at random. But he made a routine traffic stop, doing his job, and
the guy attacked him. They struggled, the guy broke away, the cop caught
him again, they struggled, then the shooting. No way the guy gets shot if
he complies at any point, but his chances of being shot rose dramatically
when he decided to attack someone with a gun. He got the cop`s adrenaline
up and the cop made an emotional decision. Being human, these things will
happen. I don`t think he deserved to get the kind of time someone would
get if they went out looking for someone to kill.

>This
> is the reason it has become very difficult to hold cops accountable for
> their crimes. In South Carolina a cop was caught on video shooting an
> unarmed fleeing suspect in the back and still they could not get a
> conviction for murder because one person on the jury was willing to excuse
> the cop's behavior. Fortunately the Justice Department intervened by
> bringing a civil rights violation against the killer cop and a judge
> dropped the hammer on him when he pled guilty.

Yes, he probably would have been better off had that one juror voted to
convict. Of course state time might have been worse for him.

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

I haven't seen the reverse angle video but apparently the prosecutor saw
enough to believe all four were culpable in the homicide.

[bpete1969]

On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 6:31:47 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> My brother and sister-in-law called to see how I was making out with all
> the nonsense going on in Philly. My sister-in-law is a liberal who I have
> gotten into it with many times on a variety of issues. I remember way back
> with Rodney King her asking me why they were beating him when he was
> already handcuffed. I pointed out to her he wasn`t handcuffed, but of
> course the fact that she was totally wrong on a major aspect didn`t matter
> to her anyway, impacted her ideas not one bit. So I kind of laid back and
> waited for the topic of the video to come up (as I knew it would), and I
> told her what I`ve been telling people here, the heart attack that killed
> Floyd started before Chauvin`s knee was on Floyd`s neck. She got *very*
> upset, sputtering mad. And it occurred to me that people get very upset if
> you challenge their preconceived notions. I`ve noticed this before, of
> course, especially in regards to the assassination, but also in my
> discussions with bpete on the Arbery case. People have a notion about what
> happened, and the more you challenge them the tighter their grasp on that
> notion.

Projecting again I see. My "preconceived notions were based on watching
the video that you failed to do.

Example: your words...No, the video does not show that. The first time you
can see McMichael in the video is his legs under the driver side door, it
never shows him in front of the truck.

That turned out to be wrong.

Next example: your words...You are making stuff up. You know none of this
nonsense is going to fly when it goes to court and they break the tape
down, right?

I never made anything up. McMichael clearly "charged" Arbery when he moved
from the left lane, across the centerline of the road, into the right
lane.

It's quite evident that you were the one with preconceived notions when
you originated your loaded questions. As more information has been
released, your entire narrative seems to be taking a nose dive. Just
tighten your grip and you'll be fine.

If you want to use me as an example, you'll have to do a better job of
obscuring your failures.

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 9:45:31 AM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 6:59:51 PM UTC-5, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 3:50:30 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>
> [...]
> > We are judging Chauvin's conduct. A man tells him he can't breathe so
> > Chauvin puts his knee on the man's throat. The man continues to tell him
> > he can't breathe so Chauvin keeps his knee on the man's throat. Chauvin is
> > told Floyd has no pulse so Chauvin leaves his knee on the man's throat for
> > nearly three more minutes. When Chauvin finally takes his knee off the
> > man's throat, the man is dead. If that isn't criminal behavior, I don't
> > know what is.
>
> Forgive me for playing the devil's advocate here, but exactly what law
> would Chauvin have broken here, assuming that he and his cohort hadn't
> asphyxiated Floyd themselves? How often do people complain of breathing
> issues, or being ill, etc while being arrested? I honestly don't know, not
> ever having been a cop.

I've never been a cop either but common sense should tell you when you
have a handcuffed surrounded by four cops he poses no threat so when he
tells you he can't breathe you should take him at his word and get your
damn knee off his throat and call an ambulance. You don't wait until he
has no pulse.

> Have you ever been one? I have this feeling that
> the everyday experience of a beat cop on patrol is substantially different
> from what I'm used to. They may not have the luxury of believing what a
> perp tells them.

Shouldn't matter. He was handcuffed and there were four cops. They had
complete control of the situation.

> It may be the same for you. Yeah, Chauvin comes off like
> a major-league, total dick in the video, but I've see cops that before,
> and I sometimes suspect that it may be part of what they're trained to do.
>

Every law enforcement officer I have heard weigh in has said that is not
part of the training. Once you have a suspect handcuffed, you have control
especially when there are four cops. Floyd posed no threat.

>

I think you are right that this is going to be a difficult prosecution
because the medical examiner's opinion seems confusing to us as laymen.
Perhaps he will be able to clarify in laymen's terms what he meant in his
report and the jury will have a better understanding as to what degree
Chauvin's actions had in causing Floyd's death. Meanwhile the
ramifications have spread way beyond Minneapolis although that city is
about to feel the brunt of it. There is a veto proof majority on the city
council that has signaled it intends to disband the police department and
if they go through with it, every cop in that city will be out of a job
because of what their comrade did. This is of course insanity but people
have been acting insanely since this even occurred. With no police
department, gangs will step in to fill the void which is how cities were
run going back to the mid 19th century. You want protection for your
business. Pay up. Vigilantism will also run amok as there will be no
police force to stop it.

Meanwhile countless cities across the country have been looted and burned
and people who had nothing to do with Floyd's death has paid for it with
their lives such as the retired police captain in St. Louis. Just as one
carelessly discarded matched can ignite a forest fire that burns hundreds
of thousands of acres, people all over the country are paying a huge price
because Derek Chauvin chose to act like a goon.

[Bud]

On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 9:45:29 AM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 2:50:30 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>
> [...]
> > Floyd`s death of a heart attack might not have anything to do with any
> > action by the police other than the initial lawful arrest.
>
> Speaking of presumption....
>
> Ever since the preliminary autopsy press release came out, you have glued
> yourself to the idea that Floyd died of a heart attack.

Yes, I was under the mistaken assumption that cardiopulmonary arrest and
heart attack were the same thing. They aren`t, although it seems a heart
attack is the leading cause of cardiac arrest (30% of the cases).

https://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-Cardiac-Arrest.aspx

Another cause is "Severe oxygen deprivation". Also "drug overdose".

This article has...

"A cardiac arrest is a medical emergency. For every minute that a person
is in cardiac arrest before arrival of a defibrillator, the chances of
survival are reduced by about 10%."

This seems to fall in line with one thing I was saying, that it might
not matter what the cops did.

> Did the autopsy
> show direct evidence of a heart attack? No. Just like there is no direct
> evidence that Floyd was the victim of what they to call "mechanical
> asphyxiation." Floyd also had a considerable amount of Fentanyl in his
> system, three times what a maximum strength fentanyl patch will do for an
> average-size human being, and fentanyl is a last ditch painkiller used
> when morphine and --where permitted-- heroin can't cut the mustard.
> Fentanyl interferes with breathing, and opiate overdose typically kills by
> arresting breathing. However, the concentration of Fentanyl in Floyd's
> body is about half of what would normally be expected to kill someone.
> There's no clear evidence for a single cause of death, just conjecture. I
> don't see a good case for the cops asphyxiating Floyd, though I would
> guess that Baden's theory might actually be possible. It could have been a
> heart attack, like you like to believe. Or maybe it was a synergistic
> effect of the cocktail of drugs in his system.

He does seem to have a pharmacy in his system.

> Or a some combination of
> two or more of these things. We just don't know, because the evidence that
> would point directly to a neat conclusion just isn't there.
>
> And that's going to be a problem. I have this suspicion that the lack of a
> nice, tidy cause of death is going to become a big deal in the trial. And
> that it will lead to a verdict that no one on whatever side will accept.
> The result will be an open wound that takes forever to close.

I would think that muddy water can only help the accused. If you can`t
say exactly *what* killed him, it is hard to blame anyone *for* killing
him.

> All of that being said, before you spend so much time chastising others
> for their presumptions, maybe you should revisit your own.

I thought his death was connected to the "I can`t breathe" statements he
was making while standing by the patrol car. *whatever* was going on with
him, Chauvin`s knee wasn`t the cause.

[John McAdams]

No, blame Chavin for what he actually did. Not what a bunch of thugs
and goons did, using the Floyd death as an excuse.

And blame liberal politicians;

https://www.wsj.com/…/liberal-cities-radical-mayhem-1159114…

"What all these cities have in common is that they are led by
Democrats who seem to have bought into the belief that the police are
a bigger problem than rampant disorder. They are either cowed by their
party’s left, or they agree that America is systemically racist and
rioting is a justified expression of anger against it. They offer pro
forma disapproval of law breakers but refuse to act to stop them."

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bud]

Am I?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_3DMfOvGNc

[Bud]

On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 8:33:58 PM UTC-4, bpete1969 wrote:
> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 6:31:47 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > My brother and sister-in-law called to see how I was making out with all
> > the nonsense going on in Philly. My sister-in-law is a liberal who I have
> > gotten into it with many times on a variety of issues. I remember way back
> > with Rodney King her asking me why they were beating him when he was
> > already handcuffed. I pointed out to her he wasn`t handcuffed, but of
> > course the fact that she was totally wrong on a major aspect didn`t matter
> > to her anyway, impacted her ideas not one bit. So I kind of laid back and
> > waited for the topic of the video to come up (as I knew it would), and I
> > told her what I`ve been telling people here, the heart attack that killed
> > Floyd started before Chauvin`s knee was on Floyd`s neck. She got *very*
> > upset, sputtering mad. And it occurred to me that people get very upset if
> > you challenge their preconceived notions. I`ve noticed this before, of
> > course, especially in regards to the assassination, but also in my
> > discussions with bpete on the Arbery case. People have a notion about what
> > happened, and the more you challenge them the tighter their grasp on that
> > notion.
>
> Projecting again I see. My "preconceived notions were based on watching
> the video that you failed to do.

Your preconceived notion was that redneck vigilantes hunted down and
murdered some innocent black jogger.

> Example: your words...No, the video does not show that. The first time you
> can see McMichael in the video is his legs under the driver side door, it
> never shows him in front of the truck.
>
> That turned out to be wrong.

The video never shows Travis McMichael in the front of the truck.

> Next example: your words...You are making stuff up. You know none of this
> nonsense is going to fly when it goes to court and they break the tape
> down, right?
>
> I never made anything up. McMichael clearly "charged" Arbery when he
> moved from the left lane, across the centerline of the road, into the
> right lane.

You are making stuff up. The video shows no charging by Travis
McMichael. The most you can say is that he is at one place at one point in
time and in another place at a later point in time. The only charging the
video shows is that done by Arbery.

> It's quite evident that you were the one with preconceived notions when
> you originated your loaded questions. As more information has been
> released, your entire narrative seems to be taking a nose dive.

What information is that?

> Just
> tighten your grip and you'll be fine.

I am fine.

> If you want to use me as an example, you'll have to do a better job of
> obscuring your failures.

You still think Arbery was jogging.

[bpete1969]

The video proves he was.
As I said before, if you want to use me as an example you need to do a

better job of obscuring your failures.

McMichaels is clearly shown in the video, in the left lane further down
the road from the camera than the truck. He moved to in front of the
truck. Apparently, you haven't watched the video. It's quite clear from
your refusal to admit what is clearly shown in the video.

Try again. Better yet, quit while you're behind.

[Bud]

Either he was jogging or running from being hunted, you can`t have it
both ways.

> As I said before, if you want to use me as an example you need to do a
> better job of obscuring your failures.
>
> McMichaels is clearly shown in the video, in the left lane further down
> the road from the camera than the truck. He moved to in front of the
> truck.

The video never show him in the front of the truck.

[Anthony Marsh]

So, you want to voulunteer for a test?

[Anthony Marsh]

So Chauvin had a panic attack? Is that t legal defense?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/8/2020 9:45 AM, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 6:59:51 PM UTC-5, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 3:50:30 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>
> [...]
>> We are judging Chauvin's conduct. A man tells him he can't breathe so
>> Chauvin puts his knee on the man's throat. The man continues to tell him
>> he can't breathe so Chauvin keeps his knee on the man's throat. Chauvin is
>> told Floyd has no pulse so Chauvin leaves his knee on the man's throat for
>> nearly three more minutes. When Chauvin finally takes his knee off the
>> man's throat, the man is dead. If that isn't criminal behavior, I don't
>> know what is.
>
> Forgive me for playing the devil's advocate here, but exactly what law
> would Chauvin have broken here, assuming that he and his cohort hadn't

It depends on the locale. In most places we call it murder.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, he doesn't say that until AFTER Chauvin puts his knee on hit neck.
Listen to the clip.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/8/2020 8:40 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 8 Jun 2020 20:34:16 -0400, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 9:45:31 AM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 6:59:51 PM UTC-5, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 3:50:30 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Meanwhile countless cities across the country have been looted and burned
>> and people who had nothing to do with Floyd's death has paid for it with
>> their lives such as the retired police captain in St. Louis. Just as one
>> carelessly discarded matched can ignite a forest fire that burns hundreds
>> of thousands of acres, people all over the country are paying a huge price
>> because Derek Chauvin chose to act like a goon.
>>
>
> No, blame Chavin for what he actually did. Not what a bunch of thugs
> and goons did, using the Floyd death as an excuse.
>
> And blame liberal politicians;
>

> https://www.wsj.com/???/liberal-cities-radical-mayhem-1159114???

>
> "What all these cities have in common is that they are led by
> Democrats who seem to have bought into the belief that the police are
> a bigger problem than rampant disorder. They are either cowed by their

Nice scapegoating. So if a comet hits New York you can claim that it is
because it has a Democratic Governor.

The riots are independent of the protests. They just used them as a cover.

> party???s left, or they agree that America is systemically racist and

Well, not all Republicans can agree, but some do.
Maybe 1% Not all Republicans are racists.

> rioting is a justified expression of anger against it. They offer pro
> forma disapproval of law breakers but refuse to act to stop them."
>

So do you approve or disapprove of pro forma?

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 8:40:31 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> On 8 Jun 2020 20:34:16 -0400, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 9:45:31 AM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 6:59:51 PM UTC-5, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 3:50:30 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> >>
> >
> >Meanwhile countless cities across the country have been looted and burned
> >and people who had nothing to do with Floyd's death has paid for it with
> >their lives such as the retired police captain in St. Louis. Just as one
> >carelessly discarded matched can ignite a forest fire that burns hundreds
> >of thousands of acres, people all over the country are paying a huge price
> >because Derek Chauvin chose to act like a goon.
> >
>
> No, blame Chavin for what he actually did. Not what a bunch of thugs
> and goons did, using the Floyd death as an excuse.
>

Chauvin was not the direct cause of all the lawlessness but it is highly
unlikely any of it would have happened if Chauvin hadn't knelt on Floyd's
neck for nearly nine minutes. Countless businesses would not have been
destroyed and a number of lives would not have been lost. The primary
blame for all this lawlessness belongs to the rioters but we cannot
disconnect Chauvin from it. Actions have consequences and we have seen the
consequences of Chauvin's actions.

> And blame liberal politicians;
>
> https://www.wsj.com/…/liberal-cities-radical-mayhem-1159114…
>
> "What all these cities have in common is that they are led by
> Democrats who seem to have bought into the belief that the police are
> a bigger problem than rampant disorder. They are either cowed by their
> party’s left, or they agree that America is systemically racist and
> rioting is a justified expression of anger against it. They offer pro
> forma disapproval of law breakers but refuse to act to stop them."
>

I would agree with that. There is plenty of blame to go around. Groveling
to rioters isn't going to appease them. It will only embolden them.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, he was. You think that is illegal?

[JUDGE HOLDEN]

The looters have been looking for any excuse to steal a big screen tv.
Corbett if you think that most of the rioting has to do with the death of
George Floyd then you are delusional. Have you read the 26 volumes?

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

Of course they used the protests as a platform to riot and loot. They
wouldn't have had those protests if Chauvin doesn't kneel on Floyd's
throat for 9 minutes.

What do the 26 volumes have to do with this case? No, I haven't read the
26 volumes. They are a reference material like an encyclopedia. Who reads
the encyclopedia from cover to cover? There have probably been some people
but I have no idea why.

[JUDGE HOLDEN]

Have you read the HSCA volumes? Have you read the Church Committees'
Volumes. Have you read the Major League Baseball Rule Book lately? What do
you think of the designated hitter rule?

[JUDGE HOLDEN]

I have read the 26 volumes and this proves that I know more about the
George Floyd case than you. When you have read the 26 volumes then we can
discuss whether Chauvin put too much pressure on Floyd's carotid artery.

[David Von Pein]

Sounds like Tom Rossley's ghost is haunting us still.

[JUDGE HOLDEN]

Your sense of humour is improving.

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

Yes it does. I don't know what he thinks the 26 volumes has to do with the
George Floyd case or why he thinks one needs to have read the 26 volumes
in order to be informed about either the JFK assassination or the George
Floyd homicide.

[bpete1969]

Absolute bullshit.

Here is the video from the New York Time where they retrace the encounter.
At 5:29 in you can see McMichaels' feet on the pavement in front of the
truck. Arbery's foot can been seen on the right side of the rear
differential, on the pavement in front of the truck. McMichaels then
starts backing up. You can see him emerge on the left side of the truck.

I'm not sure what device your using to view the video, but McMichaels is
clearly in front of the truck.

Check your preconceived notions at the door before you start accusing
others. And you might want to work on those Raff* Sink photo skills.

[bpete1969]

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 8:28:21 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

Here's the NYT video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nKf0TW-L1M

[JUDGE HOLDEN]

Have you listened to the John Corbett-Rossley debates? Corbett ejects him
from the debate for having too much pine tar on his bat.

[Bud]

You`re confusing me. In America that is the street, not the pavement.

But I see McMichaels` foot on the double yellow line. The truck is to
the right of the double yellow line. He isn`t in front of the truck when
Arbery attacks him.

> Arbery's foot can been seen on the right side of the rear
> differential, on the pavement in front of the truck. McMichaels then
> starts backing up. You can see him emerge on the left side of the truck.
>
> I'm not sure what device your using to view the video, but McMichaels is
> clearly in front of the truck.

Nonsense. Can you see him trough the windshield (or windscreen)?