- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Derek Chauvin trial - GUILTY ON ALL CHARGES. Update: His sentencing is today
Posted on 4/9/21 at 10:46 am to JodyPlauche
Posted on 4/9/21 at 10:46 am to JodyPlauche
I haven’t watched much of the testimony in the trial but from watching this pathologist, she is claiming that he dies as a result of asphyxiation or some form of a lack of oxygen delivery to the lungs. Does anyone know if the question has been asked by the defense to other witnesses about how we are able to speak? Specifically how was George Floyd able to speak, while pinned down, if he was unable to move air in and out of his lungs. The mechanism for speaking involves moving air over the vocal chords.
I am under the opinion that he was in a state of excited delirium from the drug use and the apprehension and restraining by the police and had some form of Superventricular tachycardic event that caused him to be Short of Breath. If the SVT is not seen and treated appropriately, one can eventually die. It relates to arrhythmias that can symptomatic and fatal if not treated within a certain time frame.
If I was the defense attorney, I would be asking those questions and if if would be possible. That would and could be an explanation of the death not being sudden and somewhat delayed.
I am under the opinion that he was in a state of excited delirium from the drug use and the apprehension and restraining by the police and had some form of Superventricular tachycardic event that caused him to be Short of Breath. If the SVT is not seen and treated appropriately, one can eventually die. It relates to arrhythmias that can symptomatic and fatal if not treated within a certain time frame.
If I was the defense attorney, I would be asking those questions and if if would be possible. That would and could be an explanation of the death not being sudden and somewhat delayed.
This post was edited on 4/9/21 at 10:49 am
1
Posted on 4/9/21 at 10:49 am to MFn GIMP
quote:
prescribing Viagra.
Can I get some of dat??
Posted on 4/9/21 at 11:00 am to JodyPlauche
quote:
So he died from something unobservable from an autopsy. Sounds believable.
Happens all the time. Autopsies, like any other medical tests, do not answer all questions and must be used in conjunction with additional tests/information.
Drownings, for instance, have no clear signs at autopsy.
Posted on 4/9/21 at 11:01 am to Yellerhammer5
quote:
Drownings, for instance, have no clear signs at autopsy.
I figured that would be the most obvious!!
Posted on 4/9/21 at 11:02 am to Yellerhammer5
quote:
Drownings, for instance, have no clear signs at autopsy.
I hope this doesn't come across as argumentative or not believing you but really? That blows my mind. I would have bet a lot of money that the lungs of someone who drowned would be filled with water as you desperately try to breathe.
Posted on 4/9/21 at 11:02 am to Yellerhammer5
quote:
Drownings, for instance, have no clear signs at autopsy.
Umm you sure lungs wouldn't be full of fluid?
Posted on 4/9/21 at 11:04 am to momentoftruth87
quote:
Umm you sure lungs wouldn't be full of fluid?
Doesn’t always happen with drowning cases and you can find fluid in the lungs in bodies that end up water after death.
Posted on 4/9/21 at 11:10 am to MFn GIMP
quote:
I hope this doesn't come across as argumentative or not believing you but really? That blows my mind. I would have bet a lot of money that the lungs of someone who drowned would be filled with water as you desperately try to breathe.
Autopsies are important in drowning cases to rule out other potential causes of death, but it’s also equally important to gather scene information try to figure out how someone ended up in the water and couldn’t get out.
The “findings” in drownings just demonstrate that a body came out of the water - not whether or not their death was from drowning.
Posted on 4/9/21 at 11:18 am to Yellerhammer5
quote:
Drownings, for instance, have no clear signs at autopsy.
I remember my first autopsy that was a drowning. I was shocked when the ME told me this; learned something new that day.
Posted on 4/9/21 at 11:25 am to TigerCop89
This forensic pathologist couldn’t be more biased.
She has no evidence on the autopsy but she knows he died because he was restrained.
She has no evidence on the autopsy but she knows he died because he was restrained.
Posted on 4/9/21 at 11:25 am to TigerCop89
Is it just me, or is this doctor coming off as bitchy?
Posted on 4/9/21 at 11:27 am to greygoose
Most of prosecution witnesses have shown their bias and attitude. It's ridiculous.
Posted on 4/9/21 at 11:30 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
She has no evidence on the autopsy but she knows he died because he was restrained.
Her job involves interpreting more than an autopsy. You may not agree with her assessment, but she has more experience in these types of deaths than you do and has likely dealt with several deaths that occurred during law enforcement restraint during her career.
If her opinion is unreasonable, then the defense will have no trouble putting another ME on the stand to dispute her findings.
This post was edited on 4/9/21 at 11:31 am
Posted on 4/9/21 at 11:31 am to momentoftruth87
She said there are studies that show people put in prone restraint are perfectly safe but they are irrelevant because they are done in a lab with healthy people
Surely the jury would see through this right?
Surely the jury would see through this right?
Posted on 4/9/21 at 11:33 am to Yellerhammer5
quote:So, in other words, she is making her findings based on "feelings" and not factual evidence?
Her job involves interpreting more than an autopsy. You may not agree with her assessment, but she has more experience in these types of deaths than you do and has likely dealt with several deaths that occurred during law enforcement restraint during her career.
If her opinion is unreasonable, then the defense will have no trouble putting another ME on the stand to dispute her findings.
Posted on 4/9/21 at 11:33 am to Yellerhammer5
quote:
Her job involves interpreting more than an autopsy. You may not agree with her assessment, but she has more experience in these types of deaths than you do and has likely dealt with several deaths that occurred during law enforcement restraint during her career.
I might respect her opinion more if she wasn’t so clearly biased. She just said studies showing restraint in prone position are completely irrelevant. Come on that’s crazy.
Posted on 4/9/21 at 11:35 am to Yellerhammer5
quote:
Autopsies are important in drowning cases to rule out other potential causes of death, but it’s also equally important to gather scene information try to figure out how someone ended up in the water and couldn’t get out.
The “findings” in drownings just demonstrate that a body came out of the water - not whether or not their death was from drowning.
That is incredibly interesting. Thank you for teaching me something new today.
Posted on 4/9/21 at 11:39 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
I might respect her opinion more if she wasn’t so clearly biased.
To be fair, the prosecution is only going to be able to find biased people who assume Chauvin is guilty. Anyone who is in any way impartial would not take the stand for a bullshite Murder 3 charge.
Posted on 4/9/21 at 11:41 am to MFn GIMP
The hell with the doctors in here running their mouths, any lawyers willing to weigh in on the causation aspects of manslaughter since murder is kind of out of the question at this point?
I've heard reference to "but if" causation elsewhere. Since there were multiple causes of death for Floyd separate from the hold Chauvin had on his neck area that contributed to his expiration that day, how does this all work re: reasonable doubt?
I've heard reference to "but if" causation elsewhere. Since there were multiple causes of death for Floyd separate from the hold Chauvin had on his neck area that contributed to his expiration that day, how does this all work re: reasonable doubt?
Posted on 4/9/21 at 11:46 am to momentoftruth87
quote:
Drownings, for instance, have no clear signs at autopsy.
quote:I'd think river, lake, salt, swamp, heavily chlorinated water would certainly fill a drowned persons lungs. And would be evident in an autopsy as opposed to bodily fluids filling the lungs.
Umm you sure lungs wouldn't be full of fluid?
Interesting that an autopsy doesn't show signs of drowning.
Page 303 of 524
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News