4 ms·

Badens "autopsy" lacked tissue samples and toxicology. So, it's based off incomplete data. What data was the celebrity autopsy based off of if they didn't have

Badens "autopsy" lacked tissue samples and toxicology. So, it's based off incomplete data. What data was the celebrity autopsy based off of if they didn't have access to tissue or tox screens? Sounds like a high dollar guess to me. Ignoring toxicology is an abuse of medicine.

tom_mellior 5y ago
> Ignoring toxicology is an abuse of medicine. That may be true, it's not for me to decide. Feel free to ping me when the authors are struck off for this abuse. Until then I'll assume that their autopsy is valid. Anyway, you're just confusing matters if you keep saying "the autopsy" without referencing the one you mean. I'm not even asking you to acknowledge the other one explicitly if you don't like it. Also, you're splitting hairs about the exact way that George Floyd was killed by the police. Both autopsies ruled homicide. The only people interacting with him were police officers. According to both autopsies, the police therefore killed George Floyd. We do agree on this, right?
- grumpyautist 5y ago
  The peice of paper the family paid for is not a proper autospy. One that ignores factual data is invalid And re: the autopsy listing as homicide https://forensicresources.org/2019/homicide-manner-of-death-vs-legal-conclusion/ https://forensicresources.org/2019/homicide-manner-of-death-...
  - tom_mellior 5y ago
    > And re: the autopsy listing as homicide https://forensicresources.org/2019/homicide-manner-of-death- https://forensicresources.org/2019/homicide-manner-of-death-... Thank you for this source. So the police killed George Floyd possibly without "criminal intent", but certainly through "one or more intentional, volitional, potentially harmful acts directed at the decedent", "committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death". Sounds like a fair description of a baseline of what happened. Intent will have to be determined by the court.

tom_mellior 5y ago

> Ignoring toxicology is an abuse of medicine. That may be true, it's not for me to decide. Feel free to ping me when the authors are struck off for this abuse. Until then I'll assume that their autopsy is valid. Anyway, you're just confusing matters if you keep saying "the autopsy" without referencing the one you mean. I'm not even asking you to acknowledge the other one explicitly if you don't like it. Also, you're splitting hairs about the exact way that George Floyd was killed by the police. Both autopsies ruled homicide. The only people interacting with him were police officers. According to both autopsies, the police therefore killed George Floyd. We do agree on this, right?

grumpyautist 5y ago
The peice of paper the family paid for is not a proper autospy. One that ignores factual data is invalid And re: the autopsy listing as homicide https://forensicresources.org/2019/homicide-manner-of-death-vs-legal-conclusion/ https://forensicresources.org/2019/homicide-manner-of-death-...
- tom_mellior 5y ago
  > And re: the autopsy listing as homicide https://forensicresources.org/2019/homicide-manner-of-death- https://forensicresources.org/2019/homicide-manner-of-death-... Thank you for this source. So the police killed George Floyd possibly without "criminal intent", but certainly through "one or more intentional, volitional, potentially harmful acts directed at the decedent", "committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death". Sounds like a fair description of a baseline of what happened. Intent will have to be determined by the court.