4 ms·

No doctor that treated him or performed his autopsy has given any evidence of heart disease, or drugs contributing to his suffocation. A defense witness specul

No doctor that treated him or performed his autopsy has given any evidence of heart disease, or drugs contributing to his suffocation. A defense witness speculated, but had no evidence.

nwienert 6y ago
> He affirmed his findings about Floyd's health problems and drugs, saying again "those are not direct causes. Those are contributing causes." https://m.startribune.com/medical-examiner-who-did-autopsy-said-that-with-underlying-heart-conditions-arrest-was-just-more-tha/600044000/ https://m.startribune.com/medical-examiner-who-did-autopsy-s...
dukeofdoom 6y ago
The case for "Reasonable Doubt" ... came across it on reddit. >he had severe heart disease >he had an enlarged heart >he had 75% to 90% occlusion of his three major coronary arteries >he had untreated severe hypertension >he had a previously recorded BP of 216/160 >he had a tumor (extra-adrenal paraganglioma) associated with hypertension/heart attacks >his lungs were 2-3x heavier than normal (pulmonary edema) >he had COVID >he was a smoker >he was nodding off/passed out when police arrived at his SUV >he had to be physically nudged to be awoken >he was in the SUV with his personal drug dealer(s) >he had a white substance in his mouth >he was saying he couldn't breathe before restraint >the knee on the back of the neck is a technique used by the MPD and nearly every other law enforcement agency in the world >it is used to prevent them thrashing about and harming others (and themselves) >it is an extremely common method of restraining an individual's range of motion and view >it did not occlude both (or even one) of the carotid arteries or restrict the airway >it is well documented to be generally very safe >EMS was called early but arrived late >the hobble was not used to avoid further delaying medical care >the hostile crowd distracted the police and the EMS didn't want to give on-scene medical care because it was not secure for their safety >he had an oxygen saturation of 98% at the hospital >the autopsy revealed no abrasions, bruising, hematomas, or fractured bones in the shoulder/neck area >he had a number of drugs in his system, including fentanyl (depressant) and methamphetamine (stimulant/vasoconstrictor) >he had a fatal amount of fentanyl in his system >he swallowed drugs during his 2019 arrest >fentanyl/methamphetamine pills were found in the back of > the squad car, containing Floyd's DNA, also in the SUV
- nwienert 6y ago
  The people downvoting should refute, not downvote, as this is just a list of claims. If there’s falsehoods would be more effective to clarify than dismiss.
  - wyattpeak 6y ago
    No, they shouldn't. Piling on claims is a well-known bad-faith argument tactic called the Gish gallop[1]. The poster has provided no source, and it would take hours just to verify all the claims, before even getting to whether or not they were material. It works precisely because it's much easier to make claims than refute them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
    - nwienert 6y ago
      It’s not a gish gallop, it’d have to be claims not supporting a single thesis or hard to refute. Each of these is a small claim directly relevant. If you could find even 2-3 to refute that’d do. The problem with fallacies is they are not always clear when and how to apply, which creates a whole new fallacy where people mis-apply fallacies to try and “win” quickly (is there a name for this? The fallacy fallacy?) A good faith argument would at least call out one or two incorrect points here.
      - wyattpeak 6y ago
        I disagree. Engaging implicitly validates the argument. If you refute X, they can just come back with "yes but what about Y?" and, should you eventually get bored or run out of time, they use your failure to properly rebut as evidence of their thesis. I'm also not familiar with any argument that a Gish gallop must make claims not supporting a single thesis, or that they must be hard to refute (as opposed to simply harder to refute than to state). Whatever it is, I don't subscribe to it, and I don't believe those are the traits which make the argument style inappropriate.
        6y ago
fighterpilot 6y ago
Labelling it "suffocation" is begging the question since the original autopsy didn't include suffocation or asphyxiation as a cause of death (although the autopsy commissioned by the family did, and the prosecution is arguing this).

No doctor that treated him or performed his autopsy has given any evidence of heart disease, or drugs contributing to his suffocation. A defense witness speculated, but had no evidence.

nwienert 6y ago

> He affirmed his findings about Floyd's health problems and drugs, saying again "those are not direct causes. Those are contributing causes." https://m.startribune.com/medical-examiner-who-did-autopsy-said-that-with-underlying-heart-conditions-arrest-was-just-more-tha/600044000/ https://m.startribune.com/medical-examiner-who-did-autopsy-s...

dukeofdoom 6y ago

The case for "Reasonable Doubt" ... came across it on reddit. >he had severe heart disease >he had an enlarged heart >he had 75% to 90% occlusion of his three major coronary arteries >he had untreated severe hypertension >he had a previously recorded BP of 216/160 >he had a tumor (extra-adrenal paraganglioma) associated with hypertension/heart attacks >his lungs were 2-3x heavier than normal (pulmonary edema) >he had COVID >he was a smoker >he was nodding off/passed out when police arrived at his SUV >he had to be physically nudged to be awoken >he was in the SUV with his personal drug dealer(s) >he had a white substance in his mouth >he was saying he couldn't breathe before restraint >the knee on the back of the neck is a technique used by the MPD and nearly every other law enforcement agency in the world >it is used to prevent them thrashing about and harming others (and themselves) >it is an extremely common method of restraining an individual's range of motion and view >it did not occlude both (or even one) of the carotid arteries or restrict the airway >it is well documented to be generally very safe >EMS was called early but arrived late >the hobble was not used to avoid further delaying medical care >the hostile crowd distracted the police and the EMS didn't want to give on-scene medical care because it was not secure for their safety >he had an oxygen saturation of 98% at the hospital >the autopsy revealed no abrasions, bruising, hematomas, or fractured bones in the shoulder/neck area >he had a number of drugs in his system, including fentanyl (depressant) and methamphetamine (stimulant/vasoconstrictor) >he had a fatal amount of fentanyl in his system >he swallowed drugs during his 2019 arrest >fentanyl/methamphetamine pills were found in the back of > the squad car, containing Floyd's DNA, also in the SUV

nwienert 6y ago
The people downvoting should refute, not downvote, as this is just a list of claims. If there’s falsehoods would be more effective to clarify than dismiss.
- wyattpeak 6y ago
  No, they shouldn't. Piling on claims is a well-known bad-faith argument tactic called the Gish gallop[1]. The poster has provided no source, and it would take hours just to verify all the claims, before even getting to whether or not they were material. It works precisely because it's much easier to make claims than refute them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
  - nwienert 6y ago
    It’s not a gish gallop, it’d have to be claims not supporting a single thesis or hard to refute. Each of these is a small claim directly relevant. If you could find even 2-3 to refute that’d do. The problem with fallacies is they are not always clear when and how to apply, which creates a whole new fallacy where people mis-apply fallacies to try and “win” quickly (is there a name for this? The fallacy fallacy?) A good faith argument would at least call out one or two incorrect points here.
    - wyattpeak 6y ago
      I disagree. Engaging implicitly validates the argument. If you refute X, they can just come back with "yes but what about Y?" and, should you eventually get bored or run out of time, they use your failure to properly rebut as evidence of their thesis. I'm also not familiar with any argument that a Gish gallop must make claims not supporting a single thesis, or that they must be hard to refute (as opposed to simply harder to refute than to state). Whatever it is, I don't subscribe to it, and I don't believe those are the traits which make the argument style inappropriate.
      - 6y ago

fighterpilot 6y ago

Labelling it "suffocation" is begging the question since the original autopsy didn't include suffocation or asphyxiation as a cause of death (although the autopsy commissioned by the family did, and the prosecution is arguing this).