22 and a half years for Chauvin

submitted by Nombre27 from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No they showed with expert witnesses that George didn't die of a fentanyl overdose, but of not getting enough air into his lungs.

That was a finding of the autopsy, but they also had a doctor go through the video explaining how he could see George's physical response of struggling to get air into his lungs, for seven minutes. It's quite different from an overdose death, in which the body pass peacefully into coma.

Right wing media may have given a false impression of that.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No they showed with expert witnesses that George didn't die of a fentanyl overdose, but of not getting enough air into his lungs.

I read the autopsy when it first came out. The 'expert witnesses' are simply saying what they're paid to say.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I read the autopsy when it first came out.

Did you. Did it say "CARDIOPULMONARY ARREST COMPLICATING LAW ENFORCEMENTSUBDUAL, RESTRAINT, AND NECK COMPRESSION" at the top is it does now?

Or did they retrofit that later, and no one noticed?

The 'expert witnesses' are simply saying what they're paid to say.

That's a big piece of knowledge you have there. How did you come to this knowledge that the expert witnesses were perjuring themselves for a payment from someone, when the defence didn't know that?

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Looks like the same version. I got mine in June of 2020.

If you're new to the concept of 'expert witnesses', they're people with some level of experience in a field or on a topic, with opinions that match the viewpoint needed in a legal case.

While it would be possible to hire someone who would say the opposite of what you want them to say, it would be foolish to pay them to verbally destroy your legal efforts.

Ideally, the opinions they state will be framed in a way that makes them seem both plausible and credible.

the expert witnesses were perjuring themselves for a payment from someone

Where is this coming from? That's not how 'expert witnesses' are supposed to work. You don't hire an expert witness, then tell them what to say. You hire an expert witness who already says what you need them to say, then you pay them to say that.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

So when you say " The 'expert witnesses' are simply saying what they're paid to say", you don't mean that they've been paid to give misinformation, they are giving their genuine expert opinion.

In this case that George didn't die of a fentanyl overdose, but of not being physically able to get enough air into his lungs, due to police restraint.