Gin foon mark and officer Derek Chauvin

[Tony Dismukes]

As was pointed out, he could talk, saying that he could not breath

There's a common misconception that if someone can talk, that means they can breathe, therefore they're not being choked/in danger. Being able to talk means their airway isn't completely blocked, so they won't be passing out and dying in a very short time frame. However it is still possible that their airway may be restricted enough that they aren't getting enough oxygen to maintain consciousness and life indefinitely. In such a case, you would expect unconsciousness and death to take a while, as is also typical for

Its also impossible to to do a blood choke, with only the one knee. If you train BJJ or Judo or any art that teaches collar chokes... try applying a collar choke with only one collar, leave the other side of the neck alone. Sure, you cut off the blood from one side... but you will never choke a guy out, unless you have at least both sides of the neck.

I believe Floyd was on his side during at least part of the process. If you kneel on the neck of someone who is on their side, then their own shoulder on the opposite side can apply pressure to the artery on the other side.

In any case, we know that Floyd was not subjected to a complete technically correct blood choke as we would use in judo or jujutsu get a tap, because if so he would have passed out in seconds. However it's entirely possible that blood flow was restricted significantly, which would have reduced the oxygen reaching his brain, which would have already been reduced by both the restricted airflow and the pressure on his chest.

I believe J. Alexander Kueng had more of an effect on killing Floyd that Chauvin. J. Alexander Kueng was actually helping to prevent Floyd's chest from fully expanding.

In fact, I would venture to say that if everything were the same, except that Chauvin walked away, no knee on the neck, Floyd would still have died, from being held down by the officer on his back. Taking the knee off the neck, would not have saved Floyd. Taking the officer off his back, and putting him in a position where he could breath might have.

This is entirely possible. The officer on Floyd's back restricted his ability to inhale and keep air in his lungs. The officer on his neck restricted air and blood flow. Maybe it took both of them to murder him. Maybe one or the other might have done the job alone. It's not exactly the sort of thing we want to do controlled experiments on. I do agree with your conclusion that there needs to be better education and policies in place to reduce incidents of positional asphyxiation.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

You are correct on the official COD as it stands right now.
I expect this trial will blow things wide open.
My opinion is that Floyd’s lifestyle, leading up to to the incident is the real COD.

What trial are you referring to? Derek Chauvin has already been convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 22 years in prison. The testimony of the doctors who actually conducted the autopsies (there were two of them), was that George Floyd died of asphyxiation and not from a drug overdose. Do you have some medical knowledge that they lack?

I will concede that it's possible Floyd might have survived his treatment if he had been a specimen of perfect health and fitness with no pre-existing health conditions. That's probably the case for a number of murder victims. Given that a large percentage of my friends and family are not specimens of perfect health and fitness with no pre-existing conditions (and neither am I for that matter), I don't think I'd care to have their lifestyle considered the culprit if one of them were murdered.

 

[dvcochran]

What trial are you referring to? Derek Chauvin has already been convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 22 years in prison. The testimony of the doctors who actually conducted the autopsies (there were two of them), was that George Floyd died of asphyxiation and not from a drug overdose. Do you have some medical knowledge that they lack?

I will concede that it's possible Floyd might have survived his treatment if he had been a specimen of perfect health and fitness with no pre-existing health conditions. That's probably the case for a number of murder victims. Given that a large percentage of my friends and family are not specimens of perfect health and fitness with no pre-existing conditions (and neither am I for that matter), I don't think I'd care to have their lifestyle considered the culprit if one of them were murdered.

We are well into the “beating a dead horse” phase and you seem to be late to the conversation.
Review my previous posts.

 

[drop bear]

Here is a similar case.

'I can't breathe': footage shows David Dungay's death in custody – video

WARNING: this footage may distress some readers.The inquest into the death of David Dungay has been shown harrowing video footage of his final moments in which he yells ‘I can’t breathe’

www.theguardian.com

Obviously viewer discretion on the video.

But I don't think they were anywhere near the neck here.

 

[Steve]

What trial are you referring to? Derek Chauvin has already been convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 22 years in prison. The testimony of the doctors who actually conducted the autopsies (there were two of them), was that George Floyd died of asphyxiation and not from a drug overdose. Do you have some medical knowledge that they lack?

Only thing I can think of is maybe the trial for the other three ex-officers. Latest I can see is that they are scheduled to stand trial in March, 2022. Trial for 3 ex-cops charged in Floyd’s death pushed to March

I haven't found anything about alternative causes of death.

I will concede that it's possible Floyd might have survived his treatment if he had been a specimen of perfect health and fitness with no pre-existing health conditions. That's probably the case for a number of murder victims. Given that a large percentage of my friends and family are not specimens of perfect health and fitness with no pre-existing conditions (and neither am I for that matter), I don't think I'd care to have their lifestyle considered the culprit if one of them were murdered.

100%. When I read this, I was reminded of a news story I heard recently... I'm trying to recall the details. I'll post a link if I can find one... but the gist is a guy was threatened and because he had cardiovascular disease due to type 2 diabetes, he had a heart attack and died. The point is that it was a situation where the person was not in great health, and like most people with type 2 diabetes, this was probably related to (if not due entirely to) his lifestyle. But he would not have died without the intervention of the other person who basically scared him to death.

 

[ballen0351]

100%. When I read this, I was reminded of a news story I heard recently... I'm trying to recall the details. I'll post a link if I can find one... but the gist is a guy was threatened and because he had cardiovascular disease due to type 2 diabetes, he had a heart attack and died. The point is that it was a situation where the person was not in great health, and like most people with type 2 diabetes, this was probably related to (if not due entirely to) his lifestyle. But he would not have died without the intervention of the other person who basically scared him to death.

wow, that's kinda crazy.

 

[geezer]

We are well into the “beating a dead horse” phase and you seem to be late to the conversation.
Review my previous posts.

I came back to this thread just recently, so I am also "late to the conversation" ... but I think it's apparent that Tony did pay attention to your comments, and accurately quoted them. In post #32 you posited a fentanyl overdose as "the COD" and then clarified your point in opining in post #35 that George Floyd's "lifestyle was the real COD".

On one hand, there may be some truth to what you say, on the other hand, it may seem to others like you are laying the blame the victim. Apparently the prosecution and jury did not agree.

Observing this exchange between you and Tony, it seems that it boils down to two respectable and informed individuals arriving at very different opinions coming from the same facts. Still, this is hardly a case of "beating a dead horse". Admittedly, the news cycle quickly moves on and people have short memories, but regardless, I'll wager that just like the Rodney King case back in '92, the fall out from this incident will have long lasting influence on policing in America.

Is that what you meant when you said that "this trial will blow things wide open"?

 

[dvcochran]

I came back to this thread just recently, so I am also "late to the conversation" ... but I think it's apparent that Tony did pay attention to your comments, and accurately quoted them. In post #32 you posited a fentanyl overdose as "the COD" and then clarified your point in opining in post #35 that George Floyd's "lifestyle was the real COD".

On one hand, there may be some truth to what you say, on the other hand, it may seem to others like you are laying the blame the victim. Apparently the prosecution and jury did not agree.

Observing this exchange between you and Tony, it seems that it boils down to two respectable and informed individuals arriving at very different opinions coming from the same facts. Still, this is hardly a case of "beating a dead horse". Admittedly, the news cycle quickly moves on and people have short memories, but regardless, I'll wager that just like the Rodney King case back in '92, the fall out from this incident will have long lasting influence on policing in America.

Is that what you meant when you said that "this trial will blow things wide open"?

I appreciate your candor and have much respect you and Tony. It is refreshing to have reasonable discussion with high minded people; something that has been lacking on the forum of late.

The main point I was trying to make was that All of the blame was not on the police. That the incident was and is being used out of context in multiple ways.

Will Floyd will be a component for reform? In some form, yes. But do you not feel it is foolish to think any one incident is an indication of widespread issues in LE across the whole country? Do you not agree there is or can be a 'bad egg' in some form or fashion within most any type of organization? Yes, the fleshing out was hard to watch. Do you consider this normal? I strongly feel the greater driver for change in procedure will be the ease to capture things on camera. And this is a 2 way street now with most officers having a body cam.

Not trying to get off subject but to support my point; I recently watch a video that has been sensationalized where 3 officers were trying cuff a person who was resisting arrest. A dog was used to subdue and get the guy safely cuffed and in the patrol car.
This could have been done multiple ways. Given that there were three officers they could have simply overpowered the guy. Police brutality, right? They could have tasered him (which they may have already done). Police brutality, right? They could have called in more backup, taking away from needed resources elsewhere. They could have drawn out the encounter (like with Floyd) and who knows what would have happened.
The person(s) videoing the incident were immediately saying the person was being mistreated, all the time he was resisting. The canine officer safely released the dog (restrained) which nipped at the ankle and then attached onto the persons pants leg or shoe (I forget which). To read the article you would think he had been mauled. In the end the person was cuffed and in the patrol car with no incident sans a bite wound, IMHO. Since the video is going viral, all bets are off.
FWIW, we have a good sized cattle operation and use dogs for herding regularly so I am may be more conditioned to this type of action than the average person. But I digress.

My main point is the imbalance of power in how video is used by the media and it overt bias. The 'powers that be' can take any video and literally make it a weapon or at the least a very powerful tool. So when there is nothing to moderate or give something understandable context (I am 100% 1st amendment) it can be very dangerous. What happened to neutral reporting? It is getting hard to find where 'neutral' is these days.

My COD comment and the lifestyle comments were obviously poorly expressed on my part and Tony's comments about his family members was far from the point I was trying to make. I hope this is understood on some level.

I am sure you know there are other legal actions going on regarding this case. It is not clear where these will go given the social climate on law enforcement but I feel the legal system still works and that there will be truths uncovered.

My "beating a dead horse" comment is just a southern term to say a topic has already been well covered, in this thread and others.

Having graduated high school in '81 I clearly remember the King case in '92. It was just a few years before I went into LEO work. It is understandable that perspective is very different from what is was near 30 years ago. When you work in a job with such high stakes (such as LEO's) the 'bad eggs' carry great ramification, clearly. Sensationalizing them does not help.

My work involves control, automation, & process, primarily in the industrial and WTP/WWTP environments. I could site more deaths in this environment than I care to remember and have been personally involved in 3 such deaths. You will never hear about these in the mainstream media but I can tell you with certainty that the number of deaths is exponentially higher than incidents like Floyd's. Right or wrong? I will leave that for you to decide.