Charlie Kirk Sets B.L.M Supporter Straight On George Floyd

[ShoulderRoll]

Handwritten notes of a law enforcement interview.

If he were. He wasn’t.

From the article you posted-

But then Baker added, "I am not saying this killed him."

From same article:

Dr. Stephen Nelson, chairman of Florida's medical examiners commission, who is not affiliated with the case, reviewed the new files and says that doesn't mean the drugs or health condition is what caused Floyd's death.

"We've all had cases where those kinds of of levels come into play. You've got to look at the whole picture," Nelson said. "It's one thing to die *with* something. It's another thing to die *from* something."


lastly, from same article:

The documents say Baker performed the autopsy before watching the videos of police restraining Floyd, with Officer Derek Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck, because Baker wanted to avoid bias in his autopsy.

In Baker's final report after watching the videos, he ruled Floyd's death a homicide caused by "law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression."

The FBI asked the Armed Forces Medical Examiner to review Baker's autopsy and they agreed with his findings, writing "his death was caused by the police subdual and restraint" with cardiovascular disease and drug intoxication contributing."

That’s what the medical examiner said originally. You were obviously wrong when you commented that “nothing” says he took an insane amount of drugs…the county’s own doctor said the level of fentanyl in Floyd’s system was fatal under normal circumstances.

Who knows if he felt pressure to change his tune after B.L.M started rioting and destroying public property.

[IceTrayDaGang]

The Big Dunn

can't quote your last post for some reason --

I said Yes. then explained, I didnt see a yes or no from you... instead you tried to sugarcoat it. All i am asking here is that a jury's verdict is not always the right call. Yes or no?

You can give you reasons after answering with a yes or no... instead you said this "In the case of Chauvin, no. The jury verdict was the right call"..

Im not asking you if the jury's verdict for the GF's case is the wrong call. I am asking you in general that a jury's verdict is not always the right call, yes or no?

[ShoulderRoll]

Obviously Dunn agrees with jury verdicts as long as he sees them as pro black, but thinks they might not always make the right right call in other situations.

He’s just too embarrassed to admit it out loud.

[IceTrayDaGang]

The Big Dunn

So the jury's verdict for the Rodney King 1992 case is the right call correct?

[The Big Dunn]

That’s what the medical examiner said originally. You were obviously wrong when you commented that “nothing” says he took an insane amount of drugs…the county’s own doctor said the level of fentanyl in Floyd’s system was fatal under normal circumstances.

Who knows if he felt pressure to change his tune after B.L.M started rioting and destroying public property.

Shoulder he didn’t say he did. You are interpreting what he said that way just to argue it.

He didn’t say what you’re saying here. He used a lot of if’s and coulds. You also parsed part of the article without going to the bottom where he clarifies all of this.

Ahh got it- he clarifies his points because he is under oath and didn’t want to perjure himself. you float the idiotic conspiracy with no proof that It might be because of what black people outside might do.

Damn man, your hatred is making you post insane stuff.

[The Big Dunn]

The Big Dunn

So the jury's verdict for the Rodney King 1992 case is the right call correct?

Answered already. Go read what I wrote.

Stop asking me questions I answered directly already. You’re wasting our time when you do that.

[The Big Dunn]

Obviously Dunn agrees with jury verdicts as long as he sees them as pro black, but thinks they might not always make the right right call in other situations.

He’s just to embarrassed to admit it out loud.

If you read what I wrote, which you didn’t, I specifically stated both the King cops and the OJ verdicts were wrong because they were rendered by gerrymandered juries and the context the verdicts occurred.

I said the Chauvin jury verdict was correct because it wasn’t a gerrymandered jury.

Just because you have become someone that has such disdain for black people, doesn’t mean I am in support of pro black juries.

Sadly, if you took the time to read, you could’ve saved yourself this embarrassing post.

What a sad and pathetic individual you’ve become.

[IceTrayDaGang]

Answered already. Go read what I wrote.

Stop asking me questions I answered directly already. You’re wasting our time when you do that.

Bump that post please.

[The Big Dunn]

The Big Dunn

can't quote your last post for some reason --

I said Yes. then explained, I didnt see a yes or no from you... instead you tried to sugarcoat it. All i am asking here is that a jury's verdict is not always the right call. Yes or no?

You can give you reasons after answering with a yes or no... instead you said this "In the case of Chauvin, no. The jury verdict was the right call"..

Im not asking you if the jury's verdict for the GF's case is the wrong call. I am asking you in general that a jury's verdict is not always the right call, yes or no?

Why are you lying? I clearly said which times it’s yes and which it’s no. In several posts.

I answered that. Juries are not all the same so it’s not a yes or no question.

I answered this already with cases pertinent to the discussIon- the ones you brought up and the Chauvin case.

You just keep wasting time because me saying the OJ verdict was wrong doesn’t allow you to make the argument about me you want to.

Its time to move the discussion forward.

[The Big Dunn]

Bump that post please.

No. Go back and read it. It’s still there.