Current Events > George Floyd: " I ate too many drugs "

(+) Yeah! (+)

The defense just showed the video and audio of George Floyd saying this while prone on the ground.

It only takes one juror. This motherfucker Chauvin is going to get away with it.

I got a bad feeling.

---

stay out of the cities
---

SrRd_RacinG posted...

I got a bad feeling.

true. i don't buy the "i took too many drugs defense" gotta be held accountable under the influence or not.
feels like the scenario where a drunk driver blames it on drinking too much and they get away with it.
---

I'm pretty sure I've said this in movie theaters and still never had a wild pig bust in and sit on my neck

---

kingdrake2 posted...

true. i don't buy the "i took too many drugs defense" gotta be held accountable under the influence or not.

the defense is trying to establish reasonable doubt that Chauvin's actions caused Floyd's death. they're speculating that, per Floyd's own admission of "I ate too many drugs", that the drugs could possibly be responsible so we can't be 100% sure it was Chauvin's fault.

all the defense needs to do is establish reasonable doubt.

---

Well he really shouldn't have taken all those drugs.

---

Blue_Dream87 posted...

I'm pretty sure I've said this in movie theaters and still never had a wild pig bust in and sit on my neck

It doesn't justify his actions, but it might indeed mean he gets off in court because of the very high standard of proof needed there.

---

Cities gonna be like

https://youtu.be/qYg37H6zL3E


---

TerraSeeker posted...

Well he really shouldn't have taken all those drugs.

x doubt

---

Trumble posted...

It doesn't justify his actions, but it might indeed mean he gets off in court because of the very high standard of proof needed there.

Anything I have to add to this will get me modded. Let's just hope the jury doesn't fall for it. For Chauvins sake..

---

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Anything I have to add to this will get me modded. Let's just hope the jury doesn't fall for it. For Chauvins sake..

I'm sure I could craft a (barely) ToU-friendly rant if I wanted, but it's easier to just state "agreed".

---

I still maintain that he wont get convicted of the murder charges.

Its tough, with how those charges are written, to prove those cases. Well see, though.

Chauvin is a shitbag, and he deserves to be in prison, but its not as clear cut as people think it is.

---

SrRd_RacinG posted...

The defense just showed the video and audio of George Floyd saying this while prone on the ground.

It only takes one juror. This motherfucker Chauvin is going to get away with it.

I got a bad feeling.

Was there ever any doubt? Minnesota set the precedent that cops have the right to execute someone who uses drugs when they let Janez walk after he murdered Philando Castille. That case was a home run until they cut Philando up and found *GASP* marijuana in his system! He then changed his story to "I sMeLleD tEh pOtS n fEaReD fOur mUh LiFe!" and that was enough for 12 brain dead fuckwits to say "yeah ok I can see that".

Hes gonna walk.

---

The thing floyd said "i ate too many drugs" is not 100% accurate. One witness said he couldn't make that out. The other said he heard it. This does create a problem with the jury though as some will also think they didn't hear that but others could think they have. He also could have said "i aint on any drugs", or something similar which sounded like he said i ate too many drugs, then the defense tried to drive this home to the jury

I feel like this is pretty clear cut. Didnt all three autopsy reports agree that death was via homicide?

So the nation is going to burn

Oh welp we deserve it.

---

Hope no one lives near a police station in America if he gets off.

---

BroodRyu posted...

I feel like this is pretty clear cut. Didnt all three autopsy reports agree that death was via homicide?

The problem is that in criminal court, "more likely than not" is not good enough. Even the slightest doubt can be reason to not convict.

Some would argue there's good reason for it to be this way, even when it has shitty outcomes like this. Personally, I'm of the opinion we wouldn't lose much by setting the bar a tiny bit lower, though it certianly needs to be much higher than the "balance of probabilities" standard used in civil cases for sure.

---

This witness changed his opinion on what was heard when they showed the whole clip of what the cop said before floyd said this statement. And the witness thinks now he said "i aint do any drugs" similar to what i mentioned above

I wonder if the cops can legally crush my neck with their knee just cause Im prescribed opioids. Since apparently, being on drugs means you no longer deserve to be treated as a person.

Or is the claim that the drugs seeped into Derek through physical contact and that's what forced him to treat George as sub human.

Why does this matter when we're talking about a cop using excessive force exactly? Oh right, character assassination so people can dehumanize the victim and make it seem ok to kill him


---

Was doing just fine with those drugs in his system before having his neck knelt on for 8:46.

---

Forget under the influence of drugs. Was the cause of death officially asphyxiation? That one detail should determine the verdict.

---

Trumble posted...

The problem is that in criminal court, "more likely than not" is not good enough. Even the slightest doubt can be reason to not convict.

Some would argue there's good reason for it to be this way, even when it has shitty outcomes like this. Personally, I'm of the opinion we wouldn't lose much by setting the bar a tiny bit lower, though it certianly needs to be much higher than the "balance of probabilities" standard used in civil cases for sure.

Philando's autopsy report revealed he did in fact die from 9 bullets being fired from a racist cop into him right next to his gf and daughter.
BUT it also found AAAAHHH OH NO marijuana!

12 people thought that was reson enough for him to die.

Chauvin is going to walk. MN is liberal about literally everything except drug use.

---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

the defense is trying to establish reasonable doubt that Chauvin's actions caused Floyd's death. they're speculating that, per Floyd's own admission of "I ate too many drugs", that the drugs could possibly be responsible so we can't be 100% sure it was Chauvin's fault.

all the defense needs to do is establish reasonable doubt.

If Floyd was dying from drugs then there'd have been no need to hold him down. He'd have died on his own if they just left him there.

---

If he said that and was no longer resisting and was saying he couldnt breathe, why did Chauvin not follow protocol to give him medical attention instead of continuing to kneel on his fucking neck?

---

littlebro07 posted...

If he said that and was no longer resisting and was saying he couldnt breathe, why did Chauvin not follow protocol to give him medical attention instead of continuing to kneel on his fucking neck?

because he might have been faking not resisting and the second he let him go, he might have bit his leg and ran off
---

MrMegaPhoenix posted...

because he might have been faking not resisting and the second he let him go, he might have bit his leg and ran off

the sad thing is I can see people being stupid enough to think this lol

---

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1379822339068682245

Here's the audio in question.

Yesterday's witness, I thought it was the defense's witness due to how well they supported their case. But no, the prosecution put him on that stand. From yesterday alone they've established that:

• to choke someone out, it takes under 10 seconds and you have to restrict the trachea from the front of the neck. Chauvin pinned Floyd down for 8+ minutes
• The witness' camera footage of the 8 minutes+ time that Chauvin was "kneeling on Floyd" is unreliable because Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's shoulder blade from a body cam footage
• They posted a page directly from the police manual that included a tutorial of how to do the infamous pin from the police manual, which is what Chauvin did.
• Floyd had a pulse that they could feel from the carotid artery which would not have been possible if he was choked out

The prosecution had nothing to disprove any of the above. I don't think we've hit the autopsy report either.

---

MrMegaPhoenix posted...

because he might have been faking not resisting and the second he let him go, he might have bit his leg and ran off

Imagine someone using this defence when it's your brother or dad that died from negligence. Can you do that for us? See how well it holds up.

---

Talk2DaHand posted...

So the nation is going to burn

Oh welp we deserve it.

No. No we don't. Anyone who does violence or arson need to go to jail.
---

littlebro07 posted...

the sad thing is I can see people being stupid enough to think this lol

yeah. to be clear, thats not what im thinking his logic was, but rather thats the excuse people would give

if its holding a guy down cos he's thrashing about saying he'll kill all of you and theres a weapon nearby and you're using all your strength to hold him down to protect others, then thats fair. i dont think you'd get to the point of them passing out, but thats fair to hold them down for like 10 minutes

this cop knew he could have let the pressure go and any number of things to make it "not choking him". but he didnt, so the excuses dont work here imo

Lost_All_Senses posted...

Imagine someone using this defence when it's your brother or dad that died from negligence. Can you do that for us? See how well it holds up.

i dun think they care. its never "what if it was my kid" in these situations
---

When the police take a suspect into custody, they are responsible for their safety. If Floyd was already in distress due to the drugs, then they had a duty to help him.

Instead, Chauvin kneeled on his neck for nearly 10 minutes.

So, really, their argument was that Floyd was in such a terrible condition he was going to die on his own but Chauvin still felt the need to restrain Floyd, who wasn't resisting, violently, using a dangerous maneuver. I dread to think how he would help a civilian with a gun shot wound.

Duncanwii posted...

No. No we don't. Anyone who does violence or arson need to go to jail.

Did you serve time for that chicken you kicked half to death?

---

MrMegaPhoenix posted...

i dun think they care. its never "what if it was my kid" in these situations

True. They always do that ignorance shrouded "My kid would never be in that situation". It's a way to avoid even considering the person as humanized.

---

Lost_All_Senses posted...

Why does this matter when we're talking about a cop using excessive force exactly? Oh right, character assassination so people can dehumanize the victim and make it seem ok to kill him

Because criminal courts require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer's actions, not the drugs, are what killed him.

Let me stress yet again: I am not saying the cop is innocent. I'll be pissed if he walks. I am just explaining how the system actually works, and why the drug point is useful to the defence.

---

Trumble posted...

Because criminal courts require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer's actions, not the drugs, are what killed him.

Let me stress yet again: I am not saying the cop is innocent. I'll be pissed if he walks. I am just explaining how the system actually works, and why the drug point is useful to the defence.

Yeah, I get that. I just mean for people who bring it up in bad faith. As a "gotcha, we win"

---

Lost_All_Senses posted...

True. They always do that ignorance shrouded "My kid would never be in that situation". It's a way to avoid even considering the person as humanized.

yeah

and even if their kid actually never would be in situations like that (lets just say they never have taken drugs or alcohol or any of that stuff)

it ultimately doesnt matter. because there are people out there whose negligence can result in their death. dangerous drivers, paramedics going to work high and not helping a patient correctly, even an older age thing with a carer who leaves them locked in a room because "they are old".

you can't escape negligence, so it ultimately is meaningless for them to think its not like their kid. cos yeah, their kid can be negligent to them too and vice versa
---

Question: did the defense attorney ask someone specifically Does it sound like hes saying I ate too many drugs or did somebody say they heard him say it and the attorney brought it up after the fact?

When theres audio that isnt perfectly clear and someone throws out a phrase like that, it tricks your mind into thinking oh yeah, now that I listen to it again thats definitely what I hear

I can easily see a scummy attorney planting that phrase in someones mind. Happens often. But if it came from a witness first then thats another story.

---

How is saying the nation will burn not a mod offense?

If he gets off (which he shouldn't) the last thing you need to do is start a riot or burning shit. You will most likely be shot.

I would recommend other business owners and people in certain cities that already had riot's to purchase a legal weapon to defend yourself,family and property.

---

The_True_King posted...

How is saying the nation will burn not a mod offense?

If he gets off (which he shouldn't) the last thing you need to do is start a riot or burning shit. You will most likely be shot.

I would recommend other business owners and people in certain cities that already had riot's to purchase a legal weapon to defend yourself,family and property.

The statement isn't encouraging violence and destruction. It's predicting it. "Burn the nation if he gets acquitted!!" would be moddable.
---

He's gonna walk isn't he

---

@littlebro07 the defense attorney came up with the idea himself. He presented the clip to a previous witness and asked if he heard floyd saying i ate too many drugs. But the witness says no he can't make that out. Then the defense did the same thing with the next witness. This witness said yes it sounds like floyd is saying that. But after a break the prosecution called him back in and this time played the more full clip of the officer saying stuff to floyd as they held him there and this time the witness said it sounds like floyd said "i aint do any drugs". So 2 witnesses said he didn't say it. Dont know if the defense will try with a third witness

Talk2DaHand posted...

So the nation is going to burn

Oh welp we deserve it.

make sure you wear your mask, wash hands and stand 6 feet.

---

The_True_King posted...

How is saying the nation will burn not a mod offense?

Because it's a prediction (and based on how people reacted to the case when it happened, likely a very accurate one), not a threat or an encouragement.

---

EricDraven59 posted...

@littlebro07 the defense attorney came up with the idea himself. He presented the clip to a previous witness and asked if he heard floyd saying i ate too many drugs. But the witness says no he can't make that out. Then the defense did the same thing with the next witness. This witness said yes it sounds like floyd is saying that. But after a break the prosecution called him back in and this time played the more full clip of the officer saying stuff to floyd as they held him there and this time the witness said it sounds like floyd said "i aint do any drugs". So 2 witnesses said he didn't say it. Dont know if the defense will try with a third witness

gotcha. I listened to the clip a bit ago and I can understand how both phrases can be heard. But aint do any contextually makes more sense than ate too many

gonna have to have some audio magicians clean it up Im sure


---

Tyranthraxus posted...

If Floyd was dying from drugs then there'd have been no need to hold him down. He'd have died on his own if they just left him there.

im not trying to cast any judgement on the case here, as i haven't heard the entire thing. just illustrating why the defense would be focused on Floyd saying that

---

He's gonna walk sadly


---

littlebro07 posted...

But aint do any contextually makes more sense than ate too many

Haven't watched the clip (and probably won't) but, just logically, "ain't do any" makes more sense. Except for cannabis edibles, I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk about "eating" drugs. (Yes, I'm aware some other languages do so, but that's irrelevant as this was a line spoken in English by a native English speaker.)

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

He's gonna walk sadly

I still think hell get manslaughter

Should be murder but its better than nothing I guess

---