MisterSwig

Was that a schism or debate? To me a schism would be the forum segregating into areas for "open" people and areas for "closed" people, or a faction simply being banned from participating. Legalizing marijuana is not a major aspect of Objectivism. I don't think it compares to the capitalists among religious conservatives who like Rand.

Thanks. I watched the whole talk. He identified a problem for intellectual movements as the conflict between the integrity of the ideas and the independence of individual people. He said you can't open your door to any idea that comes along because you won't have any content left. I think he had adopted the same wrong mindset that existed at ARI. It's this idea that an Objectivist movement should take care to uphold the integrity of Ayn Rand's ideas. No, it should uphold that which is true among Ayn Rand's ideas. And if it turns out that Ayn Rand was completely wrong, then we should gladly accept that we have no content left, because we've replaced it with even better, correct content. Now I don't say that to suggest that Rand's ideas might all be discovered to be wrong or half-true, but this is about one's orientation toward the truth over Ayn Rand's ideas. If Rand got it right, so be it. If she got it wrong, or slightly wrong, then we need to choose what's right. An intellectual movement, any intellectual movement, should focus on finding the facts and believing what's true about reality. Movements that lose sight of that goal turn into dogmatic institutions zealously protecting content for the sake of protecting content.

Haha, you reminded me of "Burn the Witch" by Radiohead.

I'm not going to speculate on the motivations of the jury members. I do know, however, that if I had been on the jury, I would have feared for my life, and I would have been deeply concerned by my vote's potential impact on the mob. Still, I like to think that I would have voted not guilty, because that's what I believe after closely watching the entire trial. If Chauvin didn't cause Floyd's death, then he's not guilty, plain and simple. And I don't think Chauvin caused the death. At least, I don't think the state proved that he did. I'm not a pathologist, so to a large degree I must rely on the opinions of the experts. I found Dr. Baker and Dr. Fowler to be the most reliable and trustworthy in terms of the cause of death. Baker, who actually did the autopsy, said that "the law enforcement subdual, restraint and the neck compression was just more than Mr. Floyd could take by virtue of those heart conditions." The prosecution attempted to downplay the role of the heart conditions, but Baker made it clear that when he placed other significant conditions on the death certificate he was saying that he thought they contributed to Floyd's death. "You don't list trivial stuff that didn't play a role." I was most impressed by Dr. Fowler, who said that "Mr. Floyd had a sudden cardiac arrhythmia due to his arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease ... during his restraint and subdual by police." I recommend listening to Fowler's testimony if you want to understand what happened. I think the defense should have stressed how Floyd irrationally resisted the police and over-exerted himself by refusing to get in the police car. Floyd then continued his irrational behavior on the ground, kicking and struggling, while saying he couldn't breathe when clearly he was breathing for several minutes on the ground. What made Floyd act so irrationally and communicate his problem so poorly? I think that's where the drugs and criminality enter the picture. First, he was not sober, and therefore wasn't thinking clearly. Rather than remain calm and think and communicate precisely, he panicked and repeated nonsense. Second, he stupidly concealed his drug use when asked what he was on. If Floyd had been sober he might have survived by simply sitting in the police car like a rational person would do. And if he had been honest about his drug use, perhaps the police could have known to give him Narcan or some other treatment. A sober Floyd might have also said something about his hypertension and heart issues. But then a sober Floyd probably wouldn't have panicked and resisted in the first place, knowing that he would risk his life by pushing his heart to the extreme. I think Floyd was responsible for over-exerting his own body and causing his heart to fail. It's very possible that he did not realize what he was doing due to the cocktail of drugs in his system at the time. According to his friends in the car, he had been falling asleep moments before the police arrived, after being quite active and shuffling around in the food store. This suggests that the fentanyl had taken effect and his breathing was being chemically depressed. So when he resisted and struggled with the officers, his half-awake body was in no condition to sustain such a physical effort. To maintain such action would require more oxygen, which would mean faster, effective breathing. But from the experts we know that Floyd was breathing at a normal rate of 22 breaths per minute. He should have been breathing at 30 or more. I submit that 22 was all Floyd could achieve under the depressive influence of fentanyl. He should have been asleep but was compelled into wakefulness by the police interaction. Many blame Floyd's breathing problem on the police restraint. The prosecution and the jury certainly do. And perhaps being held in the prone position exacerbated the problem, but I think the most reasonable and primary cause was the fentanyl, because Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe even before going to the ground. Ultimately the police were in a bind of Floyd's own making. Floyd was a criminal who got the police called on him at Cup Foods. He wasn't taking his prescribed medication for hypertension. Instead he was taking illicit fentanyl and passing out in his car when he had just offered to drive his ex-girlfriend home. The police walked into a lose-lose nightmare. They didn't know about Floyd's health and drug problems. Reasonable officers would see a large, muscular man who appeared to be physically healthy apart from probably being on some unknown drug causing him to act strangely. Thinking excited delirium, reasonable officers would attempt to immobilize Floyd for everyone's safety. Obviously they wouldn't want to be kicked or bitten or exhausted themselves. But also there would be the risk of Floyd giving himself a heart attack, which is exactly what the police and one onlooker warned Floyd about while he was resisting. It looks bad that the police maintained their restraint positions even after Floyd lost consciousness. Obviously the knee placement looks particularly bad from the viral video. But no evidence or testimony has convinced me that Floyd was asphyxiated due to the pressure applied by the police. I believe Dr. Fowler, who said, "Positional asphyxia is an interesting hypothesis unsupported by any experimental data." And I believe Dr. Baker who also didn't see pressure to the back of the neck that would explain asphyxiation. Given Floyd's heart disease, hypertension, fentanyl intoxication and physical exertion, there is plenty of reasonable doubt to support a conclusion of not guilty. I think the defense blundered by not explaining the physical exertion issue better, but I'm not sure whether it would have mattered to the jury, and I'm not going to speculate.

I'm co-hosting a new podcast with Scott Schiff called Ayn Rand Fan Club. We met on Facebook and have a similar interest in discussing the Objectivist movement. This first episode addresses the issue of schisms and coalitions within the movement. In that light we take a critical look at several clips from the Yaron Brook Show. I hope you check it out and subscribe to the channel. And if you have constructive criticism, I'd like to hear it. Thanks.

Is it an open Q&A or does it have a particular focus?

"Multi-factorial process" is how Dr. Baker described it. It's not that we can't know what was going on, it's that the evidence points to a combination of factors causing the death. He's not saying that. He's saying we should consider the evidence from the perspective of a reasonable officer, which is the standard for the use of force in this case. I think he got perspective basically right, but he conflated perception with interpretation. Given the guilty verdict, I'll have to consider how to present my view of Chauvin's innocence. I'm not into offering half-assed hot takes like Mr. Reagan. While he and I agree that Chauvin is innocent, he still thinks Floyd died from an overdose, and I don't think it's that simple. Thanks for participating in the thread, Eiuol. I appreciate you taking the time to follow it.

Mr. Blackwell gave the state's closing rebuttal. He again stressed "believe your eyes." He said common sense was so simple that even the nine-year-old bystander understood when she told Chauvin to "get off of him." Blackwell started routinely referring to Nelson's arguments as "stories," such as the idea that the prone position is safe. Later he said the state was about getting to the truth, not a story. Ultimately Cahill sustained Nelson's objection and instructed the jury to disregard Blackwell's use of the word "story." Blackwell took issue with how Nelson had characterized some of Dr. Baker's testimony, such as whether Baker used "homicide" as a "medical term" or not. He also insisted that the prosecution only needs to show that Chauvin's actions were a "substantial factor," not the only factor, in Floyd's death. He said that the use of force set off the medical issues. Regarding body language, he asked if in the video Chauvin had the face of someone afraid. Floyd, he said, had the face of fear and worry. Blackwell described the crowd as a "bouquet of humanity." They were symbols of love and courage, he said. Yet they were torn between Floyd and the police, because they respected the badge. Blackwell came up with a Johnnie Cochran-esque rhyme: "There can be no excuse for police abuse." He repeated points about the traffic, paramedics and fentanyl. Regarding carbon monoxide, he asked who would put someone's face in front of a tailpipe. About meth: "what meth?" Blackwell called it a "miniscule" amount, below "therapeutic levels." In response to Nelson's point that Chauvin doesn't have the experience of a medical doctor, Blackwell said that Chauvin didn't need it because "you know who else isn't a medical doctor, a nine-year-old girl." He said that you don't need a PhD to understand how fundamental breathing is to life. Blackwell then addressed whether the state must prove that Chauvin intended to act unlawfully. He said that they must prove only that Chauvin "intended to do what he did." Blackwell then referred to defense arguments as "shading the truth," and Judge Cahill instructed the jury to ignore that phrase as well. Finally, Blackwell ended with what he called the defense's "largest departure from the truth." He concluded: "You were told that Mr. Floyd died because his heart was too big. You heard that testimony. And now, having seen all the evidence, having heard all the evidence, you know the truth. And the truth of the matter is that the reason George Floyd is dead is because Mr. Chauvin's heart was too small." After that Judge Cahill gave the jury instructions and sent them to deliberate. He then ordered the bailiff to keep them sequestered.

Mr. Nelson began his closing argument for the defense by describing how "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the highest standard of proof. Next he made a theme of intellectual honesty. In that context he pointed to some aspects of Dr. Tobin's testimony. Tobin had claimed that we can infer Floyd's carbon monoxide level from the test that found 98% oxygen saturation. Nelson suggested that using the same test he could argue that we know Floyd wasn't asphyxiated because he had 98% oxygen in his blood. But that wouldn't be honest, he said, because we know that Floyd was given oxygen by the paramedics during resuscitation efforts. Nelson asked the jury to compare the evidence against itself, to test it, to challenge it. He asked them to begin with innocence and to see how far the state can get. He offered an analogy of baking chocolate chip cookies. You need all the ingredients to bake cookies. If you lack one ingredient, you can't make them. Likewise, if the state is missing one element of the charges, the verdict is not guilty. Nelson focused on two elements common to all three charges: whether the force was authorized and whether Chauvin caused Floyd's death. His remarks here mostly reiterated the evidence, stressing the "totality of the evidence" and that the situation was "dynamic." He walked through the timeline and played portions of the videos, while arguing that Chauvin approached and assessed the scene of active resistance and then conducted himself reasonably, using less force than authorized. Nelson said that the state's focus on the 9:29 was not proper analysis, because it ignores the previous 16:59. Nelson described Floyd as continuing to resist on the ground, and the police as "reasonable officers discussing the scene." He noted that they weren't doctors and probably didn't even know about anoxic seizures. Nelson said he'd been thinking a lot about the difference between perspective and perception. Perspective is the angle you have. For example, he couldn't see four of the jurors from his seat in the courtroom. Perception is how you interpret what you see. He asked the jury to recognize bias and analyze the case by the evidence. After pointing to some instances where eyewitnesses made mistakes due to perspective or interpretation, he said, "We don't look at this from the perspective of a bystander but from a reasonable officer." Nelson said Chauvin was looking around at Floyd and the crowd, comparing actions. He then noted a critical moment. Dr. Tobin had said Floyd's last breath was at 8:25:16. Nelson showed that this was the moment when an approaching bystander startled Chauvin who then pulled out his mace. This changed Chauvin's perception of what was happening, Nelson said. Nelson stressed that the situation wasn't safe for performing CPR. Plus, the officers expected EMS to arrive quickly. Also, the paramedics didn't think the scene was safe. Regarding intent, Nelson said that police know they are being recorded, which is inconsistent with an intent to do something unlawful. He noted that Chauvin called EMS and told Floyd to relax, which is also not consistent with unlawful intent. He said that "these are officers doing their job in stressful situations." He referred to the incident as "tragic." Nelson then addressed the cause of death. He said that the state is trying to convince the jury that asphyxia is the singular cause of death, that the heart disease, hypertension, toxicology, and physical exertion played no role. He noted that if these things played a role, then they were not the natural consequences of the police restraint, but of the deceased's actions. Nelson reviewed some positions from the state's expert witnesses and said their testimonies "fly in the face of reason." He said the state didn't like Dr. Baker's findings, because his findings didn't support "what you see is what you should believe." Nelson brought up Dr. Tobin again, as a demonstration of bias. Tobin had used an image of Floyd pressing his knuckles into the tire, in order to argue that Floyd was trying to free up his right lung from being compressed. Nelson played the video segment showing that this moment occurred fifteen seconds after Floyd went to the ground, when Floyd was still in the side recovery position. Nelson talked about the drugs. He said he wasn't suggesting an overdose, but that the death was a "multi-factorial process," and for the medical experts to "minimize" the effects of drugs is "incredible." At this point Judge Cahill interrupted Nelson in order to break for lunch. Court restarted, and Nelson talked about Dr. Fowler's position that Floyd died from heart hypoxia, not brain hypoxia. He said the timeline is consistent with sudden cardiac arrhythmia, noting only 66 seconds between Floyd's "last word and last breath." This, he said, is not consistent with a longer process of brain hypoxia. Regarding the carbon monoxide theory, Nelson said video evidence shows that Officer Lane never touched the keys in the ignition, so the car was running. Nelson discussed the concept of a "superseding cause." He defined it as "a cause that comes after the defendant's actions, alters the natural sequence of events and is the sole cause of a result that would not have otherwise occurred." This, he argued, pertains to the fact that after arriving on scene it took EMS seven minutes and forty-six seconds to pump air into Floyd. Nelson asked, "What would have happened if EMS had started resuscitation efforts right away?" Finally, Nelson reiterated the point about Floyd's death being a "multi-factorial process" and concluded his remarks.

The trial resumed on Monday with closing arguments. But first Judge Cahill read the charges in this case to the jury. Derek Chauvin, he said, is charged with murder in the second degree, murder in the third degree, and manslaughter in the second degree. In addition to proving that Chauvin caused the death of George Floyd, second-degree murder requires the state to prove that Chauvin intended to inflict substantial bodily harm, and did inflict such harm. Third-degree murder would mean he killed Floyd by intentionally acting in a way imminently dangerous to Floyd. And second-degree manslaughter would be causing the death through culpable negligence. Also, the state must show that Chauvin's use of force was not authorized by law. Because the closing remarks do not constitute evidence, I won't summarize them in detail, despite taking thirty-one pages of notes while watching live. Rather, I'll simply report items that I personally found interesting, mostly rhetorical points or arguments. My focus won't be on the numerous repetitions of evidence already covered. Mr. Schleicher presented the state's closing argument. His opening theme described Floyd's family and how Floyd in life was surrounded by people he cared about, contrasted with his final minutes when he was surrounded by strangers who didn't listen to or help him. Schleicher painted a picture of Chauvin "grinding, twisting and holding" Floyd on the ground for nine minutes and twenty-nine seconds. He said that Chauvin had to know what was right beneath him, that Floyd was limp. Schleicher noted that Chauvin was on trial for what he did. He then pointed to a picture of Chauvin with the knee on Floyd and added, "That is what he did." He characterized it as an assault, not policing. He said it was "unnecessary, gratuitous, disproportionate, not an accident." Schleicher pointed to Chauvin's body language in the photo and said it showed an "ego-based pride." Chauvin had the authority, wanted to win, and wasn't going to be told what to do. Schleicher described it as "pride over policing." Schleicher accused the officers of not recognizing that Floyd was in crisis when not wanting to get in the backseat. The problem was the "little car," not that Floyd was trying to escape. Schleicher said that the excessive force began when the officers stayed on top of Floyd. He repeated several times throughout the closing, "Believe your eyes, what you saw, you saw." Schleicher characterized some ideas as "nonsense," such as the notion that even though Floyd was "walking and talking, breathing and interacting with people, he chose that moment to die of heart disease." Schleicher wondered why they were even talking about the drugs in the car when there was the toxicology report. He said that Floyd would have lived had he been put in the recovery position or given CPR. Chauvin's indifference, he said, was the opposite of compassion. Schleicher suggested that the officers didn't use the hobble device because they didn't want to call the sergeant on Memorial Day. Schleicher described Chauvin as "mocking" Floyd by saying "uh huh" and "it takes a lot of oxygen" to talk. Addressing "the greatest skeptic" among the jury, Schleicher asked, "How can you justify force on this man when he has no pulse?" Schleicher then concluded his remarks by saying, "This case is exactly what you thought when you saw it first, when you saw that video. You can believe your own eyes." He said it's what you "felt in your gut" and "know in your heart."

The fourteenth day marked the end of witness testimony. But first there were a couple motions. Chauvin invoked his fifth amendment right during the choice to testify hearing. Also, Judge Cahill ruled that the state could not introduce newly discovered evidence about Floyd's carbon monoxide level, because Dr. Fowler had asked specifically for this evidence a few months ago and the state failed to provide it. The state could, however, infer Floyd's carbon monoxide level from an oxygen saturation test already admitted into evidence. When the jury returned, Mr. Nelson said the defense rests, and Mr. Blackwell recalled Dr. Martin Tobin for the prosecution's rebuttal. Tobin had testified for the prosecution on day nine. He is a world-renowned pulmonologist. Blackwell showed Tobin a slide from Fowler's testimony. One point on it indicated that Floyd's "carboxyhemoglobin could have increased by 10-18%." This means that the carbon monoxide attached to Floyd's hemoglobin might have risen from the normal range around 0-2% to many times that. But Tobin characterized this proposition as "not reliable." Based on an arterial blood-gas sample, he pointed out that Floyd's oxygen saturation was 98%, which only left a maximum of 2% for potential carbon monoxide. Turning to the hypopharynx (a portion of the throat), Fowler had said he couldn't find literature to support the idea that compression of the hypopharynx can cause asphyxia. Tobin in rebuttal said that many physiological studies show that if you lower the size of the lungs, you must get a decrease in the size of the hypopharynx. He also said that if you stick your fingers in the sides of your neck, "you know you're going to narrow the hypopharynx." This isn't a "puzzling" thing, he stated, and so people don't do research on it. On cross Nelson confirmed that "the most common technology" for analyzing blood is the multiple wavelength spectrophotometer, or the CO-oximeter. This might relate to Fowler's prior claim that the pulse oximeter cannot distinguish oxygen from carbon monoxide in the blood. I guess we'll see if it comes up in his closing remarks. Nelson then wanted to clarify Tobin's point about the lung-hypopharynx relationship. He asked whether the research shows that the hypopharynx is narrowed by "increasing the pressure on the lungs." Tobin replied, "Not quite, it is that if you decrease the size of the lungs that you will get narrowing of the hypopharynx." And with that the witness testimony concluded.

You see, that would have been a straight answer, even though I disagree because none of the experts have said he died from a drug overdose.

They would have driven him to jail and he wouldn't have died face down on the street in front of Cup Foods. It's not a loaded question. It's a simple hypothetical. You think the prosecution team would have allowed an actual loaded question? No way.

It wasn't about the length of the answer. Simple questions have gotten long replies all throughout this trial, and they didn't bug me as long as they were on point. In this case Rich wasn't on point and he never actually answered the question. Nelson's hypothetical addressed Floyd not resisting. Rich changed it to the police not restraining him. This is classic evasion, and I look for this stuff to judge the credibility of expert witnesses, since I typically lack the knowledge to judge them based on the scientific facts.

On day thirteen Mr. Nelson presented his motion for a judgment of acquittal. He argued that the state had introduced reasonable doubt with contradicting expert opinions on the use of force and cause of death. Judge Cahill denied the motion, applying the standard of viewing evidence in "a light most favorable to the state." Also Morries Hall appeared in court and stated his intention to plead the fifth. Cahill ultimately quashed Hall's subpoena, agreeing that his testimony would be self-incriminating. The jury then took their seats and Nelson called Dr. David Fowler to the stand. Fowler is a retired pathologist. He started his career in South Africa but moved to the United States in the '90s and became the chief medical examiner for Maryland. His opinion is that Floyd "had a sudden cardiac arrhythmia due to his arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease ... during his restraint and subdual by police." Regarding the manner of death, Fowler said that "not every case cleanly fits into one particular category or meets criteria for the guidelines." This is why "undetermined" is an option for classifying the manner of death. The death certificate is used for data gathering by the CDC; it's not intended as a legal ruling. Fowler pointed to Floyd's hypertension, which causes the heart to enlarge and to require more oxygenated blood in order to function. Also, smoking can cause narrowing of the coronary arteries. Floyd's heart disease included proximal narrowing close to the aorta. Thus, supplying blood to the rest of his heart was more difficult than if it had been a distal narrowing further away from the aorta. Fowler said that meth, being a stimulant, sensitizes the heart to arrhythmias. It increases the heart rate and causes the blood vessels to narrow. Fowler used an example of a car accident. Sometimes pathologists see dead bodies with lots of injuries from a car accident. The injuries are bad enough to cause death. But then it's discovered that the person had a stroke and lost control of the car. So does the pathologist put heart attack under cause of death or under other significant conditions? When the paramedic checked Floyd's blood pressure during the 2019 incident, it was 216/116. Fowler described this as his hypertension being out of control. Fowler then discussed the possibility that carbon monoxide played a role in Floyd's death. He noted that Floyd's face was near the police car's tailpipes, and the car appeared to be running, given the dripping condensation. Nelson asked if Fowler was suggesting that Floyd died from carbon monoxide poisoning, to which Fowler answered no. But it might have contributed to a diminished oxygen-carrying capacity in Floyd's blood, since carbon monoxide attaches to hemoglobin, thus preventing oxygen from attaching to the molecule. After some discussion about the science of cars emitting carbon monoxide, Nelson pointed out that the state did no experiments to determine whether carbon monoxide was a factor in this case. Fowler further stated that Floyd's heart disease made him particularly susceptible to carbon monoxide. Regarding the prosecution's theory of positional asphyxia, Fowler called it "an interesting hypothesis unsupported by any experimental data." He said Chauvin's knee placement did not affect vital structures of the neck. Also, the amount of force applied was less than the amount required to bruise Floyd (since there was no bruising). Nelson asked about symptoms of hypoxia, and Fowler mentioned disorientation, confusion, visual changes, seeing spots, and incoherence. Floyd, he said, didn't complain of visual changes and was coherent until suddenly ceasing movement. Normally hypoxic changes are gradual, from acting disoriented to becoming incoherent. On the hypopharynx, Fowler said that he searched the literature for evidence that compression of the hypopharynx can cause asphyxia, and nothing came up. Fowler argued that Floyd suffered a sudden cardiac event, going from fully conscious to silent in a rapid time period. Floyd's heart, he said, exhausted its supply of metabolic reserves. He suffered an arrhythmia and his heart stopped pumping. After some talk about fentanyl's depressive affect on breathing, Nelson then showed a still image of Floyd being taken out of his car. Fowler noted that a "white object" could be seen in the back of Floyd's mouth. Mr. Blackwell began cross-examination by pointing out that Fowler hadn't considered the weight of Chauvin's equipment in calculating the pressure on Floyd. Blackwell then challenged the point about carbon monoxide by asking if Fowler knew how many exhaust pipes were on the squad car. Fowler answered that there were two double exhausts, so four in total. He also knew the make and model of the police car. Blackwell asked if calling the white substance in Floyd's mouth a "pill" would be "jumping to a conclusion." Fowler replied that he had referred to it as a "white object," not a pill. Blackwell repeatedly injected questions like, "You don't want to confuse the jury, do you?" To which Nelson finally objected, and the judge called a sidebar. After that, I think such questions stopped. Blackwell then seemed to be equating "sudden death" with "sudden cardiac arrest." Fowler said the two terms were not synonymous in that a cardiac arrest might be reversed. "The moment of death is not something you can easily document." Blackwell did get Fowler to agree that "as a physician" he thought Floyd should have been given immediate emergency attention. Blackwell then brought up the issue of Floyd's respiratory rate, which was visually measured as a normal rate of about 22 breaths per minute. Fowler said it should have been higher around 30 due to exertion and other stressors. Blackwell then asked, "And you have no really basis or baseline to suggest that Mr. Floyd should have been breathing at 30 than normal 22, right?" And Fowler replied that "a person who is getting short of oxygen to their brain will usually increase respiratory rate to more than 30." After that there was a full 30 seconds of silence before Blackwell moved on to a question about meth. On redirect Nelson pointed out that the state hadn't provided any evidence of what police gear weighs, nor had it conducted any experiments relevant to its positional asphyxia theory. Fowler noted that more weight would mean more likelihood of leaving a bruise on Floyd. Nelson reiterated that the state hadn't tested for carbon monoxide. Nor had it tested Floyd's stomach contents for drugs. Fowler made a point about "oxygen reserves" being in the blood, not the lungs. The air in the lungs, he said, is part of the gas exchange process. On cross, Blackwell had asked about Chauvin's arm being around Floyd's neck while struggling inside the car. To Nelson Fowler replied that Chauvin appeared to have a "loose grip" and there was a gap between Chauvin's arm and Floyd's neck. Fowler was the only defense witness of the day and that concluded his testimony.

The state rested its case, and day twelve marked the beginning of the case for the defense. Mr. Nelson's first witness was Scott Creighton, a retired MPD officer. In 2019 Creighton stopped a vehicle in which George Floyd was the passenger. Creighton testified that Floyd was unresponsive and noncompliant. He had to reach into the vehicle and place Floyd's hands on the dash before taking him from the car and handcuffing him. The defense published Creighton's bodycam footage, which showed Floyd having trouble obeying commands to keep his hands visible. At one point Creighton's partner shouts, "Open your mouth. Spit out what you got. I'm gonna tase you." It was a short clip. Judge Cahill allowed it only as evidence for the effects of opioids. On cross Ms. Eldridge pointed out that Creighton had drawn his gun. Floyd said something about not wanting to be shot, and Creighton assured him he wasn't going to shoot. Eldridge also noted that Floyd was talking and could walk. Creighton described Floyd as incoherent. Next up was Michelle Moseng, a retired paramedic who treated Floyd that same day in 2019. She described Floyd as being upset and confused. He told her that he had been taking multiple opioids "every twenty minutes" and that he had taken another one when the officers arrived. His blood pressure was 216/116, which concerned Moseng enough to take Floyd to the hospital. On cross-examination Moseng stated that Floyd initially denied having medical issues but then admitted to having hypertension for which he hadn't been taking his medication. Asked why he took so many Percocets, Floyd said he was addicted. Apart from his blood pressure, his heart rhythm and respiration were normal. Nelson then called Shawanda Hill, the woman in the backseat of Floyd's car on May 25, 2020. She said that she met Floyd that day at Cup Foods (they knew each other) and he offered to give her a ride home. However, Floyd began falling asleep in the car, and she and Morries Hall couldn't wake him up. Eventually the police arrived and that aroused him. Mr. Frank cross-examined Hill. She also described Floyd as incoherent at times. He would wake up then nod off again. He did not complain about shortness of breath or chest pains to her. Peter Chang was called to the stand. He's the park police officer who responded to the dispatch for backup. He watched Floyd's car and the two passengers during the whole incident. He testified that the crowd was "very aggressive" toward the officers. He could hear them from across the street. The defense published Chang's bodycam video, which showed him questioning the passengers and telling them to stay away from the car. Chang also paced around a bit, monitoring both the scene across the street and Floyd's car and passengers. He testified that onlookers gathered in the parking lot of the Speedway store as well as at the corners of the busy intersection. On cross Mr. Frank noted that Chang and the other officers never radioed "code 3" for help. Nelson recalled Nicole Mackenzie, who had testified for the prosecution on day seven. She is the MPD medical support coordinator. She testified about the training that police cadets receive concerning excited delirium. Officer Lane, one of the newer officers, had received this training at the academy, but it was not given to in-service veterans like Chauvin. Mackenzie described excited delirium as "issues happening at the same time," such as "psychosis, agitated delirium, pressurized speech, incoherent speech, superhuman strength, and hyperthermia." Possible causes include combinations of pre-existing factors, cardiovascular disease, illicit drug use, and mental health diagnoses. Officers are taught an acronym to help them remember the signs of excited delirium: NOTACRIME. "N" is for naked, removing clothes because the subject is warm. "O" is for objects that the subject acts violently toward. "T" is for tough, as in super strength. "A" is for acute, since subjects "just snap" and rapidly change behavior. "C" is for confused, "R" for resistant, "I" for incoherent, "M" for mental health, and "E" is for EMS, as in request medical assistance promptly. Mackenzie said that cadets are trained to have EMS stage near the scene until the situation is under control, and they should control the subject through physical restraint. Once in handcuffs, the subject should be placed in the recovery position to facilitate breathing. People experiencing excited delirium can rapidly go in to cardiac arrest. Nelson then called Barry Brodd, a use of force expert with 35 years of experience teaching defensive tactics at a regional training center in California, and also 29 years in law enforcement. His opinion is that "Derek Chauvin was justified and acting with objective reasonableness, following Minneapolis Police Department policy and current standards of law enforcement in his interactions with Mr. Floyd." At some length, Brodd discussed the Graham vs Connor factors and his own methodology for analyzing Chauvin's use of force. I found it all very interesting but not important to summarize in detail here. The thing that distinguished Brodd from the other experts was his conclusion that the prone restraint, after the officers put Floyd on the ground, "was not a use of deadly force." He analogized it to officers responding to a domestic abuse call where the suspect is still at the scene. The suspect then fights with the officers, they tase him, he falls and hits his head and dies. This would be an incident of accidental death. Brodd introduced the concept of "one upmanship," saying that the police don't have to fight fair. They don't have to get into a fistfight with a suspect, but they should de-escalate once they gain control of him. Brodd argued that a reasonable officer needs to consider the impact of drugs on a suspect. Because intoxicated people can act erratically and might not feel pain, he trains officers to keep drug-influenced subjects handcuffed. Brodd said that Floyd's "active resistance" to going in the car justified a higher use of force which the officers decided against. Instead they put him on the ground, where Floyd kicked at Officer Lane, continuing to resist. Brodd said officers are trained to place an actively resisting suspect on the ground in the prone position. This limits the suspect's mobility and makes him easier to control. Brodd described this tactic as "prone control" and doesn't consider it a use of force, because it's only using body weight to hold a suspect. Brodd added that there are also safety reasons for keeping a drug-influenced suspect in the prone position. The impaired suspect might start running and trip and fall, or if he gets sick, the prone position would prevent him from aspirating on his own vomit. Regarding positional asphyxia, Brodd said the training model indicates it is a greater risk for obese people. He also made a point about the angry crowd, saying that a reasonable officer has to deal with the biggest threat. He noted that Chauvin's attention turned from Floyd to the crowd when he removed his spray canister and said "stay back." Mr. Schleicher on cross noted that putting someone in the side recovery position is very easy. This remains a good point for the prosecution: why didn't Chauvin want to put Floyd in the recovery position after it was suggested? Brodd acknowledged that a person's own body weight could contribute to positional asphyxia. He also agreed that using force on one person cannot be justified by appealing to what others are doing, i.e. Chauvin's restraint on Floyd isn't justified by what the crowd was doing. Schleicher pointed out that "one upmanship" is not in the MPD use of force policy. He got Brodd to agree that Chauvin's knee on Floyd "could" be a use of force. They reviewed some clips of the incident, but disagreed about how much pressure was being applied to Floyd while on the ground. Brodd seemingly associated the use of force with inflicting pain, and Schleicher played video of Floyd saying "everything hurts," specifically his "stomach" and "neck." On redirect Nelson pointed out that Floyd was able to move his head around. Brodd mentioned the "swarm technique" which officers use to take a suspect to the ground and control him with their body weight. Brodd said that Floyd's kicking motion was "active aggression." Brodd had mentioned something about street traffic in connection with not having space for the side recovery position. On recross Schleicher asked if he was contending that it was reasonable to hold Floyd in the prone position to avoid being hit by a car. Brodd answered that he was not suggesting that.

Week three started with Mr. Blackwell calling Dr. Jonathan Rich, a cardiologist in Chicago and professor of medicine at Northwestern University. This was his first time testifying in court as an expert witness. His conclusion is that Floyd "died from cardiopulmonary arrest. It was caused by low oxygen levels, and those low oxygen levels were induced by the prone restraint and positional asphyxiation that he was subjected to." Rich looked at Floyd's medical records, various videos, and the autopsy. He said that he saw no evidence of negative heart conditions (high blood pressure is not a heart condition), no video evidence of a heart attack (Floyd died a "gradual death," not a sudden one), and the autopsy, he said, revealed that Floyd had a "mildly thick, enlarged heart," which is normal for someone with high blood pressure. Based on the autopsy, Rich said the endocardium (the heart's inner lining) looked healthy. Floyd had coronary artery disease, but Rich excluded that as a cause of death. He noted that Floyd had no signs of clotting or ischemia (inadequate blood supply). On cross, Mr. Nelson pointed out that Rich is not a pathologist, and all of his patients are alive when he sees them. Rich agreed that heart attacks are different from heart failures; some people die "from coronary events with 90% blockages or without blockages"; fatal arrhythmias often are not associated with pain; longterm use of meth can constrict blood vessels and contribute to the development of coronary heart disease; and vigorous activity and increases in adrenaline can make the heart work harder. Floyd had a paraganglioma in his pelvis. Rich agreed that such growths can contribute to high blood pressure. Floyd had a history of "extremely elevated blood pressure." Nelson then asked (what I think is) a simple question to answer, but Rich, in my view, displayed clear bias in not giving a straightforward answer. I quote the full exchange below, so you can judge for yourself. The court took a lunch break and returned with some rulings on motions pertaining to Morries Hall, one of Floyd's friends in the car. Judge Cahill denied the defense motion to compel the state to explain why they are not offering Hall use immunity in exchange for his testimony. And regarding statements Hall gave previously to authorities, Cahill ruled that none of them are admissible. The jury was reseated and Mr. Schleicher called Prof. Seth Stoughton from the University of South Carolina. Stoughton teaches criminology and criminal justice in the law school. He's also a former Florida police officer. He wrote a hundred-page report on the Floyd case and had a lot to say, much of which repeated points from others, so I'll focus on the points that really stood out for me. Stoughton talked a lot about the nature of a threat, and whether Floyd presented a threat to the officers or anyone else. He noted that Floyd's size and drug use were not themselves threats. And he said that once officers had Floyd on the ground, Floyd was "cooperative" and posed no threat at this point to anyone; nor did he have the opportunity, ability or intention of running away or "obstructing the investigation." At one point an officer suggested rolling Floyd on his side. This, Stoughton argued, indicates that Floyd didn't present the level of threat that required keeping him in the prone position. The professor raised the concept of "foreseeable effects." This refers to things that are likely to happen as a result of the officer's actions. For example, a reasonable officer should expect a subject placed in the prone position to have trouble breathing. Stoughton discussed how to apply the "reasonable officer" standard to this particular case. He watched video clips of the incident and described what a reasonable officer would have known and done. A reasonable officer, he said, would have known the dangers of putting an intoxicated person in the prone position, and would have noticed Floyd's voice getting "slower and thicker," indicating increased medical distress. Also, a reasonable officer would have noticed Floyd had passed out and would have started medical assistance. He concluded that "no reasonable officer would have believed that that was appropriate, acceptable or reasonable use of force." Mr. Nelson began the cross-examination by pointing out that, according to the Graham vs. Connors standard, analysis of the use of force must be viewed from the totality of the circumstances. It shouldn't be viewed from 20/20 hindsight. He pointed out that a dispatcher had dispatched Chauvin and Thao "code 3" (lights and sirens) to the scene. Stoughton was unaware of this and had focused only on the initial officers' "code 4" (scene safe) call. Stoughton had argued that it was unreasonable to put Floyd in the prone position in the first place. Nelson asked if reasonable minds could disagree on that point, and the professor said no. Nelson then pointed out that that disagreed with prior testimony from Sgt. Stiger. Nelson asked if there was any situation where a subject should be kept in the prone position for longer than a transitory period, i.e., while handcuffing someone. Stoughton answered, "There shouldn't be." Nelson then quoted from an op-ed the professor wrote shortly after the incident in May 2020. It read: "Officers might need to hold someone down in the prone position but they should do so by putting their shin across the subject's back, not the neck." Nelson added that Stoughton, only a few days after the incident, "had already formed the opinion based on that limited information that this was an unreasonable use of force." Stoughton said that how long the knee was on the neck was "irrelevant." He admitted that he couldn't determine how much pressure was on the neck with any specificity. Nelson pointed out that a reasonable officer also considers size difference and EMS response time. He reminded Stoughton that EMS was called contemporaneously with discussion of using the hobble device. Also the EMS call was upgraded in response to observations of Floyd. Nelson asked about Floyd kicking his leg right after being taken to the ground and officers trying to control him. Stoughton said it appeared that an officer grabbed the leg and pulled it straight. They agreed that a reasonable officer must consider changing circumstances, and Nelson said that these officers might have considered the fact that they had been struggling with Floyd for several minutes. They might have been tired themselves. Also, a reasonable officer might have been distracted by people gathering around and the traffic. Stoughton agreed that when the officers said Floyd was passed out, they also said he was still breathing. On redirect Stoughton agreed that a reasonable officer would know whether he's kneeling on a limp person, and would pay attention when told the subject has no pulse. That concluded the eleventh day of the trial.

Week two ended with the pathologists. First up was Dr. Lindsey Thomas, the now retired, former medical examiner for Hennepin County, Minnesota. She is a friend of Dr. Andrew Baker, the current medical examiner who conducted the autopsy of George Floyd. Mr. Blackwell questioned Thomas for the prosecution team. He asked what the "mechanism of death" was in this case, and she replied "asphyxia or low oxygen." He then asked about parts of Floyd's death certificate that Baker had completed. She said that "cardiopulmonary arrest" simply means that the heart and lungs stopped; "complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression" means "the activities of officers resulted in Mr. Floyd's death"; and the phrase "other contributing conditions" refers to things present but "not directly contributing to cause of death." Blackwell distributed packets of autopsy photos, but they weren't broadcasted over the live video feed. Thomas described them as images of Floyd's injuries to his face, shoulder and hands, which were consistent with video of him turning on the pavement and struggling with the handcuffs. Thomas raised the concept of "physiological stress" which is something like the "fear for life" one might experience in near-death encounters. She said Floyd was experiencing that level of stress for several minutes. While the "primary mechanism" for death was asphyxia, she stated, the "secondary mechanism" was physiological stress caused by the police restraint. However, physiological stress cannot be seen on autopsy. Mr. Nelson opened cross-examination by pointing out that Thomas hadn't reviewed all the witness interviews, nor had she seen relevant materials that were added to the case after preparing her report. Nelson asked her to define, medically speaking, the term "complicating." She answered, "I guess it could be used in lots of different ways. The way I would think of it in this setting is both things were present. That there was a cardiopulmonary arrest and it was due to law enforcement subdual, restraint and compression." Nelson asked if she had been provided with Dr. Baker's opinion, and she hadn't. She acknowledged that she might have a different interpretation of the word than Dr. Baker. The prosecution has been addressing studies that purport to show that the prone position is safe and not inherently dangerous. On redirect Mr. Blackwell mentioned a Canadian study that did not find a single death in cases where police put people in the prone position. Thomas admitted that she did not know how to interpret this study because pathologists in America do see these cases. On recross Thomas agreed with Nelson that a body can continue breathing for a minute or two after the heart stops. A strange point, perhaps Nelson will develop it later, or maybe I'm missing something. Finally Dr. Andrew Baker took the stand. A former president of the National Association of Medical Examiners, he is Hennepin County's chief medical examiner who performed the autopsy on George Floyd. He purposefully did not watch the viral video before the autopsy, because he did not want to bias his exam of Floyd. Looking at the autopsy photos, Baker indicated no injuries to Floyd's back, several scrapes to his face and shoulder, marks on his hands from the handcuffs, and trauma to his knuckles. Baker said that there was no damage to the heart muscle, but there were lesions in the coronary arteries, specifically two 75% blockages in the left side and one 90% in the right. No clots were found. Baker noted that if someone dies "very quickly from an acute coronary event" there would be no evidence of that in the heart. The heart muscle wouldn't look abnormal because it requires an extended cardiac event over hours before damage can be detected. Baker found no evidence of "acute injury to the brain," no evidence of it "being deprived of blood or oxygen." I expected Blackwell to ask a follow-up here, but he quickly moved on to the lungs. Baker said the lungs were "quite edematous," meaning they were congested, which could have been a result of IV fluid seeping into the lungs from the blood vessels. Baker noted that Floyd's stomach contained "450 ml of dark-brown fluid with innumerable soft fragments of gray-white food particulate matter resembling bread." He did not see pill fragments. He did not request that the contents be tested. Floyd had tested positive for covid several weeks before the incident, but Baker did not notice signs of it at the autopsy. Baker identified the manner of death as "homicide," a word which he uses medically, not legally. It means "when actions of other people were involved in an individual's death." Regarding the cause of death, Baker said it was "cardiopulmonary arrest," which is "fancy medical lingo for the heart and lungs stopped." Blackwell asked if "complicating" means "occurring in the setting of" and Baker answered yes. Blackwell then asked, "How did subdual, restraint and compression cause Mr. Floyd's death?" And here I quote Baker's response at length: "In my opinion the physiology of what was going on with Mr. Floyd ... he had very severe underlying heart disease ... also had hypertensive heart disease, his heart weighed more than it should, so he has a heart that already needs more oxygen than a normal heart and is limited in ability to step up to provide more oxygen when there's demand because of the narrowing in his coronary arteries ... In my opinion the law enforcement subdual, restraint and the neck compression was just more than Mr. Floyd could take by virtue of those heart conditions." Blackwell then asked Baker why he didn't name fentanyl and meth as the cause of death. Baker explained that "cause is the most important thing that precipitated death ... Things that played a role in the death but didn't directly cause the death" are relegated to the "other significant conditions" section. "Mr. Floyd's use of fentanyl ... did not cause the subdual or neck restraint." Nelson began cross by asking, "How do you define the word 'complicating' as you used it?" Baker explained that he used it like "complications." He said, "It means that an intervention occurred and there was an outcome that was untoward on the heels of that intervention." He compared what happened to someone starting a new medication for a heart condition and then having an allergic reaction. Baker testified that when he puts other significant conditions on a death certificate it means he thinks they contributed to the death, they played some role. "You don't list trivial stuff that didn't play a role," he stressed. He agreed with Nelson that Floyd's heart disease, history of hypertension and the drugs in his system all played a role in his death. Even though Baker avoided watching the viral video before conducting the autopsy, he did watch it immediately after the autopsy, and considered it for the death investigation. Nelson used Baker to reiterate several points for the defense: a 75% coronary blockage is capable of causing death; the prone position is not inherently dangerous; the pressure to the back of the neck doesn't explain asphyxiation; drug combinations can be relevant; and people overdose from fentanyl levels similar to Floyd's. Baker described Floyd's death as "a multi-factorial process."

Here is the exchange. I characterized it that way because Smock already agreed that he had treated patients with cardiac disease, meth and fentanyl who passed away but not necessarily from those things. Nelson's follow-up question was whether sometimes they do die from just those things. It's a yes or no answer. But Smock, in my opinion, realizes he's trapped at this point, because Nelson is that good of an interrogator. So instead of just answering yes, he tries to wriggle out of the trap and says it depends on the case. Uh huh, what depends on the case? He just didn't want to give Nelson the point, which was a pattern in his testimony. Most of the expert witnesses have been decent about giving Nelson straight answers. But I think Smock was fishy.

Day 9 started with Mr. Blackwell calling Dr. Martin Tobin to testify for the prosecution. Tobin is a world-renowned expert in pulmonary medicine. His opinion is that Floyd "died from a low level of oxygen" which caused brain damage and his heart to stop. He said the cause of low oxygen was shallow breathing due to being prone on the street, handcuffed behind the back, with Chauvin's knees on his neck and back. He stated that Chauvin's left knee was on Floyd's neck at least 90% of the time, and his right knee was on the back at least 57% of the time. He discussed in detail how pressure on the handcuffed hands, the neck, the back, and the chest impeded Floyd's rib cage and lungs from expanding. A still image showed how Floyd was pressing his right hand against the squad car to get leverage, seemingly so he could raise his right side and take deeper breaths. Tobin further argued that Chauvin had up to half his body weight on Floyd and all that pressure caused a narrowing of Floyd's hypopharynx, making it harder to breathe. Tobin said that after five minutes on the ground, Floyd's leg extension and facial expression indicated a hypoxic seizure from low oxygen. He said this is when Floyd suffered fatal brain damage, and at this point "there was not an ounce of oxygen left in his body." Tobin addressed Floyd's pre-existing health conditions by claiming that even a healthy person would have died from the police restraint. He addressed the idea of an overdose by visually measuring Floyd's rate of breathing and claiming it was about twenty-two breaths per minute, whereas someone overdosing on fentanyl would have about ten breaths per minute. Fentanyl depresses breathing. Regarding the high level of CO2 in Floyd's blood, Tobin said that this was expected for someone who went without oxygen for nine minutes between his last breath at 8:25:16 and when the paramedics inserted an airway. Mr. Nelson clearly had his work cut out for him on cross-examination. Tobin was a powerful and articulate witness for the prosecution, making many strong points. Nelson began by pointing out that Tobin has never before testified in a criminal case, and he is not a pathologist. Nelson also made the point that the officers did not have the knowledge and training that Tobin possesses. Tobin has spent much time studying video, reports, and making calculations based on his medical expertise, whereas the officers were reacting to an escalating situation in real time. Tobin agreed that "if you can speak you can breathe" is a "dangerous proposition" because it gives a "false sense of security." He said that even physicians have trouble with this phrase and miss certain diagnoses due to the misconception. You might breathe and talk in one moment but then fail to breathe and die the next moment. Nelson pointed out that an MPD lieutenant testified that the phrase is common in their police training. Nelson noted some assumptions in Tobin's calculations, which Tobin had characterized as "rigorous, precise science." Nelson said that Tobin hadn't measured Chauvin's weight or gear, and had assumed an equal weight distribution between the left and right legs. Also, in calculating Floyd's lung volume, Tobin assumed that Floyd was healthy, didn't factor in a 90% coronary blockage. He also hadn't factored in the size of Floyd's stomach, which would relate to the pressure on his lungs. Tobin admitted that smoking (nicotine) might change the lung function. Also fentanyl can cause "wooden chest syndrome," which would make it harder for the lungs to expand. Nelson also asked if Tobin knew about the pills in the squad car. Tobin said he had heard reports but didn't know the status. They agreed that after ingesting fentanyl the "peak respiratory depression" would be expected five minutes later, which is about how long Floyd struggled on the ground before dying. Regarding the CO2 level, Nelson pointed out that the drive to the hospital took about five minutes, meaning, I guess, that the blood-gas test was done later than when the paramedics inserted the breathing device. So there's some question about how Tobin calculated the expected CO2. I suppose Nelson will develop this point later. It hinges on the rate of CO2 buildup per minute after someone stops breathing, and the effects of CPR. On redirect Tobin said the effects of pressure on the hypopharynx would not show up at autopsy because the knee was a static force covering a broad area, unlike strangling someone with your hands or a rope. On recross Tobin agreed that fentanyl can also cause death due to low oxygen but "only a part." Next Ms. Eldridge summoned Daniel Isenschmid to the stand. He is a forensic toxicologist with NMS Labs. He testified to the results of Floyd's blood and urine tests. Floyd had a high level of fentanyl in his system, a low level of methamphetamine, also some marijuana, caffeine, and nicotine (or their metabolites). Isenschmid was asked about studies that compared fentanyl levels in blood from DUI patients who lived versus blood from postmortems. He said Floyd's level was closer to the DUI patients who lived. On cross Nelson asked how Isenschmid could answer that question when he didn't know which people in the postmortem study died from overdose and which died from other causes like gunshots. Isenschmid said that he looked at a large amount of data from within that population. But Nelson insisted that Isenschmid had no context for determining who died from what. He asked what if all but one of the thousands died from gunshots. Isenschmid, not really grasping the point, responded that that wasn't really a possibility. The last witness of the day was Dr. William Smock, who specializes in forensic medicine and is a police surgeon in Kentucky. His opinion is that Floyd died from "positional asphyxia," low oxygen due to pressure on the chest and back. Smock was also used to address the idea of excited delirium. Excited delirium is a controversial diagnosis but Smock believes "it is real." It is "a physical and psychiatric state" where the subject feels hot, has a fast heart rate and fast respiration, garbles his speech and acts out of control. He discussed an exhibit listing ten signs of excited delirium and concluded that Floyd showed none of them. Smock also talked about the concept of "air hunger." He said that Floyd presented signs of wanting to breathe, which is not something that fentanyl causes. Mr. Nelson began his cross by pointing out that Smock is not trained in anatomic pathology. They agreed that a combination of meth and fentanyl would cause a different reaction than just meth or fentanyl on their own. Nelson said that meth/fentanyl deaths have increased of late, and Smock said it "wouldn't surprise me." Smock even admitted that he has had patients with cardiac disease, meth and fentanyl who passed away. But when Nelson asked if sometimes the patients died from just those causes, Smock avoided giving a straight answer, replying that it "would depend on the case." Smock also failed to give a straight answer when asked how long the "coma state" is for fentanyl. He said it depends on "many variables." The prosecution has been suggesting that Floyd had a high tolerance for fentanyl. Nelson asked if such tolerance dissipates very quickly when someone stops using it for a couple months. Smock said he was "not familiar" with that. They did agree, however, that some people complain of shortness of breath during heart attacks.

I guess my question is whether the new physics would have to work for events at normal earth temperatures, as well as outer space temps. Or maybe whatever is affecting the muons does not affect other particles, so it's more of a special physical law rather than an overturning of a general principle.

It seems like this evidence is limited to muons wobbling at -450°F. So I guess that means the "new physics" would only apply to calculations for events in outer space?

The eighth day began with Jody Stiger returning to the stand. At the tail end of the seventh day, Mr. Schleicher called him as an expert witness but didn't finish the direct examination. Stiger is a sergeant and a tactics instructor for the Los Angeles Police Department. His expert opinion is that Chauvin used "excessive force" on Floyd. Initially Floyd resisted arrest but after he stopped resisting the officers should have slowed or stopped their use of force, according to Stiger. He referred to Chauvin's left knee being on the "neck area" of Floyd, and the right knee being on the back. On cross Mr. Nelson pointed out that Stiger has never testified as an expert before and is not representing the LAPD. He wasn't in uniform. In preparing his opinion, Stiger had not watched the MPD training videos and had not reviewed any materials submitted to the case after January 2021, despite meeting with the prosecution team in February, March, and April. Nelson and Stiger agreed that a Supreme Court case, Graham vs Connor, establishes a standard for the use of force by police officers across the country. The standard accounts for the fact that a reasonable officer must make split-second decisions in tense and rapidly evolving circumstances. All of the facts must be considered in assessing whether the use of force was objectively reasonable in a particular situation. Nelson pointed out that Stiger's "excessive force" opinion is not the standard for evaluating an officer's use of force. The standard is "objective, reasonable use of force." Nelson then played a short clip from bodycam footage and asked if it sounded like Floyd was saying, "I ate too many drugs." Stiger answered that he couldn't understand what Floyd said. There was a lot of interference on the audio track. On redirect Schleicher addressed the reasonableness standard, and Stiger said that Chauvin's use of force was not objectively reasonable, and based on that conclusion he called it excessive. The next witness, James Reyerson, was the lead investigator in this case. He is a special agent with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). Basically he was used to introduce security camera video from the Dragon Wok restaurant, whose owner wouldn't share the video without the BCA serving a search warrant. From Reyerson we learned on cross that 50 BCA agents and about 25 FBI agents worked on this case. 440 reports were generated. Yet nobody collected and tested pill fragments from the police squad car until the defense requested it. Nelson then showed Reyerson the same short clip he showed Stiger, and Reyerson agreed that it sounded like Floyd said, "I ate too many drugs." Reyerson also agreed that a streak of fluid on the street appeared to be condensation dripping from the police cruiser, not urine from Floyd. After a rest break, Mr. Frank (on redirect) played a longer clip of the bodycam footage that includes Floyd allegedly saying something about drugs. Frank then asked Reyerson what he thinks Floyd was saying now that more of the context was added. Reyerson, changing his mind, said that it appears Floyd said, "I ain't do no drugs." The day ended with a set of forensic scientists (McKenzie Anderson and Breahna Giles of the BCA, and Susan Neith of NMS Labs) who collectively testified to the fact that speedball pills were found in the Mercedes-Benz and the police car. The ones in the back of the squad car were partially consumed. DNA on the pills matched George Floyd.

Day seven started with Morries Hall's witness motion which took place outside the presence of the jury. Hall was the man in red sweatpants with George Floyd. He's trying to quash his subpoena to testify. His attorney explained that if called Hall would plead the 5th to probably everything he might be asked. He's worried about exposing himself to 3rd degree murder involving Floyd overdosing. If the prosecution doesn't believe Floyd overdosed, why not give Hall immunity and let him testify? Probably because Hall's testimony would go to reasonable doubt that Floyd was murdered by Chauvin. It would suggest the Floyd overdosed on drugs provided by Hall. Judge Cahill agreed that most of Hall's potential testimony would be self-incriminating, except possibly for his mere observations of Floyd in the car. Hall's attorney disagreed, but they're going to consider some possible questions and continue the motion at the end of the week. The prosecution's first witness with the jury present was Sgt. Ker Yang, who is the crisis intervention training coordinator. He discussed some concepts like "crisis," a situation that goes beyond someone's coping mechanism. In general I think his testimony was irrelevant or repetitive. Next was Lt. Johnny Mercil, an actual instructor in the training division. He taught defensive tactics (or "use of force") when Chauvin had his in-service annual training in 2018. Mercil described the concept of "proportional force" in which police are trained to use the least amount of force necessary to achieve control of a subject. He said the force should be proportional to the level of resistance. After looking at Chauvin's knee on Floyd, Mercil said it was "not a trained or authorized neck restraint." On cross Mr. Nelson asked if Mercil had experience with subjects who pretended to have a medical emergency. He had. Regarding continuing to use force, Nelson asked if Mercil trains officers to consider what happened prior to the use of force. He does. Nelson asked if Mercil saw Chauvin use a choke hold in the videos. He did not. Nelson asked how much pressure it takes to render someone unconscious with a neck restraint. Mercil said it depends on many factors such as the size of the person, the skill of the officer, whether narcotics are involved, heart rate, adrenaline rush, physical health, etc. He said it takes "under ten seconds" to render a person unconscious with a neck restraint. Nelson then showed Mercil still images from bodycam footage. Mercil agreed that Chauvin's knee was "between the shoulder blades" of Floyd. Nelson asked if it was a neck restraint. Mercil replied no. He called it a "prone hold," and agreed with Nelson that sometimes you have to use body weight to hold someone until EMS arrives. Mercil also trained officers to say "if a person can talk they can breathe." The concept of "de-escalation" came up again. Mercil agreed that deciding against using the hobble device and instead maintaining a hold can be a de-escalation technique. On redirect Mercil agreed that the use of body weight increases the risk of positional asphyxia. And when asked if he was aware of someone losing their pulse and coming back to life and being violent, he answered no. Mr. Schleicher called officer Nicole MacKenzie next. She is the medical support coordinator and trains officers in first aid, including the use of Narcan for opioid overdoses. She was used to introduce Chauvin's CPR card and raise medical concepts. She said that if there is no pulse CPR should be started immediately. She also said that just because someone is talking that doesn't mean they're breathing "adequately." On cross Nelson asked if there was a class on excited delirium. MacKenzie said there was. He reiterated the importance of making a scene safe before rendering aid. EMTs won't come to a scene until it's "code 4" or safe, they agreed. Also, a hostile crowd makes it harder to focus, more difficult to assess a patient, and easier to miss signs. Distractions can harm the care of the patient. Nelson also asked her whether agonal breathing can be mistaken for effective breathing. She said yes. On redirect Schleicher noted that officers must render aid in less than ideal conditions. He asked if the activities of onlookers can excuse the duty to render aid. MacKenzie said only if they are "physically getting involved." Next Schleicher called an expert in the use of force, but that testimony was cut short due to the court recessing for the day. I'll begin with this witness in my post for day eight.

Week two began with prosecutor Mr. Blackwell calling Dr. Bradford Langenfeld. Langenfeld treated Floyd at the hospital and pronounced him dead after resuscitation efforts failed. Blackwell asked if Langenfeld was told whether Floyd suffered a heart attack or overdose. The doctor answered no. They covered several medical concepts such as asystole (flatlining) and PEA (pulseless electrical activity). The prosecution once again noted that "cardiac arrest" doesn't necessarily mean that Floyd had a heart attack. It just means that the heart has stopped functioning. Langenfeld discussed various treatments he performed such as using ultrasound and a blood-gas sample in an attempt to diagnose Floyd's particular problem. His leading theory for why Floyd's heart stopped was hypoxia (lack of oxygen). He also considered an acidosis such as excited delirium, though he hadn't received a report of excessive sweatiness or agitation which is common in excited delirium cases. On cross Mr. Nelson asked if fentanyl and meth (or a combination of the two) can cause hypoxia, and the doctor said yes. Langenfeld also confirmed that the blood-gas sample showed an "exceptionally high" amount of CO2. Normal range is 35-45. Floyd's was 100. So his blood was very acidic when the doctor took the sample. Nelson made some general points through the doctor. High CO2 could mean that someone is not properly eliminating CO2 through breathing. It can cause people to have a sensation of shortness of breath. It can happen even without other stress factors involved. The doctor also agreed that fentanyl is dangerous because it suppresses the respiratory system. And Nelson asked about drugs having a more powerful onset if taken inter-rectally, but it wasn't clear why he raised this issue. Perhaps it will produce dividends later. On redirect the prosecution asked Langenfeld if there was any indication that Floyd administered drugs inter-rectally. There wasn't. The doctor added more context to the blood-gas sample, explaining that because Floyd's blood had not been circulating for 30 minutes or so, his CO2 level would be expected to be higher than normal. Also, the issue of using Narcan to treat drug overdose had come up. Langenfeld said that Narcan only works if the heart is still pumping, so that's why he didn't give it to Floyd. It had been pointed out that police carry Narcan in their emergency kits, but, as a bit of analysis on my part, the officers might also argue that they didn't use Narcan due to Floyd lacking a pulse. Furthermore they did not know Floyd's exact problem because he took measures to conceal his drug use from the officers. Mr. Schleicher called police chief Medaria Arradondo next. After a long interview about Arradondo's work history and the various operations and outreach efforts of the police department, the prosecutor revisited some policy issues that have become a big part of the prosecution's case. They discussed "de-escalation," "medical care," "use of force," "critical decision making," "defensive tactics," "choke hold," "neck restraint," etc. After viewing the viral video, Arradondo concluded that Chauvin's restraint of Floyd was "not de-escalation, not a trained MPD defensive tactic." Per policy, it did not appear to be "light to moderate pressure" on the neck. He said it "violates policy" and is "not what we teach"; "once Floyd stopped resisting" the neck restraint should have stopped. It also "violated policy on rendering aid." Mr. Nelson began his cross-examination by pointing out that it has been many years since the chief personally arrested someone. He then focused on the policy manual's repeated use of the "reasonableness" standard. Officers are required to perform certain duties such as medical care or de-escalation when reasonable. Nelson quoted the manual stating that the "reasonable standard applies to the facts and circumstances known by the officer at the time force is being used." He and the chief agreed that minor incidents (detaining a suspect) can turn into major arrests. Earlier the prosecution used Arradondo to say that passing a fake bill is a minor, nonviolent offense. Nelson then addressed the issue of defensive tactics, distinguishing between a "best practice" and an explicitly prohibited one. Just because a new tactic is being taught instead of the old one, that doesn't mean the old one is against policy. Regarding de-escalation, Nelson then asked Arradondo if he agreed that "sometimes you have to display a weapon so that you can de-escalate ... the use of force can be a de-escalation tactic." The chief didn't quite like Nelson's formulation, and they agreed that it would be better to ask the training instructors about that aspect. This question seems pertinent to Chauvin brandishing mace to control the man who stepped toward him onto the street. Nelson also established that the chief does not have a degree in physics and is thus not qualified to speak to the amount of pressure Chauvin applied to Floyd. Finally Nelson introduced the concept of "camera perspective bias." He showed Arradondo two video clips of the same time period but from different angles. Looking at the clip from the viral video, the chief said Chauvin's knee was on Floyd's neck performing a neck restraint. But then Nelson showed him an angle from bodycam footage, and Arradondo agreed that Chauvin's knee was "more on Mr. Floyd's shoulder blade." During redirect Arradondo said the knee was on the neck up until the paramedic arrived. But Nelson's point about the camera angle remained. Arradondo was basing his conclusion on a misleading camera angle which had just fooled him in the courtroom during cross-examination. The final witness of day six was Katie Blackwell, a police inspector in charge of the training center where officers receive instruction throughout their careers. She testified that Chauvin's restraint was "not a trained technique." She was also used to introduce Chauvin's training records. On cross Nelson pointed out that the records don't break down all the various instructors and classes an officer might have had during, for example, an 8-hour unit of training. Frankly I'm not sure what to make of this issue regarding Chauvin's training. Even if Chauvin wasn't trained to do what he did, that doesn't mean he murdered Floyd.