Poasties still arguing Floyd died of an overdose 2+ years later, SMH

@dave
Are you one of those people that think he somehow gained immunity to fentanyl?

He had 10ng/ml of fentanyl detected in his autopsy. You can OD at those levels, but fentanyl is a fast-acting drug.

If someone dies of an OD, you will find very little norfentanyl in their system, because norfent is a metabolite of fentanyl. When you find a decent amount of norfentanyl, that means they took it a while ago, and overdose isn't what killed them.

George Floyd had a significant amount of norfent in his system. In addition to the marginal amount of fentanyl in his system, and the fact that he was a long-term drug addict, it indicates that his fentanyl levels aren't what killed him.

@dave
They also didn't find any signs of strangulation on the first autopsy and they had to redo it just to make something up.

Let's not fucking pretend you can do potent drugs over and over again without it having consequences on your body. Let's not pretend they don't wear your body over time to where there's no way of knowing when something gives up. Let's not pretend that every time you take overdose amounts of drugs, and you're lucky enough to survive, that somehow means your body is as good as new as soon as it all leaves your system.

Don't be that person.

@dave
There's a reason the "don't do meth" memes exist. Strong drugs have lasting effects on your body. Just because you survive what should be overdoses over and over again, doesn't mean your body is in tip top shape.

Correct, but that you were a drug use doesn't mean the cop that ignored your pleas to stop choking you, for several minutes and in the presence of tons of bystanders, is going to get away with it after you die.

@dave
So your argument is "he's guilty because he didn't provide medical help". He's a fucking cop, dealing with a criminal that just lied to them. Why the fuck should they have trusted him? Besides, Floyd was the one resisting arrest, and saying "take me out of the car". The cops did! What were they supposed to do after? Let him run away? They were barely restraining him as it is. Maybe you 'Muricans have it too good, and never had to kneel, but I remember when I saw the video thinking "he's clearly barely putting ANY real weight on the guy, this is open and shut". But somehow all of you don't seem to understand how the weight distribution would have worked.

No, my argument is that he's guilty because he choked a suspect to death, over the course of several minutes where he had time to reconsider.

@dave
Then you're stupid, because literally the first autopsy clearly stated he wasn't choked. And if you had any comprehension of the weight distribution of the human body in a kneeling position, you'd know Chauvin didn't have enough weight in that to choke anything.

I have already stated this in the thread, but that isn't what the autopsy said. What it said is that they couldn't find evidence of trauma to the neck.

But as was brought up in trial and acknowledged as true by the defense's own expert witness, there will be no evidence of asphyxial trauma in many of these cases, because the pressure on the neck is so widely distributed.

The autopsy never concluded that "he wasn't choked". You fell for fake news if you believe it did.

@dave
There's no trauma because there was nothing to have trauma over. It's lunacy to claim he had his airways shut with no trauma. Don't be stupid. PLEASE.

I will continue to "be stupid", because I've watched the footage of his death multiple times. The evidence that it wasn't his breathing being constricted that killed him isn't compelling

@dave @alyx It explains why this belief converges with your other one on the holocaust. Both the holocaust and floyd's death supposedly leave no direct evidence but have a political implication you agree with.

@Ok123 @dave
There's plenty of evidence of the holocaust, lol.

@alyx @dave Great then you can explain why the New York Times printed in 1906 that 6 million jews were being 'systematically exterminated' as part of a Russian final 'solution of the jewish question'? nytimes.com/1906/06/16/archives/article-3-no-title.html

@Ok123 @dave
What do 6.000.000 Russian Jews (Russia, the country that Hitler DIDN'T manage to conquer) have to do with 6.000.000 Jews in Europe? Lol. If Russia was as butt hurt about Jews, how does that disprove the holocaust in Europe?

@alyx @dave Hitler conquered most of the European part of Russia. There weren't 6 million jews in Russia. I'm making the point that this false allegation of extermination (which you will admit was false in 1906) is in line with a history of false accusations of extermination made by jews against Germany, Russia, the Soviet Union, Poland, Ukraine and other countries. I'm asking you a directed question. Why did the New York Times print that in 1906? I want you to answer that specific question.