Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览保罗·克雷格·罗伯茨(Paul Craig Roberts)档案
乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd):芬太尼的致命剂量是多少?
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

莱恩律师的伯爵格雷从法律文件的一部分中新发布的笔录中,他要求亨内平县地方法院撤销对他的委托人的诉讼:

笔录显示,当警官将弗洛伊德(Floyd)推上车时,这位46岁的黑人说:“我无法呼吸”和“我想躺在地上”。

 

这是关于过量芬太尼死亡的毒理学报告: https://ndews.umd.edu/sites/ndews.umd.edu/files/ndews-hotspot-unintentional-fentanyl-overdoses-in-new-hampshire-final-09-11-17.pdf

该报告说:

“尽管这些后遗症中普遍存在多种药物,但芬太尼的作用明显如此之强,以至于无论是否存在这些共毒物,芬太尼水平(均值和标准差)均无统计学差异。 芬太尼水平的变化范围很广,从0.75到113 ng / mL,平均为9.96 ng / mL。 但是,无论芬太尼是毒理学中唯一的药物还是几种协同性共毒物中的一种,芬太尼水平的分布在统计学上都是相同的。 这表明仅芬太尼的存在似乎足以导致死亡,这一发现与Sorg等人(2016年)的发现相似。”

让我们看看是否可以理解我们所被告知的内容。 芬太尼本身具有很高的毒性,足以在没有鸡尾酒中其他危险药物帮助的情况下将其杀死。 因过量服用芬太尼而死亡的人的读数从0.75 ng / mL降至惊人的113 ng / mL。 平均死亡剂量为9.96 ng / mL。

根据乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)的毒理学报告,他的血液中含有11.0 ng / mL的芬太尼,5.6 ng / mL的去甲芬太尼,19 ng / mL的甲基苯丙胺和其他三种药物。

从警察的录音中可以清楚地看到 弗洛伊德抱怨警察束缚之前呼吸困难。 换句话说,他在警察到来之前正在死亡。 警察认清了他的病情后,他们便要求医生。 按照协议,弗洛伊德的胃被约束了。 芬太尼的一种作用是恶心。 一个人的肚子使他们不会因自己的呕吐而窒息。 这就是为什么警察协议要求他们克制自己的胃。

观看视频的人都没有意识到任何事实。 媒体确保他们仍然不了解事实。

传统上重新发布了我的专栏的许多网站还确保其读者永远不会发现弗洛伊德死于过量的芬太尼。

我已向明尼阿波利斯星论坛报发送了三篇有关此案事实的文章,但没有得到任何承认。

明尼阿波利斯星报论坛(Monneapolis Star Tribune)无疑担心(1)所有广告都被企业拉扯,害怕会被烧毁;(2)害怕被自己烧掉;(3)害怕被其员工称为种族主义者,他们总是具有比来自外部的力量更大的力量;(4)编辑者担心因种族主义而被炒鱿鱼。 因此,不要指望明尼阿波利斯的故乡报纸进行任何调查或诚实的报道。

传统上重新发布了我的专栏的一些网站因其殖民战争而对美国造成了极大的伤害,以至于乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)的死对于他们的工厂而言简直是天才。 它更多地证明了美国的罪恶。

对于像我本人这样的人,他们反对无端的警察侵略,并希望停止以色列对我们警察的训练,“尽管弗洛伊德提出了要求,沙文却谋杀了弗洛伊德”是一个制胜法宝。

然后,对于许多读者来说,弗洛伊德(Floyd)因种族主义原因被白人警察谋杀具有极其重要的情感意义。 这些读者不受所有事实的影响。 有人告诉我芬太尼是无毒的。 另一个告诉我,过量服用芬太尼是不可能的。 另一个人告诉我,体检医师是白人,他的报告是种族主义报告。 另一个人问我何时成为种族主义者。

换句话说,他们只想听听自己被洗脑后相信的事情。 事实对他们并不重要。 确实,没有事实,只有情感反应,并且用有效的情感反应灌输了它们。 只要响应是反白的,它就是有效的。

当我从官方报告中引用可能导致死亡的少量芬太尼时,内向的人告诉我我在数学上犯了一个错误。 这不是我的数学,也不是错误。 断言的目的是保护被洗脑的存在。 这必须是真的。 不可能接受他们被欺骗了。 因此,专家毒理学家的报告将成为数学错误,可以被驳回。

据我所知,这些读者大多数都是白人。 我的黑人读者对现实有更好的了解。 我们正在处理的不仅是白人学生关于他们国家的邪恶根源和他们继承的罪恶的洗脑,还包括他们无法理性地思考和根据证据得出客观结论。 这曾经是教育的目的,但仅此而已。 如今,学生被教导说自己的情感是真实的,而他们的情感则被所教的谎言所操纵。

教育的这种变态标志着美国的灭亡。 美国教育所产生的那种人没有科学思维能力。 美国人今天接受的那种教育不能产生科学家或工程师。 我们有情感的一代,人们受过情感指导。

美国教育无法培养有思想的人已经是我们的现实。 我们从大量的工作签证中看到了这一点,其中大部分来自亚洲的外国人被带到美国从事美国受过教育的年轻人无法做的工作。

立即订购

是的,我知道,美国公司在雇用外国劳动力和将工作转移到国外方面具有经济优势-降低工资。 我曾经强调说,离职离岸工作比任何人都多。 但是,白人自由派精英们仍然将美国的教育减少到培养有才华而不是思考的人的情况下。 的确,尚不清楚年轻一代是否有能力思考。

我看不到任何迹象。

新保守主义的战争向导需要在将我们带入与中国和俄罗斯的军事冲突之前考虑到这一点。

美国可以生存不是冲突。

除了在多种族社会中教授种族仇恨的内部冲突之外,我们当然肯定不能承受这种冲突的风险。

(从重新发布 保罗·克雷格·罗伯茨 经作者或代表的许可)
 
隐藏304条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. Kouros 说:

    I buy some of it.

    However, the knee on the neck is not helpful at all. Also, death by fentanyl overdose is not a foregone conclusion. The full video of the incident shows George apprehended, hands tied, becalmed, and leaning on the wall of the store that triggered the phone call for quite a bit, before he was transferred across the street to another police team, which for some reason had to put him face down, and immobilize him with a knee on the neck for quite some time.

    Maybe the author has not seen the full record of the video and believes too much in the professionalism and well intentions of the police. A competent and professional police would know to discern signs of mental distress and chemical intoxication and would be always equipped (in this time and age) with sufficient dozes of Naloxone, to help with opioid overdoses.

    So, in my opinion, even if the medical report were true and fentanyl was found in George’s system, that is not an excuse for the police. It is likely they called for the ambulance when the guy was already dead, and they sped that death, instead of stopping it, which was very easy to do.

  2. Sir, I love the of your clear-sighted article. – Thanks for insisting on writing down what’s up, no mtter if it hurts or – whatever it does!

    PS
    A well known one of your younger journalist-colleagues, Matt Taibbi, remarked just recently that that was the biggest mistake of the liberal- or left-leaning media now: To ignore the facts and instead try to get readers to the point, where they 做正确的事…. Matt Taibbi, who worked for 滚石杂志 during the last presidential elections, admitted even, that he too did make this mistake.

    • 谢谢: Alfred
    • 回复: @MLK
    , @Hypnotoad666
  3. Sir, I love the of your clear-sighted article. – Thanks for insisting on writing down what’s up, no matter if it hurts or – whatever it does!

    PS
    A well known one of your younger journalist-colleagues, Matt Taibbi, remarked just recently that that was the biggest mistake of the liberal- or left-leaning media now: To ignore the facts and instead try to get readers to the point, where they 做正确的事…. Matt Taibbi, who worked for 滚石杂志 during the last presidential elections, admitted even, that he too did make this mistake.

  4. “George Floyd” is still alive. This is just a show. The important question is “why are they airing it?”

    • 哈哈: El Dato
  5. @Kouros

    However, the knee on the neck is not helpful at all.

    How many large, drugged people have you had to restrain? A knee on the neck gives you enough leverage to restrain a large guy, to keep him from harming both you and himself, while leaving at least one hand free to work a radio or reach for a weapon or other tools of the trade.

    I ask one simple question of everyone who condemns the practise: Can you describe a better way to handle the situation?

  6. @The Alarmist

    The knee-hold was preferred because the headlock of old turned out to be more harmful – especially to the respiratory apparatus.

    The headlock did cause deaths, the knee-hold none so far, as Ron Unz pointed out in his discussion with the commenter the scalpel, who is an emergency medic who commented over at Fred Reed’s column.

    • 谢谢: Alfred
  7. R.C. 说:

    Good find & explanation, PCR!
    Good summary of the US’s problem:

    But it is still the case that the white liberal elites have reduced American education to the creation of people who emote instead of think.

    RC

    • 同意: Alternate History
  8. Tusk 说:
    @Kouros

    St. Floyd was complaining of being unable to breathe before he was being layed down. So tell me, what chain of causation causes someone’s breathing to be affected before they’re being physically restrained, if the physical restraints are the cause of death? Nothing. Because his cause of death wasn’t from being restrained, it was from having coronavirus and being on multiple drugs. Don’t blame the poor cops for arresting him while he was in the process of dying. Floyd made his choices that lead to his death, the cops were just doing their job.

    • 同意: GazaPlanet
  9. alan kerns 说:

    What is being taught is racial fear. Hatred derives from fear. Once fear catches fire, hatred naturally follows.
    What is the antidote of fear?
    That simple question has a simple answer.
    The antidote to fear is the development of mutual trust.
    The simple answer is not easy to achieve in practice.
    It is necessary for both parties to be worthy of the trust of each other.
    There is a single word for “worthiness of trust”: honesty.
    Peoples with a history of mutual distrust – i.e. mutual fear – have to take a real risk in order to even begin the process of growing mutual trust. Great discipline is required by all people on both sides for mutual trust to become possible. Mutual trust would need great discipline in perpetuity in order to be sustained. The harmful effect of instances of unworthiness of trust would need to be deeply understood.
    The status quo is dedicated to – and dependent on – maintaining mutual distrust among its herds of human livestock.
    The challenge is daunting – is it not?
    Is civil war avoidable?

    • 回复: @Nicholas Stix
    , @Dr Giggles
  10. lysias 说:

    Surely the fatal dose varies a lot, depending on how much the person’s body has come to tolerate, through use. This is true of heroin. Why shouldn’t it be true of another opiate, like fentanyl?

  11. L. Guapo 说:
    @Kouros

    There is a reason you have not seen any video of the crucial minutes between the wall-leaning and the “for some reason had to put him face down”. The video exists. Why do you think you have not seen it?

    • 回复: @Pop Warner
  12. Pigmeat 说:

    This really restores my faith in the decency of the common man. A majority of Americans think burning down a police station is the appropriate way to get asshole cops to think twice about lynching jigs.

    https://mronline.org/2020/07/03/anatomy-of-a-counter-insurgency/

    But really, burning down a police station is also the only way to get asshole cops to retire and beat their wife or eat a gun or whatever it is they dream of doing in retirement. We don’t need battalions of armed assholes in this country. All they do is prop up a 3rd-world kleptocratic shithole. Just fuckin break it up.

    • 回复: @ploni almoni
  13. KenH 说:

    In other words, he was in the process of dying prior to the arrival of the police. When the police recognized his condition they called for medics.

    Yet these facts continue to get left out of media narratives of both the left and the kosher right. The tin foil hatters everywhere are certain that Derek Chauvin was an anti-black racist and bent on doing George Floyd harm the moment he and the other police showed up. Never mind the complete absence of evidence for this belief. Left wing proggy types simply invent or ignore facts and fill in the blanks based on their own political biases.

    And as PCR has noted it’s reached the point where a very large minority and possibly almost half of the U.S. population believes that all whites people are irredeemably racist and white cops have malign motives towards blacks. For decades the Jewish owned media and universities have besmirched the founding of America and its history until 1965 along with blood libeling the white population. The result is a denatured and dysfunctional population actuated by mindless hate.

    How this state of affairs doesn’t end with oceans of blood from sea to shining sea is beyond me.

    • 同意: St-Germain, Mefobills
    • 回复: @Mefobills
    , @Mefobills
  14. Parlezvous 说:

    The transcript has been released and you can and should read all of it. Floyd ASKED to be put on the ground. The police speculated on what might be wrong with him, possibly having taken PCP, because of his strange behavior and his eyes looking abnormal. In such cases, what they did was in line with the official approved methods for dealing with someone who might suddenly become violent even in restraints. He was complaining of being unable to breathe through the entire process, and the police tried repeatedly to get him into the car – with one bystander saying “Bro, you’re having a heart attack or something, get in the car” – but he would not. This is a very thorough article with information I have not seen anywhere else, and I recommend everyone read it. You’ll be surprised: https://medium.com/@gavrilodavid/why-derek-chauvin-may-get-off-his-murder-charge-2e2ad8d0911

    • 谢谢: KenH
    • 回复: @Curmudgeon
  15. The truth does not matter. The Jewish dominated legacy media has seen to that. The mob will have their blood.

  16. FB 说: • 您的网站

    换句话说,他在警察到来之前就已经奄奄一息了。 当警察确认他的病情时,他们呼叫了医务人员。 根据协议,弗洛伊德被限制在腹部。

    So the protocol is to ‘help’ a man needing medical attention by kneeling on his neck and back until his heart stops and his body goes limp…?

    Yeah, that makes perfect sense in the bizzarro universe…

    Btw…fentanyl is used at up 20 to ng/ml as a 全身麻醉 in surgery…that is twice the amount Floyd had in his system…and patients don’t die, in fact they wake up, despite this level being kept up throughout the procedure to keep the patient under…

    5.6 ng/ml 去甲芬太尼也是一种 不活跃 metabolite, so it is not counted as part of some ‘new math’ to get to a ‘fentanyl level’ of 19 ng/ml…

    此外,许多医学研究表明芬太尼过量会导致 幸存 血液浓度超过 100 ng/ml, ten times Floyd’s level…

    Also…PCR is NOT a doctor, yet he makes doctor-like assertions about what is a ‘fatal’ dose of fentanyl [actually all the medical literature says there is no MINIMUM fatal blood level of fentanyl, because it depends on the tolerance of the user]…and that Floyd was in the ‘process of dying’…

    When in fact all doctors who have spoken about this have said Floyd showed NO SIGNS of going into overdose, which is basically nodding off…the transcripts show him actively speaking to the police, so he was not passing out as would be expected in an overdose…

    In the previous ‘article’ we had the FALSE INFORMATION that the Hennepin County Medical Examiner supposedly did not rule the death a homicide, when in fact he did…only this is, as per standard procedure, included in the death certificate, not the autopsy report…

    I already told this ‘author’ to go ahead and talk to an actual forensic pathologist, or even an active medical examiner and ask them if they agree that he died of a drug overdose…why doesn’t he do that…?

    Surely PCR knows some doctors that would give him some expert information…?

  17. JimDandy 说:
    @Kouros

    Floyd was collapsing before he even got out of his car, and I have seen video of Floyd being uncooperative/complaining as the cops try to put him in the back of a squad car.

    He overdosed on drugs–either out of panic or stupidity. When it comes down to it, I’ve always said, ol’ George… his heart was just too darned big. That’s what did him in–his gigantic heart.

    • 回复: @Franz
  18. Hahaha 说:

    这不是药物过量服用药物看起来像抱歉的芽。

    • 回复: @Redman
  19. ruralguy 说:

    Excellent article, Dr. Roberts. Unless a mind has been trained to fully understand a science, it likely lacks the cognitive thought to see clearly. Almost all people see the world with a jumble of emotions and pseudo logic. They’ve never experienced the rigor of theorem-based proofs, deductions, and the struggle to comprehend high-level thought. Almost all adults live in a shallow world of mind drift, reacting to their emotions.

  20. Paul Craig Roberts is aware of false flags/staged events as he has written a number of articles about the 9/11 false flag. For some reason he has bought in to this George Floyd hoax. The evidence is overwhelming that Floyd didn’t die. They used a dummy with no legs, as well as at least two different actors to play George Floyd. There is other evidence but that should be enough. I’m disappointed in PCR.

    • 巨魔: ploni almoni
    • 回复: @ploni almoni
  21. Biff 说:

    Charlie Sheen snorted enough coke to kill ‘two and a half men’, and he is still walking around.

  22. @alan kerns

    “Peoples with a history of mutual distrust – i.e. mutual fear – have to take a real risk in order to even begin the process of growing mutual trust. Great discipline is required by all people on both sides for mutual trust to become possible. Mutual trust would need great discipline in perpetuity in order to be sustained. The harmful effect of instances of unworthiness of trust would need to be deeply understood.”

    Apparently, this comment was fished out of a time capsule from 1860.

    “Is civil war avoidable?”

    没有

  23. map 说:
    @FB

    你被揭穿了。

    走开。

    • 巨魔: vot tak
  24. Tusk 说:
    @FB

    So the protocol is to ‘help’ a man needing medical attention by kneeling on his neck and back until his heart stops and his body goes limp…?

    The cops had called an ambulance for Floyd, and later upgraded the urgency for it after he became unconscious. They also started performing CPR once he became unconscious. So they provided him with all the medical care they could and waited for the professionals to come and take him. Did you want them to start doing a heart transplant in the street to replace his failing heart?

    If you don’t believe that the knee on the neck restraint is official protocol I suggest you check out MN police department policy provided to the court as part of the trial. Page 7 and 12 provided you official police non-lethal protocol for restraining a suspect. A normal person laying down is not going to pass out considering the neck pressure 是不是 restricting their airways.

    Consider checking out the transcripts of the bodycam footage 此处, wherein it records the following conversation:

    [Officer] Kueng: Take a seat.
    George Floyd: I can’t choke, I can’t breathe Mr. Officer ! Please! Please !
    Kueng: Fine.
    George Floyd: Mywrist,mywristman. Okay, okay. I want to lay on the ground. I want to lay on the ground. I want to lay on the ground!
    Lane: your [sic] getting in the squad.
    George Floyd : want to lay on the ground ! I’m going down,
    Kueng: Take a squat [at the same time as Floyd: “going down, I’m going down.”]
    George Floyd: I’m going down
    Speaker 9: Bro, you about to have a heartattack and shitman, get in the car!
    George Floyd: I know I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe

    Quick examination: Here is Floyd being unable to breathe before being restrained, refusing to take a seat in the squad care (after previously resisting being placed in the car) to lay down, telling officers he is going down – as the officers tell him to squat. Even more prescient an onlooker mentions that Floyd is going to have a heart attack to which Floyd 同意 with. Let’s not forget the official autopsy cause of death of George Floyd:

    cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression.

    Funny, Floyd died of 究竟 the same cause of death that an onlooker predicted and Floyd agreed with. Maybe Floyd was already in the process of dying and that was why he was so erratic? He didn’t die or get choked to death by the knee on his neck, considering Officer Chauvin (who kneeled on it) wasn’t even at the scene when Floyd began having breathing issues.

    Let’s also consider this from the bodycam transcript:

    [Officer] Lane: What areyou on something rightnow ?
    George Floyd: No, nothing.
    Kueng: Because you acting a little erratic.
    Lane: Let’s go . Let’s go
    George Floyd: I’m scared ,man
    Lane: Let’s go
    Kueng: You got foam around your mouth , too ?
    George Floyd: Yes, I was just hooping earlier .

    Here’s some information: ‘8 Signs of a Heart Attack’:

    2.呼吸困难
    This usually accompanies chest pain, but it could occur on its own. A heart attack causes the lungs to become congested and in its most severe form, acute pulmonary edema, there could be frothing at the mouth

    Was Floyd having a heart attack while the officers where arresting him? Seems likely. In fact he couldn’t even walk properly. Once again from the transcript:

    Kueng: Stand up , stop falling down! Stand up Stay on your feet and face

    So looking at the direct evidence we have the following points:

    – Floyd could not breathe before he was laying down.
    – Floyd unable to walk.
    – Floyd foaming at the mouth.
    – Floyd requesting to be layed down.
    – Ambulance on the way, later upgraded to more urgent request after he became unconscious.
    – Kneeling technique on neck being publicly approved policy, non-lethal
    – Breathing issues being present before pressure on neck
    – Dosage of respiratory affecting drugs in lethal range
    – Floyd previously being affected by respiratory COVID-19 virus
    – Autopsy results stating he died of cardio pulminary issues, not from being restrained

    What do we have when putting all these points together?
    The conclusion that the issues causing Floyd’s death were present before excessive restraint (he was firstly handcuffed) and that something prexisting was likely to blame.
    Signs of a heart attack, that even a bystander remarked on, seem to highlight it was likely that George Floyd was already in the process of dying as the police arrested him, not because the police were arresting him.

    • 不同意: Biff
    • 谢谢: Dieter Kief, TheTrumanShow
  25. GMC 说:

    If you are going to trust the word or investigations of anyone in the law enforcement world, and that includes the coroners – just watch how the Ms Maxwell’s case — is handled. The cop is guilty of manslaughter – just like you or I would be – had you done this to Floyd.

  26. @FB

    Btw…fentanyl is used at up 20 to ng/ml as a general anesthetic in surgery…that is twice the amount Floyd had in his system…and patients don’t die, in fact they wake up, despite this level being kept up throughout the procedure to keep the patient under…

    Please provide evidence for your claim. Dr Roberts provided evidence for his: pathology reports indicating an average of 9.96 ng/ml for a fatal dose. Moreover, Floyd had serious heart diseases as well, which you do not mention.

    In the previous ‘article’ we had the FALSE INFORMATION that the Hennepin County Medical Examiner supposedly did not rule the death a homicide, when in fact he did…only this is, as per standard procedure, included in the death certificate, not the autopsy report…

    The autopsy was carried out on 26 May 2020 and signed 1 June 2020 by Dr Baker. He certifies that there are no life-threatening injuries. So it cannot be used as the basis for an allegation for homicide. This was released with the approval of Floyd’s family. There has been no second autopsy to contradict this, as shown by Dr Roberts.

    • 回复: @Humphrey
  27. If you look at the autopsy report ( link in previous article ), you will find in the comments section that the ME Dr Baker found evidence of Sickle Cell Anaemia. The article in Wikipedia is highly informative ( not always the case ).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_disease

    In the Developed World, life expectancy is between 40 and 60. Floyd was 46
    .
    一种并发症是 Acute Chest Syndrome

    Acute chest syndrome is defined by at least two of these signs or symptoms: chest pain, fever, pulmonary infiltrate or focal abnormality, respiratory symptoms, or hypoxemia.[25] It is the second-most common complication and it accounts for about 25% of deaths in patients with SCD. Most cases present with vaso-occlusive crises, and then develop acute chest syndrome.[26][27] Nevertheless, about 80% of people have vaso-occlusive crises during acute chest syndrome.

    So on top of the serious heart diseases, the potentially fatal ( on its own ) fentanyl level, it looks like you can add Sickle Cell anaenia as well.

    • 回复: @Dieter Kief
  28. Franz 说:
    @JimDandy

    Btw…fentanyl is used at up 20 to ng/ml as a general anesthetic in surgery…that is twice the amount Floyd had in his system…and patients don’t die, in fact they wake up, despite this level being kept up throughout the procedure to keep the patient under…

    Yeah, I have a friend who’s the chief anesthesiologist at a local hospital. He told me that right about the time a huge spike in fentanyl hit.

    I asked him why the fentanyl body count was so high, he just shrugged and said the street fentanyl is poison. The DEA was then blaming it on “China” but there are reasons to doubt anything coming from them. since they were also talking about “cheap Mexican heroin” which is a CIA myth. What’s next, Russian Quaalude?

    When they reported speed, specifically meth, in Floyd’s system that was enough to clinch it. The man was mixing his stash.

    All that’s going to happen now is cops seeing anybody black having an OD will just go the other way. Can’t say as I’d blame them.

    • 同意: JimDandy
    • 回复: @Redman
  29. Will the country and the legacy of hard work, intense sacrifice, honesty and creativity of the millions of people who built this country be ultimately destroyed by either

    A. A large middle aged negro, who while he didn’t do anything, did die with a belly full of fentanyl while resting in the street with cops either restraining him or intent on killing him

    Or

    B. A lovely 60-ish year old Jewess billionaire who ran an international blackmail ring for everyone’s greatest ally Israel, that exploited the bizarre and lurid sexual proclivities of our ruling class

    • 回复: @Sick of Orcs
  30. For anyone interested, the complete transcript of the entire encounter (trigger warning, contains profanity)

    Exhibit207072020

    • 谢谢: Curmudgeon
  31. Truth3 说:

    德国也发生了同样的事情......德国人在二战后对战争和神圣骗局进行了如此宣传和洗脑,以至于他们会用双唇亲吻 JooAss,以避免因他们从未做过的事情而受到进一步的惩罚。

    • 同意: Druid
  32. El Dato 说:
    @lysias

    I don’t see what talking about possible fentanyl superman adds to the mix.

    People who died from fentanyl overdose had readings from 0.75 ng/mL to an astounding 113 ng/mL. The average death dose was 9.96 ng/mL. According to George Floyd’s toxicology report, his blood contained 11.0 ng/mL Fentanyl, plus 5.6 ng/mL norfentanyl, 19 ng/mL of methamphetamine, and three other drugs.

    If he had survived that shit, he would above average on everything. It is quite likely that he was way below average. Let’s say 6 ng/mL would have been sufficient to send him 广告父亲

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
  33. Emslander 说:

    What we are dealing with is not only the brainwashing of white students as to the evil origin of their country and their inherited guilt, but also their inability to think rationally and to make an objective conclusion from evidence.

    I see that this article is not about the death of George Floyd, a tragedy, even if the usual suspects are out and commenting their usual immovable opinions on that death.

    Roberts is pointing out that no discussion is possible about this event. If George Floyd came back from the dead and volunteered to give an interview alongside the police officers who arrested him to explain what had happened, no one would listen. They SAW the video and formed an emotional response. Facts are entirely irrelevant. One of the commenters above has already taken that position. He said, following a more detailed article, “All you need to know is what’s on that video!”

    Roberts blames the educational system and I’ve noticed that the more prestigious the degree a young person has, the less able they are to engage in a rational discussion on any subject. They look at you with this superior attitude, ready to spout some meaningless rejoinder like, “OK Boomer,” or “Do you still believe that?” As if truth were dependent on one’s age or facts are a matter of religious faith.

    Are they being given mentally fatal doses of propaganda as they qualify for the better schools or do the better universities have a selection system that singles out only those already emotionally disassociated? That’s where we are.

    • 回复: @Curmudgeon
  34. chuckywiz 说:

    你为什么不在医学杂志上写这样的标题。 就像“博士”一样过去几年一直在医学期刊上撰写有关疫苗接种的 MS 的 Bill Gate。
    我们责怪美国人被误导了。

  35. @The Alarmist

    People who believe that suspected felons have the right to violently resist arrest or otherwise obstruct the legitimate arrest process are anarchists who should own up to their philosophy.

    • 回复: @The Alarmist
  36. vot tak 说:

    “None of the people watching the video had any awareness of any of the facts.”

    Ah, the “medical expert” pcr “proves” once again all the other medical experts are wrong and Floyd did die of a drug overdose despite the heroic attempts of the sainted men in blue to prevent his self initiated demise.

    “The transcripts reveal that as the officers forced Floyd into the vehicle, the 46-year-old black man said: “I can’t breathe” and “I want to lay on the ground.”

    They reveal a lot more which roberts judiciously decided wouldn’t help his spin about the murder and didn’t mention. Let’s take a look at what else they reveal, shall we:

    George Floyd warned police he thought he would die because he couldn’t breathe, according to body camera transcripts

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/george-floyd-death-transcripts/2020/07/08/a7050efe-c15c-11ea-b178-bb7b05b94af1_story.html

    [更多]

    “According to the transcripts, the officers tried placing Floyd in the squad car, but he resisted, repeatedly telling them he was “claustrophobic” and had “anxiety.” He begged to be released from his handcuffs, promising he wouldn’t hurt anyone. “Y’all, I’m going to die in here,” he told them. “I just had COVID man, don’t want to go back to that.”

    Floyd began to bleed from the mouth, after bumping his head inside the vehicle, and Lane called emergency medical help to the scene. Floyd began to complain that he couldn’t breathe. “I just had COVID, man,” Floyd said. “I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe. Please one of you listen to me.”

    Chauvin asked whether Floyd was going to jail, and the officers pulled him from the car. “Get him down on the ground,” Chauvin said.

    The transcripts show Floyd continued to complain that he couldn’t breathe and called out for his mother. The officers restrained him on the ground — Lane at his feet, Kueng at his back and Chauvin at his head. “You’re under arrest guy,” Chauvin told him.

    “All right, all right. Oh my god. I can’t believe this. I can’t believe this,” Floyd said. “Mama, I love you . . . Tell my kids I love them. I’m dead.”

    “You’re doing a lot of talking, man,” Chauvin replied.

    As the officers held Floyd to the ground, Chauvin asked the other officers whether Floyd was “high.” Kueng told him they’d found “a pipe on him.” Floyd again told the officers he couldn’t breathe. “You’re doing fine. You’re talking fine,” Kueng said, as Lane told him to take a “deep breath” and Chauvin told him to “relax.”

    “My neck hurts,” Floyd said.

    “Uh huh,” Chauvin replied. “You’re doing a lot of talking, a lot of yelling.”

    “They going to kill me,” Floyd said. “They’re going to kill me man.”

    “Takes a heck of a lot of oxygen to say that,” Chauvin said.

    The transcripts show Lane asked Chauvin several times whether Floyd should be moved.

    “No, leave him,” Chauvin told him. “Staying put where we got him.”

    Lane told Chauvin he was worried about “excited delirium,” citing a term used by medical examiners to describe the sudden in-custody death of people who may be under the influence of drugs or in an agitated state.

    “That’s why we got the ambulance coming,” Chauvin said.

    “Okay, I suppose,” Lane replied. A few seconds later, he told Chauvin that he believed Floyd had passed out. When an off-duty firefighter on the scene pressed the officers to check Floyd’s pulse, Kueng couldn’t find one.

    “Huh?” Chauvin replied, according to the transcript.”

    As with his previous article, roberts cherry picked the information he referenced to distort the reality into something that supports his propaganda.

    • 巨魔: L.K
    • 回复: @Curmudgeon
  37. @Just another serf

    The USA was murdered by The Jew, The Cuck and The Drunk* who changed immigration law in 1965.

    * Emanuel Celler, Philip Hart, Teddy “My car is a diving bell” Kennedy

    • 回复: @Icy Blast
  38. @FB

    So the protocol is to ‘help’ a man needing medical attention by kneeling on his neck and back until his heart stops and his body goes limp…?

    Yeah, that makes perfect sense in the bizzarro universe…

    Please see The Alarmists’ 发表 above and answer the question. The neck restraint was designed to replace the more lethal chokehold, which I believe was at least partially designed to replace outright billy clubbing.

    If you still believe that police do not have a right to carry to completion legitimate arrests or that suspected felons have the right to violently resist, then be reminded that the primary role of the police is to protect suspected criminals from summary execution, which was a common way for citizens of limited time, training and patience to handle suspects, especially recidivists, before professional policing.

    Btw…fentanyl is used at up 20 to ng/ml as a general anesthetic in surgery…that is twice the amount Floyd had in his system…and patients don’t die, in fact they wake up, despite this level being kept up throughout the procedure to keep the patient under…

    Remember Michael Jackson? That’s an expected outcome of recreational general anesthesia under even optimal conditions. And MJ was healthy. Floyd had multiple forms of severe heart disease, severe enough that he may not have even been a candidate for general anesthesia in any setting but emergency surgery.

    NB: General anesthesia usually isn’t carried out by dumping kegstand levels of jungle juice recreational drug cocktails down the patient’s throat then wheeling them out on the street to do felonies and throw hands with the cops before losing consciousness.

    This latter technique may be associated with increased mortality.

    Also the 5.6 ng/ml norfentanyl is an inactive metabolite, so it is not counted as part of some ‘new math’ to get to a ‘fentanyl level’ of 19 ng/ml…

    What it does mean is that, 在某一点, he had roughly 17ng/ml of fentanyl in his system. I know nothing about the subject but would be shocked if all drug overdoses occur exactly at peak blood levels. Therefore, the fact that he had already metabolized some portion doesn’t rule out a pure overdose.

    Also, many medical studies showing fentanyl overdoses that survived with over 100 ng/ml blood level, ten times Floyd’s level…

    Many casino advertisements show people who have won thousands playing slot machines. But the vast majority of players are still net losers. You’re arguing from literal survivorship bias, an obvious fallacy.

    Also…PCR is NOT a doctor, yet he makes doctor-like assertions about what is a ‘fatal’ dose of fentanyl [actually all the medical literature says there is no MINIMUM fatal blood level of fentanyl, because it depends on the tolerance of the user]…and that Floyd was in the ‘process of dying’…

    Either what PCR said is true, or it isn’t, regardless of credentials. And the fact that there is no minimum fatal blood level undermines rather than supports the case that St. Fentanyl couldn’t have died of a fentanyl overdose.

    • 不同意: Biff
    • 回复: @Biff
  39. @Negrolphin Pool

    The little exculpatory evidence that has seen the light of day suggests the cops were trying to figure out how to keep the guy alive. It seems that Black Felon Lives do indeed matter.

  40. MLK 说:
    @Dieter Kief

    As the POTUS often says, ‘It’s just common sense.”

    So let’s apply that here, setting aside the sketchy facts and connections between those involved.

    Apparently the police contact was initiated by a call by the convenience store because Floyd either passed or attempted to pass a counterfeit bill. If memory serves, Floyd and his two companions were located by police in a car in the parking lot behind the store; questioned and taken into custody without incident.

    The security footage clearly showed Floyd dropping a drug baggie containing a white substance. Was a field test for Fentanyl done? A quick Google search reveals that the presence of Fentanyl in street drugs forced a change in police procedures incident to arrest. The standard field test wherein they scooped out a bit of the substance and tested it was deemed too dangerous for officers. Indeed, so dangerous that some think that illegal drug users should test for it:

    https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/06/22/as-fentanyl-seeps-into-drugs-activists-urge-users-to-test

    And there is a field test for the outside of the baggie:

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190917115455.htm

    My point being that while we don’t as of yet know whether these officers tested incident to arrest for Fentanyl — at least I don’t but I haven’t followed this to anymore than a cursory degree, its presence is anything but a “Red Herring.”

    https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/attorney-report-of-drugs-in-floyds-system-is-red-herring

    The irony is that even if there was no field test confirmation, the officers suspicions of Fentanyl poisoning based on Floyd’s behavior were proved right by the autopsy.

    Obscured from us ordinary civilians are a whole set of police procedures — official and not — for dealing with an arrestee confirmed or reasonably suspected of recent contact with Fentanyl.

    At least we now know why those who early on shouted about the “heartless” way Floyd was treated by the EMTs have gone silent.

    Anyone opening up a mouth about cops using their actions in this incident should consider what they would do upon encountering someone with Fentanyl poisoning. In my experience, those who get on a big talker high-horse wouldn’t come to the aid of a drowning child.

    This was a Perfect Storm. Someone took a heart-rending video of George Floyd’s death, and the Democrats and Allied Media ran with it because they’re desperate to reverse POTUS Trump’s 20% plus support with black voters. Add in the mass psychosis their lockdowns induced and we were off to the races.

    • 同意: Redman
    • 回复: @Dieter Kief
    , @MLK
  41. gotmituns 说:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    Here’s my question. Should the clerk in the convenience store be brought up on charges of accessory to murder for reporting the fake $20 and pointing out to the police the vehicle George Floyd was sitting in?

  42. Biff 说:
    @Negrolphin Pool

    You’re just like black lives matter ‘piling on’ pitting one against the other. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were on their payroll.
    The shills for destruction have no shame in their quest to divide and conquer. Thanks to your help the 深刻的状态 is winning. Trump and his white patrons have a finite future in America.

  43. RT 说:
    @FB

    The presence and level of inactive Norfentanyl indicates that the level of initial Fentanyl was much higher than the final lab results show. Fentanyl as an analgesic and especially as an additive to general anaesthetics is applied in a controlled setting by highly trained anaesthesiologists. It has a byphasic mode of action with a pronounced depression of the respiratory centre in the first phase.
    Its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic activity is greatly altered by age, race ( e.g. Asians metabolize at a higher rate, Blacks at unpredictable rate etc), comorbidities (e.g. impaired liver function, slow circulation syndrome), presence of other drugs (benzodiazepines, metamphetamine etc).

    • 回复: @FB
  44. @Verymuchalive

    Add CO-19 (at times a cause for heart problems) and – on a lesser scale, – diabetes. and – he was overweight.

  45. Unanimous 说:

    Opiates including Fentanyl do not cause respiratory distress. There is no shortness of breath or breathlessness. Opiates depress the area of the brain controlling respiration. They will NOT complain of any breathing problems. The impetus to breathe is gone. They pass out and die unless treated with an antagonist like Naloxone or ventilation is assisted or if the opioid is miraculously metabolized prior to death. Direct injury to the lung from trauma, broken ribs, infection, heart failure, being held in a stress position so the chest cannot expand, will cause distress and the person will complain bitterly.

    I know what I speak of: I have practiced emergency medicine for more than 40 years.

    • 谢谢: FB
  46. @MLK

    This was a Perfect Storm.

    I agree. Thanks – your comment astounded me, because now – after the hundreds of comment-pages I’ve read about this case, you are able to bring more new information here to the public’s eye.

    Now I wait for someone to add these facts up – unz.com would almost do by itself, and write the book Sebastian Junger did write about – – – – The Perfect Storm!

    PS
    (Would you know about the way in which the second autopsy was conducted? I remember having read, it had been conducted by video – but I can’t trace back just where I’ve read this).

  47. nickels 说:

    Not much luck with photos, but:

    • 哈哈: Corrupt
  48. Dr Giggles 说:
    @Kouros

    You are a complete ass. I hope one day someone as big and as black and as violent as Floyd, all doped up on some dangerous drug, thumps you in the street. Buy it or dont buy it you will lick the Cops balls to restrain him using any means. You are a moron !

  49. MarkU 说:
    @Kouros

    It is likely they called for the ambulance when the guy was already dead, and they sped that death, instead of stopping it, which was very easy to do.

    The time that the ambulance was called can surely be established, so hopefully speculation will not be needed on that point.

    I agree that the police actions were sub-optimal in the event, even if only for appearance sake the restraint position should have been changed. It wasn’t exactly bright to restrain a person in that sort of position when they are claiming they can’t breath anyway. It takes a special kind of stupid to do so in full public view, knowing full well that they are being filmed doing it, I mean what could possibly go wrong? What were they thinking? Didn’t anyone think “What if he is dying of an overdose or something, what will it look like”.

    However, for pretty much the same reasons, I am not inclined to believe he/they deliberately intended to cause death, if that were the case they would have been more aware of appearances.

    I note that the police version of the incident has been suppressed to avoid “tainting a potential jury pool” and “impair[ing] all parties’ right to a fair trial,” Given the massive amount of one sided publicity given to the prosecution account, that decision is ridiculous. Derek Chauvin has already been tried and convicted of murder in the media, a fair trial is surely impossible anyway.

    • 回复: @Avery
  50. Dr Giggles 说:
    @alan kerns

    You have written a load of steamy horseshit. As Nick Stix alluded you must have pulled this from a time bubble of 1860. In case you have not noticed we are now in 2020 with the Chimps running out of control. Get real and dump all that brotherly love and cum bye ah.

    I tell you what, the next time you are near to a ghetto, enter it and walk through it shouting all the crap you have written above.

    The one good thing that will come of your canter through the hood is that Unz will be one idiot commenter less !

  51. Dr Giggles 说:
    @The Alarmist

    Well I also have another question for this Kouros dunderhead. He should try to subdue a felonious monster as big as Floyd and with a history of violence and prison time. A pitiful specimen like Kouros would be writing with a pen in his mouth, in his wheel chair while his 24/7 nurse changes his diapers.

    This Kouros’s comment was the most foolish I have ever read. He must be some kind of simpleton or Chimp lover.

  52. Redman 说:
    @Kouros

    All possible. But maybe you have not seen the full panoply of videos (none of us have) and believe “too (little) in the professionalism or well intentions of the police.” As others have noted, the missing bodycam videos should shed light on Floyd’s physical and mental state at the time he was being put in the police car.

    PCR is examining evidence and noticing facts. You seem to be subject to the emotional clouding of reason he is describing. To wit, making generalized statements without any factual foundation to support what you “want to believe” is true.

    PCR can now add you to the list of readers whose “opinions” rest upon emotion instead of logic.

  53. @Tusk

    Consider checking out the transcripts of the bodycam footage here

    嗯...

    This website is under heavy load (queue full)

    We’re sorry, too many people are accessing this website at the same time. We’re working on this problem. Please try again later.

  54. Redman 说:
    @Hahaha

    与冰毒混合怎么样?

  55. Redman 说:
    @Franz

    Agree. Here in NYC, there has been a big spike in men OD’ing on the street. I’ve noticed it myself for some time (Frequently on subways) and have often wondered what cops would do in that situation. The situation is fraught with risk.

    I wouldn’t want to handle that.

  56. @Unanimous

    So can you take a shot at explaining why George Floyd was complaining that he could not breathe prior to any attempts to restrain him with a knee pin?

    • 回复: @Pop Warner
  57. @Kouros

    In my mind you would not stop at killing everyone on the planet in order to take control for your self. You are a rabid dog.

  58. @DarthPimpin

    “Dummy with two legs.” That’s a good one. Discredit the truth by making it look ridiculous.

  59. The ruin of the productive American economy is the root cause of almost all social ills … find those who dismantled industries and exported jobs overseas, mainly to China, to punish them severely, physically and financially to start remedy the nation or it’s all lost.

    • 同意: Emily, Emslander
  60. @Pigmeat

    Give a good example and shoot yourself.

  61. 我是医师

    患者在芬太尼麻醉后醒来的原因是麻醉师在麻醉时支持患者的呼吸(和其他生命体征)。 如果医生只是走开,病人
    肯定会死。 事实上,为了治疗芬太尼过量,人们会在逆转剂(narcan)生效的同时机械地支持呼吸。

    此外,弗洛伊德的血液中也含有潜在致死剂量的吗啡(另一种麻醉剂)。 他还含有甲基苯丙胺和四氢大麻酚,这可能会改变经典的麻醉性昏迷状态,并增加躁动和谵妄。

    他患有严重的冠状动脉疾病,在骤停或抵抗骤停的压力下,可能会导致致命的心律失常,麻醉剂引起的呼吸抑制引起的缺氧,甲基苯丙胺引起的兴奋,甚至本身。呼吸急促可能是即将发生的心脏病发作的症状,而没有胸痛。 或者胸痛可能被麻醉剂掩盖了。 人们每天死于明显无端的心脏病发作和突然的心律失常死亡。

    没有脑缺血或气道损伤的迹象。

    请记住,人们必须毫无疑问地证明该警官杀死了弗洛伊德。 人们不必证明弗洛伊德死于药物或心脏病,只需证明这并非不合理。
    他死于毒品/心脏病,而不是死于警察之手,这显然并非没有道理。

    回想起来,是否可以采取不同的方式来挽救他的生命?
    也许。
    也许 narcan 可以在现场给予。
    但请记住,这些是警察和一个人拒捕,而不是合作环境中的急诊室医生。

    • 同意: Dieter Kief
    • 哈哈: FB
    • 回复: @Verymuchalive
  62. Avery 说:
    @MarkU

    {” It wasn’t exactly bright to restrain a person in that sort of position when they are claiming they can’t breath anyway. It takes a special kind of stupid to do so in full public view, knowing full well that they are being filmed doing it, I mean what could possibly go wrong? What were they thinking? “}

    权利。

    All the relevant facts will presumably be argued in court by both sides, assuming Chauvin does not cut a deal and decides to go to trial and take his chances with a jury (or judge).

    However, what did Chauvin in, is exactly what you wrote. Maybe he is so jaded, or so had had it with Floyd*, that he just didn’t care anymore. His smirking face, with left arm nonchalantly on his leg, while Floyd was dying – looks awful.
    Damning optics, as they say.

    ________________________________________________
    * Apparently Chauvin and Floyd worked as private security a while back at the same club. And may have known each other. Imagine that.

  63. Redman 说:
    @Unanimous

    Ok. So why was Floyd complaining about not being able to breath BEFORE being put on the ground?

  64. Agent76 说:

    No! It was a knee it his neck that was fatal!

    27年2020月XNUMX日,新视频显示明尼阿波利斯警方在死亡前逮捕乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)

    明尼阿波利斯警察局已解雇了四名涉嫌乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)死亡的白人警官,但市长雅各布·弗雷(Jacob Frey)说,应逮捕其中一名警官,因为他的膝盖压在弗洛伊德的脖子上。

    • 回复: @Chet Roman
    , @KenH
  65. @The Alarmist

    If the cops shot him there would have been no need to kneel on him

    • 回复: @Dieter Kief
  66. Curmudgeon 说:
    @Parlezvous

    Interesting article, except

    Let’s be clear: the actions of Chauvin and the other officers were absolutely wrong. But they were also in line with MPD rules and procedures for the condition which they determined was George Floyd was suffering from.

    完全是胡说八道。
    Cops are not diagnosticians. They are trained to react, not to conditions, rather how people present. A diabetic slurring words and unsteady on his feet, due to low blood sugar, will be suspected of being intoxicated. High blood sugar may make him appear violent.
    Hindsight is 20/20. Cops are trained to react, not stand back and run 50 possible scenarios through their heads before making an informed decision. If the cops were following protocol, they are not “absolutely wrong”. They would have been wrong not to follow protocol.

    • 回复: @geokat62
    , @KenH
  67. Curmudgeon 说:
    @FB

    PCR is NOT a doctor,

    你是?

    When in fact all doctors who have spoken about this have said Floyd showed NO SIGNS of going into overdose,

    Then those doctors are committing malpractice. Viewing a video taken many feet away from the patient without interaction with the patient or someone with the patient does not qualify as tele-medecine. No licensing body for physicians allows a diagnosis without examining the patient or diagnostic tests on the patient. That would include you, if you are a physician.

    • 巨魔: vot tak
  68. Rurik 说:
    @The Alarmist

    A knee on the neck gives you enough leverage to restrain a large guy…

    Can you describe a better way to handle the situation?

    It would have been better if the cop would have got off his neck when he seemed to be passive and unresisting, and complaining of not being able to breath.

    Yes, he was saying he couldn’t breath way before the knee was on his neck, and I’m convinced the knee didn’t kill Floyd, who died of (likely a combinations of) other reasons.

    But when a man is subdued, and unresisting, and looking like he’s increasingly placid, and gasping that he can’t breath, then if for no other reason, the simple optics, (knowing they were being filmed), would have been a cue to get off his neck. Especially in our current societal upheaval and hysteria over the deaths of some other black men- lied about in the ((media)) to make it look like they’re all deaths by white racism.

    • 同意: The Alarmist
    • 回复: @Druid
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
  69. Rurik 说:
    @Tusk

    They also started performing CPR once he became unconscious. So they provided him with all the medical care they could and waited for the professionals to come and take him..

    I sure didn’t see that part.

    Do you have any evidence for that?

    • 同意: FB
    • 回复: @Tusk
  70. Chet Roman 说:
    @Agent76

    No, not according to the autopsy. And Jacob Frey is a soy boy Bolshevik, not a doctor or a police officer. If he was doing his job he would know that the knee on the neck restraint is a police department authorized technique and has been used hundreds of times. And was not the cause of the thugs death.

    • 回复: @Agent76
  71. NobleOne 说:
    @Kouros

    The knee on the neck was a practice taught by MPD to their officers. They have since banned it. Knee was not on windpipe at all. A wrestling coach copied the exact maneuver for the same time to show it is fairly harmless…he was fired for it.

    Officers are not chemists or doctors. They do not know what exactly is wrong with perps they deal with. And they are not going to risk themselves or public if they can help it while bringing them in. Ridiculous to think they should be goving medical doses. Blacks will riot over anything: racial profiling, police abuse, overdoses by police, Fredric Douglass statues, etc

    The only excuse for black behavior is genetics.

    • 回复: @Druid
  72. Case Reports Chest
    . 2013 Apr;143(4):1145-1146. doi: 10.1378/chest.12-2131.
    Fentanyl-induced Chest Wall Rigidity
    Başak Çoruh 1, Mark R Tonelli 2, David R Park 2
    附属机构扩大
    PMID: 23546488 DOI: 10.1378/chest.12-2131
    抽象
    Fentanyl and other opiates used in procedural sedation and analgesia are associated with several well-known complications. We report the case of a man who developed the uncommon complication of chest wall rigidity and ineffective spontaneous ventilation following the administration of fentanyl during an elective bronchoscopy. His ventilation was assisted and the condition was reversed with naloxone. Although this complication is better described in pediatric patients and with anesthetic doses, chest wall rigidity can occur with analgesic doses of fentanyl and related compounds. Management includes ventilatory support and reversal with either naloxone or a short-acting neuromuscular blocking agent. This reaction does not appear to be a contraindication to future use of fentanyl or related compounds. Chest wall rigidity causing respiratory compromise should be readily recognized and treated by bronchoscopists.

  73. @Dieter Kief

    Saw the video of Big Floyd and Kimberly Banks. Difficult to say he was overweight or had diabetes.

  74. Curmudgeon 说:
    @Emslander

    I’ve noticed that the more prestigious the degree a young person has, the less able they are to engage in a rational discussion on any subject.

    About 25 years ago, I was chatting with an older acquaintance, who was a retired railway labourer, about the economic fraud being perpetrated on the public. He said ‘It doesn’t take a big education to see what is going on in this country. My three boys are in university. It seems the more they learn, the less they understand.’ One of the boys was in accountancy, another in business. The third dropped out of university, took up a trade, and the last I heard, didn’t have much to do with his brothers. The two university grads still believe in the mystical “market forces”.

  75. The death of St. Floyd is a stunt.
    The ruling banking cabal made a decision: time to start a race riot. They made a video and activated their communist agents in BLM and Antifa to begin the riots.

    The Communism that the Jewish overlords are attempting to impose on America has nearly 0% popular support. They have spent decades trying to embitter blacks and still haven’t really gathered much in terms of a revolutionary cadre. Nevertheless, they are moving into active insurgency mode and have many major corporations backing their play.
    They have no hopes of success without disarming America.
    Good luck with that Jews.
    They continue to expose themselves to more and more ‘normies’ while confirming many of the already aware’s worst suspicions. They won’t be happy until they impose one gov’t, one religion (satanic) and one currency (bogus).
    I’m really looking forward to treason trials. At some point, it will become unstoppable.

    • 回复: @Druid
  76. Curmudgeon 说:
    @vot tak

    Ah, the “medical expert” pcr “proves” once again all the other medical experts are wrong and Floyd did die of a drug overdose despite the heroic attempts of the sainted men in blue to prevent his self initiated demise.

    Roberts has never claimed to be a medical expert. He has reported on what medical experts have concluded. The fact of the matter is that there were no medical experts at the scene to assess, in real time, what was happening. Apparently, the coroner, in your opinion, is not a medical expert, despite having dissected Floyd’s body and ordered testing on body fluids. It would seem the second pathologist signing off on the coroner’s report isn’t an expert either. However, the medical experts, who have never seen George Floyd in person, spouting off about their theories, are more credible than those who examined the body and reviewed the autopsy report before it was released.

    Did you miss the number of times in the body cam transcript that the cops asked Floyd if he was “on” something and what it was? If the dumbshit had told them, he might have survived.

    • 巨魔: vot tak
  77. Curmudgeon 说:
    @Unanimous

    Direct injury to the lung from trauma, broken ribs, infection, heart failure, being held in a stress position so the chest cannot expand, will cause distress and the person will complain bitterly.

    None of which were present in Floyd’s case according to the autopsy report.

  78. Jiminy 说:

    If Floyd had died in New York , I’m certain his death certificate would simply have read, cause of death: covid19. When you watch the plane crash investigation shows on tv and they trace the disaster backwards to a determining event, here you go back and see that Floyd would be alive today if he had said no to drugs. Take drugs, shorten your life. Simple as that. Certainly blame the cops, his parents, maybe even society but if a grown man doesn’t respect his own body then nobody else will. Maybe the only way to solve these types of deaths is to have trained medicos travelling constantly in tandem with the cops. But what is the cost benefit.
    And concerning a knee to the throat, I know I would not last eight minutes, let alone half that if someone kneeled on my throat. I still can’t believe that people think that a knee to the neck killed Floyd.
    Working with the scum of society rubs off on cops eventually, and Chauvin seems no different than a lot of others, but here it appears that he and his colleagues were doing everything right by the book. Maybe those baying for blood need to look elsewhere, perhaps higher up in officialdom. Condemning the cops for doing the right thing seems very harsh.

  79. Thank you for this article. I also appreciate the running commentary on the state of American education. Although you have me by two decades, we both come from a place where we were taught to think rather than emote. You say it so well in the following excerpt.
    教育的这种变态标志着美国的灭亡。 美国教育所产生的那种人没有科学思维能力。 美国人今天接受的那种教育不能产生科学家或工程师。 我们有情感的一代,人们受过情感指导。
    The inability of American education to produce people capable of thought is already our reality.
    I have found that lack of logic and inability to think in a linear fashion is passed off as an artistic temperament. If that isn’t a line of bunk I don’t know what is.

  80. KenH 说:
    @Agent76

    Only two of the four officers involved were white. And knee restraints were part of MPD’s procedures at the time. Get your facts straight.

    • 回复: @Agent76
  81. geokat62 说:
    @Curmudgeon

    If the cops were following protocol…

    I think this will become the central issue of the trial.

    As this video illustrates, there is overwhelming evidence that police departments in the US have become increasingly militarized by receiving training from the Israeli military.

    Israel is Training US Police

    There is also evidence that the protocols the Minneapolis police department is expected to follow do in fact include the knee to neck restraint.

    • 谢谢: Rurik
    • 回复: @Curmudgeon
  82. @Dieter Kief

    I posted this on the last Floyd thread, put it’s worth posting again. Check out this excellent article covering the data on fentanyl, neck-holds, and police procedures for dealing with suspected cases of “Excited Delirium:” https://medium.com/@gavrilodavid/why-derek-chauvin-may-get-off-his-murder-charge-2e2ad8d0911

  83. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @RT

    The presence and level of 不活跃 Norfentanyl indicates that the level of initial Fentanyl was much higher than the final lab results show.

    That’s exactly right…which also means it is FALSE to say he had a blood level of 19 ng/ml at the time of death as is being claimed here…

    He actually did have a higher level at one point much earlier, which is when he would have nodded off and passed out…any doctor will tell you overdoses don’t work that way…you lose consciousness at the point that the level is at a PEAK…not after it has dropped off quite a bit…

    [Anesthetic fentanyl] has a byphasic mode of action with a pronounced depression of the respiratory centre in the first phase.

    Now you are getting into medical territory which obviously requires expert level of medical knowledge to discuss…are you a doctor…?

    One important aspect is tolerance…the medical literature discusses an anesthesia blood level of 10 to 20 ng/ml, the higher figure being nearly double that of Floyd, but it would be assumed that the patient has not been a regular user of fentanyl and thus has no tolerance…

    The question then is would a patient with a high tolerance need a higher dose yet to be put under…?

    The point is that it is stupid on its face to discuss the possibility of an overdose, if you have no medical training…all the doctors and pathologists that have joined the public debate have come out with a lot of factual statements that Floyd did NOT present the symptoms of overdose…that is a FACT…

    Not one single doctor has come out and said Floyd overdosed…

    Think about that for a moment…is the entire medical community wrong, and a bunch of armchair ‘experts’ on the internet are right…?

    Do you not think a doctor is not able to recognize an overdose when it is happening…?

    The overdose issue was discussed right here on this website by a regular commenter, The Scalpel, who is an emergency physician [and also West Point graduate]…

    Fentanyl is very short acting. It’s effects peak almost immediately and drop off in minutes. So whatever he had when he died, he had more before he was “arrested” and was doing fine.

    Plus there is the issue of tolerance which makes it 不可能 to predict a lethal dose. Meth acts similarly fast, but drops off more slowly.

    在警察到达之前,当他的水平很高或更高时,他仍然过得很好。

    The Scalpel discusses Floyd overdose possibility, Unz Review June 8…

    You will notice that Ron Unz then kicked off a lengthy debate with the doctor, so I suggest you follow that thread…

    But again, I stress…why doesn’t PCR bring us the info right from a forensic pathologist…?

    That would seem to be very easy to do, if there was any truth at all in this ‘overdose’ fantasy…

  84. Kouros 说:
    @Kouros

    To all respondents,

    Yes, there might be difficulty in restraining a big fella. There were at least four police officers in the proximity, and while there was a bit of a struggle, it wasn’t something to difficult to handle.

    never considered that the police was onto killing George Floyd.

    Nobody, nobody commented on the issue of police not being trained and equipped to deal with overdosed people, especially opioid overdoses. Being able to provide quick help is essential and other jurisdictions have enabled police with syringes with Naloxone and try to use those rather than tasers or guns.

    • 回复: @Mefobills
  85. “And then there are the many readers for whom it is of the utmost emotional importance that Floyd was murdered by white police for racist reasons. These readers are immune to all facts. One told me that fentanyl is not toxic. Another told me that it is not possible to overdose on fentanyl. Yet another told me that the medical examiner is white and his report is a racist report. Another asked me when did I become a racist.

    In other words, they only want to hear what they have been brainwashed to believe. Facts have no importance to them. Indeed, there are no facts, only emotional responses, and they are indoctrinated with the emotional response that is valid. As long as the response is anti-white, it is valid.”

    I ran into just this the other day with my relation to a Leftist organization I had volunteered to do some technical work for. The group originally appeared to be a legitimate and more open Left organization than I have seen in recent years. But in the end they were as close minded as any other such group.

    I tried to present Dr. Roberts’ findings to them on this subject not to convince anyone of its legitimacy but simply as a different perspective to be considered. I even did some research on Dr. Roberts’ earlier article on this subject regarding the existence of a second autopsy. Using an article from the Daily Kos, a Left leaning rag, that promoted the existence of this second autopsy I looked at the links they provided to only find that they pointed to the very original autopsy report that Dr. Roberts provided in his original essay on this matter. So much for journalistic integrity.

    When posted to this Left organization’s chat board for consideration, no one wanted to hear of it. All they cared about was Floyd was dead and that was all that mattered. I tried to explain that it did very much matter, considering that Floyd’s death sparked so much outrage and national trauma, somehow transforming him into some type of martyr.

    Yet, again, people asked why I was posting such information when the matter was implicitly settled.

    One leader of the organization told me to stop posting such “Right-wing crap” or I would be removed (cancelled). I told her to go ahead and remove me, which she promptly did.

    Though I agree with the general grievances of The Left, this side of the political spectrum appears to be populated with very immature adults and even more ignorant younger people not to say the least of all the various proponents of their biological victimhood. They have no sense of honest, historical relevance to anything they do and really don’t care. As long as things conform to their very limited world view, they are satisfied.

    Though I tend to be somewhat conseratative with my opinions on things, I could hardly be considered Right-wing in my views. But I do insist on historical honesty for our past and our current events (which means legitimate debate on such matters). But The Left will never yield on this, which makes them I believe as dangerous as the extreme Right…

    • 回复: @Anonymous
    , @TheTrumanShow
  86. @FB

    So the protocol is to ‘help’ a man needing medical attention by kneeling on his neck

    Actually: Yes.

    In 2018, the MPD [Minneapolis Police dept.] published a report on the use of ketamine in excited delirium. Attached to this report is an authoritative document on excited delirium entitled “White Paper Report on Excited Delirium”. A white paper is an authoritative report. The MPD attached this white paper because it was considered by the MPD the most authoritative document on excited delirium syndrome (ExDS).

    The report specifies the nature of ExDS, the symptoms of ExDS, as well as what police officers should consider when dealing with those they suspect of suffering from ExDS. The report is long. First, let’s backtrack and establish that the officers did in fact suspect excited delirium. WaPo hosts the original government complaint:

    Officer Lane said, “I am worried about excited delirium or whatever.” The defendant said, “That’s why we have him on his stomach.”

    * * * * *

    The White Paper goes on to describe the dangers of excited delirium, both to the officer and the suspect. This information is important, and explains why the officers responded as they did:

    “Given the irrational and potentially violent, dangerous, and lethal behavior of an ExDS subject, any LEO interaction with a person in this situation risks significant injury or death to either the LEO or the ExDS subject who has a potentially lethal medical syndrome. This already challenging situation has the potential for intense public scrutiny coupled with the expectation of a perfect outcome. Anything less creates a situation of potential public outrage. Unfortunately, this dangerous medical situation makes perfect outcomes difficult in many circumstances.”

    — “LEOs must also be aware that remorse, normal fear and understanding of surroundings, and rational thoughts for safety are absent in such subjects.”

    — “ExDS subjects are known to be irrational, often violent and relatively impervious to pain. Unfortunately, almost everything taught to LEOs about control of subjects relies on a suspect to either be rational, appropriate, or to comply with painful stimuli. Tools and tactics available to LEOs (such as pepper spray, impact batons, joint lock maneuvers, punches and kicks, and ECD’s, especially when used for pain compliance) that are traditionally effective in controlling resisting subjects, are likely to be less effective on ExDS subjects.”

    — “The goals of LEOs in these situations should be to 1) recognize possible ExDS, contain the subject, and call for EMS; 2) take the subject into custody quickly, safely, and efficiently if necessary; and 3) then immediately turn the care of the subject over to EMS personnel when they arrive for treatment and transport to definitive medical care.”

    — “In those cases where a death occurs while in custody, there is the additional difficulty of separating any potential contribution of control measures from the underlying pathology. For example, was death due to the police control tool, or to positional asphyxia, or from ExDS, or from interplay of all these factors? Even in the situation where all caregivers agree that a patient is in an active delirious state, there is no proof of the most safe and effective control measure or therapy for what is most likely an extremely agitated patient.”

    — “There are well-documented cases of ExDS deaths with minimal restraint such as handcuffs without ECD use. This underscores that this is a potentially fatal syndrome in and of itself, sometimes reversible when expert medical treatment is immediately available”.

    https://medium.com/@gavrilodavid/why-derek-chauvin-may-get-off-his-murder-charge-2e2ad8d0911

  87. Mefobills 说:
    @KenH

    For decades the Jewish owned media and universities have besmirched the founding of America and its history until 1965 along with blood libeling the white population.

    Yep…. but it is longer than decades, because owning the press/narrative is part of Jewish evolutionary method. Jewish usurpation via press and book publishing, goes back in time even further than 150 years as discussed by Luther Pierce in link below.

    https://russia-insider.com/en/beast-has-controlled-america-150-years-jewish-owned-media/ri30791

    • 谢谢: Druid
  88. @Kouros

    Kouros has gone to a great deal of trouble to remain totally uninformed:

    莱恩律师的伯爵格雷从法律文件的一部分中新发布的笔录中,他要求亨内平县地方法院撤销对他的委托人的诉讼:

    笔录显示,当警官将弗洛伊德(Floyd)推上车时,这位46岁的黑人说:“我无法呼吸”和“我想躺在地上”。

    • 回复: @Kouros
  89. Mefobills 说:
    @KenH

    along with blood libeling the white population

    Ken, I was thinking more about this.

    The blood libel is part of Holocaustianity, the newest Jewish religion.

    It is no longer the Jew (Roman Soldier as proxy) killing Jesus on the Cross.

    Now it is a German SS trooper killing Jews, who are nailed to the cross.

    White men in general, especially Christian Whites, are proxies for the SS.

    White Christian men might pogrom or kill jews, who are nailed to the cross. ohhh gaaawd!

    Holocaustianty twists and inverts reality, but in the end… “It is good for the Jew.” The End always justifies the means.

    • 同意: Druid, KenH
  90. @Dieter Kief

    What’s the German for Coffin Dodger.

  91. Mefobills 说:
    @FB

    But again, I stress…why doesn’t PCR bring us the info right from a forensic pathologist…?

    You don’t need a pathologist, you need a biologist.

    I am Floyds size, even bigger actually. Did you ever look at Floyd’s neck muscles?. He’s got a pretty solid well muscled neck, and I wouldn’t want to tangle with him. (I have fought big men, and it is not fun.)

    The windpipe runs down the middle of your neck and is flanked by muscles on the side.

    I’ve pressure tested my neck, and while it is uncomfortable It can take considerable pressure when said pressure is delivered from the side. I can still breath with side pressure.

    It is easy to brainwash people, which is PCR’s argument.

  92. @pepperinmono

    谢谢。 你的评论值得更多的宣传。 并不是说 MSM 会给它任何。

  93. @FB

    This is an extraordinary ignorant statement that misrepresents my report.
    I reported the findings of toxicologists as to what constitutes a fatal dose.
    I provided a link to what are known to be consequences of an overdose–precisely the symptoms Floyd showed, both in this article and in a previous one: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/07/07/there-is-no-second-autopsy-of-george-floyds-death/

    Floyd asked to be removed from the squad car and to lay on the ground. A quote from Floyd from police recordings given as court evidence is at the top of this article: “I can’t breathe” and “I want to lay on the ground.”
    The restraint technique does not strangle people or cut off blood to their brain. It is a technique taught to police and used thousands of time. The police were trying to keep Floyd still so that what little oxygen he was able to get would keep him alive until the medics arrived. He was on his stomach because nausea is one result of fentanyl overdose and the police did not want Floyd choking to death on his own vomit.

    这么多躲在假名后面的评论员都没有理智,只是做表情。
    他们是自恋者,谴责比他们知道的更多的人会让他们感觉很好。 有些人还自以为是,喜欢进行无知的道德谴责。

    “A picture is worth a thousand words.” And the picture Americans saw was interpreted for them by a dishonest media. Their ignorance of anatomy made it easy for the presstitutes to deceive them.

    • 同意: Mefobills
    • 回复: @FB
  94. FB 说: • 您的网站

    Some commenters have asked for references in the literature for the point I made about surviving overdose at far higher fentanyl levels than that in Floyd’s blood toxicology report…

    Here is a paper by a group of physicians who treated 18 fentanyl overdose patients in about a one week period in 2016…only one out of the 18 did not survive…

    All 18 patients tested positive for fentanyl in the serum. Quantitative assays conducted in 13 of the sera revealed fentanyl concentrations of 7.9to 162 ng/mL (mean=52.9 ng/mL)

    Note that highest number is FIFTEEN TIMES Floyd’s blood level…the mean [average] of all those patients is about 53 ng/ml…about FIVE times Floyd’s level…

    Fatal Fentanyl: One Pill Can Kill

    So clearly a lot of people have survived a dose of fentanyl much higher than George Floyd…this medical data immediately invalidates the very notion that a number like 11 mg/ml is de facto a ‘lethal’ dose…clearly it’s not…

    And again I stress…in the entire medical community NOT ONE DOCTOR has come out and said Floyd died of an overdose…is the entirety of medical science completely ignorant…?

    Or is it the case that a bunch of completely unqualified people are googling the internet for medical literature [which any doctor will tell you requires a level of expertise to put into proper context] and pulling numbers willy nilly, and then simply making doctor-like pronouncements…?

    Please find one single pathologist or emergency doctor who will say that Floyd died of an overdose…

    If and when you do so, then we can start having an intelligent discussion…until then this kind of discussion is just pure nonsense…

    • 回复: @Avery
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
  95. RT 说:
    @FB

    Yes, I am, two bord certifications, one – anesthesiology. I guess, this makes me an expert on Fentanyl. This is not to claim that I know the cause of death of this man, I don’t.
    On Fentanyl, in healthy patients – after IV injection the onset of anlgetic effect is about 3 min., the peak of analgetic effect about 6 min., duration of anagetic effect – about 60 min., half elimination time – 219 min. I measured those myself to confirm what is already known long time ago.Notice: healthy, IV, analgetic effect, blood availability does not drop fast, but half of it in about 3 1/2 hrs. It is not the ultrafast Remifntanyl. In patients with differrent comorbidities, eg. in shock, differrent protein binding capacity, or in the presence of other substances those times differ substantially. It is not entirely predictable or is very unpredictable if the rout of administration is not IV, but other – bucal, skin patch, subcutaneous, digested etc. It will require you to become my resident to go at lentgh on those hundreds different combinations and their applications for Fentanyl pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics. However, in the case of Mr. Floyd, it might mean that he had it via different than IV rout and we cannot say for sure how much and low long before the event.
    Fentanyl causes from mild to severe respiratory depression, which can manifest any time, even after the analgetic effect expired, sometimes hours after administration, especially in people with obstructive sleep apnea, cardiac diseases etc.
    I also causes in a very unpredictable manner severe chest rigidity to the point of us being unable to ventilate with high positive pressures. I had those cases, odly, all in patients for coronary bypass surgery.
    Regarding tolerance or acute tolerance, it is well known (ref. Amercan Society of Anesthesiologists) that Fentanyl (and some other, too) develops the so called differential tolerance. That is, in chronic users or sometimes much faster, tolerance to the analgetic effect develops, but not to the respiratory effect. The user is still highly sensitive to the respiratory effect of Fentanyl even when he cannot feel the analgetic/psychic effects anymore.
    What is used in patients, who were chronic high dose users to put them under? Different drugs and modulators.
    I am not sure if Naloxone, if applied immediately in Mr. Floyd’s case could change the outcome, given that he had other serious comorbidities, possibly pulmonary complications of COVID infection and high stress of the arrest, as shown in the video. It is a probably a case of gross medical negligence, leading to the fatal outcome, although, I am not sure how much we can expect from police in this regard. It needs proper investigation and establishing the causality of each factor and cofactors.

    • 谢谢: GazaPlanet
    • 回复: @FB
    , @Genrick Yagoda
  96. @Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque

    I don’t know if Mick Jagger has ever been shot at (by a women and / or Keith Richards….), but he did suffer from serious heart problems lately.

  97. KenH 说:
    @Curmudgeon

    完全是胡说八道。

    I noticed that too but didn’t have time to respond. I’m glad someone else noticed that pathetic disclaimer.

  98. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @RT

    谢谢…

    Judging by your articulate and technically informed answer, your claim to be a physician specializing in anesthesiology appears credible to a layman like myself…[what is your second board certification…?]

    You also state…

    This is not to claim that I know the cause of death of this man, I don’t.

    Which then implies that this article and others like it that seek to present as a fact that he died of an overdose are not supported by medical science…?

    Then there is the very basic question of whether Floyd was presenting symptoms of an overdose…the many doctors, including pathologists, who have spoken publicly on this have said no he did not…he was able to stand, to talk etc…

    Is your opinion in divergence with this view…?

    Do you see signs of Floyd going into overdose…?

    Then there is the issue of the pressure on his neck and back…many here say this is no problem…while doctors all say that 位置性窒息 is a very real danger, even to people in good health…

    That is to say, even someone who is not on drugs and has no health problems can be killed by applying enough pressure on the back and neck…the mechanism of which, if I understand the doctors correctly, is that the back pressure will impede the diaphragm muscles from expanding the lungs and taking in air…plus the neck pressure can reduce blood circulation to and from the brain and reduce the amount of oxygen-carrying blood necessary to sustain basic function…

    These observations about positional asphyxia seem to be medical facts beyond any dispute…would you agree…?

    So if we put together the observation from the doctors that say he did not present symptoms of going into overdose, plus the observation that the neck and back pressure would cause even a healthy person to lose consciousness and even die at some point, then how medically valid is it to say that he died of an overdose, and that the pressure on his back and neck was irrelevant to the outcome…?

    • 回复: @RT
    , @Bombercommand
    , @Anon
  99. Kouros 说:
    @Paul Craig Roberts

    I haven’t seen the transcripts and I will take them at face value, that in conjunction with the blood test results, George Floyd was under drug influence. The cocktail of drugs would probably made it harder to identify it as an opioid overdose, since just opioids will make people quite unresponsive and will ultimately inhibit breathing.

    However, the complaints of incapacity to breath should have made police officers concerned. It is clearly that many jurisdictions in the States have poor police training, and their recruitment goals hit only up to certain level of intelligence (this being a site that dedicates a lot of space to people’s IQs, it would be interesting to see the level of IQ targeted on those recruited and trained as police officers).

    Getting training to identify opioid overdoses and respond to them is really not a rocket science (I got such training myself). For God’s sake, people learn to administer themselves their insulin! Would be such a burden on the police officers, since usually they are the first to respond to a 911 call (being more numerous in the territory than ambulances or fire fighters…) and given the opioid crisis in the US?

    So my claim that the police could have saved Floyd’s life by recognizing the symptoms and administering the required drug is by no means overstretched and would be part of the “serve and protect” thing. Or that applies to private property and the owners of private property?

  100. @RT

    And this is what is known as a Cat 5 butt-kicking.

    干得漂亮!

  101. Pop Warner 说:
    @L. Guapo

    The gaps in the footage are completely ignored because context is the enemy of journalists.

  102. Avery 说:
    @FB

    {Please find one single pathologist or emergency doctor who will say that Floyd died of an overdose…}

    No idea which argument re Fentanyl is the valid one, but in the current atmosphere NO pathologist or doctor will 公然 say Floyd died of an overdose*. It will be professional suicide. They will mostly likely lose their job, or shunned and harassed at work and “voluntarily” leave. Worse, the mob will surround his/her house, follow them everywhere they go, will terrorize them to no end, with MSM egging them on,…..they’ll have to go into hiding.

    There is no upside for them to speak up.

    ____________________________
    * When the trial is held, in about a year, defense will surely bring in experts to so testify.
    (they’ll be paid, so there is some upside then).

    • 回复: @FB
  103. Mefobills 说:
    @Kouros

    nobody, nobody commented on the issue of police not being trained and equipped to deal with overdosed people, especially opioid overdoses.

    I got pulled over on my motorcycle once. When I got off and turned to face the policeman, his eyes were already wide, and he was back pedaling.

    I am telling you normies who are not in the 99 percentile of height and weight, that a big man is treated differently by the cops. Try to think outside of your box.

    We modern humans are not that different than our cave-man ancestors and instinct kicks in whether you want to admit to it or not.

    Also, as PCR says, you cannot strangle somebody with side neck pressure. If that were the case, we would see many strangulation cases on smaller people than Floyd.

    We don’t see those sort of strangulation statistics, now do we?

    • 回复: @Kouros
    , @L.K
    , @Loup-Bouc
  104. Agent76 说:
    @Chet Roman

    Review the video it does not lie like government agent’s!

  105. Agent76 说:
    @KenH

    It was the knee and it helps if you view and listen with the recording if you are older than 18!

  106. GazaPlanet 说:

    George Floyd, higher than a kite on a drug that impairs breathing with a serious heart condition and covid19. If that’s not reasonable doubt that the police caused his death, there can be no reasonable doubt. There can only be guilt for holding him restraint as he died of self-administered poisoning. The guilt of the white man for restraining the negro criminal.

    • 同意: Joseph Doaks
  107. The way the facts are now coming to light can we expect an aquittal? And, how will an aquittal sit with our MMSM? I forsee a guilty verdict in the lower court followed by a severe prison sentence for Chauvin. This will be reversed on appeal sometime ( 2years?) later, when things cool down. The guys I worry about are the father and son arrested in Georgia for killing the thug Arbery. Also, the white couple who painted over the BLM sign and are now charged with a hate crime. The law is ridiculous. I think there has to be a victim, someone injured, for there to have been a crime. Who’s the lucky victim in that case?
    World in chaos.

  108. RT 说:
    @FB

    外科医生。
    Mr Floyd was overdosed, it is proven by his lab levels of more than one narcotic. Did this kill him? Could be, I don’t know, not all overdosed die, but many do. Could the pressure on his neck in prone position kill him, I don’t know either. I was not there to see him myself.
    How much pressure? Do we know? I had many years ago a 17 years old donor, who was restrained in a youth centre by four people pressing (sitting actually) him down until he passed. He was brain dead, but his heart was beating and undamaged, as were the other organs. They managed to cut the blood flow to his brain. Not the same here, I think.
    As I said, a proper investigation is needed before jumping to conclusions. Any conclusions.

    • 回复: @Curmudgeon
    , @FB
  109. Kouros 说:
    @Mefobills

    I understand the intimidation one can have when confronted with a bigger and apparently stronger individual. Ultimately it is just physics.

    As it is also simple physics that an opioid addled person, opioids that interfere with breathing by incapacitating the autonomous nervous system coordinating the lungs (ordering them to move), if is sat upon with a knee on the back, will make that breathing even more difficult, nay, impossible.

    • 回复: @Mefobills
  110. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @Avery

    Well…that is simply a postulation, based on what, a gut feeling…?

    It also doesn’t change the fact that every doctor who has spoken, including The Scalpel speaking here anonymously, say that Floyd simply did not present overdose symptoms…

    Now why would they go that far in the 相反 direction…?

    Nobody is going to give them extra ‘brownie’ points to come out and give a medical opinion that is ‘politically correct’…?

    Doctors are men and women of science…there is an ethical obligation that comes with that, as well as a 尊重 for scientific truth…for people who aren’t in the profession to now impute some kind of motivations of fear and ‘career suicide’ seems a little overwrought to me…

    The fact is that there are plenty of doctors who are talking about it…like in this article, where a number of forensic pathologists give very clear and unambiguous remarks…

    乔治·弗洛伊德 (George Floyd) 的两次尸检并没有看起来那么不同

    Here we see that the idea of excited delirium syndrome is dismissed unanimously by all the doctors, giving very precise medical reasons…yet here on this website we have had an article by another amateur ‘doctor’ claiming exactly that…

    Maybe the reason that no single doctor in the world is saying ‘overdose’ is because it is simply far fetched, and inconsistent with medical science…?

    I dare say Occam would be far more likely to agree with this statement than with yours…

  111. Pop Warner 说:
    @Genrick Yagoda

    “I can’t breathe” is part of the same arsenal of negro excuses like “I dindu nuffin” (which Floyd also said according to the transcript). They’ll say anything they think can get them out of cuffs

  112. Pop Warner 说:
    @FB

    Not one single doctor has come out and said Floyd overdosed…

    How is this an argument? It doesn’t matter how many doctors do or don’t say it if they didn’t perform the autopsy. The smart doctors won’t say shit either way since they haven’t inspected the body and have only seen edited video clips of the incident.

    Besides, what doctor would risk losing his medical license for uttering heresy against the Cult of Floyd?

  113. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @Paul Craig Roberts

    这么多躲在假名后面的评论员都没有理智,只是做表情。

    他们是自恋者,谴责比他们知道的更多的人会让他们感觉很好。 有些人还自以为是,喜欢进行无知的道德谴责。

    No, I happily admit that you know much much more than I do on many subjects…which is why I have been reading you for years, exactly for that knowledge and wisdom…[I would not have bothered spending so many hours with you otherwise…]

    And this is also why I am profoundly disappointed that you have now chosen this line of speaking about the Floyd incident…you have shown so many times to be far above this kind of thing…and I simply cannot understand why you are pulling yourself down, when you have so much more to give…

    The media lying and painting false narratives is a complete fact of course, and I will never deny that you have and continue to be a valiant and courageous soldier here…but we now also have an entire medical community that is unanimous on things that look like basic medical facts…

    So I will still say that unless you seek out some expert opinion on this, then you will not get my vote of confidence on this…

    PS…I will never think of you as an unkind person…I know how much you care for your beloved cats, and how deeply you were affected by the loss of one of the brothers some time ago…I hope the other one is still with you…

    • 同意: Jazman
    • 巨魔: Stan d Mute
    • 回复: @map
  114. Curmudgeon 说:
    @geokat62

    I have been consistent since day 1 in questioning whether departmental protocol had been followed. Contrary to what many here believe, by suggesting the cops should have done something different, the cops are at greater risk had they did not followed protocol, than if they did. The prosecution could/will then argue that the death was caused by failure to follow protocol, regardless of the quantity of drugs in Floyd’s body that, it appears, is the likely cause.
    Militarization is a bigger issue than the relatively few people who die at the hands of police every year. The protocols for that ramps up the potential for conflict. There will always be rogue cops (those intentionally not following protocols) and idiots that fail to follow lawful directives. The question becomes which came first, the militarized rogue cops or the growing number of idiots that don’t follow lawful directives? Either way the result will likely end badly for someone.
    Nobody deserves to die in the street, whether in police custody or not. Assuming he is dead and the incident did happen, it is becoming ever more apparent that George Floyd made bad choices, which ultimately led to his demise. That includes taking large quantities of drugs, not following lawful directives, and not telling the cops what he had taken, when they asked (if he even understood what they asked).
    To me, the fake bill is a red herring. I can’t understand why 3 cars/6 officers would respond to a telephone call about an attempt to pass a $20 bill, and subsequent shoplifting of something worth less than $20 dollars. Something is not right about that.

  115. Curmudgeon 说:
    @RT

    谢谢。
    You have confirmed my position that unless an MD who has not examined Floyd, or studied all of the diagnostic testing, is in no position to diagnose. The coroner has issued a report. If someone disputes it, only another pathologist or diagnostician who repeats the process is in a position to dispute. The rest of us are speculating.

    • 回复: @Genrick Yagoda
    , @FB
  116. Mefobills 说:
    @Kouros

    As it is also simple physics that an opioid addled person, opioids that interfere with breathing by incapacitating the autonomous nervous system coordinating the lungs (ordering them to move), if is sat upon with a knee on the back, will make that breathing even more difficult, nay, impossible.

    That is probably very close to the truth. The “back pressure” can be observed in the video, although it is not so much as to prevent Floyd from moving around.

    Floyd was able to breath as he was having a conversation with the cops. If you are being strangled you are not able to talk.

    Some pressure on his back would make breathing shallow and would add extra stress. Stress along with co-factors such as drugs in his system was the likely cause of death.

    That also doesn’t excuse Chauvin who kept kneeling on Floyd even when the crowd was becoming enraged, indicating Chauvin is probably a psychopath.

    • 同意: Kouros
    • 不同意: Joseph Doaks
  117. @FB

    FB, you are missing the most important point it RT’s comment: Fentanyl users, like opiate users, through regular use acquire a “tolerance” to the euphoric effects, and require higher and higher doses to achieve the same euphoric effect. However, Fentanyl has another, more dangerous effect: respiratory depression. Unlike a users growing tolerance for the euphoric effect, there is no corresponding “tolerance” for the respiratory depression effect. Therefore discussions of “did Floyd overdose” that revolve around if Floyd had sufficient Fentanyl for a classic “euphoric effect overdose” are intirely irrelevant. I think the discussion should be was the dose Floyd had sufficient for a fatal “respiratory depression” episode. Note that RT mentioned that a crisis caused by a respiratory depression overdose could occur a long time after taking the drug, unlike a “euphoric overdose”, that occurs almost immediately after dosing as the body is at the highest level of drug at that time. All this is of critical importance when discussing this case, and ignoring it means grave misunderstandings and false judgements are the result.

  118. Anonymous[817]• 免责声明 说:
    @Steve Naidamast

    For reasons I can’t quite articulate, your post was a phenomenally pleasant read, akin to a vision of pensive serenity.

    • 同意: Dieter Kief
  119. By the way the knee on the neck is a restraining technique used by the IDF to restrain the indigenous population. That said though according to the original autopsy there is no evidence that George Floyd died of anything other than a massive drug overdose. A second “autopsy” that claims otherwise was by “Magic Bullet” Baden from what I understand.

    The only reason why the guy has any cred is because he for once correctly concluded Epstein was murdered. Something many of us already knew. So he’s sorta like a broken clock.

    Personally I’ll go with the original ME report because if anything due to political pressure they’d be forced to find otherwise but instead went with the truth. Unlike Baden who as far as I’m concerned is a totally political animal.

  120. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @RT

    Mr Floyd was overdosed, it is proven by his lab levels of more than one narcotic. Did this kill him? Could be, I don’t know, not all overdosed die, but many do.

    Okay…you say his blood levels ‘prove’ overdose…but my question wasn’t about the 数字...numbers don’t kill, as you point out yourself above…it is the physical processes that kill, I think as a doctor you would agree with that…so it would seem rather empty to say, that based on ‘numbers’ he was ‘technically’ in some kind of nebulous ‘overdose’ territory…that doesn’t answer anything…

    BUT, did he look like he was about to lose consciousness and go into a medical emergency…?

    What I’m getting at here is that you are evading some of my very precise questions…doctors that have commented say he appeared ‘fine’…in other words did NOT look like he was about to lose consciousness, and that he appeared to be in no imminent danger…

    So here is a big question…is it not the issue of presenting symptoms that he was about to lose consciousness, such as his chin dropping to his chest, eyes closing etc…that is the 重要 medical indicator here…?

    Here again is the important logic from a medical perspective…if he looked to be in no imminent danger, as many doctors are saying, then it follows that it was the subsequent police intervention that played the decisive role in ending his life, as both pathologists have concluded…

    Or, conversely, if he appeared on the video to be going into unconsciousness and distress, then the subsequent intervention could not be classed as the 主要 cause of death…?

    One of those has to be right…which one is it…?

    Is the medical examiner wrong by saying the cause of death was the ‘subdual, neck pressure’ etc…?

    Could the pressure on his neck in prone position kill him, I don’t know either. I was not there to see him myself.

    But every doctor has seen the videos and they have all said that the information depicted is in fact 重要 to reaching some basic medical conclusions…or maybe you disagree with that too…?

    And there was also pressure on his back, not just the neck…but that does not answer my very specific question about positional asphyxia being medical fact…again you are being evasive, not a good sign…

    So again, which is it, in regards to the positional asphyxia, are the doctors wrong…?

    Your answers so far are very ambiguous…

    • 回复: @Bombercommand
    , @RT
    , @roonaldo
  121. Loup-Bouc 说:

    Sad. Very sad. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts has transmuted from a rational, intelligent, prudent professional to a lunatic who publishes his psychotic fantasies premised on wilful ignorance and determined fallacy. Often Dr. Roberts vilifies journalist he calls, appropriately. “prestitutes.” Alas, Dr,. Roberts has become a prestitute. If you incline to see why I say so, see ALL of my comments posted under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/?showcomments#comments

    • 巨魔: GazaPlanet, Genrick Yagoda
    • 回复: @Mefobills
    , @Parsnipitous
  122. L.K 说:
    @Mefobills

    “Also, as PCR says, you cannot strangle somebody with side neck pressure. If that were the case, we would see many strangulation cases on smaller people than Floyd.”

    Strangle no, but a “blood” choke can sure as hell kill, IF maintained too long after the person loses consciousness. People with medical issues may be at risk as well, even if the “choke” is let go. Watching the video, I recall Derek Chauvin keeps his knee to neck hold for quite a while AFTER Floyd passes out. Whether or not this actually had anything to do with Floyd’s death, I don’t know, especially after all the CRUCIAL evidence that Mr. Roberts, John-P. Leonard, and others have brought up to our attention. Besides, I got no medical creds.

    But I have been involved with martial arts since age 7, when I started in Judo. As an adult I picked up BJJ, which I still do, purple belt. I’ve put lots of people to “sleep” over the years, and have myself been rendered unconscious, through vascular chokes.
    From experience, I’d say that blood chokes are basically SAFE, provided the “chokehold” is released in time, and the person is healthy. In controlled environments, never witnessed anything bad happen… but, I do recall a couple of tragedies leading to death, in uncontrolled situations. One in the US, a younger brother(or cousin), around 16, killed his 20something older relative by keeping the hold too long. Another one was a sort of background bout in Brazil, 2 kids around 12, “supervised” by a completely irresponsible adult. Same result. Must be other cases, but it is rare.
    At the end of the day, Chauvin’s exercised poor judgment, ( or poor training) even if he did not actually influence Floyd’s death. The moment the man passed out, he should have released his knee hold, or at least adjusted it to relieve the neck area.

    • 谢谢: Mefobills
  123. @FB

    You entirely failed to read and comprehend RT’s comment #97. A new element has been added to the discussion: the “respiratory depression” effect of fentanyl. The respiratory depression effect can be mild or severe, can occur even hours after a user takes fentanyl, and most importantly, unlike the euphoric effect, there is no growing tolerance to the respiratory depression effect by regular use. This means than St. Floyd could have been taking higher and higher doses of fentanyl as he developed a tolerance for the euphoric effects, but was unknowingly crossing the line into a fatal dose of the respiratory depression effects, and this crisis could have occurred a long time after he ingested the fentanyl. This puts an entirely new light on the “I can’t breathe” meme. “I can’t breathe” could be entirely unrelated to the the police restraint actions.

  124. RT 说:
    @FB

    Yes, may be ambiguous, because the facts presented to the public are ambiguous. The pressure asphyxia does exist with extereme pressure applied. Did it occur in this case, I cannot say with the facts presented. Possibly, but this is not an assertion that it actually happened, it is up to the autopsy performer to see if there are pathological signs of damage, indicating that fatal excessive pressure was aplied. I cannot ethically give precise answers to your precise questions, because there are not precise observations on my part, but only fragments, based on published material. Sorry, I will not make conclusions one way or the other based on fragments.

    • 回复: @FB
  125. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Mefobills

    …as PCR says, you cannot strangle somebody with side neck pressure. If that were the case, we would see many strangulation cases on smaller people than Floyd.

    More of Paul VCraig Robert’s willfull lunacy or desi8gned fallacy. The matter is not that the cops “strangled” Floyd. Strangulation is irrelevant.

    More of Paul VCraig Robert’s willfull lunacy or desi8gned fallacy. The matter is not that the cops “strangled” Floyd. Strangulation is irrelevant.

    The medical matter is:

    Officer Chauvin’s side-of-neck knee-press choke-hold oressure and one or two other cops’ dorsal thorax pressure (the two, combined, mechanical-compression causes of Floyd’s death) A)(i)collapsed a carotid artery or jugular vein or both and hence deprived Floyd’s brain of blood and oxygen and his lungs of air and (ii) blocked carbon dioxide expulsion and, thence, (B) resulted in asphyxia caused by (i) brain-hypoxia, (ii) airway-obstruction, (iii) breathing-restriction, (iv) cerebral-blood-flow prevention, (v) fatigue of respiratory muscles, (vi) blockage of pulmonary blood flow, (vii) blood acidosis triggering Dyspnea, and, ultimately, cardiac arrest.

    The legal matter is:

    [更多]

    Because the cops did not desist when Floyd said he could not breathe and then fell unconscious, the cops’ conduct “enhanced” the foreseeability of Floyd’s death & concomitantly rendered their conduct the cause of Floyd’s death. Notwithstanding Floyd might have died later for reason of some comorbidity like fentanyl intoxication, that undeniable legal truth suffices to convict the culprit cops, because of
    * (a) at least 150 years of unbroken line of Anglo-American decisional law applying the eggshell skull rule and a causation rule requiring proof that an action was merely a proximate cause of death, NOT the proximate cause of death
    * (b) the clearly applicable warnings set forth in Positional Asphyxia-Sudden Death, National Institute of Justice Program, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice (June 1995), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/posasph.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1ylGj-3k7BXhz5s3JdwfKxWXlK3kW2TltokyHr47d_y9k408vMt2t0LAw
    (c) the video evidence perceived by any sane, unbiased, intelligent person — video evidence that EVERY apparently objective medical EXPERT has considered evidence indicating cop-conduct-induced compression-caused asphyxia leading to cardiac arrest.

    See ALL of my comments posted under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/?showcomments#comments

  126. @FB

    “Think about that for a moment…is the entire medical community wrong, and a bunch of armchair ‘experts’ on the internet are right…?”

    That seems to be the case regarding some aspects of Covid19!

  127. Mefobills 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    Loup,’

    You link doesn’t work… try this instead.

    https://www.unz.com/comments/all/?commenterfilter=Loup-Bouc

    I read some of your comments. You spend a lot of effort denigrating others, even to the point of being a spelling policeman.

    Break through in thought often happen in a team setting, where other people can trigger others and so on, so that new thought and insights can happen.

    For example, Kouros brought up the subject of back pressure, which added something new to the discussion.

    Your denigrating PCR is not helpful, especially when his insights are based on evidence and facts (even if you disagree).

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
  128. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Mefobills

    I cannot divine what link you think does not work. Just a few second ago, I tried both links. Both work.

    Dr. Roberts’s “facts” are NOT facts. If you READ, without bias (if that is possible for you), all my comments posted at https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/?showcomments#comments , you will see that Dr. Robert’s article is not factual or medically or legally tenable. It is toxic dross that deserves contempt, because of the grave harm such toxic dross can cause.

    • 同意: vot tak
  129. @Kouros

    Try to watch the video of them trying to get a belligerent Floyd into a squad vehicle and Floyd fighting and kicking his way out. How is it that you missed that video?

  130. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @RT

    Well…I’m going to let it go at this point because you are not providing any additional clarity whatsoever, nor are you going to…too bad…

    But I will take exception with one medical technicality on which I do believe you are incorrect…

    The pressure asphyxia does exist with extereme pressure applied. Did it occur in this case, I cannot say with the facts presented.

    Possibly, but this is not an assertion that it actually happened, it is up to the autopsy performer to see if there are pathological signs of 损伤, indicating that fatal excessive pressure was aplied.

    The way I, as a layman, understand it is that it does not require ‘damage’ or trauma to tissue for asphyxiation to occur…

    …the actual autopsy report doesn’t mention the word “asphyxia” at all. It does, however, describe “neck compression” as a direct cause of Floyd’s death — meaning the blood flow (and, thus, oxygen) to Floyd’s brain and heart were cut off.

    It doesn’t take physical trauma to asphyxiate someone.

    You can make someone lose consciousness just by compressing the arteries and veins in their neck, cutting off blood flow to and from the brain…After that video we know why he died…

    Dr. Karl Williams, forensic pathologist and chief medical examiner of Allegheny County, PA

    So there need not be any trauma or signs of ‘life threatening’ injury left in any case, and is why the Hennepin medical examiner ruled the cause of death as neck compression…

    Also we know from martial arts that such a ‘blood choke’ is a well understood grappling maneuver that certainly does not result in any tissue trauma…

    Really, I find this particular wording of yours quite problematic…it shows you are definitely shading towards a non-factual presentation here…again, too bad…

    [Heck even couch potatoes know about the Spock ‘nerve pinch’…😀]

  131. @Curmudgeon

    Just a minor correction to your otherwise excellent posts, the medical examiner issued the report, not the coroner. Their duties and offices are quite different.

    I hate to be persnickety, because I understood exactly what you meant, but given the other side’s constant mixing up their frame of reference in order to pretend the facts are on their side, I think it’s important to draw this distinction.

    • 回复: @Curmudgeon
  132. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @Curmudgeon

    To the surgeon and anesthesiologist RT, you replied…

    You have confirmed my position that unless an MD who has not examined Floyd, or studied all of the diagnostic testing, is in no position to diagnose. The coroner has issued a report. If someone disputes it, only another pathologist or diagnostician who repeats the process is in a position to dispute. The rest of us are speculating.

    Aha…so now we call it what it is, speculating…and that the ruling from the Hennepin County Medical Examiner that the cause of death was due to ‘neck compression’ and the manner of death was ‘homicide’ is in fact the most sensible conclusion after all…

    And of course since the same medical examiner never once mentioned the word ‘overdose’ nor placed the presence of drugs or other health issues in the 直接 cause of the death, but only as ‘contributing’ factors, then we may logically conclude that this entire nonsense about Floyd dying from a drug overdose is just that…nonsense…

    Glad to see you coming to your senses…

    • 回复: @Bombercommand
    , @Curmudgeon
  133. roonaldo 说:
    @FB

    RT is giving you good advice in your quest for definitive answers. You had emphasized the 10-20 ng/ml serum level of fentanyl for anasthesia.

    12 / 29 / 2010, Scientificamerican.com, “The Body Under Anasthesia Tracks Closer to Coma than Sleep.” The article says brain activity EEG levels under anasthesia are akin to brain stem death–basically a drug-induced coma.

    anasthesiology.pubs.asahq.org
    “the intensity of fentanyl’s effects correlates with the drug concentration at the site of action and not necessarily the plasma concentration.” From surgical experience and volunteers there may be found “clinically significant respiratory depression in patients at a steady state Cp (target serum level) of 2 ng/ml or more. We define clinically significant respiratory depression as a requirement for naloxone treatment, resuscitation, or cessation of fentanyl treatment.”

    http://www.emcdda.europa.eu--mentions the 10-20 ng/ml for anasthesia and
    “7 ng/ml have been associated with fatalities where poly substance use was involved… The most serious side effects include dizziness, vomiting, and fatigue…Serious interactions can occur when fentanyls are mixed with heroin, cocaine, alcohol, and other CNS (central nervous system) depressants…Sudden death can also occur because of cardiac arrest or severe anaphylactic reaction.”

    npr.org, 03/21/19, “Fentanyl-induced Deaths: The U.S. Opioid Epidemic’s Third Wave Begins”–“illicit drug supply dealers develop new forms of fentanyl that are even more deadly. The new CDC report shows dozens of varieties of the drug now on the market…Coroners in some states don’t have equipment that can detect one of the new varieties of fentanyl.”

    drugabusestatistics.org–“2018 saw 31,335 fentanyl and fentanyl analog deaths. There were 15,000 heroin deaths.”

    Human biology is staggeringly complex, and the interactions of the drugs in Floyd’s body along with stress, etc., will always leave unknowns. Keith Ellison, Minnesota’s Attorney General, can be expected to try to railroad the cops. Hell, he’d likely apply sharia law and have them summarily executed if he could, but the cops don’t appear convictable, not even close.

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
  134. TKK 说:
    @Unanimous

    Back in May you were an expert in the trucking industry. Are you an ER physician AND a long haul trucker? Citing RFP(s)- you are an emergency room physician who does procurements for the trucking industry?

    可笑的。

    Unanimous says:
    GMT 8年2020月12日下午32:XNUMX
    @NameAlreadyTaken
    这不是故事. I work in the IL trucking industry and just received this request for proposal. Unfortunately this is not some conspiracy theory which can be dismissed. You can speculate why but I gave you the facts as presented in the RFP.

    • 谢谢: FB
  135. @Kouros

    ‘… So, in my opinion, even if the medical report were true and fentanyl was found in George’s system, that is not an excuse for the police. It is likely they called for the ambulance when the guy was already dead, and they sped that death, instead of stopping it, which was very easy to do.’

    So let’s grant all that. How does one instance of police malfeasance — in the complete absence of any evidence that the police treat blacks worse than they treat anyone else — justify blacks across the country running amok, looting everything in sight, and assaulting any non-black helpless enough to offer an attractive target?

    Want to reform the police? Okay, we can talk about reforming the police — but first, let’s address our black problem.

    I can put up with arrogant cops for a few more years. I’ve had it with blacks. This is the end.

    • 回复: @Joseph Doaks
  136. roberto1 说:
    @FB

    In general anesthesia a patients airway is supported either by intubation or use of an Lma and their breathing is supported by artificial means, A ventilator in other words. Otherwise they would die, just like George Floyd did. In addition, “up to” means that may be the extreme high end of a dosage, usually less. You obviously know only the incomplete information you’ve read regarding fentanyl use in medicine.

    • 回复: @FB
  137. @FB

    Not if we are talking about the “respiratory depression” effect of fentanyl, a completely separate effect from the “euphoric effect”. This is the key to understanding the unusual number of ODs from fentanyl, these are not the “euphoria effect” ODs one sees with heroin, but something new, and unique to fentanyl. It explains much about the strange circumstances of St. Floyd’s death. Reread my reply to you: comment #125, to fill yourself in on what I am getting at. You appear to be avoiding something. Let’s have a discussion about the “respiratory depression” effect of fenatyl. How about it FB? What are you afraid of?

    • 同意: Dieter Kief
    • 回复: @FB
  138. @Loup-Bouc

    Way too short of a response. We here are in dire need of a real multi-scholar such as yourself to parse this out. Could you please elaborate?

  139. TimothyS 说:
    @Kouros

    You don’t mean to contend that if you kick someone to death and they have an eggshell skull you could be convicted of murder?
    If you have done your time in prison, you don’t get a death warrant. I am a naive person by nature. It’s very curious that all these cynics don’t think their principles will be applied to themselves.
    @L. Guapo No other alternative than to use a method that is known to be potentially lethal? On a guy who is supposedly overdosing on a sedative? Because you should know that those are mutually exclusive narratives. The first being patently false, the latter potentially true, but which would preclude the necessity of overcoming resistance.

  140. map 说:
    @FB

    听着……混蛋。

    到目前为止显示的内容:

    1) 你发布了一份将弗洛伊德之死列为凶杀案的新闻稿,但没有告诉任何人此类新闻稿在法律或医疗问题上都不重要。

    2) 您已被证明对明尼苏达州死亡证明中包含的内容有误。 “杀人”不是医学术语。

    3) 您已与实际的 ME 报告相关联,其中从所述报告中逐字提取证据,关于弗洛伊德的健康状况、他体内的芬太尼和安非他明、他的 Covid 检测呈阳性以及他可能患有镰状细胞性贫血。

    4) 你与身体摄像头记录有关,表明弗洛伊德呼吸困难,并被要求在任何人用膝盖抵住他的脖子之前先躺下。

    5)你认真地认为,在外科手术室由麻醉师管理的医用级芬太尼与弗洛伊德在他的系统中放入的街头垃圾相同。

    6) PCR 已经链接到关于你需要服用多少芬太尼才能死亡的文章。

    PCR在很大程度上证明了他的观点。 他可能是错的,但他不会因为你所说的任何事情而错。

    你被揭穿了。

    走开。

    • 谢谢: Parsnipitous
    • 回复: @Dieter Kief
    , @vot tak
    , @FB
  141. @Steve Naidamast

    “Yet, again, people asked why I was posting such information when the matter was implicitly settled.”

    Reminds one of the global warming scam claim that “It’s settled science,” when in fact it’s just the opposite.

  142. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @roberto1

    In general anesthesia a patients airway is supported either by intubation or use of an Lma and their breathing is supported by artificial means, A ventilator in other words. Otherwise they would die, just like George Floyd did.

    That’s not what anesthesiologists say…

    您可以在不插管的情况下进行全身麻醉吗?

    当然。 Endotracheal intubation is required for some operations (especially laparoscopy or other abdominal surgery) but completely unnecessary for others. 还有一些患者相关因素(病态肥胖、饱腹、气道异常等)可能使插管更有可能用于全身麻醉 (GA)。

    Also laryngeal mask airway [LMA] is NOT the same as intubation or ventilation, nor is it any kind of artificially supported breathing…

    In most cases the patient under anesthesia will breathe just fine on his own…

    你在全身麻醉下自己呼吸吗?

    有时。

    General anesthesia means you don’t move when someone cuts your skin and operates on you. Many times we can do this without controlling respiration.

    …the breathing need to be looked after, supported or taken over 有时 in general anesthesia. We monitor the patients oxygen carbon dioxide along with the other vitals and that helps us to decide wether we leave it on your own or help you to breath better!

    So your assertion is obviously wrong…being under anesthesia, the patient continues breathing on his own in many types of procedures…

  143. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @Bombercommand

    You appear to be avoiding something. Let’s have a discussion about the “respiratory depression” effect of fenatyl. How about it FB? What are you afraid of?

    No, I’m avoiding useless white noise that does not add anything to the discussion here…

    RT, the anesthesiologist, bowed out and declined to answer my precise questions due to ‘ethical’ concerns…

    If you want to get him to further your understanding of how the ‘depressed’ breathing under fentanyl works, then go ahead and ask him to indulge you…

    But here is the important point…if George Floyd was NOT showing any signs of respiratory difficulties WHILE getting his neck stepped on, then how is it that he was supposed to have breathing difficulties before his neck got stepped on…?

    I guess getting his neck stepped on, cleared up his breathing difficulties caused by his ‘overdose’…?

    You can’t have it both ways…he was supposedly breathing just fine because he kept saying ‘I can’t breathe’…

    This is what I mean by useless noise…

    • 回复: @Bombercommand
  144. Arcturus 说:

    The transcripts show Floyd was disoriented, had breathing trouble and expressed he wanted to ‘lay on the ground’ before any pressure applied by Chauvin.

    I haven’t seen any explanation of these verified facts from those trying to make the case for murder.

  145. @map

    At the very least – tone down FB. Opposing your points is no proof, that somebody is a bad person. But it can lead to other conclusions than the ones you’re holding. This is nothing special. Such are the risks of fair and open debates. Try to figure out if you are willing to take them.

  146. Anon[306]• 免责声明 说:
    @FB

    why are you so desperate to maintain the narrative?

  147. Tusk 说:
    @Rurik

    Yes, once again it is recorded in the bodycam transcript found 此处:

    Speaker 17 : Okay . You do CPR
    Lane: All right. You want me doing just compressions?
    Speaker 17: Just compressions for now please, thank you .
    Speaker 17: Okay slide [under]
    Lane: All right
    Speaker 17: keep doing compressions. Keep checking airway or just constant
    Speaker 17: Constant compressions.
    Lane: Constant compressions, all right.
    Speaker 17 I can do an airway check if you want inaudible [00:23:53 ]. He had to be detained, physical force, and inaudible 00:24:05 .
    Lane: You got his arm in it? You good?
    Speaker 17 Yep, just get this bar up here. Pull it out, [inaudible 00:24:41] there you go.
    Lane: Want me to pull it out ?What do you need ?I think it’s the cloth which way does it hook ? There we go , there we go. Fuck , sorry
    Speaker 17: You told inaudible [00:24:54] right? Thank you. [ inaudible 00:24:54]
    Lane: Should i still be touching him , or is that going to, electric go .
    Speaker 17: Tell him to come code three we’re working an arrest.

    pp。 20-21

    The code 3, which the cops upgraded the call for medical services to from a code 2, is expedited service. Lights and sirens, not just get here quickly. As you can see from the transcript though officer Lane is doing compressions, and it appears they might have been using a defib based on the “is that going to, electric go” comment, though hard to say.

    Also on page 63 of the linked transcript there is this:

    Thomas Lane: Advise, what ?
    J. Alexander Kueng: Of code three
    Derek Chauvin: Acknowledge that
    Male 3: crosstalk [00:18:28 ]

    So we know an ambulance was ordered to be expedited around 18 minutes into that bodycam footage. The linked transcript contains two different transcripts for the two officers bodycams, with the second account (wherein they upgrade the ambulance to code 3 around 18m) starting earlier than the last account of Floyd talking which is around 15 minutes in the first account. As such it seems the variance between Floyd going unconscious is less than 3 minutes. This also demonstrates that they started doing CPR about 7 minutes after Floyd stopped responding.

    Now that is a fair while to take, especially when someone is having a heart attack, but at the same time the knee restraint technique was not one that was choking him out. As such the officers would in no way be expecting, due to their police approved restraint technique, to be choking the guy out. What seems most likely is they thought he had calmed down and were waiting for ambulance, then afterwards realised it was a medical emergency and began doing the CPR while awaiting the ambulance still.

    I think one can definitely speak of a degree of negligence in the case, but as I explained in my previous post it seems most likely Floyd died of a heart attack aggravated by the drugs in his system, that the officers were not expecting. As such I cann0t see how it is their fault for killing him when Floyd’s body simply failed him. In fact, if Floyd had entered into the back of the squad care as the officers had requested, instead of Floyd resisting arrest, then they may have noticed his medical emergency and been able to respond more suitably instead of already being in the process of restraining him when he died. However one wants to allocate the blame it is clear from the evidence though that his breathing issues presented before the knee on the neck or he was on the ground, so at that basic level it seems impossible the kneeling ended up killing him when the issue was already affecting him.

    • 同意: Rurik
  148. Druid 说:
    @Rurik

    And nine minutes. And him saying he couldn’t breathe. I hate what’s happened since, and I know that was a spark that worked in favor of communist internationalists, but it was wrong and a bit overboard!

  149. Druid 说:
    @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    I agree with everything you say, but I wonder if they saw an opportunity rather than staged something

  150. Unanimous 说:

    Some have asked the reason for Mr Floyd complaining of breathlessness. I haven’t seen the video so can’t give a detailed explanation. Perhaps he was already ill or simply frightened and hyperventilating. Was he handcuffed behind his back? That is a stress position especially for large and out-of-shape persons and will impede breathing.

    Inability to breathe is the worst symptom to suffer and should be taken very seriously by police etc and appropriate help rendered. It can happen to anyone. I think you would want to be treated with kindness and dignity, no matter the circumstance.

  151. @Kouros

    Maybe the author has not seen the full record of the video and blablabla

    Which video? The bodycam video from the cops?

    No one among the general public has — because it’s been deliberately suppressed.

    为什么?

  152. @FB

    Btw…fentanyl is used at up 20 to ng/ml as a 全身麻醉 in surgery…that is twice the amount Floyd had in his system…and patients don’t die, in fact they wake up, despite this level being kept up throughout the procedure to keep the patient under…

    LOL

    You’re not serious, are you? This is an extraordinarily ignorant statement. I see that roberto1 has already attempted to educate you, but I’ll expand on that a little bit — let me spell it out for you in more detail, in terms that might be comprehensible to one laboring under the crippling cognitive limitations that so clearly afflict you.

    1. Fentanyl (and other opioids) generally cause death via 呼吸抑制 — breathing either stops, or becomes very shallow, slow, and ineffectual, leading to low oxygen levels in the bloodstream (and, less critically, high CO2 levels.

    2. Generally speaking, causing someone to stop breathing is a 坏事.

    3。 目标 全身麻醉 different scenario than shooting up in a corner somewhere.

    Let’s take a look. What’s that machine on the left?

    That’s right, it’s called a 风扇。 也可以看看 气管内 插管法.

    患者 breathe on their own during general anesthesia. In fact, they’re typically given medications that temporarily paralyze 所有 skeletal muscles, including the muscles of respiration, so respiratory depression is not only entirely irrelevant in general anesthesia, but a 想要的效果 of the medications given. Far more important (especially for the typical use of fentanyl and related drugs in cardiac anesthesia) is its relative absence of adverse hemodynamic effects.

    参见 脉搏血氧仪二氧化碳图.

    Yes, fentanyl is very useful in general anesthesia, and has a good safety record, even in high doses, in that setting. But recreational use (as in Mr. Floyd’s case)? Not so much:

    Fentanyl OD deaths increased another 10% in 2018, to 31,000 — even as heroin and prescription opioid OD deaths plateaued/ dropped slightly.

    七氟醚 has an excellent safety record as a 全身麻醉 as well. Perhaps you’d like to try huffing some at home for recreational purposes? (I don’t recommend it).

    • 回复: @FB
  153. 4justice 说:

    保罗·克雷格·罗伯茨,
    我还没有阅读所有评论,这可能已经说过了,但是摧毁我们社会的人希望我们入侵中国或俄罗斯并输掉。 他们准备跳到下一个主机或从那里接管。

    “文明的冲突”旨在摧毁犹太白人至上主义者的两个敌人。 美国花了多少万亿美元打败以色列的地区竞争对手? 尽管我们度过了艰难的时期,但美国刚刚又向需要帮助的以色列拨款 38 亿美元。 我们的媒体不能批评以色列。 covid-19 关闭是迄今为止最大的抢劫机会。 尽管有第一次修正案,但法律已经通过禁止支持 BDS 的人获得国家资金。 佩洛西甚至对 AIPAC 说,如果美国崩溃,我们仍然会支持以色列。 她正在帮助它崩溃。 我敌人的敌人不是我的朋友。

  154. vot tak 说:
    @map

    Actually, guardianista, why don’t you go away.

  155. @Unanimous

    Opiates including Fentanyl 不要 cause respiratory distress. There 没有 shortness of breath or breathlessness.

    Huh. That’s a pretty categorical statement. Let’s see what Emergency Physicians Monthly has to say about that one:

    呼吸困难 [i.e. shortness of breath] After a Heroin Overdose=
    “Non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema (NCPE) from opioid use was 1880 年首次描述, and it has since been described with overdoses of several different types of opioids”

    Yeah, but that’s just with heroin and morphine, not synthetic opioids, right?

    卑诗省医学杂志:

    “A study of overdose patients presenting to two emergency departments in BC found the incidence of fentanyl-related pulmonary edemasimilar to that found in previous studies focusing predominantly on 海洛因 overdoses.”

    I have practiced emergency medicine for more than 40 years

    >Practiced emergency medicine for more than 40 years

    >Never heard of opioid-induced non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema.

    听起来像是对的。

  156. Smith 说:

    I thought FB was an aviation expert, now he’s also a medical expert? I didn’t see he raise such an issue with “police brutality” in Hong Kong.

    The things with “experts” nowadays man.

  157. @FB

    As “map” #142 pointed out, you have been linked bodycam transcripts showing St. Floyd was having trouble breathing before the neck restraint was applied, and you did not dispute this, so the central premise in your comment is unsound. Let’s review what RT wrote in comment #97 regarding “respiratory depression” caused by fentanyl. Fentanyl causes mild to severe “respiratory depression” even after the analgesic effect has expired, sometimes hours after. “Respiratory depression” is especially likely with certain medical conditions such as cardiac disease. Fenatyl produces very unpredictable severe chest rigidity to the point of being unable to ventilate with high positive pressure. In chronic users of fentanyl, “differantal tolerance” is observed, meaning that even as the user becomes more tolerant to the analgesic effect, and needs higher and higher doses to “get high”, there is no corresponding tolerance to the ” respiratory depression” effect of fentanyl. St. Floyd was both a chronic high dose fentanyl addict, and had cardiac disease. It is willful blindness to exclude the possibility that the “respiratory depression” effects of high dose fentanyl did not contribute to his breathing difficulty leading to death. It could be that the “respiratory depression” effect of fentanyl was the primary cause of St. Floyd’s death.

  158. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @James Forrestal

    Patients don’t breathe on their own during general anesthesia.

    Wrong, asshat…

    See my comment above, 在这里......

    Also we have been discussing with a board certified anesthesiologist here, in case you missed it…but thanks for your silly pictures…

  159. @Colin Wright

    But the Goodwhite housewives whose daily soap opera was interrupted by the news alert regarding George Floyd’s racist murder still believe that the poor downtrodden blacks are suffering this sort of assault every day and only just now were caught by a public spirited citizen with a cellphone. They are true believers in systemic racism and think the black riots are justified.

    • 回复: @Colin Wright
  160. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @map

    听着……混蛋。

    Oh my, look at the little feller kicking up a fuss…

    Look sonny, I can’t help you see the world more clearly through your single-digit IQ, but don’t you think we ought to make some sense out of your baby talk here…?

    1) 你发布了一份将弗洛伊德之死列为凶杀案的新闻稿,但没有告诉任何人此类新闻稿在法律或医疗问题上都不重要。

    Not so, little burbler…新闻稿 来自亨内平县体检医师,说明 杀人 as ‘manner of death…’ it is a summary of the death certificate, which is most certainly the 官方裁决 of the authorities and is a key legal document…

    2) 您已被证明对明尼苏达州死亡证明中包含的内容有误。 “杀人”不是医学术语。

    再次,我们很高兴鼓励智障人士参加 UNZ,但请查看 Free Introduction and get someone who knows how to read to explain to you what it says…

    3) 您已与实际的 ME 报告相关联,其中从所述报告中逐字提取证据,关于弗洛伊德的健康状况、他体内的芬太尼和安非他明、他的 Covid 检测呈阳性以及他可能患有镰状细胞性贫血。

    Please find one single instance where the word ‘overdose’ is mentioned in the autopsy report…full text here…

    4) 你与身体摄像头记录有关,表明弗洛伊德呼吸困难,并被要求在任何人用膝盖抵住他的脖子之前先躺下。

    那些笔录还显示弗洛伊德恳求警察不要杀了他……但他们还是杀了他……

    顺便说一句,如果在几名警察以俯卧姿势戴上手铐将他们的重量放在他的脖子和背部之前,他就呼吸困难,那么他们为什么要继续做一件会让呼吸更加困难的事情......?

    你认为有人跪在你的脖子和背部时呼吸更容易吗……?

    5)你认真地认为,在外科手术室由麻醉师管理的医用级芬太尼与弗洛伊德在他的系统中放入的街头垃圾相同。

    没有人说过类似的话……关键是你血液中一定数量的芬太尼并不意味着自动过量和死亡……

    这里已经与一位外科医生和麻醉师以及另一位急诊室医生讨论过这个问题,他说弗洛伊德“很好”,在警察跪在他脖子上九分钟之前,他看起来没有任何倒塌的迫在眉睫的危险……

    芬太尼是非常短效的。 它的效果几乎立即达到峰值并在几分钟内下降。 所以不管他死时有什么,在他被“逮捕”之前,他有更多,并且过得很好。 另外还有耐受性问题,这使得无法预测致死剂量。 冰毒的作用同样快,但下降得更慢。

    在警察到达之前,当他的水平很高或更高时,他仍然过得很好。

    ER Physician The Scalpel 讨论了弗洛伊德死亡的医学方面

    Every single pathologist and medial examiner that has spoken about the Floyd death has said the same thing…

    梅利内克、卡特和马斯特里赫特法医学和流行病学教授迈克尔弗里曼博士说,亨内平县的尸检可能提到了警察行为以外的因素,但实际上只是说弗洛伊德的心脏停止了,而警察正在压制他并压在他的脖子上。荷兰大学。

    这并不是说他死于心脏病、吸毒或原有疾病, 他们告诉我的。

    “死因是警察的克制,”梅利内克说,就像在弗洛伊德的家人委托进行的尸检中一样。

    乔治·弗洛伊德 (George Floyd) 的两次尸检并没有看起来那么不同

    6) PCR 已经链接到关于你需要服用多少芬太尼才能死亡的文章。

    If PCR was a doctor, or had even TALKED to a doctor about this, he would have been quickly disabused of his flat-wrong notions about fentanyl dosage…

    Let’s first remember that if there was in fact an ‘overdose’ [which all doctors say wasn’t the case, since Floyd was not presenting any signs consistent with that], the Hennepin medical examiner would have listed as the cause of death, instead of police restraint and neck compression…and surely some actual doctors would be saying that too…

    That is not the case…as for what consitutes a ‘lethal’ dose, doctors and the medical literature will ALL tell you that there is no such specific MINIMUM number…I already linked above in 评论96 to a paper from doctors that treated 18 patients that survived, with the exception of one single overdose patient…

    The blood levels ranged up to 15 times higher than Floyd’s, with an AVERAGE of five times Floyd’s blood fentanyl level…

    再一次,每个医生都会告诉你同样的事情......非医生出去搜索医学文献然后挑选随机数的想法完全是胡说八道......

    The bottom line is that ALL doctors agree…from the official medical examiner, to every other medical examiner in the country, to private practice forensic pathologists, to ER doctors, to lung doctors…EVERY SINGLE ONE…

    No one single doctor says Floyd died of an overdose because that is simply ridiculous and non-factual…

    I have suggested to PCR and others to go and actually talk to medical doctors about their ‘theories’…I would be very much interested in hearing about that…[but not holding my breath, as I doubt that any doctor can support the nonsense being bandied about here…]

    We also have had a discussion in this very thread with a surgeon and anesthesiologist, a fellow going by ‘RT,’ and we have shed at least some light on the issue, but you will note that he cannot endorse or support the idea that Floyd died of an overdose…

    The bottom line is that the official position of the Hennepin County medical examiner is that Floyd’s death was a homicide, and that the cause of death was police restraint and neck compression…the word overdose is never mentioned…

    • 同意: vot tak
    • 回复: @map
    , @Biff
    , @Arcturus
    , @ANON
  161. 错误

    lol — Good point. Your incoherent, hate-filled bleating is more than simply empirically “wrong” — it lacks even the rudiments of basic internal consistency. I won’t even mention your pathetic failure to even attempt a refutation of the obvious fact that more than 31,000 Americans died last year from accidental overdoses of what you claim is a “perfectly safe drug that everyone should take, all the time, just for the lulz”…

    Is your real name “Dunning-Kruger.” by any chance?

    Perhaps you would care to further amuse us with yet another word salad-laden effort? How about exercising what passes for your “mind” in a failed attempt to explain the distinction between sedation/ monitored anesthesia care and general anesthesia, hmm? What does “loss of protective airway reflexes” mean, moron? Take your time.

    Perhaps you’d also like to “explain” — from your clearly 广大 knowledge of respiratory physiology, pharmacology, and medicine — your technique for performing high dose fentanyl induction on spontaneously breathing patients? Say, for coronary bypass surgery — a common indication 对于这项技术。

    That should help you to “prove” your “理论” that any medication that can be safely used for general anesthesia, in an intubated, mechanically ventilated patient whose oxygen saturation, end-tidal CO2, and hemodynamics are continuously monitored… can used recreationally with perfect safety as well. Because, uh, you know… 原因.

    Yet despite your claimed fanatical, unquestioning devotion to this ludicrously-ignorant (or deliberately disingenuous) 假说, you seem strangely reluctant to subject it to even the simplest of empirical tests — like huffing a little sevoflurane at home. Hey, it’s a very 安全 drug… for general anesthesia.

    Sad! Clearly you lack the courage of your “convictions.”

    • 回复: @L.K
  162. L.K 说:
    @James Forrestal

    ‘FB’ is a well known professional TROLL and spammer with far too much free time on his hands…

    Recently, Ron Unz had this to say about FB:
    https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose

    Well, as mentioned upthread, “FB” is just a total lunatic who claims that the worst famine of the twentieth century occurred in our own country, during which something like SIX MILLION(!!!) *美国人* died of starvation:

    https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/#comment-4000901

    Moreover, “FB” regularly fills his comments with crude vulgarities and profanities, which hardly raise the tone of these discussions.

    Therefore, I think I’ll arrange to have his future comments containing profanities, vulgarities, or other crude expressions trashed. This will either cause him to considerably improve his behavior or permanently depart. And the permanent departure of one total lunatic is hardly much of a loss….

    Indeed. BTW, Unz’s reference was in regards to the following comment by Stalinist shill FB:

    FB:
    so does NOT account for over 6 MILLION AMERICANS STARVED IN FAMINE OF THE 1930s…

    20 世纪最严重的饥荒之一......比任何事情都严重,人均,比中国或俄罗斯......[顺便说一下,饥荒发生在共产主义之前,而不是......]

    So, not only this pathetic Stalinist Troll states, without providing an iota of evidence whatsoever, that more than 6 millions US Americans starved to death in a supposed great US famine of the 1930s, but also that well documented famines which actually did take place under Communist regimes, for example under his hero Stalin, in different areas of the Soviet Union, never happened!

    FB, a CLOWN without the makeup.

    • 同意: Genrick Yagoda
    • 巨魔: vot tak
  163. map 说:
    @FB

    不是这样的,小骗子……新闻稿来自亨内平县法医,称他杀是“死亡方式……”这是死亡证明的摘要,这肯定是当局的官方裁决,是关键的法律文档…

    您没有链接到新闻稿的其余部分,这很容易被您的图片截断。 您知道,您从文档中剪下的文本。

    “死亡分类方式是法医的法定职能,
    作为用于生命统计和公共卫生目的的死亡证明的一部分。
    死亡方式不是对罪责或意图的法律确定,并且
    不应被用来篡夺司法程序。 这样的决定在外面
    体检医师的角色或权限范围。 ”

    基本上,新闻报道在很大程度上限定了其“死亡方法”分类的真正含义,并为您提供了免责声明。 同样,新闻报道不是具有法律约束力的文件,其中可以包含任何内容。 可以这样想:贸易协会可以发布关于其成员表现如何的新闻报告,即使收益报告显示成员表现不佳。 新闻稿不是具有法律约束力的文件。 收益报告是。

    再一次,我们很高兴鼓励智障人士参加 UNZ,但请看一下这个,并找一个知道如何阅读的人向你解释它说的是什么……

    同样,这是收集生命统计数据,无论如何,这些生命统计数据都是自愿提交的。 你知道有一半的州甚至不向 CDC 报告他们的堕胎人数吗? 那么,CDC 的要求对乔治·弗洛伊德 (George Floyd) 有何影响? 各州无需向 CDC 报告任何内容,如果不这样做,也不会受到任何处罚。

    请找出尸检报告中提到“服药过量”一词的一个实例……全文在此……

    告诉我报告中哪里提到了“杀人”。

    事实上,请告诉我警官所做的任何事情导致死亡的原因。 在报告中,我们没有看到“执法人员颈部受压导致心肺骤停”。 这只是您将不同部分或不同文档中的单词串在一起的解释。 向我解释为什么一切都写得如此神秘?

    案例标题纯粹是描述性的:有一个警察制服,意思是“制服”。 这种subdual涉及约束和颈部压缩。 复杂的意思是“在此过程中”,subdual 说,发生了心肺骤停。 这些都不能证明警察犯了杀人罪,甚至导致他死亡。

    事实上,你在争论一些荒谬的事情:一名警察在没有留下任何与身体攻击方法相关的识别疤痕或标记的情况下,造成了另一个人的死亡。 真是个刺客啊

    请注意报告中的其他内容:缺乏瘀点。 瘀点是皮肤下毛细血管渗血的迹象。 毛细血管是连接动脉和静脉的最小血管。 它们有助于将氧气和营养物质从您的血液输送到您的器官和组织。 它们还会将废物从您的器官和组织中带走。 如果颈部受压真的是导致死亡的原因,那么您会不会看到乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)身上出现瘀点? 然而,ME排除了这一点。

    那些笔录还显示弗洛伊德恳求警察不要杀了他……但他们还是杀了他……

    妄想歇斯底里。

    顺便说一句,如果在几名警察以俯卧姿势戴上手铐将他们的重量放在他的脖子和背部之前,他就呼吸困难,那么他们为什么要继续做一件会让呼吸更加困难的事情......?

    你认为有人跪在你的脖子和背部时呼吸更容易吗……?

    不,因为我没有鳃。

    请注意,完全没有向公众开放的全身摄像头视频,这与温迪的案例不同,我们可以在那里看到那是什么样的 clusterf*ck。

    没有人说过类似的话……关键是你血液中一定数量的芬太尼并不意味着自动过量和死亡……

    没有人说自动。 这是一个复杂的因素,就像您的系统中含有 Covid 和冰毒一样。 然而,你想忽略这一点,并立即假设一个白人和种族主义警察只是四处走动并谋杀黑人。

    这里已经与一位外科医生和麻醉师以及另一位急诊室医生讨论过这个问题,他说弗洛伊德“很好”,在警察跪在他脖子上九分钟之前,他看起来没有任何倒塌的迫在眉睫的危险……

    这些医生是否对 CoVid 患者进行过度编码并反对羟氯喹? 或者,从他们的吉利德专利中获得版税? 还是因为让病人使用呼吸机而获得更多报酬? 那些医生? 为什么他们的结论与医学检查员的报告不相符,要理解,只需要阅读理解?

    他们甚至知道“病理学”是什么意思吗? 专家总是会以合适的价格向感兴趣的各方兜售他们的资质。 参见:迈克尔·巴登。

    梅利内克、卡特和马斯特里赫特法医学和流行病学教授迈克尔弗里曼博士说,亨内平县的尸检可能提到了警察行为以外的因素,但实际上只是说弗洛伊德的心脏停止了,而警察正在压制他并压在他的脖子上。荷兰大学。

    同样,这是经典的相关性/因果关系问题。 仅仅因为两件事情同时发生并不意味着一件事情会导致另一件事情。 这并不意味着束缚导致心脏停止。 那你为什么要得出这个结论。

    芬太尼是非常短效的。 它的效果几乎立即达到峰值并在几分钟内下降。 所以不管他死时有什么,在他被“逮捕”之前,他有更多,并且过得很好。 另外还有耐受性问题,这使得无法预测致死剂量。 冰毒的作用同样快,但下降得更慢。

    真的吗? 我们有 30,000 人死亡归因于芬太尼,但没有人真正知道致死剂量是多少,或耐受性或其他任何东西。 在个案的基础上,这一切都是模糊不清的。 所以去服用芬太尼,尤其是在街上。 你会没事的。

    我的意思是,你不知道你什么时候被煤气灯点燃吗?

    事实并非如此……至于什么构成“致死”剂量,医生和医学文献都会告诉你没有这样的具体最低数量……我已经在上面的评论 96 中链接到了治疗 18 名患者的医生的论文幸存下来,除了一名用药过量的患者……

    哦……好吧……18 名患者。 你知道那叫什么吗? 统计异常值。 然后是“宽容”的话题。 度量是ng/ml。 这是一个控制人的大小的比率。

    再一次,每个医生都会告诉你同样的事情......非医生出去搜索医学文献然后挑选随机数的想法完全是胡说八道......

    你的意思是,每个医生都被媒体挑选出来与案件无关? 那些医生?

    为了你所说的属实,你必须相信警察的克制会导致心脏停止跳动。 这就是你所相信的。 这种荒谬。

    • 回复: @map
    , @vot tak
  164. @Joseph Doaks

    ‘…They are true believers in systemic racism and think the black riots are justified.’

    I wonder if they are true believers — or merely realize it’s a lot 更安全 to quack like a duck and not stand out?

    After all, if you publicly say the emperor has no clothes, you’re running risks of various kinds — depending on your position and location. Just stick to the duckspeak, and you can get on with your life.

    The difference will come down the road. When blacks actually need whites to stick up for them, how many will be taking their side?

  165. And then there are the many readers for whom it is of the utmost emotional importance that Floyd was murdered by white police for “racist” reasons. These readers are immune to all facts. One told me that fentanyl is not toxic. Another told me that it is not possible to overdose on fentanyl. Yet another told me that the medical examiner is white and his report is a “racist” report. Another asked me when did I become a “racist.”

    In other words, they only want to hear what they have been brainwashed to believe. Facts have no importance to them. Indeed, there are no facts, only emotional responses, and they are indoctrinated with the emotional response that is valid. As long as the response is anti-white, it is valid.

    Comments like these make more sense when the intended meaning of “racism” is more clearly understood. TL;DR: “Racist” is simply an anti-White slur that should never be taken seriously or used unironically.

    Part of the problem here is the routine employment of a sort of “bait-and-switch” or “motte-and-bailey” rhetorical trick when it comes to the actual meaning of the “racism” canard.

    “Racism” is often understood by the targets of these sorts of attacks to denote something like “behavior that demonstrates ‘excessive’ in-group preference toward members of one’s own race.” This misunderstanding (the “motte”) is widespread, at least in part, because it is deliberately promoted by “racism”-mongers when it’s rhetorically convenient.

    Yet if we delve into what passes for current “scholarship” on the subject — 危急种族 理论 — that’s clearly not what “racism” means.

    Over the past 30-40 years, from its origins in critical legal studies*, critical race theory has “progressed” from a fringe academic theory to a hegemonic narrative widely promoted (and enforced) by the “news” media. What does CRT dogma tell us about the real meaning of “racism” (the “bailey”)?

    1. “Racism” is very, very bad in some ill-defined by totally real way.
    2. 全部商品 白人是“种族主义者”
    3. 只有 白人可能是“种族主义者”
    4. So-called “systemic racism” is a dominant influence in American society in the current year… while remaining 无法量化, 检测不到, and vaguely defined.
    5. Anyone and everyone descended from the indigenous peoples of Europe shares in the 集体责任 for any “crimes” allegedly committed by any other White at any point in the past — while no such shared guilt devolves onto non-Whites for any of the crimes of any other members of 比赛。

    So we have a term that has strong negative connotations, a deliberately vague/ shifty denotation — and is targeted only at Whites.

    In other words, the tropes of “racism,” “racist,” etc. are simply pejorative terms for people of European descent — anti-White slurs.

    Accusing a White person of “racism” is equivalent to accusing a Negro of n—-rism. Trying to “defend” against it by claiming “But I’m NOT a ‘racist’!” is the equivalent of a Negro responding to accusations of “n—-rism” by saying “But I’m NOT a n—-r!” Pointless.

    • 回复: @vot tak
  166. Humphrey 说:
    @Verymuchalive

    During general anesthesia respiration is supported by a ventilator. If the ventilator fails, the patient would die from respiratory failure if the medication were not reversed immediately with naloxone etc.

  167. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @roonaldo

    您引用的前两个引用在法律上是无关紧要的。

    要么你的第三个参考是糟粕,要么你歪曲了它的内容。

    你的第四个参考是(如纽约时报、Wa Post 和 MSNBC)假新闻的传播者; 并且您的报价与法律无关。

    您的第五个参考在法律上无关。

    我从1998年开始做医生,从1968年开始做律师。1972年我成为法学助理教授,1976年成为法学终身副教授,1978年成为法学终身教授。我仍然是法学正教授。 我发表的奖学金涉及法律、医学、法医学、法医学心理学、数学、统计学、命题演算、法律相关经济学、语言学和法哲学。

    Please see my comments — ALL my comments — posted under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article, “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ . You can open the comment thread with this link https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/?showcomments .

    在约翰-保罗·伦纳德 (John-Paul Leonard) 上面引用的文章中,我的评论偶尔会带有一些粗鲁的语言,甚至是人身攻击的粗鲁——这些评论海报应该受到蔑视或更糟。 我不道歉。 如果你反对,享受你的傲慢自负。

    我希望今天晚些时候或明天,我将在伦纳德先生的文章下发表我的最后两条评论。 我建议你也阅读那些评论。

    Also please see, in THIS thread, my very abbreviated debunking of Paul Craig Robert’s article (which is dangerous toxic dross penned by man who was once a fine economist and useful journalist but has become what he had expressly despised, a “presstitute” and, apparently, a White supremacist): My comment of July 11, 2020 at 12:23 am GMT (comment # 127), https://www.unz.com/proberts/what-is-a-fatal-dose-of-fentanyl/#comment-4026183 .

    [更多]

    * [边注: 我应该注意,我不是黑人,也不是 Black Lives Matter 的支持者。 一世 不喜欢 美国黑人文化——除了(虽然很少而且很简短) 老式的 布鲁斯和拉格泰姆。 但与此相关的问题是 正义 与带有种族主义偏见的新闻业、受种族主义污染的“执法”的严重影响相比——狂热的白人至上主义、激进的左派疯狂及其危害的有毒影响,被美国右翼和左翼的政治精英操纵和加剧。

    在罗伯茨博士的一篇关于弗洛伊德案件的文章中,罗伯茨博士试图说明他无法在互联网上找到乔治·弗洛伊德独立尸检的副本。 罗伯茨博士似乎认为尸检不存在,因为他(罗伯茨博士)无法在互联网上找到它。 仅凭这一点,就足以无视罗伯茨的无知、傲慢、近乎愚蠢的咆哮。 但另一件事可能会有所帮助。 法律顾问(在本例中为弗洛伊德家族的法律顾问)很少会(在线或在任何地方)发布对计划中的诉讼至关重要的文件,尤其是在计划中的诉讼开始之前、开始时或临近开始时。 (弗洛伊德的家人将提起或可能已经提起过失致死诉讼或侵犯民权诉讼,可能根据美国法典第 18 条第 242 条,至少针对参与杀害弗洛伊德的警察提起诉讼。另外,独立的尸检病理学家没有义务公布他们的调查结果;如果他们在未经雇用他们进行尸检的私人许可的情况下公布他们的调查结果,将严重违反他们的受托责任。

    在发表此评论的文章中,罗伯茨博士在很大程度上依赖于他无法解释的医学或药理学文献 危重 - 要么 甚至明白. 始终如一地,他从该文献中得出无效的推论。
    尾注]

    这将是我在此线程中发布的最后一条评论。 罗伯特博士的文章——即使是罗伯茨博士——也不值得我花更多的时间。 关于垃圾科学、虚假陈述、不合逻辑、似是而非的、医学和法律上的荒谬,以及罗伯特博士文章的可笑傲慢和愚蠢的,可能是种族主义者,在他的文章下发表的评论(在这个线程中)我最后的医学/药理学/法医-医学批评是:

    (1) 根据“致命的芬太尼:一颗药可以杀死”[以下简称“致命芬太尼”], SOCIETY FOR ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE (2016), authored by Mark E. Sutter, MD, Roy R. Gerona, PhD, M. Thais Davis, MD, Bailey M. Roche, MD, Daniel K. Colby, MD, James A. Chenoweth, MD, Axel J. Adams, BS, Kelly P. Owen, MD, Jonathan B. Ford, MD, Hugh B. Black, MD, and Timothy E. Albertson, MD, PhD, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/acem.13034 , one encounters this:

    芬太尼的治疗 (TL) 和毒性 (TX) 血清水平 [是] TL = 1-2 ng/mL,TX = 2-20 ng/mL,致死 [水平] >20 ng/mL。

    表2的键的引用 致命的芬太尼.-哪个键出现在第 110 页 [表 2 出现在 致命的芬太尼 第 109-110 页。] 对于不懂数学符号的人,我观察到“>20 ng/mL”意味着“大于 20 ng/mL。”]

    如果您有荣誉,可以阅读(不是插入、潜意识地编辑或产生幻觉的内容),并且如果您可以从以下内容中得出有效的事实观察和有效推论 合法 科学奖学金(如 致命的芬太尼), 你会看见:

    (a) 从弗洛伊德被捕开始到他死亡的那一刻,乔治·弗洛伊德的血液中没有任何诚实、称职的医生或药理学家认为肯定会致命的芬太尼浓度。 相反,每个这样的专家都会得出结论,弗洛伊德死后 11.0 纳克/毫升的血清芬太尼浓度本身并不可能是弗洛伊德死亡的原因。

    合法文献表明,尽管血清芬太尼浓度是弗洛伊德死后 14 ng/mL 血清芬太尼浓度的 11.0 倍,但即使血清中含有氢可酮、异丙嗪和曲唑酮,人类仍能存活。 致命的芬太尼 表 2. [异丙嗪是一种潜在致命的抗组胺药,可与氢可酮或芬太尼发生毒性相互作用。 氢可酮是一种吗啡同源阿片类药物,可与芬太尼或异丙嗪发生毒性相互作用。 曲唑酮是一种抗抑郁药,可与氢可酮发生毒性反应,并可与芬太尼发生反应,导致血清素综合征,这通常是致命的。]

    In 致命的芬太尼,研究对象是活的患者(尽管在研究期间有一个死亡)。 他们确实接受了医院治疗。 【XNUMX次接受心肺复苏,XNUMX次
    需要体外生命支持,三个需要插管,两个接受袋阀面罩通气; 一名在纳洛酮停药后 8 小时再次出现毒性反应; 17 名患者中有 18 名需要推注纳洛酮,XNUMX 名需要长时间输注纳洛酮。]

    但是你不能有效地争辩说这项研究与弗洛伊德的病例无关,因为弗洛伊德没有接受医院护理。

    相反, if 弗洛伊德死亡的部分原因是他血清中芬太尼和其他药物的浓度, 这一事实的法律因果关系是,肖万警官和至少一名其他逮捕警察的行为谋杀了弗洛伊德 — quite because, rather than call for paramedic help when Floyd showed signs of substantial physiological distress (erratic gate, falling…then, under influence of police compression-restraint tactics, said he could not breathe, then became unconscious), Chauvin and at least one other policeman continued their compression-restraint tactics for 2.9 to 3 minutes 在弗洛伊德昏迷之后.

    但最后的考虑是 不必要 不可避免的结论是,沙文和至少一名其他警察 谋杀 弗洛伊德。 原因是“蛋壳头骨”规则 结合 充分定罪的因果关系的法律规则是 a 受害者死亡的近因(任何数量的促成原因之一), 不是 一个原因可以描述为 练习 死亡原因。 断言的致死事件必须是没有它就不会发生死亡的事件。 但是仅仅通过证明事件引起的证据就可以满足该要求 增强 死亡的可能性(“可预见性”)。

    因此,如果(虽然没有人表明,因为无法表明)弗洛伊德的药物剂量确实威胁到他的生命,但警察仍然谋杀了弗洛伊德,因为他们的行为造成了 增强 弗洛伊德死亡的可能性(“可预见性”)。

    比较, 例如, R v Dear (1996) Criminal Law Reports 595 (England), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dear AND Brackett v. Peters, 11 F.3d 78 (7th Circuit 1993), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1014585782824481484&q=Brackett+v.+Peters,+11+F.3d+78+(1993)&hl=en&as_sdt=7ff87fe0000000000100000000000000004 AND Richman v. Sheahan, 512 F. 3d 876 (7th Cir. 2008),
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6725673574912167448&q=Richman+v.+Sheahan,+512+F.+3d+876+(7th+Cir.+2008)&hl=en&as_sdt=4,112,127

    (b) 如果你的性格和行为满足我上面几段规定的条件[在“如果你有荣誉,可以阅读”的段落中],你会看到弗洛伊德的死不能被有效地解释,即使是全部死后弗洛伊德血液中存在的各种毒品的数量。

    使用案列:
    Postmortem, Floyd’s blood and urine bore amphetamines and cannabinoids: blood concentration Methamphetamine 19 ng/mL, urine amphetamines unidentified and non-measured, urine cannabinoids not identified and non-measured, blood cannabinoids metabolites 11-Hydroxy Delta-9 THC (1.2 ng/mL), Delta-9 Carboxy THC (42 ng/mL), Delta-9 THC (2.9 ng/mL). [Page 2 of HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL EXAMINER’S OFFICE AUTOPSY REPORT, https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf .] Amphetamines can heighten fenantyl’s lethality potential. But cannabinoids can diminish 芬太尼的杀伤力-潜力 苯丙胺提高芬太尼致死率的潜力。

    Only ONE event can be the legal cause of Floyd’s death. (A drug’s serum blood concentration and an illness, like chronic hypertension, are “events.”) That one event is the combination of compression restraints Officer Chauvin and at least one other policeman applied to Floyd’s neck and dorsal thorax. See my pertinent comments posted under John-Paul Leonard’s above-cited article. See also my comment of July 11, 2020 at 12:23 am GMT (comment # 127) posted in THIS thread, https://www.unz.com/proberts/what-is-a-fatal-dose-of-fentanyl/#comment-4026183

    (2) I agree thoroughly with FB’s comment of July 11, 2020 at 5:52 pm GMT (comment # 163) of this thread, https://www.unz.com/proberts/what-is-a-fatal-dose-of-fentanyl/#comment-4027575 — which comment refutes not only map’s comment of July 11, 2020 at 4:25 am GMT (comment # 142) but also your comment to which Free Introduction 评论回复。

    • 谢谢: FB
    • 回复: @map
    , @roonaldo
  168. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @roonaldo

    This comment amends my comment of July 11, 2020 at 10:54 pm GMT (comment # 172) — which comment replied to your comment to which this amendment also replies.

    [更多]

    I neglected to include in my July 11, 2020 at 10:54 pm GMT (comment # 172) the following entry [which ought to have appeared at the close of the penultimate paragraph of my July 11, 2020 at 10:54 pm GMT (comment # 172)]:

    See under John-Paul Leonard’s above cited article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?” — https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ - 等等 of my comments, these comments:

    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 2 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 17:399 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 5 日格林威治标准时间下午 03:426 发表的评论(评论 #25),已由我在格林威治标准时间 2020 年 11 月 37 日下午 461:XNUMX 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)更正
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 10 日格林威治标准时间晚上 03:432 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 10 日格林威治标准时间晚上 13:433 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 26 年 2020 月 5 日格林威治标准时间晚上 31:486 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 5 年 2020 月 8 日格林威治标准时间晚上 35:707 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 1 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间晚上 26:633 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 1 年 2020 月 9 日格林威治标准时间晚上 08:639 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 8 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 16:714 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 10 年 2020 月 3 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 21:724 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)

  169. @Rurik

    But when a man is subdued, and unresisting, and looking like he’s increasingly placid

    He was having a bad trip on a cocktail of multiple illegal drugs, he was an ex felon, he was just arrested and was probably going to prison for the counterfeit money and illegal drugs, and crowd of hostile black onlookers had gathered around. Not a very placid scene.

    There is a real concern that a heavy built bouncer and ex con, facing hard time, and rational thinking clouded by drugs might risk escape and flight. If he is not pinned, how can they be sure he might not try to get on his feet and flee?

    • 回复: @Rurik
  170. vot tak 说:
    @map

    “Go away”, guardianista, bibi needs your bum. 😀

  171. vot tak 说:
    @James Forrestal

    Rather rich a likudite zionazi-gay troll would use the name of james forrestal to promote the psywar of those who killed him. But that is how chutzpah works among this freakshow.

  172. @FB

    only one out of the 18 did not survive

    自由贸易协定:

    结果:
    One of the 18 patients died in hospital. Five patients underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation, one required extracorporeal life support, three required intubation, and two received bag-valve-mask ventilation.

    Five needed “cardiopulmonary resuscitation”, so they stopped breathing? Not breathing sounds potentially fatal. I don’t know what “extracorporeal life support” is and whether or not you die if you don’t get it. And “bag-valve-mask ventilation” seems like you might die if you don’t get it.

    Also, there is survivor’s bias, as these are the ones who were got to the hospital alive. If these had OD alone in their house, it sunds like they wouldn’t have made it.

    • 回复: @FB
  173. map 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    在罗伯茨博士的一篇关于弗洛伊德案件的文章中,罗伯茨博士试图说明他无法在互联网上找到乔治·弗洛伊德独立尸检的副本。 罗伯茨博士似乎认为尸检不存在,因为他(罗伯茨博士)无法在互联网上找到它。 仅凭这一点,就足以无视罗伯茨的无知、傲慢、近乎愚蠢的咆哮。

    如果您是您所声称的人,那么您就会知道技术证人和专家证人之间的区别。 亨内平县体检医师是技术证人。 这样的技术证人在那里只是为了确定案件的真实情况。 专家证人在那里向原告或被告的方向旋转案件的技术事实。 根据定义,他们是有偏见的。 这种偏见是可以的,因为法律体系是对抗性的,但它并没有给一个专门出售专业知识的“专家”提供更大的可信度。

    此外,如果你就是你所说的那个人,那么你就会知道“独立尸检”意味着什么。 这并不意味着他们将弗洛伊德的尸体交给了某个独立的实验室,而巴德开始对其进行黑客攻击。 那会破坏监管链。 这意味着Bader和病理学家一起被带进房间,病理学家和Bader一起检查工作,一切都在官员和医疗专业人员的监视下进行审查,然后Bader可以写一份报告,将沙子打入证据。 这就是“独立尸检”的全部内容。 事实上,亨内平县 ME 本身就是“独立的”,因为他不为警察工作。

    您可以引用您想要的所有芬太尼研究。 它并没有改变超过 30,000 人死于芬太尼过量的事实。 您可以从那里找出对人群可能致命的剂量。 你不会举手宣布芬太尼无害,因为它取决于耐受性,致命剂量会有所不同。 否则,公司和医生就不会因为过度使用阿片类药物而倒闭或入狱。 芬太尼已经有非常危险的记录。

    同样没有意义的是,在某些有限的情况下,人们存活的剂量是乔治·弗洛伊德 (George Floyd) 系统中剂量的 15 倍。 所以呢? 谓词微积分先生是否从未听说过统计异常值? 这种异常值通常会被忽略。 至少,您永远不会将它们视为数据集中的规范。 由于弗洛伊德正在服用街头毒品,而天知道他自己服用的是什么杂质,而不是在医生的监督下服用医用级芬太尼,这让情况变得更加复杂。

    以下是 ME 报告中的事实。 ME 报告中没有任何迹象表明这是一起凶杀案。 事实上,“凶杀”一词本身并没有出现在报告中的任何地方。 取而代之的是,出于某种原因,“凶杀”这个词分散在几份未经整理的文件中,从死亡证明到新闻稿。 为什么这些人很难展示他们的作品? 如果学生告诉你他的证据在他在另一个班级提交的论文中,你会给他打几分? 然而,我们来了。

    此外,令人不安的不仅仅是没有“杀人”。 本报告中没有明确的语言。 报告中没有写到“颈部受压导致心脏骤停”。 没有关于颈部压缩保持如何导致心脏骤停的病理学指示。 那些从这份报告中认为这是一起凶杀案的人只是在推断。 该报告并未证明情况确实如此。 在颈托期间发生心脏骤停的事实并不意味着颈托导致了心脏骤停。 这是一个经典的因果关系/相关问题。

    看,您没有提供任何针对警察的“证据”。 您所做的只是说明您会针对 Chauvin 提出的论点以及您将在法庭上提出的案件。 你的论据都不能证明肖万是凶手。

    • 回复: @Genrick Yagoda
    , @Loup-Bouc
  174. @map

    Excellent post. I know you meant to write this, but I’ll add for anyone who has read your post;

    这并不能改变超过 30,000 人的事实 (每年) 死于芬太尼过量。

    另一方面,芬太尼是致命的。 我知道有些人会不同意我的观点,但如果打算减少危害,他们会绞死芬太尼经销商,并向选择使用这些东西的人提供真正的植物性海洛因。

    是的,你死于海洛因。 但真正的天然物质远不及合成的喷火龙。

    • 回复: @map
  175. FB 说: • 您的网站
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    Look, there is only so much mindless noise that I am going to respond to here…

    This garbage being barfed up here by various losers is an insult to one’s intelligence…that’s the problem right there…nothing to do with black or white, or even police violence, which has reached absolutely intolerable levels…but simply the fact that this stupidity on display here cannot but get right up your fucking nose…big time…

    如果这些患者中有几个需要呼吸支持,那么这也证明了他们中的一些 DID NOT…

    平均芬太尼水平为 五次 that of Floyd…gusting to 15 times higher…

    所以它显然表明,即使患者 更高的水平 do not necessarily need breathing support…never mind the fact that if his breathing was noticeably impaired then why did they not respond like first responders, instead of snuffing him out…

    This is absolutely retarded…you monkeys just keep going and going in fucking circles…

    这家伙被怀疑将一张糟糕的账单交给了一家糟糕的街角商店......他妈的大交易......这就是我们所有人的受害者......?......所以一些具有临界白痴智商的油脂球警察可以通过骑在他的脖子上来获得快乐一个黑人来证明他是个大人物……?

    有多少人可能不经意间收到了一张糟糕的账单,然后又不经意间把它传给了……?

    我们甚至知道那个法案是不是更糟糕......?

    Come on…there’s got to be a more civilized way of dealing with this kind of thing than to drag a shackled man on the street and then snuff him out in such a grotesque way that millions of us ordinary folks have been victimized by just seeing that…

    I personally know people who have been put on medication because they were so upset by the images…universities across the country canned a bunch of exams for students who were likewise upset…

    像你这样的白痴知道社会成本的含义吗……?

    Why should the decent people always keep paying and paying and paying and paying for the greaseball Chauvins of this world…?

    您是否知道在您自己的城镇或城市...因警察不当行为而支付的金额?

    不......?......好吧开始考虑它......因为你的社区需要这些钱来建造学校,人行道和操场以及许多其他他妈的东西,而不是向被警察踩到的公民支付数百万美元......

    I’ve had enough with you morons…no sense, no feeling as they used to say…

    Where the hell is civilization…?…guess what we don’t deserve it, because we get the COMMON DENOMINATOR LEVEL…and that’s you lot…pulling us all down with your uncivilized bullshit…

    They’re talking here about blacks going back to Africa…where the hell are the normal folks going to send the armpit demographic like you fucking monkeys…?

    • 同意: vot tak
    • 回复: @map
  176. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @map

    I had promised myself I would not post another comment in this thread. But your reply-comment’s bullshit begs debunking just too imploringly. (I shall, however, limit myself to one paragraph, set after I quote your language that I address.)

    你写了:

    如果您是您所声称的人,那么您就会知道技术证人和专家证人之间的区别。 亨内平县体检医师是技术证人。 这样的技术证人在那里只是为了确定案件的真实情况。 专家证人在那里向原告或被告的方向旋转案件的技术事实。 根据定义,他们是有偏见的。 这种偏见是可以的,因为法律体系是对抗性的,但它并没有给一个专门出售专业知识的“专家”提供更大的可信度。

    Though failing to adduce any case, statute, judicial rule, or legitimate medical source that might, arguably, refute my comment’s points, you succeed in stating the risibly wrong assertion that evidence law rules make a “technical witness” and an “expert witness” different beasts. A medical examiner must be an expert forensic pathologist to testify as a medical examiner, and a court will treat the medical examiner according to rules that govern expert testimony and opposing counsels’ examinations of expert witnesses. Your comment’s remainder is equaling mere bullshit. I shall not reply to you again, but my silence shall not imply my conceding any point you try to put.

    • 回复: @map
  177. Biff 说:
    @FB

    顺便说一句,如果在几名警察以俯卧姿势戴上手铐将他们的重量放在他的脖子和背部之前,他就呼吸困难,那么他们为什么要继续做一件会让呼吸更加困难的事情......?

    That little tidbit of logic seems to escape a lot of people, and raises the question of intent.

    If one were to reverse-roll the situation and put Floyd on top of Chauvin do you think some of these other deodorant salesmen would claim that Chauvin simply OD’ed?

  178. Arcturus 说:
    @FB

    顺便说一句,如果在几名警察以俯卧姿势戴上手铐将他们的重量放在他的脖子和背部之前,他就呼吸困难,那么他们为什么要继续做一件会让呼吸更加困难的事情......?

    Where did you get the idea that being in a prone position makes it harder to breathe?

    Doctors have found that placing severely ill coronavirus patients on their stomachs — called prone positioning — increases how much oxygen is getting to their lungs,美国有线电视新闻网报道。

    “We’re saving lives with this, one hundred percent,” Dr. Mangala Narasimhan told the outlet. “It’s such a simple thing to do, and we’ve seen remarkable improvement. We can see it for every single patient.”

    https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article241995471.html#storylink=cpy

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
  179. roonaldo 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    The materials I referred to are interesting and relevant in themselves, and some are relevant and interesting regarding fentanyl and anasthesia and physiological responses to poly substance abuse. It wasn’t offered as a legal treatise, though I should think defense lawyers will argue the drugs in his system contributed mightily to his demise and show reasonable doubt to culpability of the charges. I laughed to myself as I typed “not even close” in the last paragraph, since trials like this are a crapshoot–and I am certainly no lawyer nor soothsayer. I think the cops could have done better and I also think the charges are overblown.

    You admit to ad hominem rudeness, perhaps you revel in it. Don’t get your knickers in a twist. To the extent your comments about the case are reasoned, I can be interested.

  180. Curmudgeon 说:
    @Genrick Yagoda

    Thanks. Where I live, the tile Medical Examiner is used interchangeably, as coroner’s have “disappeared”.

  181. Smith 说:

    Can this virtue signaling with FB and his gang (the Scalpel) go on further?

    In the last decade alone, we see males, females, children being killed mercilessly by all kinds of people from cops, to nigger thugs to jews to jihadist, yet there was no cry about social costs and civilization.

    Yet now 2020, one negro being knee on is the straw that breaks the camel back? Really, after all that bloodletting?

    Naw, there is a narrative being woven here, and it is not honest and shall not to be taken seriously.

    One dead negro does not justify any riot or any toppling of statues, not in USA, not in Japan, not in China, not here in Vietnam.

    @ Biff

    If Chauvin was killed by Floyd, now a black cop, it would not even make the news, nor there woukd be riots about it.

    • 巨魔: vot tak
  182. Curmudgeon 说:
    @FB

    Aha…so now we call it what it is, speculating…and that the ruling from the Hennepin County Medical Examiner that the cause of death was due to ‘neck compression’ and the manner of death was ‘homicide’ is in fact the most sensible conclusion after all…

    Please provide me with the exact location within that report where that is stated. I note that it does say:

    乔治·弗洛伊德
    20-3700
    2页

    III.No life-threatening injuries identified

    A.No facial, oral mucosal, or conjunctival petechiae

    B.No injuries of anterior muscles of neck or laryngeal structures

    C.No scalp soft tissue, skull, or brain injuries

    D.No chest wall soft tissue injuries, rib fractures (other than a single rib fracture from CPR), vertebral column injuries, or visceral injuries

    E.Incision and subcutaneous dissection of posterior and lateral neck, shoulders, back, flanks, and buttocks negative for occult trauma

  183. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Arcturus

    Doctors have found that placing severely ill coronavirus patients on their stomachs — called prone positioning — increases how much oxygen is getting to their lungs, CNN reported.

    “We’re saving lives with this, one hundred percent,” Dr. Mangala Narasimhan told the outlet. “It’s such a simple thing to do, and we’ve seen remarkable improvement. We can see it for every single patient.”

    Your assertion disregards the critical language of FB’s point: “… [Floyd was] handcuffed in a prone position, 然后 why did they [police] go ahead [and] do the one thing that would make it even harder [for Floyd] to [breathe]

    And your assertion disregards (a) forceful neck and dorsal thorax compression that blocks, or substantially blocks, the major blood vessels of the victim’s neck and (b) forceful compression of the dorsal thorax that hinders, substantially, the victim’s pulmonary function.

    Also, since your assertion derives from CNN (one of the monarchs of fake news) and depends upon the putative successes of a single physician whose credentials and activities are mysteries, your assertion can claim zero respect.

    I prefer to presume that your irrelevant and catually/medically false assertion derives from abysmal ignorance, rather than evil design.

    For your edification, see, 例如 my comment of July 13, 2020 at 12:52 am GMT (comment # 735), posted under John-Paul Leonad’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/
    That comment has this link: https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/?showcomments#comment-4030304

    I urge that your read all of my comments posted under John-Paul leaonrd’s article (AND my other comments referenced in my comments posted under Mr. Leonard’s article) — to disabuse yourself of your toxic misapprehensions.

    • 回复: @Bombercommand
  184. Biff 说:
    @Smith

    In the last decade alone, we see males, females, children being killed mercilessly by all kinds of people from cops, to nigger thugs to jews to jihadist, yet there was no cry about social costs and civilization.

    Gawd you are an idiot. I guess Floyd is special for you. You are acting just like Antifa, BLM, and the rest of the liberal crowd in that you’re attacking what should be your natural allies against a repressive State in front of you, while your real enemies are right behind you blowing smoke up your ass. Brilliant work!

    • 回复: @Smith
  185. @Loup-Bouc

    You have failed to take into account “differential tolerance” in chronic fentanyl users to the “respiratory depression” effects of fentanyl. This effect is aggravated by certain conditions, such as cardiac disease. Very odd in someone claiming to be an MD. Saint Floyd was a chronic user of fentanyl and had cardiac disease.

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
  186. Rurik 说:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    If he is not pinned, how can they be sure he might not try to get on his feet and flee?

    when the knee 最后 came off his neck, I’m pretty sure he was dead.

    And before he was actually dead, there was a significant amount of time when he seemed utterly languid. And wasn’t he in cuffs the whole time?

    It’s not that I have a bleeding-heart sympathy for the guy. He was a scumbag. Only a scumbag robs a pregnant mother to be, let alone with threats of violence and a gun. I have zero sympathy for the useless POS.

    But cops are supposed to be professionals, and not allow personal wrath into the performance of their jobs. Sure, it happens, and we all understand the exigencies of the job. That’s why cops are given a wide latitude to use force, because so often the criminals are potentially murderous vicious savages. And under different circumstances, if Floyd were demonstrating a potential threat of some kind, (like the kind you suggest), then that would make the whole scene look a lot different.

    But it’s what we all see on video that is so disturbing.

    It’s not entirely unlike the inebriated guy crawling in the hallway, ultimately murdered by a uniformed thug in that infamous video. Yes, unlike with Floyd, that man was unmistakably murdered, but like Floyd, he looked 100% harmless as he was riddled with cop bullets.

    Restraining a man who poses a threat is not just a good idea, but it’s their job. But ‘restraining’ a man who’s dead, and in those minutes up to his death when he seems utterly limp, (and handcuffed), just seems too callous.

    Maybe cops have a very good reason for becoming so callous- when they deal with scumbags like Floyd, day in, day out. But then too often they treat decent people with an even worse level of callousness, (murderousness- see video of guy in the hallway), and so that’s really the problem.

    And as I’ve said before, this particular case is simply being bull-horned because the ((media)) simply sees it as another opportunity to smear ‘whitey’ for being ‘racist’ and the cause of everyone’s problems, blah, blah, blah..

    It’s just too bad that it wasn’t Jeff Zucker who perished in the gutter while under Derek Chauvin’s knee, rather than the comparatively harmless Floyd.

    • 同意: Bombercommand
    • 回复: @Rurik
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
  187. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Bombercommand

    You have failed to take into account “differential tolerance” in chronic fentanyl users to the “respiratory depression” effects of fentanyl. This effect is aggravated by certain conditions….

    美味 have failed to account THIS [of my comment to which you try to reply]:

    For your edification, see, 例如, my comment of July 13, 2020 at 12:52 am GMT (comment # 735), posted under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/
    That comment has this link: https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/?showcomments#comment-4030304

    I urge that your read all of my comments posted under John-Paul Leonard’s article (AND my other comments referenced in my comments posted under Mr. Leonard’s article) — to disabuse yourself of your toxic misapprehensions.

    Ten hours after the posting of my above-referenced comment [July 13, 2020 at 12:52 am GMT [(comment # 735) posted under John-Paul Leonard’s article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?” ()], my wife read that comment. She saw a few typing errors.

    For several reasons (including my never having learned how to type), I type badly. See also my comment of June 28, 2020 at 10:57 pm GMT (comment # 555) posted under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” ()), a direct link to which comment is https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/?showcomments#comment-3999334 .

    Near-always, typing errors mar my texts. Worse, even with aid of corrective lenses, my eyesight is poor (suffers blurring and tremor), 特别是当 I read text shown on a computer screen, rather than hard copy. So I do not proofread well, unless I double-proof (proofread simultaneously with another careful, intelligent person, most often my wife).

    My above-referenced comment of July 13, 2020 at 12:52 am GMT [(comment # 735) posted under John-Paul Leonard’s article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?” ()] was not double-proofed. I shall not cure its errors: they are mere infrequent, brief itches that do not impair the comment’s force.

    White supremacist (and antisemitic) Unz Review authors and readers tend not to commit typing errors. But, flagrantly epidemic — and likely endemic — among White-supremacist (and antisemitic) Unz Review authors and readers are: (a) reading-deficit, (b) attention-deficit, (c) logic-deficit, (d) evidence-deficit, (e) evidence-invention and evidence-misrepresentation, (f) negative and positive wishful hallucination, (g) risible arrogance, (h) prevarication, and (i) a psychopathic deficit of empathy and honor. Rabid hate is their salient virtue.

    • 回复: @Bombercommand
  188. @lysias

    A fatal dose of fentokneel is when the victim says

    “I cannot breathe ”

    and then holds their breath to frame those in earnest preyerr

  189. @Loup-Bouc

    You have failed to take into account “differential tolerance” in chronic fentanyl users to the “respiratory suppression” effects of fentanyl, again. Very odd in someone claiming to be an MD. Please address the subject.

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
  190. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Bombercommand

    You have failed to take into account “differential tolerance” in chronic fentanyl users to the “respiratory suppression” effects of fentanyl, again.

    I 做了 “take into account “differential tolerance” in chronic fentanyl users.” You failed to READ (not hallucinate content-absences into) my comments (plural) to which I referred you.

    One need not use your (inanely) preferred (but unnecessary and medicoanalytically crippled, fuzzy, logically defective, pretentious) buzzwords — “differential tolerance” — to account what those buzzwords attempt to imply.

    I accounted not only “differential tolerance” but much more that is markedly more pertinent — much more than recognized (or admitted) by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts and other Unz Reveiw authors and comment-posters who attempt, risibly, to prove that Officer Chauvin and at least one other policeman did not murder Floyd.

    See — under John-Paul Leonard’s article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?, ” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/?showcomments#comment-3999334 - 不仅 my comment of July 13, 2020 at 12:52 am GMT (comment # 735), 而且还 AT LEAST all my comments replying to John-Paul Leonard and JasonA. Most such comments bear content directly or tangentially pertinent to the “differential tolerance” matter.

    If you do not (or cannot) READ those comments, fall silent.

    I shall not re-state the voluminous contents of those comments, not only because they would span perhaps more than 100,000 words, but also because your “differential tolerance” point is immaterial

    “Differential tolerance” is irrelevant to the matter of whether Officer Chauvin and at least one other policeman murdered Floyd. Under John-Paul Leonard’s article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?” (), I posted several comments that show, irrefutably, that those police 做了 murder Floyd — notwithstanding the potentially toxic, perhaps even potentially lethal, contents of Floyd’s blood. So, again I refer you to 所有 of my comments posted under the same John-Paul Leonard article ().

    See also, in THIS thread, my comments of July 11, 2020 at 12:23 am GMT (comment # 127), July 11, 2020 at 10:54 pm GMT (comment # 172), and July 12, 2020 at 3:13 am GMT (comment # 181) — but be informed that those comments (posted in THIS thread) beg supplementation by my comments posted under John-Paul Leonard’s article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?” ().

    I shall not respond again to your comments, because, apparently,
    (a) either (i) you are not a physician or human biochemistry/physiology expert or (ii) you ought not to be such, because likely you endanger others
    AND
    (b) you appear to be pathologically determined to deny the reality of whatever fact or evidence conflicts with your belief(s).

    • 回复: @Bombercommand
  191. Anon7 说:

    What we are dealing with is not only the brainwashing of white students as to the evil origin of their country and their inherited guilt, but also their inability to think rationally and to make an objective conclusion from evidence. This was once the purpose of education, but no more. Today students are taught that their emotions are what is true, and their emotions are manipulated by the lies that they are taught.

    This perversity of education spells the end of the United States. The kind of people American education is producing are not capable of scientific thinking. The kind of education Americans receive today cannot produce scientists or engineers. We have the emotive generation, people trained to be guided by emotion.

    The inability of American education to produce people capable of thought is already our reality. We see it in the huge number of work visas in which foreigners, largely from Asia, are brought into the US to do the jobs American educated youth cannot do.

    Pretty good material for an article about a guy who very likely died from a drug overdose. I just thought I’d pull it out. Thanks.

  192. @Loup-Bouc

    Went to your linked comment. You seem to be arguing with John-Paul Leonard regarding his claim to see an object dropped by Saint Floyd. I do not see you discussing “differential tolerance”. I have had the misfortune to have read all of your comments on this article and none of them discuss the “differential tolerance” issue, but you claim to have accounted for it, I do not believe you. IMO the “differential tolerance” of chronic fentanyl users to the “respiratory suppression” effects of fentanyl has critical significance to the cause of Saint Floyd’s death. Saint Floyd was a chronic fentanyl user and had cardiac disease which aggravates those effects. Clearly this issue cannot be ignored. You claim you are an MD. I find it perplexing an MD would not be interested in this issue. My position is that since the “respiratory suppression” effects of fentanyl can occur even after the analgesic effect has expired, and in chronic fentanyl users with cardiac disease this effect can manifest as very unpredictable severe chest rigidity to the point of being unable to ventilate with high positive pressures, Saint Floyd could have died without any police restraint at all. Since you, and others, accuse Officer Chauvin of murder by police restraint, an extreme position, it is imperative that my position be raised in his defense. So far no one has brought this up, so now I am. Do you dismiss this issue? If so why do you dismiss it? You claim to be an MD, have a go at me.

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
  193. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Bombercommand

    You read the wrong comment, not the one I linked. You have not begun to read the directly relevant comments. You read only a comment that relates importantly to the ultimate issue of the criminal liability of the cops, but only tangentially to the immaterial matter — “differential tolerance” — that stole your ignoble heart.

    I posted perhaps 30 or more comments. You did not read the first — which sets, vitally, several of the premises of the rest of my comments.

    Apparently your attention-span and “scholarly” patience deficient.

    You wrote: “So far no one has brought this up.” I did.

    Your comment’s remainder consists of emptiness, other than dross. It does not deserve further response.

    • 回复: @Bombercommand
  194. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @El Dato

    The toxic serum fenantyl concentration” range is 2-20 ng/mL.
    但是, 致命 range is >20 ng/mL (greater than 20 ng/mL).
    See Key of Table 2 (p.110) of “Fatal Fentanyl: One Pill Can Killhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/acem.13034

    Floyd’s postmortem serum fentanyl concentration was 11.0 ng/mL — only ≈0.4 ng/mL more than HALF the minimum fatal serum concentration.

    Humans have survived with serum fentanyl concentrations of 162.3 ng/mL. “Fatal Fentanyl: One Pill Can Kill” , Table 2, case # 6. That serum fentanyl level is 14.75 times the 11.0 ng/mL serum fentanyl level present postmortem in Floyd’s blood.

    I acknowledge that in the case of 162.3 ng/mL serum fentanyl level, the individual received substantial Emergency Room treatment and that, absent such treatment, the individual may (likely would) have died.

    But that individual’s blood bore also:
    氢可酮
    Norfentanyl [inactive metabolite of fentanyl, disregarded for the purpose of this comment]
    Norhydrocodone
    异丙嗪
    曲唑酮

    And the individual lasted long enough to receive treatment — despite those other drug-chemistries (except Norfentanyl) can, alone, bel lethal or can interact with each other or with fentanyl to cause death. See, 例如, my comment of July 8, 2020 at 4:16 am GMT (comment # 714), posted under under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?, ” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ That comment’s direct link is https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/?showcomments#comment-4019801

    We cannot know whether, or if so, how long, the case # 6 individual would have lasted without the Emergency Room treatment that individual received.

    But the vital matter is that Floyd’s postmortem serum fentanyl level was only a thin hair greater than half the fatal dose 最低限度 established by “Fatal Fentanyl: One Pill Can Kill.

  195. @Loup-Bouc

    I clicked on your link, so I could not have “read the wrong comment”. I have read all your comments on this article, and none dealt with “differential tolerance” leading to a crisis of “respiratory suppression”. You cannot weasel your way out with evasions. Let us discuss all my points in my comment #197. NOW. I challenge you. Discuss all my points in my comment #197. NOW.

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
  196. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Tusk

    (1) I shall assume, for sake of argument, that Floyd did say “I was just hooping earlier,” and I shall assume, for sake of argument, that Floyd meant “hooping” to denote “taking in a drug by inserting it in his anus.”

    (2) I have long litigation and “street” experience of illegal and unconstitutional police behavior and police department cover-ups of illegal or unconstitutional police conduct. I, lawyer since 1968 and law professor since 1972, provide consultation to attorneys who undertake to do direct appeals and post-conviction-relief petitions. Often I do all the research, write all the court-papers (petitions, motions…….), plan all the strategies, assemble all evidence, determine the choices of exhibits, write texts of affidavits, plan all witness-examinations and advise how to introduce testimonial and documentary evidence…….

    My clients win post-conviction-relief petitions — a remarkable feat, since (after 1995) the yearly average post-conviction-relief-petition success-rate range is ≈0.02% – 0.28%.

    此外,大约自 1959 年以来,我目睹了许多非法和违宪的警察行为。 三次,我遭受了针对我的这种渎职行为。

    有一次,警察在没有食物、水、电话或国家提供的辩护律师的情况下逮捕并关押,我和其他 13 人因完全虚假的指控被抓进监狱。 在那起案件中,检察官的制造证据和市法官邀请(从法官席上)检察官制造更多证据,放大了警察的渎职行为,因为毫无疑问,检察官已经制造的证据不足。 (裁判官驳回了此案,因为检察官没有理解裁判官的邀请。)

    So, I do not trust anything police or police departments assert concerning events involving abuse, injury, or death of “suspects” arrested or held in custody by police. And I trust little of what courts assert to “justify,” excuse, obscure, or even outright hide police, and police-department, malfeasance.

    Still, I shall assume, for sake of argument, that you report accurately some parts of a court-recorded transcript of Floyd-case police “bodycam” footage. I shall assume also, for sake of argument, that the transcript reports truthfully and accurately Floyd’s and policemen’s statements made at the scene of Floyd’s arrest.

    The transcript does not refute the state’s claim that Officer Chauvin and at least one other policeman murdered Floyd. Rather, it is additional 证明 他们确实谋杀了弗洛伊德。

    As FB suggested, before Officer Chauvin and at least one other policeman began applying compression to Floyd’s neck and dorsal thorax, the police had notice that such compression would likely kill Floyd.

    该通知来自两个来源:

    (a) Floyd’s condition, including his “foaming at the mouth” and his being unable to stand, his suggesting that he had recently been “hooping” one or more drugs, the “hooping of which could explain Floyd’s foaming at the mouth (as did Floyd’s related statements), and Floyd’s insisting that he was suffering severe dyspnea.

    (二) 体位性窒息-猝死,美国司法部国家司法研究所项目办公室,国家司法研究所司法项目办公室(1995 年 XNUMX 月), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/posasph.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1ylGj-3k7BXhz5s3JdwfKxWXlK3kW2TltokyHr47d_y9k408vMt2t0LAw .

    Those considerations (and sundry other similar considerations), prove that the cops murdered Floyd. Merely one such other consideration is the set of contemptuous statements Officer Chauvin addressed to Floyd while Chauvin applied knee (and shin) pressure to Floyd’s neck despite bystanders’ expressions of fear for Floyd and despite Floyd begged for mercy (because almost could he not breathe) and despite Floyd was, clearly, falling unconscious.

    Police cannot use a “suspect’s” drug-use or criminal history to justify what Chauvin and at least one other policeman did to Floyd.

    [当然,如果陪审团只包括像你这样的陪审员,或者像 Paul Craig Roberts 或 Bombercommand 或 roonaldo 或 map 或 Dieter Kief 或 Smith 或任何其他白人至上主义者或种族主义者,他们对 Unz Review 文章进行了创作或评论,那么陪审团要么会被挂起,否则它会返回一个 无效 not-guilty verdict premised on “jury nullification,” NOT the evidence and the law. But, in the context of this and other Unz Review articles and threads that pretend to seek the pertinent 法律 事实上,受种族主义污染的陪审团前景或陪审团取消是无关紧要的。]

    要观察显示警察谋杀弗洛伊德的所有技术法律/医疗原因:

    (1) Open John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?, ” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/. Then read my comments — ALL my comments — posted there. They prove that the murder charges ought to lead to conviction. I shall not re-state those comments here: likely, their sum would constitute more than 100,000 words; and since they reference my significantly pertinent comments posted under other Unz Review articles, the totality might be 500,000 words or more.

    (2) 另请参阅,在此主题中,我在格林威治标准时间 11 年 2020 月 12 日上午 23:127(评论#11)、格林威治标准时间 2020 年 10 月 54 日下午 172:12(评论#2020)和 3 年 13 月 181 日发表的评论格林威治标准时间凌晨 XNUMX 点 XNUMX 分(评论#XNUMX)——但请注意,这些评论(发布在此线程中)请求补充我在约翰-保罗·伦纳德的文章“或者乔治·弗洛伊德死于药物过量?”下发表的评论。 ().

    • 回复: @map
    , @roonaldo
  197. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Bombercommand

    You appear to believe, invalidly, that my medical/biochemical/physiological/pharmaceuticals observations do not address your buzzwords, “differential tolerance” — because, though in several comments, I address, extensively, quite the matters connoted by your buzzwords, I do not use those buzzwords.

    In several of my comments, I address — with sundry biochemical/physiological analyses — the matter whether, and if so, in what conditions, different opioid drugs’ users or biological systems [sometimes, stupidly, called “targets”] do (or do not) develop tolerance at different time-rates in different effect-degrees.

    You continue not to READ. In your case, the reading-deficit obtains from your bias-engendered 先验 premise that I must have failed to address a matter you deem vital — albeit actually the matter has zero legal bearing on the case. Perseveration is an apt description of you malais.

    Taisez-vous, Monsieur Tête-épaisse

    • 回复: @Bombercommand
  198. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Tusk

    This comment supplements my comment of July 14, 2020 at 3:40 am GMT (comment # 201).

    Was Floyd having a heart attack while the officers where arresting him? Seems likely.

    Floyd died, ULTIMATELY from cardiac arrest (resulting form carotid artery or jugular vein compression and dorsal thorax compression), not a heart attack, which is not cardiac arrest.

    They also started performing CPR once he became unconscious.

    I viewed likely every Floyd-arrest/Floyd-custody video put online. None showed any policeman performing CPR, unless perhaps after Floyd had been unconscious for about 3 minutes or more, during which 2.9 to 3 minutes Officer Chauvin and at least one other policemen continued applying compression restrains to Floyd’s neck and dorsal thorax. After that 3-plus minutes period elapsed, CPR was useless, because Flout was dead.
    我们
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=0oqEp63duIc&feature=emb_title%5D , especially, BUT NOT ONLY, at time 14:24 to the video’s end.
    https://abcnews.go.com/US/independent-autopsy-george-floyd-findings-announced/story?id=70994827
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/01/george-floyd-independent-autopsy-findings-released-monday/5307185002/
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/01/independent-autopsy-finds-george-floyd-died-by-homicide-caused-by-asphyxia/#2602a5de7f8f
    Also, open John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/. Then read my comment of June 23, 2020 at 2:17 am GMT (comment # 399)

    If your “They also started performing CPR” assertion derives from the transcript you purport to quote, then I must suspect that the transcript bears manufactured evidence — and I suspect so more because otherwise the transcript does not comport with any of the videos I have viewed.

    Funny, Floyd died of exactly the same cause of death that an onlooker predicted and Floyd agreed with.

    Floyd never agreed with what you say an onlooker predicted or what the cops may have predicted. He said only that he was suffering dyspnea. “I know I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe.” “I know. I can’t breathe” does NOT EQUAL “I know. I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe” — as if meaning “I know I may have a heart attack — because I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe.”

    One cannot deduce that Floyd “agreed” he would suffer a heart attack because, putatively, Floyd made his “I know I can’t breathe…” statement after, putatively, a “Speaker 9″ said “Bro, you about to have a heart attack….” Floyd did not express or necessarily imply that he agreed he would “have a heart attack.”

    Also, Chauvin’s and at least one other policeman’s criminal homicide liability was REINFORCED by Floyd’s stated impression, if any, and bystanders’ stated belief that a heart attack or some other dire event was likely. If, as you seem to argue, the cops were aware that Floyd harbored such fear (as they were, surely, aware that he suffered dyspnea) and, as the videos and the purported transcript indicates, the cops expressed awareness that Floyd’s condition was somehow compromised seriously, they had notice that their compression holds were contraindicated — that foreseeably the holds would kill Floyd.

    And that foreseeability was enhanced by Chauvin’s and at least on other cop’s applying compression restraints for a total of about 8 minutes & 40 seconds, despite Floyd said he could not breathe and presented symptoms of serious physical/physiological distress and even for three minutes or slightly more after Floyd fell unconscious. See
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=0oqEp63duIc&feature=emb_title%5D , especially, BUT NOT ONLY, at time 14:24 to the video’s end.
    See also my comment of June 23, 2020 at 2:17 am GMT (comment # 399) posted under John-Paul Leonard’s article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” — which comment summarizes the opinion of Judy Melinek, MD, forensic pathologist and CEO of PathologyExpert Inc. — which opinion presents a critical analysis of the autopsies, autopsy reports, and a video that shows all or near-all details of Floyd’s arrest an ensuing police conduct.

    [更多]

    Back to the transcript’s language “Kueng: You got foam around your mouth, too?” — which I addressed in my first comment replying to your July 10, 2020 at 6:13 am GMT (comment # 24).

    A frothy whitish substance can form at the lips because of dryness after hard work or other physical stress or for other nonpathological causes, 而非 because of a seizure or because of intake of fenantyl or some other opioid or amphetamine or methamphetamine or another stimulant drug, 例如, codeine, a non-amphetamine stimulant, like methylphenidate, benzphetamine, phentermine, cocaine, crack cocaine.

    * [边注: Some sources have asserted that methylphenidate is a species of amphetamine. The assertion is false. https://academic.oup.com/jat/article/36/7/538/828902
    尾注]
    Floyd was stressed for reason other than intake of drugs. Nothing indicates he had eaten of ingested liquids recently. The “foam” (if it WAS foam) might have resulted from influences other than drugs.

    The cops had called an ambulance for Floyd

    In perhaps the most famous or most viewed video, whild Chauvin was applying hid knee-press choke-hold, bystanders were urging the cops to call 911 for an ambulance of paramedic help, and the cops did not respond. The video allows that a bystander called 911, rather than the cops. I cannot conclude either way. But, again, I suspect the transcript bears manufactured evidence.

    Kueng: Stand up , stop falling down! Stand up Stay on your feet and face

    Again, evidence indicating that the cops murdered Floyd, because they had notice that Floyd could not withstand the neck-compression hold and dorsal thorax compression hold the cops applied.

    Floyd was already in the process of dying as the police arrested him, not because the police were arresting him.

    That prospect is the coup de grâce for the cops — since the signs of potentially fatal distress were clear and notified the cops that likely their compression restraints would kill Floyd.

    (1) Open John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/. Then read my comments — ALL my comments — posted there, 特别, BUT NOT ONLY, these:
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 2 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 17:399 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 5 日格林威治标准时间下午 03:426 发表的评论(评论 #25),已由我在格林威治标准时间 2020 年 11 月 37 日下午 461:XNUMX 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)更正
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 10 日格林威治标准时间晚上 03:432 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 10 日格林威治标准时间晚上 13:433 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 26 年 2020 月 5 日格林威治标准时间晚上 31:486 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 5 年 2020 月 8 日格林威治标准时间晚上 35:707 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 1 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间晚上 26:633 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 1 年 2020 月 9 日格林威治标准时间晚上 08:639 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 8 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 16:714 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 10 年 2020 月 3 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 21:724 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 10 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间晚上 32:730 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 13 年 2020 月 12 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 52:735 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)

    这些评论证明谋杀指控应该导致定罪,这很大程度上是因为弗洛伊德的死是警察对弗洛伊德施加压力限制的可预见结果。

    (2) See also, in THIS thread, my comments of July 11, 2020 at 12:23 am GMT (comment # 127) and July 11, 2020 at 10:54 pm GMT (comment # 172) — but be informed that those comments (posted in THIS thread) beg supplementation by my comments posted under John-Paul Leonard’s article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?” (supra).

    • 回复: @Tusk
  199. @Loup-Bouc

    You clearly betray you do not understand the term “differential tolerance”, very odd in someone claiming to be a MD. “Differential tolerance” does not mean developing a tolerance to the euphoric effect in chronic users and how greater or lesser this tolerance is in different addicts. “Differential tolerance” is a term used to describe a phenomenon that distinguishes fentanyl from heroin. With fentanyl chronic users, their tolerance for the euphoric effects leads to higher and higher doses needed to “get high”, same as heroin. However, this does not lead to a growing tolerance to the “respiratory suppression” effects of fentanyl. This means that a chronic user of fentanyl can take doses that would result in an overdose and death in a first time user but the chronic user would not lose consciousness, and might feel he had merely achieved a barely adequate “high”. However this same chronic user would not have developed a tolerance for the “respiratory suppression” effects of fentanyl, so that a dose that gives that chronic user an adequate “high” can also have severe enough “respiratory suppression” effect to cause death in that same chronic user. Are you beginning to understand the point I am making? Can you see why I believe this might have critical bearing on determining what caused Saint Floyd’s death?

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
  200. @Smith

    Just shut up already, keyboard hero!!!

    You don’t live in US, and you don’t even meet any single African-American or Muslim, so you don’t have any right to make any comment about the matter.

    Stop pretending you are Mr. ‘I’m know everything’.

    You are being racism to the people you don’t even meet yet. This is reason why I call/think you are mental illness.

    By the way, from your answer about what I am curious about you:

    You said you pretty young just mean you are around 20s – 30s years old, meanwhile the 2010 comment of the ‘Smith’:

    https://www.unz.com/plee/black-days-for-the-dalai-lama/#comment-860928

    Wow I am so stoked…my 4yrold son and I along w/ my mother want to see the show so bad…I am convinced that my little boy Dylan is BEP Biggest fan…some kids pretend to be firemen,Doctors and Police Officers…NOT my Boy HE pretends to be Apple, Will or Taboo and lucky me…he always makes me Fergie! turnstile

    Just mean you may lie about your email is fiction and this is also reason why I think you are using your parents email for the name “Smith”, and I think you are the ‘4 years old son’ from the quote above.

    I truly don’t think you are Vietnamese, I think you are:

    [更多]

    1. An oversea Vietnamese, and a mental illness one. I am in fact know some oversea/immigrant Vietnamese who have bad experiences with African American (many tell me that African American is really racist to Asian in general) but non of them have the toxic racism attitude like you. So you must be a very rare mental illness Vietnamese.

    2. You are a Chinese agent troll who speak Vietnamese very well come here to discredit all Vietnamese opinion on China (Chinese imperialism) from the people like me and Linh Dinh, and to make them like a bunch of lunatics (I personally believe number 2 more than number 1 above).

    More proofs you are a keyboard here, troll and a mental illness by trying to above FB and The Scalpel who:

    1. FB is an engineer.

    2. The Scalpel is an US veterans and a doctor who work at Emergency Room.

    How you can guarantee on yourself that you are more knowledge than the people like FB and The Scalpel? You are a delusional.

    Please, this is just good for you, you don’t know then just you don’t know. It’s ok to be racism, just normal, but be racism for the right reason not for the (wrong) delusional reason (you don’t even meet Muslim but for some reason you hate them).

    Note for other commenters who read my comment:

    Just ignore “Smith”, he is a (Chinese) troll, mental illness, you guys just pretend he does not existed, don’t feed the troll, he does not even deserve to be angry.

  201. Rurik 说:
    @Rurik

    https://www.unz.com/proberts/a-picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words/

    Not sure, but it seems possible that Mr. PCR is referring to the photo I recently posted.

    I’m a little curious, because I agree with just about every single thing Mr. Roberts has said over the years.

    所有的。

    And I agree with virtually ever salient point Mr. Roberts has carefully and correctly pointed out vis-a-vis the George Floyd mass ((media)) hysteria- dishonestly turning it into a racial issue. How it wasn’t the knee that killed him. And that the cop was just doing his job, and that Floyd was the one who wanted to lay down, and his system was full to the brim with deadly drugs, and he had a weak heart, and also was positive for the virus, and all of it.

    The only point I was making, was that for the cop to keep his knee on Floyd’s neck for as long as he did, didn’t help matters as far as the optics go. That’s all. That’s my only contention.

    I see Mr. Roberts comments are now turned off. If I offended PCR, in anyway whatsoever, then I humbly offer my sincere apologies. He is one of our most important truth-tellers we have in the Western world, and for myself, I feel it is a great honor and privileged to even be able to comment on his articles. I’d be mortified to think I discouraged him in any way with my notorious ranting and frothing.

  202. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Bombercommand

    Later today, when I have enough time, I shall cite my comments that treat your dearest, irrelevant concern, albeit without using your pet terminology; and I will show you why your darling terminology is vain as a forensic pathology matter in Floyd’s case. Below I shall adumbrate the reasons that indicate the legal irrelevance of “differential tolerance.”

    [Because of its both forensic-pathology irrelevance and its legal irrelevance, my previous comments (posted under John-Paul Leonard’s article, 红外线) treat just 简要地 the forensic-patholgy-related 成分 of the considerations labeled by the bullshit and miscast term “differential tolerance.”]

    Now I have time only for the following. [I lack time enough to proofread this comment. So, it may bear typing errors. If, later today, I proofread it and find a typing error that impairs the sense of any language, I shall correct that error.]

    “Differential tolerance” is legally irrelevant to Floyd’s case. [I am more than competent to determine that “differential tolerance” is legally irrelevant, for reasons shown above in this thread — in my comments of of July 11, 2020 at 12:23 am GMT (comment # 127), July 11, 2020 at 10:54 pm GMT (comment # 172), July 11, 2020 at 11:27 pm GMT (comment # 173), July 14, 2020 at 3:40 am GMT (comment # 201), and July 14, 2020 at 10:33 am GMT (comment # 203) — AND shown in all of my below-listed comments posted under John-Paul Leonard’s below-referenced Unz Review article.]

    Whatever may have been FLOYD’S tolerances (which are unknowable now and were unknowlable at the times of his two autopsies), Floyd was alive and not moribund, though presenting symptoms of marked physiological stress, when Officer Cauvin and at least one other policman began applying neck-compression and dorsal thorax compression restraint techniques to Floyd.

    你写了:

    With fentanyl chronic users, their tolerance for the euphoric effects leads to higher and higher doses needed to “get high”, same as heroin. However, this does not lead to a growing tolerance to the “respiratory suppression” effects of fentanyl. This means that a chronic user of fentanyl can take doses that would result in an overdose and death in a first time user but the chronic user would not lose consciousness, and might feel he had merely achieved a barely adequate “high”.

    Your observation 不能 alter the legal consequences of the conduct of Officer Chauvin and at least one other policeman. And your observation’s “science” human-opiod-users’ “differential tolerance” “science” are highly questionable, for reasons I shall put in my promised comment of later today and which are apparent in several of my comments posted under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ .

    [更多]

    * [边注: You describe “differential tolerance” incorrectly. In the context of merely the opioid-drugs-aspect of Floyd’s case, an apt description is this : in what conditions do different opioid drugs’ users (or biological systems) develop (or not develop) tolerance at different time-rates in different effect-degrees. And “differential tolerance” is NOT limited to “the ‘respiratory suppression’ effects of fentanyl.” It attempts to apply to other drugs, and drug interactions, and to foods, nutritional chemistries, even to, 例如, the heavy metal tolerance of plants (vegetation). In the opioid arena, it applies to, 例如, opioid-induced hyperalgesia involving ANY opioid. YOU, sir or madam, are not a physician, biochemist, pysiologist, or any flavor of scientist.
    尾注]

    Because of Floyd’s apparent condition, the cops’ compression-restraint techniques were patently contraindicated. Legally, their compression techniques would have been contraindicated even had Floyd not presented symptoms of serious stress. See the comments I reference below in this comment AND 体位性窒息-猝死,美国司法部国家司法研究所项目办公室,国家司法研究所司法项目办公室(1995 年 XNUMX 月), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/posasph.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1ylGj-3k7BXhz5s3JdwfKxWXlK3kW2TltokyHr47d_y9k408vMt2t0LAw .

    Chauvin’s and at least one other cop applied their compression-restraint techiques for a total of about 8 minutes & 40 seconds, despite Floyd said he could not breathe and presented symptoms of marked physical/physiological/paychic distress. They applied those restraint-techniques even for 3+ minutes after Floyd fell unconscious.

    Chauvin and at least one other policemen continued applying compression restrains to Floyd’s neck and dorsal thorax for 3+ minutes while Floyd was unconscious. After that 3+ minutes period elapsed, Floyd was dead; and those cops’ compression-restraint techniques constituted the 直接原因 弗洛伊德之死。
    你看, 并比较:
    (1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=0oqEp63duIc&feature=emb_title%5D , especially, BUT NOT ONLY, at time 14:24 to the video’s end.
    (2) https://abcnews.go.com/US/independent-autopsy-george-floyd-findings-announced/story?id=70994827
    (3) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/01/george-floyd-independent-autopsy-findings-released-monday/5307185002/
    (4) https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/01/independent-autopsy-finds-george-floyd-died-by-homicide-caused-by-asphyxia/#2602a5de7f8f
    (5) the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Autopsy Report, which ruled that Floyd’s death ws caused by “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement Subdual, restraint, and neck compression” [top of p.1 of that Report], https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf
    (6) the Hennepin Cnty Medical Examiner’s press release, which ruled Floyd’s death “homicide” https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd,%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf
    (7) Pertinent Unz Review comments of “The Scalpel,” a long-time Emergency Room physician: see The Scalpel’s comments cited and discussed in my comment of June 23, 2020 at 2:17 am GMT (comment # 399) posted under John-Paul Leonard’s article, ]
    (8) Opinion of Judy Melinek, MD, forensic pathologist and CEO of PathologyExpert Inc. [See my comment of June 23, 2020 at 2:17 am GMT (comment # 399).]
    (9) Opinion of Dr. Michael Hansen (board certified internal medicine, critical care medicine, and pulmonary disease medicine expert), https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=0oqEp63duIc&feature=emb_title%5D
    (10) Opinion of Dr. Karl Williams, forensic pathologist and chief medical examiner of Allegheny County (home to Pittsburgh), Pennsylvania, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-autopsies-of-george-floyd-arent-as-different-as-they-seem/
    Also, under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” , see, 例如,
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 2 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 17:399 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 13 年 2020 月 12 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 52:735 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)

    That direct cause-of-death (the cops’ compression-restraint-techniques’ application) 也是 the legal proximate cause of Floyd’s death.
    比较, e.g., R v Dear (1996) Criminal Law Reports 595 (England), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dear
    AND Brackett v. Peters, 11 F.3d 78 (7th Circuit 1993), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1014585782824481484&q=Brackett+v.+Peters,+11+F.3d+78+(7th+Circuit+1993)&hl=en&as_sdt=4,112,127
    AND Richman v. Sheahan, 512 F. 3d 876 (7th Cir. 2008),
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6725673574912167448&q=Richman+v.+Sheahan,+512+F.+3d+876+(7th+Cir.+2008)&hl=en&as_sdt=4,112,127
    AND, under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” , see, 例如, these of my comments:
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 2 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 17:399 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 5 日格林威治标准时间下午 03:426 发表的评论(评论 #25),已由我在格林威治标准时间 2020 年 11 月 37 日下午 461:XNUMX 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)更正
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 10 日格林威治标准时间晚上 03:432 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 10 日格林威治标准时间晚上 13:433 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 26 年 2020 月 5 日格林威治标准时间晚上 31:486 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 1 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间晚上 26:633 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 1 年 2020 月 9 日格林威治标准时间晚上 08:639 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 5 年 2020 月 8 日格林威治标准时间晚上 35:707 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 8 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 16:714 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 10 年 2020 月 3 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 21:724 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 10 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间晚上 32:730 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 13 年 2020 月 12 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 52:735 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    AND see, again, in THIS thread, my comments of of July 11, 2020 at 12:23 am GMT (comment # 127), July 11, 2020 at 10:54 pm GMT (comment # 172), July 11, 2020 at 11:27 pm GMT (comment # 173), July 14, 2020 at 3:40 am GMT (comment # 201), and July 14, 2020 at 10:33 am GMT (comment # 203).

    • 回复: @Bombercommand
  203. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Bombercommand

    I noticed that a little past midway of my comment of July 14, 2020 at 6:51 pm GMT (comment # 207), an error of omission occurs. The error is in this language:

    (8) Opinion of Judy Melinek, MD, forensic pathologist and CEO of PathologyExpert Inc. [See my comment of June 23, 2020 at 2:17 am GMT (comment # 399).]

    I ought to have included at that language’s close this reference-key: “posted under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” .” So, the language ought to be:

    (8) Opinion of Judy Melinek, MD, forensic pathologist and CEO of PathologyExpert Inc. [See my comment of June 23, 2020 at 2:17 am GMT (comment # 399) posted under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” .]

  204. map 说:
    @FB

    所以很明显,即使水平高得多的患者也不一定需要呼吸支持……更不用说如果他的呼吸明显受损那么他们为什么不像急救人员那样做出反应,而不是将他扼杀掉……

    这不仅仅是芬太尼。 它的冰毒和新冠病毒,天知道还有什么。 都是街头垃圾,以不稳定的组合与其他化学品混合。 它不是外科手术室条件下的医用级芬太尼。

    事实仍然是,手头的证据并未报告您关于这是一起凶杀案的主要论点。

    这家伙被怀疑将一张糟糕的账单交给了一家糟糕的街角商店......他妈的大交易......这就是我们所有人的受害者......?......所以一些具有临界白痴智商的油脂球警察可以通过骑在他的脖子上来获得快乐一个黑人来证明他是个大人物……?

    有多少人可能不经意间收到了一张糟糕的账单,然后又不经意间把它传给了……?

    我们甚至知道那个法案是不是更糟糕......?

    再说一遍,你不了解情况。 这张假钞被用来买香烟。 店主提出,如果弗洛伊德退还香烟,他会毫无意外地退还账单。 弗洛伊德拒绝了,这就是警察被叫到现场的原因。 弗洛伊德是个小偷,一个公民被迫求助于警察服务。 再一次,所谓的“警察暴行”涉及另一个粗略的黑人在公共场所造成问题,迫使其他人通过报警来对付他。 然后说黑人因为不想被抓而发生口角,但他没想到就决定偷了。

    但是你只是想相信一个讨厌黑人的警察今天刚刚决定关闭一个。

    在这些民主控制的骚乱中,唯一受害的人是公众。

    像你这样的白痴知道社会成本的含义吗……?

    是的,允许黑人犯罪会付出巨大的社会代价。

    您是否知道在您自己的城镇或城市...因警察不当行为而支付的金额?

    不......?......好吧开始考虑它......因为你的社区需要这些钱来建造学校,人行道和操场以及许多其他他妈的东西,而不是向被警察踩到的公民支付数百万美元......

    是的,我们应该清空监狱,摆脱警察,让黑人随时随地为所欲为。 他们可以在公共广场上随心所欲地行动,而您只需要离开或忍受它。

    当那个明尼阿波利斯穆斯林警察在他的搭档从窗户和她说话时,从他的乘客座位处决了一名白人妇女时,你有没有大声抗议? 您认为弗洛伊德和穆罕默德之间的行为的共同点是什么?

  205. map 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    是的,尽管您有在星际舰队学院教授火箭法律外科的背景,但您仍然无法解释警察犯下的这种“杀人”事件在您承认如此专业的 ME 报告中没有任何地方。

    没有。

    即使将死亡方法记录为“凶杀”的新闻稿也表明该文件并不暗示有罪或意图。

    相反,你引用了一堆“蛋壳头骨”,它们适用于参与酒吧打架的人,与涉及警察的合格豁免案件无关。 此外,就我们这里的目的而言,您在法庭上针对弗洛伊德提出的论点并不能使您的论点成立。

    告诉我,当他的搭档通过驾驶员侧的窗户与她交谈时,当那个穆斯林警察在他汽车的乘客座位上谋杀了一名白人妇女时,你是否感到愤怒?

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
  206. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @map

    你的评论不值得实质性回应。 你没有试图反驳我的任何论点。 你只是断言虚假和不相关的糟粕,包括对相关证据的虚假陈述或误解。

    你不理我的论点。

    Taisez-vous, Monsieur Crétin-le-Menteur-qui-voit-avec-des-hallucinations (un titre Ignoble)

    • 回复: @map
  207. map 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    这都是废话。

    我无法证实你所说的关于你自己或你的经历的任何事情。 任何人都可以声称他们是医生、律师或大学教授,或者被警察绑架和逮捕,而这种成长经历造就了他们今天的样子。

    我简直不相信你。 你几乎不可能简单地陈述你的论点是什么。 取而代之的是,您依靠自己的凭据或与与案件无关的其他专业人士的链接向权威提出上诉。 简单地阅读几个文档并了解未直接说明的内容的基本讨论超出了您的能力。 相反,您想引入与案例无关的内容。

    告诉你:告诉我们你对 Noor Mohammed 案件合法性的深刻智慧,这位明尼阿波利斯索马里警察在一名白人妇女向他的伴侣描述强奸案时从他的汽车副驾驶座上处决了一名白人妇女。 是的……他俯身清理他的搭档……然后开枪打了她。

    他得到了 12.5 年。 陪审团在他的案件中是否过于种族主义,还是不够种族主义?

  208. Loup-Bouc 说:

    This is the denouement of your narrative of your moronism and its progenies of grotesquerie, which henceforth I shall block from my perception.

    这是铅的时间 -
    记住,如果活得久,
    作为冰冻人,回忆雪——
    首先——冷静——然后是昏迷——然后是放手——

    艾米莉·狄金森

    [更多]

    With quite enough of my comments, posted in this thread and under several Unz Review articles of sundry other authors, I have displayed my legal and medical expertise.

    you rely on an appeal to authority

    Such is a vital part of what lawyers and judge MUST do. But if your READ my comments referenced in my comment of July 14, 2020 at 10:33 am GMT (this thread, comment # 203), you will see a few of my reasoned applications of authority, if you do not descend again into negative hallucinatory experience. Or do you dwell always only in an hallucinatory nether world?

    Monsieur le Crétin, je ne vous répondrai plus. Vous avez disparu.

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
  209. @Loup-Bouc

    The phenomenon of “differential tolerance” to the “respiratory suppression” effects of fentanyl in chronic users of fentanyl is not “questionable science” as you falsely assert. The American Society of Anesthesiologists recognizes this phenomenon. You bizarrely chose to block quote part of my comment but leave out the most important part: That a chronic user will develop a tolerance to the euphoric effects of fentanyl such that a dose that will kill a first time user will produce a barely adequate high in a chronic user. However, that same chronic user will not have developed a tolerance for the “respiratory suppression” effect of fentanyl, so the same high dose that produces the barely adequate high will have fatal “respiratory suppression” effect in that chronic user. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this simple point? This phenomenon MUST be considered in the death of Saint Floyd, particularly as it can occur after the euphoric effects have expired. This means Saint Floyd could have a low level of fentanyl in his blood, because he took it hours ago and it has worn off, and still die of the “respiratory suppression” effect. Recognition of this could be critical to Officer Chauvin’s defense. Ignoring it means Chauvin does not get the most vigorous defense possible.

  210. map 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    看,我已经反驳了你的观点。 你只是决定驳回驳斥。

  211. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Bombercommand

    I understood your post. But 美味 do not understand that differential tolerance investigation is useless (or bogus) in forensic pathology, hence in a case like Floyd’s. And that is why I said that differential tolerance’s 推定的 respiratory suppression fentanyl effect investigation is questionable science. Even respecting cases of living humans, the literature bears doubt concerning whether such effects are trackable, validly, reliably.

    The American Society of Anesthesiologists recognizes this phenomenon

    Right, and during the reign of China’s first Emperor, Chinese astronomers recognized that the Earth is a globe and revolves around the Sun (another globe, of sorts). So what? The Chinese did not have moon-rockets then. And here and now, the matter is whether differential tolerance investigation can determine anything valid and reliable when the subject is DEAD.

    [更多]

    You are becoming very tiresome — much because you seem to suffer hallucinations that what-I- said I did not say and that what-I-did-not-say I did say. Also, consistently, your posts imply, strongly if not necessarily, that you do not, or refuse to, comprehend the reasons why your whole differential tolerance song-and-dance is 完全不相关 to Floyd’s case — utterly irrelevant because of the applicable law and because of the impssibility of using differential tolerance investigation to find ANYTHING 有效可靠 in pathology investigation of the direct cause (or even contributing indirect causal influences) of a deceased death.

    A deceased’s case is immutably cold, so that past possible tolerances are not, 然后, validly/reliably discoverable. And Floyd’s medical history bore NOTHING that could support (legitimately) any inference concerning possible in vivo “differential tolerance” in his case.

    Because, before I can assemble a presentation of my comments that address your (irrelevant) differential tolerance mantra and explain their treatment of that mantra, you keep slinging, ptretentiously, drools of dreck to which I feel, yet, constrained to consider and repond , I cannot accomplish that feat today, per force of the press of my professional obligations. So, I shall move that matter to tomorrow, or perhaps I shall just dismiss you — your manifest thick-headed annoyance.

    Peut-être à demain, Monsieur Tête-épaisse.

    • 哈哈: Bombercommand
  212. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    My linked comment was my dismissal of map. The comment’s immediate object was map’s comment of July 14, 2020 at 10:31 pm GMT (comment # 213). For cause I cannot divine, my comment was not identified as a reply responding to map’s comment of July 14, 2020 at 10:31 pm GMT (commend # 213).

    • 回复: @map
  213. NoNwoNow 说:
    @Tusk

    Kueng: You got foam around your mouth , too ?
    George Floyd: Yes, I was just hooping earlier .

    Yes, he sure was. https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/?showcomments#comment-3979154

    Symptoms of fentanyl overdose displayed by Floyd included foaming at the mouth, difficulty walking (he had to be supported by two officers), confusion, respiratory depression, and respiratory arrest.

  214. map 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    根据你的推理,你认为肖万需要得到比努尔·穆罕默德更严厉的惩罚。 你明白努尔·穆罕默德真的处决了某人吗?

    他得到了 12.5 年。

    这是你的推理:

    这些评论证明谋杀指控应该导致定罪,这很大程度上是因为弗洛伊德的死是警察对弗洛伊德施加压力限制的可预见结果。

    ME 的报告中没有任何内容可以得出这个结论。 绝对没有。

    该报告甚至还说弗洛伊德没有受到危及生命的伤害。

    当这种压缩约束甚至没有被引用为危及生命时,压缩约束怎么会导致他的死亡?

    这是您的文本墙,在别处搜索我的评论风格的气体照明的问题。 这不可信。

  215. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Bombercommand

    I cannot afford to spend the time needed to proofread this reply. If, later, I proofread it and find typing errors that impair meaning, I shall cure such errors in a later post.

    在格林威治标准时间 14 年 2020 月 6 日下午 51:207(评论 #XNUMX)的评论中,我观察到:

    You describe “differential tolerance” incorrectly. In the context of merely the opioid-drugs-aspect of Floyd’s case, an apt description is this : in what conditions do different opioid drugs’ users (or biological systems) develop (or not develop) tolerance at different time-rates in different effect-degrees? And “differential tolerance” is NOT limited to “the ‘respiratory suppression’ effects of fentanyl.” It attempts to apply to other drugs, and drug interactions, and also to foods, nutritional chemistries, even to, e.g., the heavy metal tolerance of plants (vegetation). In the opioid arena, it applies to, e.g., opioid-induced hyperalgesia involving ANY opioid. YOU, sir or madam, are not a physician, biochemist, pysiologist, or any flavor of scientist.

    Yet, you have continued (a) to insist that “differential tolerance” bears special meaning for fentanyl-use and (b) to insist that the matter is not questionable, that even in postmortem cases, “differential tolerance is detectable at time of autopsy (after the subject has died), and fentanyl “differential tolerance” is not indeterminate 体内 .

    [更多]

    So, respecting the FACT that “differential tolerance” is NOT limited to “the ‘respiratory suppression’ effects of fentanyl,” here are:
    (i) LEGITIMATE sources that observe differential tolerance in vegetables:
    https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1985.tb02837.x
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00007944
    https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00746.x
    [The last source’s title includes these terms “Differential heavy metal tolerance.” Do tho try to argue that the source’s topic is not “differential tolerance” because the terms “differential” and “tolerance” are separated by the terms “heavy metal.” The matter is the CONTENT of the source’s study, results, and discussion — not its interspersing two terms between the two atoms of your mantric buzzword.]
    (ii) LEGITIMATE sources that observes differential tolerance occurring vis-a-vis contents of diet (cases in which individuals develop differential tolerance of a certain food or food-type or lack of such food or food-type):
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-36534-6
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0098847214002731
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00428324

    (iii) LEGITIMATE sources that treat differential tolerance vis-a-vis drugs other than fentanyl:
    https://www.ijpp.com/IJPP%20archives/2001_45_1/111-115.pdf
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0091305780904232

    In my comment of July 15, 2020 at 1:29 am GMT (comment # 217), I observed:

    …[C]onsistently, your posts imply, strongly if not necessarily, that you do not, or refuse to, comprehend the reasons why your whole differential tolerance song-and-dance is utterly irrelevant to Floyd’s case — utterly irrelevant because of the applicable law and because of the impossibility of using differential tolerance investigation to find ANYTHING valid and reliable in pathology investigation of the direct cause (or even contributing indirect causal influences) of a deceased death.

    A deceased’s case is immutably cold, so that past possible tolerances are not, then, validly/reliably discoverable. And Floyd’s medical history bore NOTHING that could support (legitimately) any inference concerning possible in vivo “differential tolerance” in his case.

    Here are two forms of proof “of the impossibility of using differential tolerance investigation to find ANYTHING valid and reliable in pathology investigation of the direct cause (or even contributing indirect causal influences) of a deceased death,” since a “deceased’s case is immutably cold, so that past possible tolerances are not, then, validly/reliably discoverable.

    (1) Direct proof

    In “A critical review of the causes of death among post-mortem toxicological investigations: analysis of 34 buprenorphine-associated and 35 methadone-associated deaths” at p.985, in colomn 2, this appears:

    Tolerance to opioids and/or benzodiazepines would be expected to play a significant role in both their individual and combined toxicities. Tolerance has been reported with methadone as well as buprenorphine. In vivo behavioural studies showed that 更高的功效 μ agonists appear more resistant to tolerance than do lower efficacy agonists. Treatment with escalating doses of morphine or buprenorphine produced greater tolerance to the lower efficacy buprenorphine than to the higher efficacy agonist, morphine 。 此外, repeated morphine treatment results in less cross-tolerance to higher efficacy agonist methadone than to morphine…[endnote signal omitted]. Unfortunately, in our forensic study, because the ante-mortem histories of drug use of the subjects were often unobtainable , we cannot comment on the role that tolerance, or lack thereof, may have played in these deaths .

    [Emphasis added and endnote signal omitted by me, Loup-Bouc.]

    The preceding quote indicates, clearly, that differential tolerance (or any tolerance) is not determinable postmortem — unless on premise of in vivo records that, somehow, show at least a significant likelihood of tolerance (differential or not). But such 体内 records are if not always, near-always, either invalid or unreliable (or both) — as will appear shortly below (under the heading “ Indirect Proof “)。

    For Floyd’s case, the inescapable and conclusively significant forensic-medicine implication is that no differential tolerance determination was possible in Floyd’s case — (1) because an autopsy cannot produce any indication of drug tolerance/intolerance (differential or non-differential) and (2) because Floyd’s recorded history, medical, criminal, or other history, bears hopelessly insufficient basis of determining whether Floyd had become tolerant (differentially or non-differentially) to fentanyl (or any of the other potentially toxic or potentially lethal drugs found in Floyd’s blood or urine postmortem.

    * [ 边注: Explanations of some terminology of the immediately preceding quote:
    (i)An “agonist” is a substance that binds with a receptor and induces the receptor to cause a physiological or biochemical response. Fentanyl is an agonist, as are morphine, buprenorphine, Tramadol, Nalbuphine, cannibanoids, and amphetamines (cannibanoids and amphetamines can be also antagonists, see, 例如, https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/amphetamines AND https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2882293/).
    (ii) Agonists are of four types: μ , Δ, κ , and ORL-1. Fentanyl and morphine are μ agonists. Buprenorphine can be either a Δ agonist or a κ 激动剂。
    (A) μ agonists induce receptors to produce
    镇痛
    萧条
    欣快症
    身体依赖性
    呼吸
    镇静
    (B) Δ agonists induce receptors to produce
    镇痛
    Inhibit dopamine release
    Modulation of μ 接收器
    (C) κ agonists induce receptors to produce
    镇痛
    利尿
    烦躁不安
    (iii) A single substance can be of more than one type, e.g., μ , Δκ . If a substance can be both agonist or antagonist, its effects can be markedly varied. Example: Buprenorphine — μ partial agonist, κ 反派, Δ weak antagonist.
    尾注:]

    (2) Indirect Proof

    I have never found a valid, reliable 体内 (antemortem) human-subject study “different tolerance” or, more important, tolerance occurrences/variances that buzzword tries to connote. Near-certainly, the reasons are:

    (a) No study could force humans to submit to trials that would be seriously life-threatening. (To test validly and reliably the differentia tolerance otention of, say, fentanyl, one would need to submit subject to potentially fatal or perhaps chronically debilitating doses of the drug; and such would beg criminal penalty. Just so,

    (b) No study could establish a randomly-selected, sufficient-size sample. Such study would be consigned to using tests or test-records of individuals who happened to appear in emergency rooms, hospitals, or clinics because of some ill-health condition that induced a physician to run tests that either showed use of agonist or antagonist drugs or suggested presence of such substances. So, randomness is impossible; and near-certainly a study could not assemble an adequate study sample within a properly limited time-span.

    (c) Even if a an adequate-size, random sample could be assembled lawfully, still the study would encounter the insurmountable problem that the subjects’ diets and various and varying sundry lawful prescription drug use and use of legal diet-supplements or legal, even prescribed medicinal herbs would complicate the study beyond the sutdy’ ability of accounting for and such variables and rendering them insignificant. [COMPARE, 例如,, under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” , my comments of
    *July 8, 2020 at 4:16 am GMT (comment # 714), as corrected by my comment of July 8, 2020 at 7:53 am GMT (comment # 716)
    *July 10, 2020 at 9:24 pm GMT (comment # 732)

    Just so, the 体内 (antemortem) studies are run with non-human animals, or studies are run 体外, 不是 体内 - 例如,, 这些:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/1301308
    https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/84679134.pdf
    https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/183276843/Final_Copy_2019_01_23_Hill_R_PhD.pdf

    ======

    The foregoing considerations show that your “differential tolerance” manta cannot function in a legitimate forensic pathology examination of Floyd’s case.

    More important: in numerous comments, I showed, irrefutably, as a clear matter of clear law, that 即使 “differential tolerance” analysis could obtain in Floyd’s case (though, for reasons put above, it could not), still Officer Chauvin and at least one other arresting policeman murdered Floyd.

    Under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” , see, 例如,:
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 2 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 17:399 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 5 日格林威治标准时间下午 03:426 发表的评论(评论 #25),已由我在格林威治标准时间 2020 年 11 月 37 日下午 461:XNUMX 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)更正
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 10 日格林威治标准时间晚上 03:432 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 10 日格林威治标准时间晚上 13:433 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 26 年 2020 月 5 日格林威治标准时间晚上 31:486 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 5 年 2020 月 8 日格林威治标准时间晚上 35:707 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 1 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间晚上 26:633 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 1 年 2020 月 9 日格林威治标准时间晚上 08:639 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 8 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 16:714 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 10 年 2020 月 3 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 21:724 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 10 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间晚上 32:730 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 13 年 2020 月 12 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 52:735 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)

    这些评论证明谋杀指控应该导致定罪,这很大程度上是因为弗洛伊德的死是警察对弗洛伊德施加压力限制的可预见结果。

    (2) See also, in THIS thread, my comments of July 11, 2020 at 12:23 am GMT (comment # 127) and July 11, 2020 at 10:54 pm GMT (comment # 172) and July 14, 2020 at 3:40 am GMT (comment # 201) and July 14, 2020 at 10:33 am GMT (comment # 203) — but be informed that those comments (posted in THIS thread) beg supplementation by my comments posted under John-Paul Leonard’s article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?” ().

    =======

    Above I referenced two of my comments posted under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” . Those comments are two of those pertinent here. Others (posted under John-Paul Leonard’s same article) include my comment of June 23, 2020 at 2:17 am GMT (comment # 399) and the there-referenced comments of “The Scalpel (a long-time Emergency Room physician).

    Though you asserted that you read all my comments posted under John-Paul Leonard’s same article, I believe that your read spare few, surely nowhere near all those comments, because of the contents of your comments that reply to mine. So, I shall not reference, here, more of my comments posted under John-Paul Leonard’s same article. Rather I challenge you to read all of them. A premiminary test is whether you can cite my comment that bears this language — “associativity: A  (B  C) = (A  B)  C” — or this language — “Your comment…renders…cause of suspecting that the counterfeit-bill-passing does not explain Floyd’s arrest — that, rather, the arrest was “inspired” by “information”…cops received from the individual sitting in a car parked illegally behind the car in which Floyd was…reclining” [ellipses added by me, here, purposely, to preclude your finding the comment with an electronif search-device] — or this:

    I sat with the plaintiff’s attorney during…deposition of the defendant. I advised plaintiff’s attorney…how to get the defendant to admit
    (a) …he screwed the plaintiff’s wife several times
    (b) …he had herpes simplex II (genital)
    (c) …his herpes eruption episodes occurred in pairs
    (d) …every paired-attack first attack’s termination was separated from the related second attack’s commencement by about five days, that his individual attacks lasted two to three weeks…
    (e) on one occasion of his screwing the plaintiff’s wife, one paired-attack’s first attack had ended 11 or 12 days earlier.

    Again, I added ellipses.

    I shall not reply to your comments again.

    • 回复: @Bombercommand
  216. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Bombercommand

    I noticed that a mathematical symbol did not appear correctly. The trouble was this website’s not recognizing myu (Word Perfect) text’s presentation of the math symbols, likely because of electronic Incompatibility. I shall try to make it appear as it ought.

    [更多]

    The glitch occurred in this language:

    “associativity: A  (B  C) = (A  B)  C”

    The “” things are errors.

    The language ought to be this:

    “associativity: A ∨ (B ∨ C) = (A∨ B) ∨ C”

    I hope the corrected text appears as it ought.

  217. @Loup-Bouc

    It is only the “differential tolerance” to the “respiratory suppression” effect of fentanyl that is important to determining what really killed Saint Floyd. You keep harping on tolerance buildup to the euphoric effect, that is irrelevant to my argument. My argument is a legal one. St Floyd was a fentanyl addict and was on fentanyl when detained, and complained “I can’t breathe” BEFORE any police restraint was applied. With fentanyl, this “respiratory suppression” effect can occur after, even hours after, the euphoric effect has expired. Therefore the “differential tolerance” to the “respiratory suppression” effect of fentanyl MUST be considered as a possible cause of death of Saint Floyd. Otherwise Officer Chauvin does not receive the most vigorous defence possible. You claim to have graduated Law School and be an MD, it is beyond me why you cannot understand or be interested in my argument.

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
  218. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Bombercommand

    Now another glitch:

    [更多]

    “associativity: A ∨ (B ∨ C) = (A∨ B) ∨ C”

    the = ought to be ≡
    孙:

    “associativity: A ∨ (B ∨ C) ≡ (A∨ B) ∨ C”

    非常令人沮丧。

  219. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Bombercommand

    I promised myself that I would not reply again to your comments. But I cannot withhold reply to your latest — and most astounding — piece of absolute bullshit.

    You can say “It is only the ‘differential tolerance’ to the ‘respiratory suppression’ effect of fentanyl that is important to determining what really killed Saint Floyd” or “It is only the ‘differential tolerance’ to the ‘defecation-suppression’ effect of fentanyl that is important to determining what really killed Saint Floyd” or “It is only the ‘differential tolerance’ to the ‘hallucinatory hallucination of infrahallucatory prohallucination imbecility’ effect of ‘differential tolerance’ to ‘non-differential tolerance’ to ‘antidifferential tolerance’ or ‘up-your-wazoo-differential-tolerance’ effect of non-effect-sensation-of-your-lunacy.”

    Whatever tolerance dreck you savor or feel perseverationally compelled to issue-forth, you are accomplishing nothing but demonstrating your abysmal but dangerous stupidity.

    I have shown:

    (A) No method can determine any antemortem drug tolerance or intolerance of any kind or effect when the subject is already DEAD. You have not presented, and no one can present, ANY scientific/statistical showing to the contrary.

    (B) No method can establish any statistically valid, reliable, or significant sample or population tolerance or tolerance-effect of live humans (for reason I presented with sufficient study and statistical-and-hypothesis-testing-method-science support). You have not presented, and no one can present, ANY scientific/statistical showing to the contrary.

    (c) Even if some method 可以 render possible the impossible — could determine the antemortem a differential tolerance [even ‘respiratory suppression’ effect of a differential tolerance] of a CORPSE — the determination would be ABSOLUTELY LEGALLY IRRELEVANT to Floyd’s case, for the reasons I presented in my last reply and in several other comments in this thread AND under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/

    AS A CLEAR MATTER OF LAW, Chauvin and at least one other cop MURDERED Floyd.

    You have not presented, and no one can present, ANY legal — any ACTUALLY LEGAL — argument to the contrary.

    Now I promise myself absolutely that I will not respond again to your toxic verbal detritus.

    • 回复: @Bombercommand
  220. @Loup-Bouc

    I never claimed that the “differential tolerance” to the “respiratory suppression” effect of fentanyl in chronic users can be calculated on a corpse, nor does it need to be. The American Society of Anathesiologists recognizes and teaches this phenomenon. If I wrote that “differential tolerance” to the “respiratory suppression” effect is the only important thing to consider in determining what killed Saint Floyd, I was engaging in hyperbole, so it might appear I misspoke myself. This was neccesary because you have insisted that the neck restraint killed him and that was murder, so your assertion must be countered with an equally strong assertion. The Defense, at trial, must put doubt in the mind of the jurors. There is considerable doubt the neck restraint killed Saint Floyd, but in the absence of other possible causes of death, jurors might conclude it was due to the neck restraint, that is only natural. If another, plausible, scientifically recognized cause of death is introduced in evidence, this might tip the scales. The fact is, death of a chronic fentanyl user can be caused by the “differential tolerance” to the “respiratory suppression” effects of fentanyl, this fact is undeniable. It is a fact that Saint Floyd was complaining “I can’t breathe” BEFORE ANY NECK RESTRAINT WAS APPLIED. This is a fact, it cannot be denied. The two facts together suggest Saint Floyd may have been experiencing the onset of FATAL “respiratory suppression”. Together, this might introduce sufficient doubt in the minds of jurors to result in acquittal, particularly paired with the fact that Officer Chauvin was in this situation while in the line of duty, where there is a higher standard required to prove a case of murder, or any lesser charge, such as manslaughter.

  221. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Bombercommand

    Since your most recent comment bears at least a spare semblance of semi-honest, rational, semi-intelligent thought, I respond once more.

    The fact is, death of a chronic fentanyl user can be caused by the “differential tolerance” to the “respiratory suppression” effects of fentanyl, this fact is undeniable.

    That assertion states a LIKELY true general proposition (though actually the matter is fentanyl INTOLERANCE that associates, perhaps causally, with “respiratory suppression”) . But that proposition is not provable in any actual postmortem investigation not supported by immense totally valid, reliable, and very particularly relevant documented medical history of the individual deceased. Such documentation was absent in Floyd’s case; and surely it is present in a very, very minute population of cases.

    It is a fact that Saint Floyd was complaining “I can’t breathe” BEFORE ANY NECK RESTRAINT WAS APPLIED. This is a fact, it cannot be denied. The two facts together suggest Saint Floyd may have been experiencing the onset of FATAL “respiratory suppression”.

    Only ONE fact is involved: Floyd complained of some UNSPECIFIED degree of dyspnea.

    [更多]

    The other “fact” — “differential tolerance” (等等) is NOT a case-specific fact in Floyd’s case; and, at least as you put it, your general proposition has not been shown CERTAINLY true or certainly true generally enough to be considered a medical/empirical FACT, or a medical fact a court would deem sufficiently “generally accepted.” , 并比较, Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 401, Rule 403, Rule 702 ( the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules of Evidence—2000 Amendment), Rule 703, and Rule 803(18). https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

    [All U.S. states have either adopted the federal rules of evidence or have enacted evidence rules that are markedly similar, especially vis-a-vis the here-involved issue.]

    Together, this might introduce sufficient doubt in the minds of jurors…where there is a higher standard required to prove a case of murder, or any lesser charge, such as manslaughter.

    Your assertion’s “doubt in the minds of jurors” consideration is possible in EVERY criminal case tried by a jury — at least because of the always-possibility of jury nullification [a matter I addressed in my comment of July 14, 2020 at 3:40 am GMT (comment # 201)]. But:

    (a) Since that possibility is universal POSSIBILITY, it is meaningless in any particular EVIDENCED case.

    (b) The core consideration — (reasonable) “doubt” — is absolutely irrelevant to the PURELY LEGAL QUESTION of whether, 作为法律问题,” the cops murdered Floyd.

    Your assertion’s “higher standard required” consideration is likewise meaningless because of its universality. Also:

    (a) In Floyd’s case, “作为法律问题,” ONLY the cops’ compression-restraints could be (and were, actually) the proximate cause of Floyd’s death (In Floyd-case proximate-cause determination necessarily includes: (1) clearly necessary applicability of the eggshell skull rule and (2) the cops’ clear exacerbation of foreseeability of Floyd’s death).

    (b) The controlling, undisputed ultimate facts are treated and their significancies explained in my below-listed comments posted under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/, see, 例如:
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 2 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 17:399 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 5 日格林威治标准时间下午 03:426 发表的评论(评论 #25),已由我在格林威治标准时间 2020 年 11 月 37 日下午 461:XNUMX 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)更正
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 10 日格林威治标准时间晚上 03:432 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 10 日格林威治标准时间晚上 13:433 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 26 年 2020 月 5 日格林威治标准时间晚上 31:486 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 5 年 2020 月 8 日格林威治标准时间晚上 35:707 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 1 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间晚上 26:633 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 1 年 2020 月 9 日格林威治标准时间晚上 08:639 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 8 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 16:714 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 10 年 2020 月 3 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 21:724 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 10 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间晚上 32:730 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 13 年 2020 月 12 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 52:735 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)

    Those comments prove that the murder charges ought to lead to conviction, much, BUT NOT ONLY, because Floyd’s death was a specially foreseeable result of the compression-restraints the cops applied to Floyd.

    (2) See also, in THIS thread, my comments of July 11, 2020 at 12:23 am GMT (comment # 127) and July 11, 2020 at 10:54 pm GMT (comment # 172) and July 14, 2020 at 3:40 am GMT (comment # 201) and July 14, 2020 at 10:33 am GMT (comment # 203) — but be informed that those comments (posted in THIS thread) beg supplementation by my above-cited comments posted under John-Paul Leonard’s article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?” ().

    Quite clearly, you do not understand the pertinent legal rules or know and appreciate the pertinent judicial precedents or how, properly, the law must treat the pertinent forensic medical evidence. READ MY ABOVE-CITED COMMENTS.

    • 回复: @Tusk
  222. Tusk 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    I’m not sure what you’re arguing, because while we don’t have the footage we have the transcript. So sure, you can say the footage is different from the transcript, but the transcript simply states exactly what I described. Your belief that the footage online = truth, but not the transcript, just highlights a presumption of bias.

    In the second case, you have no argument because the medical examiner ruled there was no damage done to Floyd’s neck that caused any breathing injuries. One again, Floyd was unable to breathe and likely having a heart attack before the officer who used a legal knee restraint upon him, so your causation is backwards to imply it was this guy arrived after the fact caused the conditions that killed Floyd. Perhaps you can argue he aggravated them, or he was negligent, but that doesn’t change two important facts:

    1. Floyd chose the consume the drugs that killed him.
    2. He choose to commit the crime that led to his arrest.

    You, like many other sycophants, erase any agency Floyd has and place the blame solely on others. Floyd did many things wrong that led to his death and that’s where the blame should be placed.

    You also err when you share this link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/01/independent-autopsy-finds-george-floyd-died-by-homicide-caused-by-asphyxia/#2602a5de7f8f

    Considering that this is not an official autopsy, of which even PCR mentions in his post that nobody seems to have a copy of, paid for by the family it is an extremely untrustworthy source.

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
  223. Tusk 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    Those comments prove that the murder charges ought to lead to conviction, much, BUT NOT ONLY, because Floyd’s death was a specially foreseeable result of the compression-restraints the cops applied to Floyd.

    Floyd died because of the legally approved non-lethal restraints used on him? You should get someone to apply the neck restraint to yourself since it’s easy to look it up online. You’ll find it is very easy to breathe, unless of course, perhaps you were in the middle of a drug induced heart attack…

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
  224. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Tusk

    You should get someone to apply the neck restraint to yourself since it’s easy to look it up online.

    I am personally, physically familiar with the physiologic effects of neck-restraints. See my comment of June 10, 2020 at 9:48 pm GMT (comment # 470) posted under Fred Reed’s 7 June 2020 Unz Review article “Her Name Is Breonna Taylor,” https://www.unz.com/freed/her-name-is-breanna-taylor/?showcomments#comments.

    You’ll find it is very easy to breathe, unless of course, perhaps you were in the middle of a drug induced heart attack.

    Allow ME to apply to YOU the kind of neck-restraint Officer Chauvin applied to Floyd. After about 3 minutes, you will feel your life threatened; and it WILL BE THREATENED.

    All the evidence, including all the Floyd-case expert opinion, makes utterly clear that “heart attack” was NOT involved. Ultimately Floyd suffered cardiac arrest; but (you medically ignorant, moronic fool) cardiac arrest is NOT a heart attack, and a heart attack is NOT a cardiac arrest.

    And even if (contrary to ALL the available, LEGALLY ADMISSIBLE evidence, including all the expert opinion) Floyd in danger of suffering a heart attack, THAT (you law-ignorant and abysmally stupid fool) would be PART OF THE REASON why the LAW WOULD HOLD that Officer Chauvin and at least one other cop MURDERED Floyd.

    In Floyd’s case, “as a matter of law,” ONLY the cops’ compression-restraints could be (and were, actually) the proximate cause of Floyd’s death. [In Floyd-case proximate-cause determination necessarily includes: (1) clearly necessary applicability of the eggshell skull rule and (2) the cops’ clear exacerbation of foreseeability of Floyd’s death).]

    [更多]

    (b) The controlling, undisputed ultimate facts are treated and their significancies explained in my below-listed comments posted under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/, see, e.g.:
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 2 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 17:399 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 5 日格林威治标准时间下午 03:426 发表的评论(评论 #25),已由我在格林威治标准时间 2020 年 11 月 37 日下午 461:XNUMX 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)更正
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 10 日格林威治标准时间晚上 03:432 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 10 日格林威治标准时间晚上 13:433 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 26 年 2020 月 5 日格林威治标准时间晚上 31:486 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 5 年 2020 月 8 日格林威治标准时间晚上 35:707 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 1 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间晚上 26:633 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 1 年 2020 月 9 日格林威治标准时间晚上 08:639 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 8 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 16:714 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 10 年 2020 月 3 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 21:724 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 10 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间晚上 32:730 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 13 年 2020 月 12 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 52:735 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)

    Those comments prove that the murder charges ought to lead to conviction, much, BUT NOT ONLY, because Floyd’s death was a specially foreseeable result of the compression-restraints the cops applied to Floyd.

    (2) See also, in THIS thread, my comments of July 11, 2020 at 12:23 am GMT (comment # 127) and July 11, 2020 at 10:54 pm GMT (comment # 172) and July 14, 2020 at 3:40 am GMT (comment # 201) and July 14, 2020 at 10:33 am GMT (comment # 203) — but be informed that those comments (posted in THIS thread) beg supplementation by my above-cited comments posted under John-Paul Leonard’s article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?” ().

    • 回复: @Tusk
  225. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Tusk

    See my comment of July 17, 2020 at 3:28 am GMT (comment # 230), which replies to your comment of July 17, 2020 at 2:23 am GMT (comment # 239) and which demolishes all the premises and assertions of your comment of July 17, 2020 at 2:15 am GMT comment # 238), the assertions and premises of which do not supplement, or differ essentially from, the grossly ignorant, stupid assertions and premises of your comment of July 17, 2020 at 2:23 am GMT (comment # 239).

  226. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Tusk

    CORRECTION of comment-reference numbers of my comment of July 17, 2020 at 4:31 am GMT (comment # 231). The comment-references citing comment # 238 and comment # 239 ought to cite comment # 228 and comment #229.

  227. roonaldo 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    Glad I made your list of deplorables–we who fall short of your elevated Infallibility Quotient.

    I went to comments in the John Paul Leonard article, as you suggest we all do, looking for reasoned discussion, and found you stating in #586, “Perhaps Leonard’s false assertions derive from delusions that pursue defense of weak ego–delusions that are psychotic-impulse-engendered and occur beyond control of Leonard’s conscious mind…” Now, some bombast is usual in comments but don’t physicians have ethics standards regarding statements like this? You state that it is “absolutely an impossibility” Floyd’s death was fentanyl-related.

    It would seem, from your assertions, that you would take issue with RT, the anasthesiologist/surgeon, but you avoided engaging with him, and went on to to decry Paul Craig Roberts’”psychotic fantasies.”

    I don’t know if you are what you purport to be, but your moniker, Loup-Bouc, he-wolf billy-goat, is fitting. Loup also means mask, or a type of half-mask in French. Rutting billy goats, per motherearthnews.com, 11/16/2013, “…pee all over themselves. They pee on their beards, in their mouths, on top of their heads, down their front legs, in their water bucket…it’s just nasty, it’s caustic…”

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
  228. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @roonaldo

    But where is your relevant, valid, legal/forensic-medicine argument and its evidentiary support?

    I am not “nice.” I despise”nice, even contemn “nice.” “Nice” is fraudulent. See my comment of June 28, 2020 at 3:03 am GMT (comment # 535) poste under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/

    Also, in 1962 through 1964, I had, and loved dearly, a pet Toggenburg male goat, whom (when he was an infant) I rescued from a Philadelphia “Little Italy” abattoir shortly before Easter Sunday of 1962. I named him Hennessy, because I used my weekly Hennessy cognac money (and an additional amount) to purchase him from certain death. He was bleating, horrified, in a cage shared by his mother, who was slaughtered, because I had not enough money to purchase her, too.

    Hennessy never peed on himself. But surely he would pee on YOU.

    • 回复: @roonaldo
  229. Smith 说:
    @Biff

    I’m not sure I understand your post? Where did I imply Floyd was special?

    I’m pointing out the fact leftists are using his death to riot, nothing more, and this has consequences worldwide.

    Asia has no need for this nigger lives matter shit.

  230. roonaldo 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    放轻松,《地球母亲新闻》中的公山羊是您在线行为的隐喻,正如您所说,您的宠物山羊无关紧要。 这个比喻适用于许多海报,包括我自己,但我们大多数人的膀胱都比较小。 而且,嘿,我也喜欢山羊,我在县集市工作的时候经常给它们带来食物。

    You say you hate and condemn nice. What don’t you hate? Your vituperative, absolutist demeanor seems way out of whack for an aged, distinguished professor of law and physician, and makes me wonder if your petulant online persona is but a construct by a team of keyboard operatives, who try to humanize the construct with stories of poor vision and goats. Perhaps the William H. Bates, M.D. method for improving vision could bring you some relief, if you are real.

    Besides, we have a larger enemy in the destructive oligarchic structure poisoning our society. An interesting read is Dr. Stuart Jean Bramhall at stuartbramhall.wordpress.com titled “Emerging Evidence Suggests Nightclub Where Floyd and Chavin Worked Linked to Intelligence and Moneylaundering.” Shades of Jack Ruby.

    回想一下 DNC/Clinton 帮派的 Kavanaugh 疯狂斗篷,由完全欺诈的 Christine Blasey Ford 和歇斯底里、撒谎的女性支持演员主演。

    在最新的爆料中,夜总会是聚集球员的纽带。 弗洛伊德(Floyd)吸毒成瘾,贩卖假钞,他的指控可能比警察对他的身体指控更严重。 变色龙沙文。 在分区操作中移动玩家,每个玩家都有分配的任务和处理程序。 DNC hack Ellison 被任命为司法部长。 我们走吧。

    • 回复: @map
    , @Loup-Bouc
  231. map 说:
    @Bombercommand

    你们为什么要浪费时间和 Loup-Bouc 争论? 这家伙显然是一个不知道自己在说什么的巨魔。 这个白痴正在争论当同样的“法律”给一名索马里明尼阿波利斯警察 12.5 年的时间时,“法律”会发现什么,因为他在汽车的乘客座位上处决了一名白人妇女。 这家伙会因为表现良好而在 4 年内出狱。

    得到一个线索:这个“蛋壳头骨”的废话不适用于警察。 它适用于进入酒吧打架的假人。 这就是警察有资格豁免的原因:他们的工作是干预人们的生活并适当合法地执行逮捕,即使该人正在反抗。 在警察拘留期间死亡在任何情况下都不是该人明显的近因。

    停止回应这个白痴。 他所做的就是通过引用他以前的文字墙评论来追你到兔子洞里。 嘿,笨蛋,我们已经阅读了您的评论。 我们不同意他们的看法。 我们不需要继续回去重新阅读您发布的 sh*t。

  232. map 说:
    @roonaldo

    这个医学/律师/教授问题的解决方案与任何解决方案相同。

    1) 您允许学生贷款在破产时解除。
    2)你把破产的成本塞进大学的喉咙里。 贷款是通过没收大学的财产、养老金和捐赠来支付的。
    3) 您将公司要求大学学位从事不需要大学学位的工作定为非法。 举证责任在于雇主。

    看着大学干涸和消失。

  233. McDuff 说:

    We now live in a time where “LOGIC IS AN ENEMY AND TRUTH IS A MENACE”

  234. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @roonaldo

    Sad. Your language suggests you possess more than a modicum of intelligence, sound education (perhaps even a tad of classical education), and a smidgin of good taste. Still, erratically, your central neural apparatus flicks on-and-off your psyche’s derangement-switch.

    your pet goat is, as you would say, irrelevant

    Your derangement-switch flipped your apprehension to desired-blindness mode. My pet goat’s bestial innocence would have triggered his pissing on your racism to neutralize its acidic effect.

    Your vituperative…demeanor seems way out of whack for an aged, distinguished professor of law and physician

    I treat gracefully those whose conduct deserves respect, but contemn, manifestly, humans who display emotional plague, especially those who dissemble with pretense of sophistication.

    [更多]

    Your…absolutist demeanor

    Logic does not admit of shades of grey. A matter is relevant or it is not. Nothing can be more or less relevant — though irrelevance is capable infinite degree-variability, short of relevance.

    If a legal rule bears an absolute limit, it resists exception (or, fudging according to your bias). Some (albeit few) scientific facts are immutable (at least for some time).

    Evil bullshit is evil bullshit and deserves being treated contemptuously.

    One here-relevant example is the fact that, alone, forensic pathology cannot determine whether a corpse may have suffered “respiratory suppression” caused by “differential fentanyl tolerance” — the mantra Bombercommand intones (dissonantly) to his demigods for hope they will interpolate it (his mantra) into Floyd’s case.

    Another relevant example is your Floyd-case propaganda — engendered by a chemical convergence of racist bias and legal/medical ignorance.

    Your…demeanor seems way out of whack for an aged, distinguished professor of law and physician

    In 1967-1969 and 1979-1981, I received the therapy of an orgonomic psychiatrist (who enabled me to become a beast). He (that psychiatrist) treated a full slate of patients, and played tennis, nearly every work-week day, until he reached his 99th year. (He died at 101, two years ago.)

    Near surely, I, at 80 years, can outrun you and climb a 4,000 ft mountain before you reach half its height. And if you dared attack me (unless with a firearm aimed more than a foot away), I, a shodan aikidoka would toss your presumptuous self into the air and splat against a wall.

    And I, at 80 years, still (a) cure patients allopaths, naturopaths, and homeopaths leave for dead and (b) win post-conviction-relief cases though, since 1996, the mean annual success-rate range ≈ 0.02% to 0.3%.

    Besides, we have a larger enemy in the destructive oligarchic structure poisoning our society.

    THERE, you talk SENSE.

    I regret, intensely, that the current mini-revolution’s masses are too stupid to appreciate that they might have accomplished some good had they directed their ire at the oligarchs and their minions, whose evil conduct does not derive from or depend on ethnicity (or pre-Cold-War-era history or some grandiose, inartistic statues or…….), but at people and institutions that manifest psychopathic greed (wealth-greed, power-greed, fame-greed…….).

    Black lives — 非常好 Blacks’ lives — 确实重要 — as do the lives of all the relatively few good humans of any ethnicity. Only human 兽类 are good — innocent beasts, like my Hennessy goat-son and my sweet, loving, loyal dog-daughter, Calli.

    一个真正的好人不懂他的善,所以好。
    一个愚蠢的人会试图做个好人,所以不好。
    ***
    当善良丧失时,善良就开始了。
    当失去仁慈时,正义就开始了。
    当正义丧失时,仪式就开始了。
    仪式是信仰和忠诚的外壳,是混乱的开始。

    Lines 1-2 & 9-12 of TAO TE CHING, Chapter 38 [my translation]

    THAT is why I contemn “nice.”

    But, though still markedly troublous, racism is not the core evil. Psychopathic greed is. (See above.)

    And if Wall Street, the military industrial complex, neoliberal and neocon politicians, the two main political parties, the Deep State, the Zionist lobby, religion, and the Mainstream Media were demolished, racism’s significant consequences would wither to relatively minor, mostly-avoidable nuisance, largely issuing from mere stupidity. [The nuisance will never vanish, because >99% of humans are at best neurotic.]

    回想一下 DNC/Clinton 帮派的 Kavanaugh 疯狂斗篷,由完全欺诈的 Christine Blasey Ford 和歇斯底里、撒谎的女性支持演员主演。

    Kavanaugh’s previous judicial conduct was exemplary; and, among the current nine of the Supreme Court, he is one of the three smartest. He is the jurisprudentially best. [The other markedly smart Justices are (a) Roberts, who has proved himself thoroughly corrupt, and (b) Gorsuch, who in Bostock V. Clayton County, Georgia, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf , either (i) suffered a lapse of honor and intelligence or (ii) presented a symptom of incipient-soon-to-become-chronically-manifest depravity.]

    For their behavior in the Kavanaugh-appointment fiasco, I wish that the Clintons, most Democrats (some are just stupid innocents), and the entire Deep State and Mainstream Media populations shall be afflicted by multiple sclerosis terminated by Hemangiosarcoma. [I except Republicans IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE only because their evils happen not to be mechanized to operate in a case like Kavanaugh’s.]

    In my comment of July 11, 2020 at 11:27 pm GMT (comment # 173) of THIS thread, I referred you to some of my comments posted under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/

    At the time of the posting of my comment of July 11, 2020 at 11:27 pm GMT (comment # 173) of THIS thread, I had not posted under the above-cited John-Paul Leonard article all my comments that treat the matters addressed in my comments of July 11, 2020 at 10:54 pm GMT (comment # 172) and July 11, 2020 at 11:27 pm GMT (comment # 173) of THIS thread — comment # 172 and comment # 173 being reply-comments addressed to you.

    So, now, I refer you to a greater number of my comments posted under the same (above cited) John-Paul Leonard article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?”:
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 2 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 17:399 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 5 日格林威治标准时间下午 03:426 发表的评论(评论 #25),已由我在格林威治标准时间 2020 年 11 月 37 日下午 461:XNUMX 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)更正
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 10 日格林威治标准时间晚上 03:432 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 10 日格林威治标准时间晚上 13:433 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 26 年 2020 月 5 日格林威治标准时间晚上 31:486 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 1 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间晚上 26:633 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 1 年 2020 月 9 日格林威治标准时间晚上 08:639 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 5 年 2020 月 8 日格林威治标准时间晚上 35:707 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 8 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 16:714 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 10 年 2020 月 3 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 21:724 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 10 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间晚上 32:730 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 10 年 2020 月 9 日格林威治标准时间晚上 24:732 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 13 年 2020 月 12 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 52:735 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)

  235. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Bombercommand

    I see that “map” has replied (comment # 237) to your comment (comment # 226) to which THIS comment replies — to debunk map’s comment (comment # 237) replying to your same comment.

    地图断言:

    …[The] “蛋壳头骨”的废话不适用于警察。 …… 这就是为什么警察有资格豁免...... 在警察拘留期间死亡在任何情况下都不是该人明显的近因。

    不要让地图将您带入他的有毒沼泽。 请参阅以下司法判决,其中包括许多其他认为警察无权获得豁免权的判决,当他们像杀害弗洛伊德的警察一样行事时,可能会被判犯有杀人罪。

    (A) Richman 诉 Sheahan, 512 F. 3d 876 (7th Cir. 2008), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6725673574912167448&q=Richman+v.+Sheahan,+512+F.+3d+876+(7th+Cir.+2008)&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38

    [更多]

    In Richman 诉 Sheahan, 512 F. 3d 876 (7th Cir. 2008),执法人员比谋杀弗洛伊德的警察有更强大的防御能力——因此,如果在 Richman v. Sheahan 案中,警察的行为,无论是单独的还是一起,都构成了造成受害人死亡的近因,然后, 更何况,警察没有可以证明(合法合法)无罪开释的辩护。 [我将“无罪释放”改为“合法合法”,因为有时陪审团会以“陪审团无效”为前提做出非法判决(基于情感或推定的“良心”或因为社会政治偏见而做出的违法判决, 例如,偏执,这与法律的要求(a)相冲突。]

    在 Richman v. Sheahan 一案涉及第 4 和第 8 修正案“过度武力”主张的联邦民权案件中,法院应用了蛋壳头骨规则。 导致死亡的事件发生在伊利诺伊州芝加哥州法院。 受害者杰克·里奇曼 [以下简称“杰克”],34 岁,极度肥胖,身高 6 英尺 2 英寸,体重 489 磅。 他拄着拐杖走路。

    杰克和他的母亲[以下简称“妈妈”]正在法庭上等待妈妈的交通罚单案的审理。 庭审结束时,法官告诉妈妈,他要在第二天继续审理此案。 杰克和妈妈很生气,拼命抗议。 法官听了一会儿,然后要求他们安静,并威胁要蔑视他们。

    杰克和妈妈没有停止。 法官传唤了副警长。 两名代表回应。 法官告诉杰克和妈妈与副手​​一起离开法庭,但他们拒绝了。 法官宣布杰克藐视法庭,命令副手逮捕他。 杰克继续拒绝平静地离开。 法官将杰克的刑期延长至 120 天。

    当代表们试图强行移除杰克时,他紧紧抓住讲台,他们无法将他移开。 其他代表进入法庭并试图抓住杰克。 妈妈开始尖叫并挥舞着她的手杖。 三名女副手将她拖出法庭,并带走了她的手杖。 她试图重新进入,但被一名副手阻止。 女代表把她推到轮椅上,用轮子把她推到另一个法庭,并短暂拘留了她。

    回到法庭,杰克继续紧紧抓住讲台,直到几名副手把他从讲台上拖到地板上,他俯卧着,脸朝下,仍在挣扎,现在与“一群副手”在一起。 代表们试图给他戴上手铐——最终成功了。 法官现在不在,几名副手靠在杰克的背上,杰克尖叫着说他无法呼吸。 然后他就安静了。 代表们注意到杰克有小便和大便,他的皮肤变蓝了。 他死了。

    一份尸检报告指出,杰克死于冠状动脉疾病,“克制性缺氧”(又名“体位性窒息”)导致了这一疾病,部分原因是杰克病态肥胖。 肺部受压会导致缺氧——就像几个人压在受害者背上的重量一样。 正是如此,至少 25 年来,国家和地方警察培训手册警告执法人员不要坐在他们试图约束的人的背上,尤其是在他肥胖的情况下。 参见国家执法技术中心,“体位性窒息 — 猝死”(美国司法部,司法项目办公室,1995 年 1995 月)和芝加哥警察局,培训公告:体位性窒息(XNUMX 年 XNUMX 月)。

    应用蛋壳头骨规则,法院提出了一个假设案例来帮助解释法院的相关裁决:

    因此,如果您踢某人而您不知道他在您踢他的地方感染了严重的感染并因此他死于败血症,即使您无法预见到这样的后果,您也要为他的死亡承担全部责任踢。

    法院的判决是:由于他的身体虚弱,里奇曼 [杰克] 没有正常的预期寿命。 但众议员对他使用的武力加速了他的死亡; 他多久会死于与使用武力无关的原因只与损害有关。

    这种持有意味着,作为法律问题,被告副警长侵犯了杰克的公民权利,即不被被告副警长施加的可能是重罪的杀人“过度武力”的受害者。 被告对责任没有抗辩,而只是对虚假或过度的金钱损失索赔进行抗辩。

    (B) 布克庄园诉戈麦斯案, 745 F. 3d 405 (10th Circuit 2014), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5929342124076407343&q=Richman+v+Sheahan+512+F+3d+876+7th+Cir+2008+murder+OR+manslaughter+OR+homicide+”Richman+v.+Sheahan”&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38

    July 8, 2010, Booker was arrested…related to a drug charge. Police transported him to a jail to be booked. The jail has an intake area called a “cooperative seating area” where arrestees wait to complete booking. According to the Defendants (sheriff’s deputies, which I shall call “cops”), uncooperative arrestees are moved into nearby intake/isolation cells until they calm down.

    戈麦斯副手叫布克先生靠近订票台。 布克做到了,但他的确切行为是有争议的。 戈麦斯决定将布克从合作座位区移到 I-8 牢房,这是一个入口/隔离牢房。 戈麦斯走近 I-8 号牢房并命令布克进入。 他转过身,走向一小段楼梯,回到合作座位区。

    Gomez approached from behind Booker to stop him from returning to the cooperative seating area. Gomez reached toward Booker’s upper left arm, but he pulled away from her grasp. When she tried again to grab Mr. Booker’s arm, he swung his left arm up and away from her. He then turned toward Gomez and swung his left elbow, nearly striking her head.

    Deputies James Grimes, Kenneth Robinette, Kyle Sharp, and Sergeant Carrie Rodriguez witnessed Booker swing his elbow at Gomez. According to their affidavits, they viewed Booker’s action as aggressive and hurried to help Gomez, who was trying to restrain Booker. Within a few seconds, they took Booker to the ground, where he lay in the “prone” position on his stomach.

    Deputy Grimes put Booker in a “carotid restraint.” According to the Denver Sheriff Department’s training materials, “[t]his technique compresses the carotid arteries and the supply of oxygenated blood to the brain is diminished while concurrently sealing the jugular vein which returns the deoxygenated blood.” The hold is capable of rendering a person unconscious within “10-20 seconds.” (Defendants acknowledging “[a]n effective carotid restraint typically results in the subject going unconscious within five to twenty seconds”). The Sheriff’s training materials warn that “[b]rain damage or death could occur if the technique is applied for more than one minute,” and “[t]herefore the application of the technique should not be applied for more than one minute.”

    Meanwhile, Gomez and other cops tried to handcuff Mr. Booker’s hands behind his back. Deputy Robinette applied a “gooseneck hold,” a pain compliance technique, by bringing Booker’s right hand behind him. Leaning over Booker, Robinette swept Booker’s right wrist behind his back for handcuffing. Eventually, Gomez and Robinette secured Booker’s left wrist for handcuffing. After Booker was handcuffed, Robinette put his knee on Booker’s back, and applied 50 to 75 percent of his (Robinette’a) total body weight of approximately 190 pounds.

    Deputy Sharp used Orcutt Police Nunchakus (“OPN”) on Booker. The OPN is a pain compliance device used to apply pressure on a subject. After Booker was taken to the ground, Sharp secured the OPN to his left ankle and applied pressure. After Booker was handcuffed, Sharp removed the OPN. Sharp asserts Booker then kicked his feet in his direction, but the Plaintiffs deny this allegation. Sharp reapplied the OPN to Booker’s left ankle and told other deputies Booker had tried to kick him.

    When Booker was handcuffed and other deputies had control of his limbs, Deputy Grimes requested that a taser be used on Booker. Sergeant Rodriguez, a supervisor, was handed a taser and applied the taser in “drive stun mode” to Booker’s leg for eight seconds. The standard cycle is five seconds.

    After Rodriguez used the taser on Booker, Grimes ended his carotid hold and Sharp removed the OPN from Booker’s ankle. Two minutes and 55 seconds expired between the time Gomez tried to grab Booker’s arm and when Grimes released the carotid hold.

    The district court did not explicitly state whether there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the level of Booker’s resistance during the use of force. In their affidavits, the officers asserted Booker resisted efforts to restrain him during virtually the entire use of force. Only after the taser’s use, they claim, did Booker stop resisting. In light of these submissions, the Defendant cops urge us to rely on the “undisputed testimony of the deputies … to augment that which cannot be seen on video.” This we cannot do.

    Because the record indicated the primary factual dispute in the district court was Booker’s resistance, in an interlocutory appeal, the appellate court must resolve this dispute in the Plaintiffs’ favor. The court analysis accepted that Booker did not resist during the vast majority of the encounter. The cops argued the video evidence belies this conclusion, but they are mistaken. In fact, the video shows Booker motionless on the floor while the deputies subdue him, and that showing contradicts the cops’ assertion that Booker consistently resisted them.

    After restraining Booker, four deputies lifted him by his limbs and carried him to cell I-8. Booker’s then-condition is disputed. The cops did not check Booker’s vitals or attempt to determine whether he needed immediate medical attention. They placed him face down on the cell floor. The cops removed Booker’s handcuffs from behind his back and left him alone in the cell. Approximately a minute and a half passed between the time the deputies placed Booker in the cell and then left the cell.

    After leaving the cell, Rodriguez secured the taser in its designated storage location and then went to the nurses’ office to request that Booker be evaluated. The parties dispute whether Rodriguez conveyed that Booker’s condition was an emergency or merely that he was “acting like he’s unresponsive.”

    Sharp returned to the cell about 21 seconds after the other deputies left. He yelled to Grimes that Booker did not appear to be breathing and needed medical attention. Grimes looked through the cell window and confirmed this observation. Grimes yelled for others to “step it up.” Sharp went to the nurses’ station and told a nurse to hurry.

    当护士到达时,距离使用武力事件结束已经过去了大约 4 分 48 秒。 试图让布克复苏的尝试没有成功。 他被送往附近的医院并被宣布死亡。

    The medical examiner opined in the autopsy report that the cause of Mr. Booker’s death was “cardiorespiratory arrest during physical restraint.” The report states,

    The restraints consisted of weight applied to the decedent’s body while held prone on the floor, application of a carotid “sleeper” hold …, application of a Taser to a lower extremity in the “stun drive” mode for 8 seconds, restriction of arm movement by cuffing his hands behind his back, and restriction of leg movement by use of an “OPN” (nunchuk).

    Booker’s death was listed as homicide. Plaintiffs’ experts opined that Mr. Booker died of asphyxia caused by the deputies’ efforts to restrain him.

    上诉法院除其他外认为:

    (1) 警察不能幸免——部分地,也是非常重要的,但不仅如此,因为在警察使用约束装置期间,他们故意漠视布克的病情所造成的可预见的致命后果。他们向布克申请。

    Cops are entitled to qualified immunity unless: (a) a reasonable jury could find unconstitutional the deputies’ use of force — a carotid restraint, pressure on Mr. Booker’s back, and application of a taser — once Mr. Booker was fully restrained; (b) the use of force violated clearly established law. For the following reasons, the court concluded that the Plaintiffs met both of these burdens and the court affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ excessive force claim.

    法院在评估第 14 修正案过度武力主张时必须考虑三个“因素”: (1) 使用武力的大小与提出的需要之间的关系; (2) 造成的伤害程度; (3) 警察的动机。

    Deputy Robinette placed an estimated 142.5 pounds — more than Booker’s overall weight — on Booker’s back while he was handcuffed on his stomach. Because of Mr. Booker’s prone, restrained, position, the placement of weight exceeding Mr. Booker’s total body weight could be construed as substantial or significant.

    Deputy Grimes used the carotid restraint for approximately two and a half minutes even though he was trained to use it for only one minute. Because of the duration of Grimes’s carotid restraint, his training, the factual dispute over whether he released the carotid restraint intermittently, and the fact that Booker was otherwise restrained for a significant period when the carotid restraint was used, a reasonable jury could conclude Grimes’s carotid-restraint-use was disproportionate to the need for force.

    Respecting the matter of the extent of injury inflicted, the court found that the evidence weighed “considerably” against the cops and that the claim was sustainable. The autopsy report concluded that Booker died of cardiorespiratory arrest as a result of restraint. The report describes the carotid hold, the pressure on Booker’s back, and the taser as contributing to Mr. Booker’s death. Plaintiffs’ experts opine that Booker died of asphyxia caused by the cops’ restraints, and a court may not weigh such expert opinion’s credibility in an appeal.

    (C) 另见 萨尔西多诉哈里斯县 (SD Texas 2018),其中涉及类似的事实,法院认为:
    (a) 原告已提出证据能够证明被告副警长 [“警察”] 知道可以从中得出对受害人的健康或安全风险过大的推断的事实,警察实际上做出了推断存在这种潜在的伤害,并且警察故意漠视他们的行为会导致受害者死亡的可预见性
    (b) that the evidence created a possibility that the cops were not entitled to immunity. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11564922298315914148&q=eggshell+skull+homicide+police+or+sheriff+choke+hold+or+compression&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38

    • 回复: @map
  236. map 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    回到杰克·里奇曼(Jack Richman)案,那个被窒息的肥胖人。 这是来自您忽略的链接:

    在特定情况下算作过度使用武力当然是与情况有关的,就杰克·里奇曼第四修正案的主张而言,有两种情况至关重要。 第一个是他的极度肥胖,这对副手来说是显而易见的,第二个是缺乏将他从法庭上撤下的紧迫性。 第一个因素,尽管不是第二个,出现在 Estate of Phillips v. City of Milwaukee, 123 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 1997) 中,这是另一个位置性窒息的案例,但存在重大差异,包括来自与他们斗争的人,较少使用武力,以及受害者的弱点并不明显。

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6725673574912167448&q=Richman+v.+Sheahan,+512+F.+3d+876+(7th+Cir.+2008)&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38

    乔治·弗洛伊德 (George Floyd) 不是一个虚弱的胖子,试图从法庭上被撤职,而法庭上并不存在撤职的紧迫性。 除了他自己关于呼吸困难的陈述之外,弗洛伊德还有其他任何弱点也并不明显,这可能是他只是想摆脱被关在警车里。

    此案仅与乔治·弗洛伊德 (George Floyd) 相关。

  237. map 说:
    @Bombercommand

    这是我对 Loup-Bouc 的回复:

    回到杰克·里奇曼(Jack Richman)案,那个被窒息的肥胖人。 这是来自您忽略的链接:

    在特定情况下算作过度使用武力当然是与情况有关的,就杰克·里奇曼第四修正案的主张而言,有两种情况至关重要。 第一个是他的极度肥胖,这对副手来说是显而易见的,第二个是缺乏将他从法庭上撤下的紧迫性。 第一个因素,尽管不是第二个,出现在 Estate of Phillips v. City of Milwaukee, 123 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 1997) 中,这是另一个位置性窒息的案例,但存在重大差异,包括来自与他们斗争的人,较少使用武力,以及受害者的弱点并不明显。

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6725673574912167448&q=Richman+v.+Sheahan,+512+F.+3d+876+(7th+Cir.+2008)&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38

    乔治·弗洛伊德 (George Floyd) 不是一个虚弱的胖子,试图从法庭上被撤职,而法庭上并不存在撤职的紧迫性。 除了他自己关于呼吸困难的陈述之外,弗洛伊德还有其他任何弱点也并不明显,这可能是他只是想摆脱被关在警车里。

    此案仅与乔治·弗洛伊德 (George Floyd) 相关。

  238. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Bombercommand

    小心沉没在有毒沼泽中的疯狂生物。 绝望时,他们会像一根树枝一样抓住你,抓住不可能的救赎。

    在 18 年 2020 月 8 日格林威治标准时间晚上 45 点 237 分的评论中(评论#XNUMX),地图断言:

    …[The] “蛋壳头骨”的废话不适用于警察。 …… 这就是为什么警察有资格豁免...... 在警察拘留期间死亡在任何情况下都不是该人明显的近因。

    在我的答复中,我提出了三项联邦法院的裁决,这些裁决表明:

    [更多]

    (a) 蛋壳头骨规则确实适用于警察。

    (b) 当警察违反该规则并且受害者死亡时,(1) 他们的行为是受害者死亡的近因,以及 (2) 他们失去了合格的豁免权,可以被判定犯有过失致死、民事或刑事违反受害者的第 4 修正案或第 5 或第 14 修正案的正当程序权利,或刑事谋杀,甚至是“堕落的冷漠”谋杀、“堕落的心灵”谋杀,或者,如在明尼苏达州,“堕落的心灵”谋杀,或者,也如在明尼苏达州(特别是在明尼苏达州)弗洛伊德案),重罪谋杀,其中的上游行为是重罪攻击或重罪侵犯公民权利。

    因此,意识到他的断言是愚蠢的,地图撤退到试图区分弗洛伊德的 cade 和 Richman 诉 Sheahan, 512 F. 3d 876 (7th Cir. 2008), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6725673574912167448&q=Richman+v.+Sheahan,+512+F.+3d+876+(7th+Cir.+2008)&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38

    Richman 诉 Sheahan 和弗洛伊德的案子是不同的。 但区别表明,在弗洛伊德案中,警察更明显有罪。

    将广告映射到 有钱人 court’s observation that Richman’s “extreme obesity…was obvious to the deputies.” But Floyd’s distress was obvious to the cops that killed Floyd— as I, and others, has shown several times, even others who attempt, vainly, low-ignorantly, to argue that Floyd’s obvious distress exonerates Floyd’s killers, as if the eggshell skull rule did not exist. See, 例如, my below-listed comments posted under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ :
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 2 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 17:399 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 5 日格林威治标准时间下午 03:426 发表的评论(评论 #25),已由我在格林威治标准时间 2020 年 11 月 37 日下午 461:XNUMX 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)更正
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 10 日格林威治标准时间晚上 03:432 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 23 年 2020 月 10 日格林威治标准时间晚上 13:433 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 26 年 2020 月 5 日格林威治标准时间晚上 31:486 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 1 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间晚上 26:633 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 1 年 2020 月 9 日格林威治标准时间晚上 08:639 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 5 年 2020 月 8 日格林威治标准时间晚上 35:707 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 8 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 16:714 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 10 年 2020 月 3 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 21:724 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 10 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间晚上 32:730 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 10 年 2020 月 9 日格林威治标准时间晚上 24:732 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)
    * 我在 13 年 2020 月 12 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 52:735 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)

    弗洛伊德的情况不同于 有钱人 案件以至关重要的方式使杀害弗洛伊德的警察比 有钱人 案件警察。 这 里奇曼案 受害者长期、公然、甚至暴力地反抗警察,甚至是法庭法官,而且,由于 有钱人 受害者巨大的体重和明显的力量,明显地威胁到了警察。 但弗洛伊德并没有威胁他的杀手——无论如何,根本没有。

    注意 map 没有尝试区分 布克庄园诉戈麦斯案, 745 F. 3d 405 (10th Circuit 2014), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5929342124076407343&q=Richman+v+Sheahan+512+F+3d+876+7th+Cir+2008 — the facts and law of which I presented extensively in my comment of July 19, 2020 at 11:25 pm GMT (comment # 241). map did not even acknowledge the 布克庄园诉戈麦斯案 案的存在。

    In 布克庄园诉戈麦斯案,受害者并不肥胖,但显然身高和体重相当平均——显然如此,因为法院(初审法院和上诉法院)和原告或被告都没有评论受害者的体重或身材。 但受害者确实拒绝监护——有两种方式:

    (a) 受害人试图逃避监护:当 Gomez 副警长将受害人带到拘留室并命令受害人进入时,受害人转身走向一小段楼梯,回到合作座位区,在那里人们可以离开警长的大楼。

    (b) 当戈麦斯从背后接近受害者以阻止他返回合作座位区时,戈麦斯试图抓住受害者的手臂,受害者向上挥动左臂远离戈麦斯。 然后受害者转向戈麦斯,向戈麦斯挥动左肘,差点撞到戈麦斯的头部。 戈麦斯是一个 女子.

    布克庄园诉戈麦斯案 与弗洛伊德案不同的另一种方式,表明杀害弗洛伊德的凶手比警察更明显有罪 布克庄园诉戈麦斯案。在 布克庄园诉戈麦斯案 , 一名有罪的警察向受害者申请 肖万警官对弗洛伊德应用的颈部压缩握法。 但在 布克庄园诉戈麦斯案 ,那个罪魁祸首,副格莱姆斯,申请保留 只有大约两分半钟. 然而,在弗洛伊德的案例中,肖万警官应用了颈部压缩保持约 8分钟,包括对于 弗洛伊德昏迷3分钟后.

    In 布克庄园诉戈麦斯案,上诉法院观察到:

    The [neck-compression (carotid-artery compression)] hold is capable of rendering a person unconscious within “10-20秒” [emphasis added by me, Loup-Bouc]. ([The defendant cops acknowledged that “[a]n effective carotid restraint typically results in the subject going unconscious within five to twenty seconds.”) The Sheriff’s training materials warn that “[b]如果该技术应用超过一分钟,可能会发生雨损或死亡,“和”[t]因此该技术的应用不应超过一分钟.” [Emphases added by me, Loup-Bouc.]

    比较 体位性窒息-猝死,美国司法部国家司法研究所项目办公室,国家司法研究所司法项目办公室(1995 年 XNUMX 月),
    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/posasph.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1ylGj-3k7BXhz5s3JdwfKxWXlK3kW2TltokyHr47d_y9k408vMt2t0LAw .

    In 布克庄园诉戈麦斯案,当 Grimes 副手应用颈部压缩保持时,另一名警察应用了背部按压保持:

    Deputy Robinette applied a “gooseneck hold,” a pain compliance technique, by bringing Mr. Booker’s right hand behind him. Leaning over Mr. Booker, Deputy Robinette swept Mr. Booker’s right wrist behind his back for handcuffing. Eventually, Deputies Gomez and Robinette secured Mr. Booker’s left wrist for handcuffing. After Mr. Booker was handcuffed, Deputy Robinette put his knee on Mr. Booker’s back, applying 50 to 75 percent of his total body weight of approximately 190 pounds.

    在弗洛伊德的案例中,一两个警察对弗洛伊德实施了胸背按压——在肖万警官对弗洛伊德实施颈部按压的同一时间段内,并且在大部分时间里。

    对比 Floyd 病例和 布克庄园诉戈麦斯案,另一项区别使杀害弗洛伊德的凶手更有罪。

    弗洛伊德正遭受着明显而明显的身体和生理上的痛苦——步态蹒跚、蹒跚、跌倒、跌倒后难以起身、呼吸困难、嘴唇上有白色泡沫。 但在 布克庄园诉戈麦斯案, 零证据表明受害者正在遭受任何身体或生理上的痛苦,或者他生病或虚弱; 尽管如此,在对他的颈部和背部施加最多几分钟的压迫后,受害者已经死亡——而且警察没有责任豁免,但推定有罪。

    尊重原告是否确定警察 违反 the victims’s constitutional right not to suffer “excessive force” apllied by police, the district court stated:

    Given the version of the facts that the plaintiff alleges — and they more than just allege it, there is video, which is subject to interpretation, there is apparently testimony from inmates who observed these proceedings, this incident and so forth — if what happened is what the plaintiff claims, then any reasonable officer in Denver or anywhere else would know that that was excessive force. It’s just not even a close call.

    The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s treatment of the matter.

    因为这是真的 布克庄园诉戈麦斯案, 更何况 弗洛伊德的案件是警察谋杀的一个非常明显的例子。

    • 回复: @map
    , @map
  239. map 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    听着,愚蠢的,每个人都知道可以通过诉讼取消合格的豁免权,而法官可以取消它。 这就是为什么它被称为“合格”的原因。

  240. map 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    是的,再一次,你错过了戈麦斯案中一个非常重要的细节:

    首先,整个事件发生在监狱里,那里有发生的事情的视频。 我们还没有看到任何与弗洛伊德案中的人体摄像头镜头有关的东西。

    其次,这是关于应用合格豁免的案例。 这并不是一个确定“弗洛伊德的案件是警察犯下的谋杀罪的一个非常明显的例子”的案件。

  241. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Bombercommand

    The sublimely idiotic creature, “map,” now asserts [comment of July 21, 2020 at 10:57 pm GMT (comment # 245)]:

    听着,愚蠢的,每个人都知道可以通过诉讼取消合格的豁免权,而法官可以取消它。 这就是为什么它被称为“合格”的原因。

    But previously, in his, her, or its comment of July 18, 2020 at 8:45 pm GMT (comment # 237), “map” asserted:

    …[The] “蛋壳头骨”的废话不适用于警察。 …… 这就是为什么警察有资格豁免

    Then, not content with showing himself, herself, or itself to be a fool who refutes his own argument to save “face” (or another, uglier part of his, her, or its anatomy), this creature adds [in his, her, or its comment of July 21, 2020 at 11:08 pm GMT (comment # 246)]:

    [更多]

    是的,再一次,你错过了戈麦斯案中一个非常重要的细节:

    首先,整个事件发生在监狱里,那里有发生的事情的视频。 我们还没有看到任何与弗洛伊德案中的人体摄像头镜头有关的东西。

    其次,这是关于应用合格豁免的案例。 这并不是一个确定“弗洛伊德的案件是警察犯下的谋杀罪的一个非常明显的例子”的案件。

    The killing’s place (street, courthouse, aircraft, cop-van, ocean vessel……) is irrelevant. The matter is only WHAT THE COPS DID TO WHOM OF WHAT CONDITION IN WHAT LEGAL CONTEXT (legal context meaning, 例如, arrest, police-custody, non-custodial police-interrogation, unlawful police breaking and entering private premises…….).

    The Floyd-case prosecution will not need “bodycam” footage [though, 据称, one Floyd-killing cop’s defense counsel adduced an 所谓的 “transcript” of 所谓的 身体摄像头镜头,请参阅 Tusk 于 10 年 2020 月 6 日格林威治标准时间上午 13:24 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)]。 检方拥有大量相关证据,其中包括, 除其他外,,几个视频和:
    (1) 体位性窒息-猝死,美国司法部国家司法研究所项目办公室,国家司法研究所司法项目办公室(1995 年 XNUMX 月),
    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/posasph.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1ylGj-3k7BXhz5s3JdwfKxWXlK3kW2TltokyHr47d_y9k408vMt2t0LAw .
    (2) 亨内平县法医的尸检报告,裁定弗洛伊德的死因“心肺骤停使执法复杂化” 下压、约束和颈部压迫”(my emphasis, Loup-Bouc] [top of p.1 of that Report, https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf
    (3) The Hennepin Cnty Medical Examiner’s press release, which ruled Floyd’s death “homicide” https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd,%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf
    (4) 密歇根大学尸检和法医服务主任 Allecia M. Wilson 博士和纽约市前首席法医 Michael Baden 博士进行的独立尸检,以及 Dr. 威尔逊和巴登。
    (5) Judy Melinek,医学博士,法医病理学家和 PathologyExpert Inc. 的首席执行官 [请参阅我在 23 年 2020 月 2 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 17:399 发表的评论(评论#XNUMX)。]
    (6) Dr. Michael Hansen (board certified internal medicine, critical care medicine, and pulmonary disease medicine expert), https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=0oqEp63duIc&feature=emb_title%5D
    (7) Dr. Karl Williams, forensic pathologist and chief medical examiner of Allegheny County (home to Pittsburgh), Pennsylvania, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-autopsies-of-george-floyd-arent-as-different-as-they-seem/
    (8) 几项州和市政府的正式警告,警察不得在类似短暂的时间内使用颈部压迫超过一分钟,见, 例如 布克庄园诉戈麦斯案, 745 F. 3d 405 (10th Circuit 2014), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5929342124076407343&q , where, at p.413, the court observed:

    Deputy Grimes put Mr. Booker in a “carotid restraint.” …. According to the Denver Sheriff Department’s training materials, “[t]his technique compresses the carotid arteries and the supply of oxygenated blood to the brain is diminished while concurrently sealing the jugular vein which returns the deoxygenated blood.” …. The hold is capable of rendering a person unconscious within “10-20 seconds.” *** The Sheriff’s training materials warn that “[b]rain damage or death could occur if the technique is applied for more than one minute,” and “[t]herefore the application of the technique should not be applied for more than one minute.” …. [Citations ommitted and one ellipsis added by me, Loup-Bouc]

    并且,如果 [正如在 Richman 诉 Sheahan, 512 F. 3d 876 (7th Cir. 2008)], the cops committed homicide respecting which they had no immunity, then, in Floyd’s case, the killing was 更何况 凶杀案,以及根据明尼苏达州法律,谋杀案,因为 Richman 诉 Sheahan, 受害者没有抵抗逮捕很长时间,努力,甚至是暴力,弗洛伊德也没有抵抗逮捕,从来没有。

    里奇曼诉谢哈案n was NOT ONLY “about qualified immunity.” To determine whether the cops’ qualified immunity would hold, the court had to determine whether the killing was a homicide and, if so, whether its whole quality was such that indicated holding the cops 不能 免疫。 还有法庭 做了 hold that the killing was a homicide such that indicated denying the cops qulified immunity. That fact appears from the court’s discussion at 512 F. 3d p.880-p.885, 特别是(但不仅限于)在 第884页:

    The tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him. That is the “eggshell skull” rule…. *** So if you kick someone and unbeknownst to you he has a serious infection at the spot in which you kick him and as a result he dies of septicemia, you are fully liable for his death even though you could not have foreseen such a consequence from the kick. Because of his infirmities, Richman did not have a normal life expectancy. But the force used against him by the swarm of deputies accelerated his death; 他多久会死于与使用武力无关的原因只与损害有关. …. [Emphasis added, and the court’s citations of other cases omitted, by me, Loup-bouc.]

    由于法院认为仅与 赔偿 the matter of how soon the victim would have died from causes unrelated to the cops’ use of excessive force, the court held that the cops were liable for homicidal violation of the victim’s 4th amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure (unreasonable because involving excessive force) or the victim’s right not to suffer 8th-amendment-violating punishment (re: the punbishment matter, see Richman 诉 Sheahan 第 882-883 页)。

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
    , @map
  242. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    In my comment of July 22, 2020 at 1:33 am GMT (comment # 247), this appears:

    (5) Judy Melinek,医学博士,法医病理学家和 PathologyExpert Inc. 的首席执行官 [请参阅我在 23 年 2020 月 2 日格林威治标准时间凌晨 17:399 发表的评论(评论#XNUMX)。]

    That entry is missing a complete citation of my commnent that is referenced there. The complete entry and citation are:

    (5) Judy Melinek, MD, forensic pathologist and CEO of PathologyExpert Inc. [See my comment of June 23, 2020 at 2:17 am GMT (comment # 399), posted under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ ]

  243. @Rurik

    I’m looking at the picture, and the neck isn’t really being compressed or constricted. The knee is just hovering, albiet it is touching.

    I suppose I could open microsoft paint and measure distances and calculate how many inches off the ground the knee is and if there is really pressure on the neck.

    The spine goes into the center of the skull and holds the neck off the ground when laying down. It would be hard to compress the neck by applying pressure on only one side, you would need to close the empty space on the other side.

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
  244. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    (A) Either you hallucinate, or you lie. The video evidence shows the opposite of your false assertions.

    (B) Either you do not understand the mechanics of neck-compression that obstructs carotid artery or jugular vein blood-flow, or you lie.

    (C) This much is clear: Your inexpert opinion clashes with 所有 the expert opinions (including mine): Officer Chauvin caused Floyd to die by asphyxiation.

  245. 够啰嗦了。 简而言之,这里是数字。
    美国每年因药物过量死亡:70000
    膝颈约束导致的所有时间死亡报告:0。
    相信“膝盖杀人”的人的智商:大约。 0。
    至少在他们被偏见蒙蔽的主题上。

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
  246. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @John Leonard

    美国每年因药物过量死亡:70000

    这个数字证明没有任何特殊情况。 这个现实是基本的统计数据。 看看, 例如, Leonard R. Jaffee,概率和概率:统计、科学证据和审判中的机会微积分,46 匹兹堡大学法律评论 925 (1985)。 另请参阅我的许多 Unz 评论评论(甚至发布在您的 dreck 文章下),这些评论显示了这些原始数据,即使是真的,证明 没什么.

    膝颈约束导致的所有时间死亡报告:0。

    错误的。 看, 例如, 布克庄园诉戈麦斯案, 745 F. 3d 405 (10th Circuit 2014), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5929342124076407343&q
    Death caused by knee-neck restraint. See also several of the comments of The Scalpel, posted under Fred Reed’s Unz Review article “Her Name Is Breonna Taylor,” https://www.unz.com/freed/her-name-is-breanna-taylor/#comment-3957894

    现在闭嘴,白痴-种族主义者-傻瓜-骗子-人渣-欺诈。

    • 回复: @John Leonard
  247. map 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    (1) 体位性窒息-猝死,美国司法部国家司法研究所项目,司法项目办公室,国家司法研究所(1995 年 XNUMX 月),

    尽管有这篇文献,明尼阿波利斯警察教过这种特殊的脖子,这是他们自己的警察培训材料中允许的标准保持方式,特别是不会导致窒息,这就是为什么它首先得到了市政府的批准。 这不是一群坐在胖子身上的法院警卫。

    (2) 亨内平县法医的尸检报告,该报告裁定弗洛伊德的死亡是由“心肺骤停导致执法人员下压、束缚和颈部受压”引起的(我的重点,Loup-Bouc] [该报告第 1 页的顶部, https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf

    这是完全缺乏阅读理解能力。 考官没写“心肺骤停” 造成的 执法不严、束缚和颈部压迫。” 他写道“复杂”。 复杂意味着“扭曲”或“扭曲在一起”。 这个措辞指出了相关性和因果关系之间的区别。 ME正在写两个事件碰巧同时发生。 ME 不是在写一个导致另一个。

    这就像说“手术并发症”并不意味着并发症是由手术引起的。

    “Subdual”的意思是“制服的行为”。

    来自同一个 ME 报告:

    三, 没有发现威胁生命的伤害

    A.无面部,口腔粘膜或结膜瘀斑
    B.颈部或喉前肌无损伤
    结构
    C.无头皮软组织,颅骨或脑部受伤
    D.无胸壁软组织损伤,肋骨骨折(其他
    而不是CPR的单个肋骨骨折),椎骨柱
    受伤或内脏受伤
    E.后路和后路的切口和皮下解剖
    侧颈部、肩部、背部、侧腹和臀部
    隐匿性创伤阴性

    您是否从 ME 报告中读到过:没有发现威胁生命的伤害

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
    , @RT
  248. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @John Leonard

    在我 23 年 2020 月 6 日格林威治标准时间上午 11:253 发表的评论中(评论 #XNUMX),我忽略了在 布克庄园诉戈麦斯案, 745 F. 3d 405 (10th Circuit 2014), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5929342124076407343&q , the victim was lying prone, front-down (on his chest and abdomen) when the carotid-artery/jugular-vein obstructing neck-compression hold was applied to him — so that the culprit cop had to exert pressure on the carotid and jugular vessels by pulling sideways and squeezing with his arm, NOT by squeezing with his arm and applying his body-mass, hence force of gravity.

    [更多]

    因此,在 布克庄园诉戈麦斯案,施加的力是 明显小于 Chauvin 警官用他(Chauvin 的)膝盖按压扼流圈施加在 Floyd 脖子上的力量 不仅 肖文的腿部肌肉源压力施加, 而且还 肖文的体重,因此是重力。

    警察通过颈动脉/颈静脉颈部压迫杀死了大量平民(尤其是黑人)。 就在 1980 年,加利福尼亚州洛杉矶,一个黑人男性占人口 9% 的城市,在因警察使用扼流圈而导致的 75 人死亡中,黑人男性占 16%。
    参见 Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 US 95 (1983), Marshall, Brennan, Blackmun 和 Stevens 大法官的异议,该异议的脚注 3,
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4587981977816900853&q=Los+Angeles+v.+Lyons,+461+US+95&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38

  249. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @map

    你是无法阅读的人——无法阅读, 例如, 其他材料 记录的 这表明你的观察是胡说八道。

    The Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Press Release that states, expressly, that the cause of Floyd’s death was “homicide.” https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd,%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf
    That Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Press Release statement indicates that you cannot read the autopsy report.

    此外,尸检报告指出:

    [更多]

    一、钝器伤
    A. 前额、面部和面部的皮肤钝器伤
    上唇
    B. 唇部粘膜损伤
    C. 肩部、手部的皮肤钝器损伤
    肘部和腿
    D. 手腕的图案挫伤(在某些区域磨损),
    符合约束(手铐)

    尸检报告第 1 页

    新的 验尸报告 还声明如下:

    受伤证明:
    头颈
     4 厘米最大尺寸磨损的红黑紫色挫伤,
    左眉的侧角
     精确定位红色磨损,位于中线左侧
    前额
     6.5 厘米最大尺寸红黑色磨损,左脸颊
     0.6 cm 最大尺寸红色磨损,略逊于
    左嘴角
     0.8 厘米最大尺寸曲线红色撕脱,刚好
    上唇右侧上方
     八个精确到 0.2 厘米最大尺寸的红色擦伤,
    鼻子右侧
     鼻子上有轻微的蓝色挫伤(3.5 厘米),
    右鼻孔 (1.5 cm) 和左鼻孔 (1.0 cm)
     1.5 cm 最大尺寸的粉紫色黏膜聚集体
    擦伤和撕裂伤,上唇
     2 厘米最大尺寸的粉橙色黏膜聚集体
    擦伤和撕裂伤,下唇
    肩部和四肢
     最大尺寸为 8 厘米的紫色挫伤,最大尺寸为 4.5 厘米
    线状红色擦伤的尺寸集合,前外侧
    右肩
     2 厘米最大尺寸红色 L 形划痕,右上方

     14 cm 最大尺寸粉紫色挫伤
    不连续 8 厘米最大尺寸干燥红黑色
    擦伤,左肩
     最大尺寸为 0.2 厘米的红色磨损,刚好在内侧
    右肘
     最大尺寸为 3 厘米的淡粉色挫伤,刚好在内侧到
    左肘
     精确的红色磨损,就在左侧的内侧和远端

     1.5 cm 最大尺寸紫色挫伤,右近端

     2.5 厘米最大尺寸的红色擦伤聚集体,远端
    右胫骨
     左小腿上有 0.3 厘米最大尺寸的红色磨损
    手腕和手
     1.4 厘米最大尺寸红色和干黑色磨损,
    近端指间关节背侧,右索引
    手指
     两个最大尺寸为 0.8 厘米的红色和焦干黑色
    擦伤,近端指间关节背侧,右侧
    中指
     周向、不连续、最大宽度为 3.5 厘米,
    大致平行的粉紫色挫伤环绕
    右手腕,重叠擦伤面积达 1.2
    厘米最大尺寸; 0.9 厘米长的浅红色划痕
    在有图案的右手腕外侧
    挫伤和手
     周向、不连续、最大宽度为 2.5 厘米,
    围绕左侧的大致平行的粉紫色挫伤
    手腕,重叠擦伤面积达 1.3 厘米
    最大尺寸
    – On the anterolateral left wrist, in a 3.5 cm long
    区域,损伤转变为干燥的黄黑色
    在融入前腕之前磨损的皱纹

     2.2 cm 最大尺寸紫色挫伤,左侧背部

    尸检报告第 7-9 页。

    The cause of death, SUBDUAL, RESTRAINT, AND NECK COMPRESSION, does NOT require that the victim’s body bear residual signs of “life treatening injuries,” because that cause-of-death involves merely obstructing the carotid artery and jugular vein, which obstruction does not require neck-injury that shows, later, as “life-threatening” bruising or lacerations or lesions or anything else. The neck-compression, and, in Floyd’s case, also dorsal thorax compression, were, 他们自己,不仅仅是生活——危险的 受伤,但 致死 受伤。

    尸检报告 做了 状态 [见上文引用的第 7-9 页的文本 验尸报告] injuries caused by the cops’ pressing Floyd hard against the street’s pavement; and that pressure was applied when the cops killed Floyd by compressing his carotid artery, jugular vein, and dorsal thorax (and the dorsal thorax compression participated in causing Floyd’s death).

    警察引起的压迫性窒息是 练习 死因在所有意见中陈述 专家 谁进行了弗洛伊德的尸检或审查了弗洛伊德案件的记录(包括视频)。 你不是专家,而是一个种族主义的白痴,每次呼吸都在胡说八道。

    所有的 技术专家 意见认为,颈部压迫和胸背压迫导致了弗洛伊德的死亡。 相当多的法医学学术和法律意见一致认为,这种机械性颈部或背侧胸部压迫通常会通过切断进出大脑或重要肺功能的血流中的一个或两个而导致猝死。 见,例如,
    (1) 体位性窒息-猝死,美国司法部国家司法研究所项目,司法项目办公室,国家司法研究所(1995 年 XNUMX 月),
    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/posasph.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1ylGj-3k7BXhz5s3JdwfKxWXlK3kW2TltokyHr47d_y9k408vMt2t0LAw .
    (2)亨内平县检察官
    (3) 明尼苏达州总检察长
    (4) the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Autopsy Report, which ruled that Floyd’s death ws caused by “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement Subdual, restraint, and neck compression” [top of p.1 of that Report, https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf
    (5) the Hennepin Cnty Medical Examiner’s press release, which ruled Floyd’s death “homicide” https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd,%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf
    (6) “The Scalpel,” a long-time Emergency Room physician, see my [See The Scalpel’s comments cited and discussed in my comment of June 23, 2020 at 2:17 am GMT (comment # 399), posted under John-Pual Leonard’s article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ ]
    (7) Judy Melinek, MD, forensic pathologist and CEO of PathologyExpert Inc. [See my comment of June 23, 2020 at 2:17 am GMT (comment # 399), posted under John-Pual Leonard’s article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ ]
    (8) Dr. Michael Hansen (board certified internal medicine, critical care medicine, and pulmonary disease medicine expert), https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=0oqEp63duIc&feature=emb_title%5D
    (9) Dr. Karl Williams, forensic pathologist and chief medical examiner of Allegheny County (home to Pittsburgh), Pennsylvania, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-autopsies-of-george-floyd-arent-as-different-as-they-seem/
    (10) Several state and munipal formal warnings that police must not apply neck-compression holds for more than a minute of a similarly brief time, see, e.g. Estate of Booker v. Gomez, 745 F. 3d 405 (10th Circuit 2014), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5929342124076407343&q , where, at p.413, the court observed:

    Deputy Grimes put Mr. Booker in a “carotid restraint.” …. According to the Denver Sheriff Department’s training materials, “[t]his technique compresses the carotid arteries and the supply of oxygenated blood to the brain is diminished while concurrently sealing the jugular vein which returns the deoxygenated blood.” …. The hold is capable of rendering a person unconscious within “10-20 seconds.” *** The Sheriff’s training materials warn that “[b]rain damage or death could occur if the technique is applied for more than one minute,” and “[t]herefore the application of the technique should not be applied for more than one minute.” …. [Citations ommitted and one ellipsis added by me, Loup-Bouc]

    (11) 仅仅我,Loup-Bouc,1998 年起成为医生,1968 年起成为律师,1972 年被任命为法学助理教授,1976 年被任命为法学终身副教授,1978 年被任命为终身正教授,现在仍然是法学正教授在美国最高法院、几个联邦上诉法院和初审法院以及几个州的最高法院获胜的法律和论据来源(一些包括医疗问题),以及许多文章和书籍的作者(七篇涉及医学、精神病学和统计学)说明)受到许多律师、法院、医学科学家、统计学家的广泛尊重和信赖……]

    RE:涉及压迫的位置性窒息可导致猝死的现实,请参阅, 例如 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6023692/ AND http://charlydmiller.com/LIB05/2003sep2PAcases.pdf AND https://www.umc.edu/som/Departments%20and%20Offices/SOM%20Departments/Pediatrics/Divisions/Forensic-Medicine/files/investigating_asphyxial_deaths.pdf AND https://forensicmed.webnode.com/pathology/pressure-to-the-neck/ AND
    https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/hhsa/programs/phs/EMS/Medical_Director_Report/10-16-18%20Hanging%20Strangulation%20and%20Other%20Dr.%20Campman.pdf AND
    https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/forensicsasphyxia.html
    [我发现了许多其他同意的实际科学来源。 我在这里不引用它们,因为它们(例如, PubMed) 仅可供医学和生物化学/生理学/法医病理学专业人士使用,例如 ME,并且某些此类资源仅在支付费用后才可用(我每年支付)。]

    实际上,弗洛伊德的死不是由弗洛伊德的姿势造成的,而是颈部和胸背受压造成的,即使弗洛伊德的姿势不同,这也可能同样致命。 弗洛伊德死于颈部的主要血管和胸部的压迫,从而阻碍了肺功能,而这种压迫可能会发生,就像弗洛伊德平躺在背部或胸部,头部转动或扭曲一样致命一样肖万警官的膝盖按压窒息压迫了颈动脉、颈静脉或两者。

    因此,不要将死因称为“体位性窒息”,而是“压迫性窒息”——亨内平县体检医师(见上文)、医学博士 Judy Melinek(见上文)、Allecia M. Wilson 博士使用的术语(见上)、迈克尔·巴登博士(见上)、迈克尔·汉森博士(见上)和卡尔·威廉姆斯博士(见上)。 “手术刀”同意了。 我同意。

    警察通过颈动脉/颈静脉颈部压迫杀死了大量平民(尤其是黑人)。 就在 1980 年,加利福尼亚州洛杉矶,一个黑人男性占人口 9% 的城市,在因警察使用扼流圈而导致的 75 人死亡中,黑人男性占 16%。
    参见 Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 US 95 (1983), Marshall, Brennan, Blackmun 和 Stevens 大法官的异议,该异议的脚注 3, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4587981977816900853&q=Los+Angeles+v.+Lyons,+461+US+95&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38

    Elsewhere (in other comments), I showed FURTHER that all your bullshit observations, and John-Paul Leonard’s bullshit observations, are bullshit observations. I have cited numerous times my other comments shat show your observations and John-Paul Leonard’s observations are bullshit. I shall not repeat, another time all those comments or all my earlier citations of them.

    Your scum’s malodor is fouling this thread. Be gone, scum.

  250. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @John Leonard

    两件事:

    (A) 您断言:

    美国每年因药物过量死亡:70000

    I observed that your assertion (its “70000” number) proves NOTHING respecting any particular case. Such is so for three reasons.

    [更多]

    (1) 数字(您为其提供零证明)是, 推定地, the number of “annual” “drug overdose” deaths (deaths caused by overdose of ANY, UNSPECIFIED single drug or drug-combination, NOT the number of deaths caused by the 特定的药物组合 the Medical Examiner found, post mortem, in Floyd’s blood and urine.

    (2) Even if the 70000 number is some species of “truth,” still, since that number is an “annual” number, at best it is only a 意味着, NOT the actual number that occurred in any specific year, particularly year 2020 from 1 January of 2020 until the 25 May 2020 date of Floyd’s death.

    (3) Since Floyd’s blood and urine did bear a combination of drugs that, if of 大量 overdose-quantity, might, in SOME condition, be lethal), one must compare that 70000 “annual” number with the total number of “drug”-users of any particular year, in Floyd’s case, year 2020.

    但是,由于弗洛伊德去世时,2020 年仅过去了大约三分之一,因此必须减少 70000 这个数字。 让我们(任意)假设我们必须将这个数字减少 2/3,因为 2020 年仅过去了四分之一,弗洛伊德于 25 年 2020 月 70000 日去世。 那么:0.333 x 23310 = XNUMX。

    Now, one must know the total number of users of whatever drugs can cause death if taken at “overdose”-quantity. 没人 可以知道那个号码。

    But assume, for sake of argument, the “annual” drug-user number is 10% of the population (a large-number assumption consistent with the federal government’s, the Drug Enforcement Agency’s, the Center for Disease Control’s, the Health and Human Services’s, and numerous other sources assertions that the nation is suffering an opioid-abuse epidemic, AND a large number consistent with your absurd “thesis”).

    In 2020 (at least at the start of 2020) , the United States population was at least 331,002,651. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/ And 10% of that number is 33,100,265.

    Now, since (assuming your asserted 70000 “annual” number) 23310 is the arguable number of drug-overdose-caused deaths of 2020 from 1 January until the 25 May 2020 date of Floyd’s death, 23310 ÷ 33,100,265,或 0.000704,或 0.07%是 先验 chance of ANYONE’s dying because of drug-overdose. That is a VERY small chance.

    但那一分钟 先验 chance is NOT the chance of dying from the specific drug-combination and its quantity and its drug-constituents-quantities present in Floyd’s dead body. And that 先验 在警察对弗洛伊德施加压力时,机会并没有考虑到影响弗洛伊德的健康影响的全部,甚至是任何影响。

    那个 先验 机会不能解释所有的任何一个——-在警察对弗洛伊德施加压力时影响弗洛伊德的可量化的健康影响——所有的——- 可量化的影响,包括, 例如, arrest-induced psychic stress, what Floyd ate recently, what Floyd did NOT eat recently, Floyd’s chronic cardiovascular condition, the physiological/biochemical effects of the cops’ compression-holds, the other acts the cops did to Floyd, and……..)

    因此,没有统计方法可以解释“药物剂量”(或特别是芬太尼剂量)的概率 甚至参加 in causation of Floyd’s death. See
    伦纳德·贾菲(Leonard R. 概率论和概率论:统计、科学证据和审判中的机会微积分, 46 匹兹堡大学法律评论 925(1985)
    AND
    伦纳德·贾菲(Leonard R. 先验概率——数学家对证据充分性和权重的看法中的一个黑洞, 9 卡多佐法律评论 967(1988)

    (B) At its beginning, my comment of July 23, 2020 at 9:13 am GMT (comment # 254) refers to a “comment of July 23, 2020 at 6:11 am GMT (comment # 253),” as if that comment-time and comment-number fit my comment referenced by my comment of July 23, 2020 at 9:13 am GMT (comment # 254). But a pending comment was deleted. That deletion altered comment-numbers and the stated times of actually-posted comments.

    由于评论删除的影响,我的评论 #254 需要引用不是 23 年 2020 月 9 日格林威治标准时间上午 13:254 的评论(评论 #23),而是引用我的 2020 年 5 月 08 日的评论格林威治标准时间上午 252:XNUMX(评论 #XNUMX)。

  251. RT 说:
    @map

    “C…..no brain injuries”
    如果这是在 ME 报告中,那么颈部受压是死亡原因的论点非常值得商榷。 颈部血管受到一定程度的压迫会导致死亡,这会导致大脑出现可检测到的缺血性损伤。

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
  252. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @RT

    Clearly, you know NOTHING of medicine, surely not the medical matters that must determined the cause of Floyd’s death.

    “C…..no brain injuries” is irrelevant, medically and legally, partly because that language is indeterminately ambiguous, partly because it can connote absence of 创伤 brain-injury and carotid artery or jugular vein occlusion does NOT cause 创伤 brain-injury.

    You put a risibly false assertion with this: “Compression of cervical vessels of a degree to cause death 离开 可检测的 ischemic injuries to the brain.” [Your words, my emphases.]

    没有 brain-injury, even a very slight ischemic brain injury, 一定 follows from asphyxia-causing compression of carotid artery or jugular vein or from dorsal thorax compression.

    [更多]

    The carotid artery and jugular vein — and simultaneously the dorsal thorax can be compressed — and such blood vessel or the lungs occluded more than enough to cause asphyxia quite without causing even a slightest brain injury of any kind or degree. I challenge you to cite even one actually scientific, valid, reliable medical source that shows that in EVERY case of asphyxia caused by carotid artery or jugular vein or dorsal thorax compression, a brain injury, at least a minute ischemic injury, must have occurred. You will find NONE — for several reasons.

    ONE REASON is that, as in Floyd’s case, rapid-occurring asphyxia can induce death too quickly to permit brain-injury. In condition of normothermia, within 20 seconds of cranial blood flow interruption, the brain’s electrical activity may begin to disappear, probably (but not surely) per failure of high-energy metabolism. Often (but not always) within 5 minutes, high-energy phosphate levels may have nearly disappeared — thus ATP depletion. Serious cell-electrolyte-balance-disturbance may begin. But, most often, ischemic brain-tissue injury requires occurrence of still other, different pathologic biochemical/physiological events, which require more time.

    The other events involve, 例如, pathologic alterations of calcium, sodium, and phosphorous distributions/exchanges and eventual consequent mitochondrial sequestration, thence calcium-overloading of mitochondria and diminished oxidative-phosphorylation-capacity. Elevated intracellular Ca++ will activate membrane phospholipases and protein kinases, thence production of free fatty acids [herinafter “FFA’s”], thence membrane-degradation caused by phospholipases and advanced reduction of calcium-pumping efficiency, which produces further calcium-overload and intracellular calcium-regulation-failure, which occurs during an ischemic episode. And, most often, FFAs bear other cell-membrane-degrading effects.

    Sundry other mechanisms are involved. But the preceding is enough to show that significantly often ischemic injury requires considerable time. Floyd was dead, however, within about five minutes after the cops began applying their neck-compression and dorsal-thorax-compression techniques.

    ANOTHER REASON is that jugular-vein-compression-caused asphyxia involves pathological cranial carbon dioxide retention, which is less likely to cause even slight ischemic brain-tissue injury.

    A THIRD REASON is that, as in Floyd’s case, dorsal thorax compression can cause, or participate in causing, fatal asphyxia or cardiac arrest without causing brain-injury, because the biochemical/physiological mechanics can be largely, though not only, local to the lungs, thence the heart — by means of impairment of pulmonary management of oxygen/carbon-dioxide transfer and obstruction of heart/lung blood-exchange.

    I have been a physician since 1998. But you will insist that I am biased in favor of my own opinion. So, view, and listen to, these videos involving extensive opinions of two physicians (each one independent of the other):
    * https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=0oqEp63duIc&feature=emb_title%5D
    * https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=xRoqSyIi-98&feature=emb_title

    And, bear in mind that the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Press Release ruled Floyd’s death a “homicide.” https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd,%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf

    And READ my comment of July 23, 2020 at 3:39 pm GMT (comment # 255) — and also ALL my earlier comments of this thread and all my comments posted under John-Paul Leonard’s Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ ]

    Your non-expert blithering moronism is well beyond tiresome.

    消失。

    • 回复: @RT
  253. RT 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    Young colleague (since 1998 ), you wrote a gibberish here. Most physiological/biochemical statements in your comment are true, but separately, not together.
    A global ischemic brain unjury (in a healthy brain!) occurs after approximately 6 min., not 20 seconds, otherwise we would not be able to perform certain surgeries on carotid arteries with only a clamp and wthout bypass, which we do. A local ischemia (called ischemic stroke) takes different time depending on the area of the occluded vessel. Both are detectable on autopsy. Reread your basic textbooks.
    A person with sudden cardiac arrest will not keep saying “I cannot breath”, because he will be aready dead.
    Please, bring some clarity here: are you saying that Mr. Floyd suffered from asphyxia, brain ischemia, or cardiac arrest and what medical signs and symptoms are proof of each one? Just do not refer to you previous comments, please. And no mishmash of ions, carbon dioxide and calcium channels.

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
  254. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @RT

    A global ischemic brain unjury (in a healthy brain!) occurs after approximately 6 min., not 20 seconds

    I did not say that ischemic brain injury (in a healthy brain!) occurs in 20 seconds. I said:

    In condition of normothermia, within 20 seconds of cranial blood flow interruption, the brain’s electrical activity may begin to disappear

    Do not try to say I said what I did not say and then try to rebut what I did not say rather than what I did say. That “straw man” argument method is toxically spurious.

    You fudge with your assertion “in a healthy brain” “ischemic brain unjury” “occurs after approximately 6 min.” What is a “healthy brain.” Clearly not yours.

    But “healthy” is a continuum matter; so, a hard 6 minute rule is, clearly, bullshit.

    A local ischemia (called ischemic stroke) takes different time depending on the area of the occluded vessel. Both are detectable on autopsy.

    Partly true, but only if it occurs. And your language “takes different time” is another fudge, , ironically, a concession that my related statments were truths.

    Also, neither I nor any of the other experts who agree with me have asserted that Floyd suffered, or did not suffer, an ischemic stroke. Such a proposition (the positive or the negative) would be irrelevant, and bullshit, in Floyd’s case. See my comment of July 24, 2020 at 12:11 am GMT (comment # 258) and see the two physicians’ opinions that I linked in that comment.

    A person with sudden cardiac arrest will not keep saying “I cannot breath”, because he will be aready dead. [Sic.]

    Again, you set up a straw man to knock down. Again you argue spuriously. Neither I nor any of the other experts suggested that Floyd said ANYTHING when, or about 3+ minutes before, ULTIMATELY, Floyd died from cardiac arrest. Such a proposition would be insane, and among this thread’s comment-posters, you and “map” and John-Paul Leonard — not I — are the insane (or fraudulent) ones.

    Throughout, your reply is tainted by lies.

    I note that you did not attempt to rebut ANYTHING of what ACTUALLY I said. The reason is that you CANNOT rebut anything I said, because all my statements were truths.

    I note also that you did not try to rebut anything of the opinions of the two actual medical experts whose videos I linked. You cannot rebut their statements, because they are truths.

    If you are a physician, your license ought to be revoked. Perhaps is has been revoked (if ever you were a physician).

    Vanish, fraud.

  255. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @RT

    In my comment of July 24, 2020 at 2:37 am GMT(comment # 260), I neglecedt to remind you that in my earlier reply [my comment of July 24, 2020 at 12:11 am GMT (comment # 258), I included this:

    I challenge you to cite even one actually scientific, valid, reliable medical source that shows that in EVERY case of asphyxia caused by carotid artery or jugular vein or dorsal thorax compression, a brain injury, at least a minute ischemic injury, must have occurred. You will find NONE….

    I repeat that challenge, here.

  256. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @RT

    In my comment of July 24, 2020 at 2:37 am GMT(comment # 260), I neglecedt to remind you that in my earlier reply [my comment of July 24, 2020 at 12:11 am GMT (comment # 258), I included this:

    [更多]

    I challenge you to cite even one actually scientific, valid, reliable medical source that shows that in EVERY case of asphyxia caused by carotid artery or jugular vein or dorsal thorax compression, a brain injury, at least a minute ischemic injury, must have occurred. You will find NONE — for several reasons.

    Still, you have not responded to my challenge. [Nor have you presented ANY sustainable argument for your position.] So, I repeat that same challenge, here.

    你写了:

    Please, bring some clarity here: are you saying that Mr. Floyd suffered from asphyxia, brain ischemia, or cardiac arrest

    The unclarity is in your brain — not in my comments. In the comment to which your replied, and in numerous others, I stated clearly that Floyd died because of either or both
    (a) cop-applied neck compression causing carotid artery occlusion (or obstruction)
    (b) cop-applied dorsal thorax compression
    which cop-applied compressions caused Floyd to suffer asphyxia causing terminal cardiac arrest. See, 例如,
    * my comments of July 24, 2020 at 12:11 am GMT (comment # 258)
    * my comments of July 23, 2020 at 3:39 pm GMT (comment # 255)
    * my comments of July 21, 2020 at 6:15 pm GMT (comment # 244)

    YOU put the argument that if carotid artery or jugular vein compression caused asphyxia that caused cardiac arrest and death, brain ischemia (or ischemic brain injury) be present and detectible [your words, my emphasis]. YOU bear the burden of proof of your argument.

    I did not present a “mishmash of ions, carbon dioxide and calcium channels.” I presented description of commencement and operation of well-known mechanisms of ischemic brain injury. YOU have failed to show my presentation was flawed — if, as you insist, it was flawed. You have not shown even that you know the complete, precise mechanisms of ischemic brain injury that may be caused by occlusion of the carotid artery or the jugular vein. Since you raised the issue, the issue is YOURS to prove, not mine.

    In my comment of July 24, 2020 at 12:11 am GMT (comment # 258), I showed that brain ischemia’s sequential mechanisms may not manifest quickly. [Ironically, YOU stated: “…ischemic brain unjury [sic] (in a healthy brain!) occurs after approximately 6分钟” (your words, my emphasis).] At this comment’s close are references that, 一起,支持 my 展示。

    The cops applied their compression-holds for about 8.5 minutes. Floyd fell unconscious 4 to 5 (no more than 6) minutes after the neck-and-dorsal-thorax compression applications began. Floyd became fully limp, quite apparently dead, at some point from one to two minutes after he became unconscious. See the sundry videos of the Floyd-arrest/killing events and also Dr. Michael Hansen (board certified internal medicine, critical care medicine, and pulmonary disease medicine expert), https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=0oqEp63duIc&feature=emb_title%5D

    The asphyxiation process could not have begun immediately upon initiation of the cops’ application of the neck-compression and dorsal-thorax-compression. The asphyxiation-process may have been complete within 4 or 5 minutes (not more than 6 minutes) from the start of application of compression of the neck and dorsal thorax. See the sundry videos of the Floyd-arrest/killing events and also Dr. Michael Hansen (board certified internal medicine, critical care medicine, and pulmonary disease medicine expert), https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=0oqEp63duIc&feature=emb_title%5D

    With my presentation of the early mechanics of the process of causation of ischemic brain-tissue-injury, I showed that a likely 4 to 5 minute (even 6-minute) pre-asphyxia time-lapse may have been too brief to permit onset of ischemic brain-tissue-injury.

    Actually, brain-ischemia-causation/ischemic brain-tissue-injury can require notably more than 6 minutes. That causation’s mechanisms (or processes) 五月 (though need not necessarily) involve operations of number or element-details-proliferation greater than I outlined in my comment of July 24, 2020 at 12:11 am GMT (comment # 258) — 例如, the following.

    (a) (1) Normal extracellular-milieu-calcium bears a concentration 10,000 times greater than calcium’s intracellular concentration. In normal circumstances, four or more mechanisms maintain that 10,000:1 differential. Four such mechanisms are: (1) ATP-driven membrane pump causes active extrusion of calcium from cells; (2) cell-membrane calcium/sodium exchange driven by intracellular-to-extracellular concentration-differential of Na+ resulting from the cell membranes’ Na+ – K+ pump, (3) ATP-driven process of sequestration of intracellular calcium in endoplasmic reticulum; (4) intracellular calcium-accumulation driven by oxidation-dependent calcium sequestration inside mitochondria.

    (a) (2) High-energy cellular compound loss thence Na+ – K+ gradient loss eliminates three of the four mechanisms of cellular calcium homeostasis. That effect causes massive, rapid calcium-influx into cells. Then mitochondrial sequestration causes calcium overloading of mitochondria and diminished capacity of oxidative phosphorylation. Elevated intracellular Ca++ activates membrane phospholipases and protein kinases.

    One vital consequence is production of free fatty acids [hereinafter “FFA’s”], including the potent prostaglandin inducer, arachidonic acid [hereinafter “AA”]. Phospholipases-caused membrane degradation may (very often does) damage membrane integrity, and that effect reduces further the efficiency of calcium pumping and leads to further calcium overload and failure of regulation of intracellular calcium levels.

    (b) FFAs cause other membrane-degradative effects. FFA-release-produced AA causes biochemical cascade ending with thromboxane and leukotriene production. Both compounds are intense tissue-irritants which can cause platelet-aggregation, clotting, vasospasm, and edema, which can increase the compromising of restoration adequate cerebral perfusion.

    (c)(1) Lactic acidosis also may participate in causation of ischemic-tissue-injury — though lactic acidosis is not a necessary culprit. Lactic acidosis does contribute to the pathophysiology of ischemia. Above threshold level of 18 – 25 micromol/g, lactate can cause irreversible neuronal injury.

    (c)(2) Lactic-acidosis-caused pH decrease may injure and inactivate mitochondria. Lactic acidosis can cause degradation of NADH [which is necessary to ATP synthesis]; and lactic acidosis may also interfere with recovery of ATP levels. Lactic acidosis may increase iron decompartmentalization, thence induce or increase free-radical-mediated injury.

    Those mechanisms’ number and complexity can require notable time to develop and bear detectible tissue-injurious effect. THEREFORE, ischemic-brain-tissue-injury may not occur until passage of more than 6 or 7 minutes.

    Hence, ischemic-brain-tissue-injury may not have occurred in Floyd, because, apparently, Floyd died about 4 or 5 minutes (certainly not more than 6 minutes) after the cops began applying their compression techniques. See the sundry videos of the Floyd-arrest/killing events AND — especially, 但不仅, at time 14:44 to end — the video presentation of Dr. Michael Hansen (board certified in internal medicine, critical care medicine, and pulmonary disease medicine): https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=0oqEp63duIc&feature=emb_title%5D ].

    The preceding ischemic-brain-tissue-injury-mechanism details do not exhaust the field. But they suffice to show the possibility, even the probability, that detectible-ischemic-brain-injury did NOT occur in Floyd 尽管 Floyd’s death was caused by either or both
    (a) cop-applied neck compression causing carotid artery occlusion (or obstruction)
    (b) cop-applied dorsal thorax compression
    which cop-applied compression(s) caused Floyd to suffer asphyxia producing terminal cardiac arrest.
    另外,如果 美味, RT, would refute that statement of cause of Floyd’s death, you must refute also the opinions of:
    (1) 体位性窒息-猝死,美国司法部国家司法研究所项目,司法项目办公室,国家司法研究所(1995 年 XNUMX 月),
    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/posasph.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1ylGj-3k7BXhz5s3JdwfKxWXlK3kW2TltokyHr47d_y9k408vMt2t0LAw .
    (2) the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Autopsy Report, which ruled that Floyd’s death ws caused by “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement Subdual, restraint, and neck compression” [top of p.1 of that Report, https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf
    (3) the Hennepin Cnty Medical Examiner’s press release, which ruled Floyd’s death “homicide” https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd,%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf
    (4) “The Scalpel,” a long-time Emergency Room physician, see my [See The Scalpel’s comments cited and discussed in my comment of June 23, 2020 at 2:17 am GMT (comment # 399), posted under John-Pual Leonard’s article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ ]
    (5) Judy Melinek, MD, forensic pathologist and CEO of PathologyExpert Inc. [See my comment of June 23, 2020 at 2:17 am GMT (comment # 399), posted under John-Pual Leonard’s article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ ]
    (6) Dr. Michael Hansen (board certified internal medicine, critical care medicine, and pulmonary disease medicine expert), https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=0oqEp63duIc&feature=emb_title%5D
    (7) Dr. Karl Williams, forensic pathologist and chief medical examiner of Allegheny County (home to Pittsburgh), Pennsylvania, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-autopsies-of-george-floyd-arent-as-different-as-they-seem/
    (8) Several state and munipal formal warnings that police must not apply neck-compression holds for more than a minute of a similarly brief time, see, e.g. Estate of Booker v. Gomez, 745 F. 3d 405 (10th Circuit 2014), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5929342124076407343&q , where, at p.413, the court observed:

    Deputy Grimes put Mr. Booker in a “carotid restraint.” …. According to the Denver Sheriff Department’s training materials, “[t]his technique compresses the carotid arteries and the supply of oxygenated blood to the brain is diminished while concurrently sealing the jugular vein which returns the deoxygenated blood.” …. The hold is capable of rendering a person unconscious within “10-20 seconds.” *** The Sheriff’s training materials warn that “[b]rain damage or death could occur if the technique is applied for more than one minute,” and “[t]herefore the application of the technique should not be applied for more than one minute.” …. [Citations ommitted and one ellipsis added by me, Loup-Bouc]

    (9) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6023692/
    (10) http://charlydmiller.com/LIB05/2003sep2PAcases.pdf
    11) https://www.umc.edu/som/Departments%20and%20Offices/SOM%20Departments/Pediatrics/Di
    visions/Forensic-Medicine/files/investigating_asphyxial_deaths.pdf
    (12) https://forensicmed.webnode.com/pathology/pressure-to-the-neck/
    (13) https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/hhsa/programs/phs/EMS/Medical_Director_Report/10-16-18%20Hanging%20Strangulation%20and%20Other%20Dr.%20Campman.pdf
    (14) https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/forensicsasphyxia.html
    AND the refererences listed at this comment’s close.

    ============

    YOUR burden, RT, is to 证明 the contrary of my preceding presentation’s indication that likely Floyd did not suffer detectible ischemic-brain-tissue-injury despite the cause-of-death was police-tactics-induced asphyxiation leading to cardiac arrest. Your proof-burden includes, necessarily, the burden of proving that in EVERY case of asphyxia caused by carotid artery, jugular vein, or dorsal thorax compression, a detectible, ischemic brain-tissue-injury MUST have occurred.

    Your proof must include citations of actually scientific, valid, reliable medical or biochemical/physiological sources — not bullshit like the crap you have been tossing, or empty arrogance, like your Olympic-god-like pronouncement that I, Loup-Bouc, “wrote a [sic] gibberish” or a “mishmash of ions, carbon dioxide and calcium channels.” If you would repeat such assertions, 证明 them, with scientific detail supported by valid, reliable source-references that present testable science.

    Otherwise, your original detectible-ischemic-brain-injury assertion will be exposed for quite the bullshit I said it is.

    ============

    Above, I promised I would list references that — 一起 — support my outline of the mechanisms of ischemic-brain-injury causation.

    COMPARE the following listed sources — and you 必须 COMPARE all of the below-listed sources, since no single source presents the entirety, or the entire interrelation, of the sundry mechanisms of ischemic-brain-injury causation. [I listed the sources alphabetically, for convenience; but such listing-order does not track the order of relevance.]

    * Ames A III, et al. Cerebral ischemia II. The no-reflow phenomenon. Amer J Pathol 1968;52:437-53.
    *Biros MH, Dimlich RW, Barsan WG. Post-insult treatment of ischemia-induced cerebral lactic acidosis in the rat. Ann Emerg Med 1985;15:397-404.
    * Blaustein MP, Ratzlaff R, Kendrick N. The regulation of intracellular calcium in presynaptic nerve terminals. Proc NY Acad Sci 1978;307:195-212.
    * Carafoli E, Crompton M. Curr Topics Memb Transport 1978;10:151-216.
    *Farber JL, Chien KR, Mittnacht S. The pathogenesis of irreversible cell injury in ischemia. Amer J Pathol 1981;102:271-81.
    * Hertz L. Features of astrocyte function apparently involved in the response of central nervous tissue to ischemia-hypoxia. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1981;1:143-53.
    * Heuser D, Guggenberger H. Ionic changes in brain ischemia and alterations produced by drugs. Br J Anesth 1985;57:23.
    * Kalimo H, Rhencrona S, Soderfeldt, et al. Brain lactic acidosis and ischemic cell damage: Histopathology. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1981;1:313-27.
    *Kaplan J, Dimlich RVW, Biros MH, Hesges J. Mechanisms of Ischemic cerebral injury. Resuscitation 1987;15:149-169.
    * Lowry OH, Passonneau JV, Rock MK. The stability of pyridine nucleotides. J Bio Chem 1961;236:2756-59.
    * Mitchell P, Moyle J. Chemiosmotic hypothesis of oxidative phosphorylation. Nature 1967;213:137-139.
    * Mullane KM, Salmon JA, Kraemer R. Leukocyte derived metabolites of arachidonic acid in ischemia-induced myocardial injury. Fed Proc 1987;46:2422-33.
    * Raichle ME. The pathophysiology of brain ischemia. Ann Neurol 1983;13:2-10.
    * Reichelt KL. The chemical basis for the intolerance of the brain to anoxia. Acta Anesthesiol Scand 1978; Suppl. 29:35-46.
    * Rhenchrona S. Brain acidosis. Ann Emerg Med 1985;14:770-76.
    * Rhenchrona S, Rosen I, Siesjo B. Brain lactic acidosis and ischemic cell damage: I. Biochemistry and neurophysiology. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1981;1:297-311.
    * Rhencrona S, Rosen I, Smith ML. Effect of different degrees of brain ischemia and tissue lactic acidosis on the short-term recovery of neurophysiologic and metabolic variables. Exp Neurol 1985:87:458-73.
    * Siesjo BK, Bendek G, Koide T, et al. Influence of acidosis on lipid peroxidation of brain tissues in vitro. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1985;5:253-58.
    *Siesjo BK. Cell damage in the brain: a speculative synthesis. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1981;1:155-85.
    * White BC, Wiegenstein JG, Winegar CD. Brain ischemia and anoxia: Mechanisms of injury. J Amer Med Assoc 1984;251:1586-90.
    * Wolfe LS. Eicosanoids: prostaglandins, thromboxanes, leukotrienes and other derivatives of carbon-20 unsaturated fatty acids. J Neurochem 1982;38:1-14.

  257. @Loup-Bouc

    狼山羊说,

    现在闭嘴,白痴-种族主义者-傻瓜-骗子-人渣-欺诈。

    惊人的。 这种谩骂的流言蜚语是花十几年学习法律和医学的最佳修辞形式吗?
    我承认我关于智商为零的评论(关于人们有偏见的主题)不是一种恭维,但它值得反思。
    当您在考试中答错时,您在错过的问题上的分数当然为零。
    但是,您的一般智商大于零。
    因此,我们可以得出结论,偏见、情感、无知和其他影响我们思维的错误的智商系数为零。
    无论你的一般智商是多少,将它乘以零,就可以得到你对某个问题的分数。
    无论您的一般智商产生多少废话,这都是正确的,当用于为偏见服务时,这一切都是徒劳的,这仍然会导致您得出错误的答案。

    现在谈谈你的法律先例。 首先,要知道当时MPD批准并由Chauvin应用的膝盖不是颈动脉束缚。 它不会阻塞颈动脉中的血液流动。 Chan 等人已经表明,它不会减少超过 5% 的气流。 如果您的内存过滤器没有完全堵塞,您应该已经知道所有这些,因为我们已经在我的文章的评论中讨论过这个问题, https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/?showcomments . (你也会注意到我在那里撕碎了“手术刀”中微不足道的荒谬之处,如果你不是那么专注于制造无休止和毫无意义的临时争论的话。)

    您引用的 Gomez-Booker 案例中没有应用 MPD 膝盖固定。 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5929342124076407343&q
    那里的投诉包括 2 分钟的窒息,泰瑟枪,以及其他形式的提交,包括“副罗宾内特将膝盖放在布克先生的背上,施加了大约 50 磅体重的 75% 到 190%”。 隔膜上的重量可能会影响呼吸。

    看来,如果律师和医生只能抢到这一根稻草,这根本不等同于肖文-弗洛伊德案,这只是又一个证据,证实了我最初的感觉,死因是吸毒过量,膝盖是无关紧要的,明尼阿波利斯警察被不公正地指控犯有杀人罪。

    弗洛伊德受到的待遇比托尼·廷帕要人道得多,更不用说布克了。 在关于警察试图给他进行心肺复苏术的记录公开之前,我已经结束了这一切。

    当然,心肺复苏术不起作用,因为芬太尼过量导致的心肺骤停似乎是不可逆转的。 显然,受害者必须在血液停止循环之前接受纳洛酮治疗,否则他们将无法复苏。 到达后,急诊室试图让弗洛伊德复苏半小时,但徒劳无功。 如果是被勒死,他很可能会做出回应。 但是芬太尼已经“扼杀”了他的大脑,事实上,没有可用的补救措施。 无论如何,在梳理了所有芬太尼过量的文献后,我没有遇到任何心肺骤停后复苏的案例。 我看到了一个芬太尼麻醉下的肺骤停病例,他们把昏迷的病人放在呼吸机上,但我不认为有心脏骤停。 如果有人想进一步研究这一点,它可能会很有用。

    分数保持不变:过量服用每年 70000 分,膝盖一直为零。
    零案件,零判例法。

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
  258. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @John Leonard

    我已经多次多次揭穿你所有的废话。 你现在的胡说八道并没有什么新东西,只是更多的是同样的无知、不熟练、经常欺诈、被误解的废话。 我不会再比下文更进一步的回答来打扰自己了。

    这只是我的许多评论中明显的一个例子,其中一个例子是我的许多评论中的一个例子,它破坏了你的白痴肚腩,这是我预先预料和破坏的一个例子,以下是你发布的有毒废话:

    您引用的 Gomez-Booker 案例中没有应用 MPD 膝盖固定。 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5929342124076407343&q
    那里的投诉包括 2 分钟的窒息,泰瑟枪,以及其他形式的提交,包括“副罗宾内特将膝盖放在布克先生的背上,施加了大约 50 磅体重的 75% 到 190%”。 隔膜上的重量可能会影响呼吸。

    请参阅我在 23 年 2020 月 9 日格林威治标准时间上午 13:254 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX),它破坏了您上面引用的非重点。 另请参阅我的许多其他评论,这些评论预测并揭穿了您吐出的同类废话。

    [更多]

    另外,在 布克 case, the taser was nothing compared with the Floyd’s case dorsal thorax compression that one or two cops applied simultaneously with Chauvin’s neck-compression knee-press.

    另外,在 布克, 扼流圈持续了 6.45 分钟 少于 the knee-press neck-compression in Floyd’s case.

    而肖万的膝盖按压颈部压缩比发生在 布克 case, as I explained in my comment of July 23, 2020 at 9:13 am GMT (comment # 254). See also my comment of June 10, 2020 at 9:48 pm GMT (comment # 470) posted under Fred Reed’s 7 June 2020 Unz Review article “Her Name Is Breonna Taylor,” https://www.unz.com/freed/her-name-is-breanna-taylor/?showcomments#comments

    另请参阅,在这个线程中, 例如,我在格林威治标准时间 21 年 2020 月 6 日下午 15:244 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX),这是我的其他评论之一,进一步表明弗洛伊德案颈部压迫和背侧胸部压迫比警察在 布克 情况。

    You have zero knowledge of the pertinent medical and legal considerations that make Floyd’s death a murder committed by Chauvin and the cops who arrested and detained Floyd. Your assertions clash hopelessly with all the pertinent medical and legal considerations.

    闭嘴,你这个有毒的白痴。

    你以这样的方式开始你最新的肚皮展示:“这种谩骂是最好的修辞形式。” 你是如此有毒,以至于除了最严厉的谩骂之外,你什么都不值得。 对于那些提出认真的、可以说是合法的论点的人,我保留我礼貌的反驳,这些论点至少以一些可敬的东西为前提。

    消失,蛇。

  259. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @John Leonard

    In my comment of July 25, 2020 at 4:39 am GMT (comment # 264), I neglected to remind you of my having trashed, brutally, to death, your absurdly statistics-ignorant and abysimally stupid mantra of “70000 per year…Overdose.” See my comment of July 23, 2020 at 6:47 pm GMT (comment # 256).

    你真是太神奇了——一种方式。 你不会死于被自我厌恶之刃击中的破碎怪物,尽管你在镜子中看到你可怕的形象,有时会看到你有毒的灵魂。

  260. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @John Leonard

    现在有足够的空闲时间来完成你最近排放的有毒废物的处理[你在格林威治标准时间 25 年 2020 月 3 日凌晨 32:263 发表的评论(评论#25)],我将在 2020 年 4 月 39 日第 264 点补充我的评论格林威治标准时间上午 25 点(第 2020 条评论)和 5 年 52 月 265 日格林威治标准时间上午 XNUMX:XNUMX(第 XNUMX 条评论)。 但是,我没有足够的空闲时间来校对以下文本。 因此,它可能会出现打字错误。 如果是这样,那就这样吧。

    Of the essential flaws of your idiotic, ignorant blather, one is that your utter lack of medical education “permits” you to assume that somehow (impossible) a knee-press neck-compression (like Chauvin’s of Floyd’s neck) may not cause lethal occlusion of a carotid artery, a jugular vein, or both — despite a far-less-intense arm-press neck-compression or some other neck-compression has been lethal OFTEN.

    我一般会从致命的颈部压缩开始。 在我 23 年 2020 月 9 日格林威治标准时间上午 13:254 发表的评论中(评论 #XNUMX),我写道:

    警察通过颈动脉/颈静脉颈部压迫杀死了大量平民(尤其是黑人)。 就在 1980 年,加利福尼亚州洛杉矶,一个黑人男性占人口 9% 的城市,在因警察使用扼流圈而导致的 75 人死亡中,黑人男性占 16%。
    参见 Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 US 95 (1983), Marshall, Brennan, Blackmun 和 Stevens 大法官的异议,该异议的脚注 3,
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4587981977816900853&q=Los+Angeles+v.+Lyons,+461+US+95&hl=en&as_sdt=6

    在同一条评论中,我写道:

    [更多]

    …[I]n Estate of Booker v. Gomez, 745 F. 3d 405 (10th Circuit 2014), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5929342124076407343&q , the victim was lying prone, front-down (on his chest and abdomen) when the carotid-artery/jugular-vein obstructing neck-compression hold was applied to him — so that the culprit cop had to exert pressure on the carotid and jugular vessels by pulling sideways and squeezing with his arm, NOT by squeezing with his arm and applying his body-mass, hence force of gravity.
    因此,在布克庄园诉戈麦斯案中,施加的力明显小于肖文警官用他的(肖文的)膝盖按压扼流圈施加到弗洛伊德脖子上的力,这不仅适用于肖文的腿部肌肉源压力,还有肖文的体重,因此是重力。

    你没有反驳这些意见。 没有人可以——至少不合法,对于科学来说,这意味着可靠的科学结论(根据有效、可靠的证据从逻辑上表明结论)。 科学对你的反社会种族主义心理和极度虚弱的自我来说是一种诅咒。

    In the comments-thread set under Fred Reed’s Unz Review article “Her Name Is Breonna Taylor,” https://www.unz.com/freed/her-name-is-breanna-taylor/?showcomments , “The Scalper” posted a number of comments pertinent here. [The Scalpel is a long-time Emergency Room physician.] In one comment, he included a link that supplies the FACT that in Minneapolis alone, in 44 cases of a total of about 200 neck restraint incidents, suspects have lost consciousness. The comment The Scalpel’s of June 10, 2020 at 1:29 am GMT (comment # 392). The link is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=vEeMHFik9Xo&feature=emb_title

    FACT 在这里至关重要,因为
    (a) 多年来,明尼阿波利斯的许多、大多数或所有颈部约束都与肖文应用于弗洛伊德的那种完全一样;
    (b) 当一个人因颈动脉、颈静脉或两者的阻塞(阻塞)而失去知觉时,该人很可能会在失去知觉开始后 2 分钟内因窒息而死亡,并且肖万警官施加了他的膝盖压力毫无疑问,弗洛伊德在肖文的膝盖和胫骨下失去知觉,在弗洛伊德的颈部一侧(颈动脉和颈静脉部位)进行颈部压缩超过 3 分钟(约 3.4 分钟)。

    RE: the onset of Floyd’s unconsciousness vis-a-vis Chauvin’s carotid artery or jugular vein occluding choke hold, see below (in this comment) and see the video presentation of Dr. Michael Hansen (board certified internal medicine, critical care medicine, and pulmonary disease medicine expert) — especially, BUT NOT ONLY, time 13:45 through end of same video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=0oqEp63duIc&feature=emb_title%5D

    在格林威治标准时间 10 年 2020 月 12 日下午 48:434 发表的评论中(评论 #XNUMX)——发表在同一篇 Fred Reed 文章下),手术刀写道:

    1982 年,在十几名黑人男子死亡以及当时的洛杉矶警察局局长达里尔盖茨臭名昭著的评论后,洛杉矶警察委员会严格限制其使用在正常人身上做。”

    The Scalpel cited: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-05/george-floyd-carotid-neck-hold-police

    The Scalpel cited also https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2020/06/02/police-departments-nationwide-ban-use-deadly-neck-restraint/3125464001/ , which pertains to San Diego, AND https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-mexico-cop-charged-with-involuntary-manslaughter-after-man-in-custody-dies-in-neck-restraint/ , which pertains to New Mexico, AND https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/george-floyd-knee-neck-1.5600126 , which pertains to Toronto.

    And The Scalpel observed: “This [neck-restraint-caused death ]is so common that there is a Law Firm that specializes in it and lists case after case of fatalities from it” — for which observation, The Scalpel cited https://www.lvcriminaldefense.com/neck-restraint-proves-fatal-yet/

    回到颈动脉或颈静脉闭塞导致失去知觉后多久受害者可以活多久——他会死多久。 在格林威治标准时间 10 年 2020 月 10 日晚上 06:472 发表的评论中(评论号 XNUMX)(同一篇 Fred Reed 文章),手术刀(回想起来,他是一名长期担任急诊室医生)表示:“让我放心你,如果你窒息一个人到他们昏倒的地步,他们可能离死亡只有几秒钟的时间。 当然不会超过一两分钟。 大脑不能很好地耐受缺氧。”

    现在,手术刀的一些详细的科学支持,迈克尔汉森博士的 (),以及我的真实断言,即一名受害男子在因颈动脉、颈静脉或两者兼而有之的闭塞而失去知觉后最多活 2 分钟:

    In my comment of July 24, 2020 at 12:11 am GMT (comment # 258), I observed: “In condition of normothermia, within 20 seconds of cranial blood flow interruption, the brain’s electrical activity may begin to disappear.” That observation is supported by extensive medical knowledge presented in many medical journals and related science journals, which I referenced at the close of my comment of July 24, 2020 at 11:00 pm GMT (comment # 262). That electrical energy diminution associates with, partially causes, unconsciousness produced by occlusion of carotid artery blood-flow. See my same two comments referenced in THIS paragraph.

    在这两条评论中的较早的一条中,我还观察到:

    通常(但不总是)在 5 分钟内,高能磷酸盐水平可能几乎消失 - 因此 ATP 耗尽。 可能会开始严重的细胞电解质平衡紊乱。

    ATP 耗尽/细胞电解质平衡紊乱的可能性与无意识的发作相关,部分原因是无意识的发作。

    在我 24 年 2020 月 12 日格林威治标准时间上午 11:258 发表的评论中(评论 #XNUMX),我进一步观察到其他病理事件将会发生——如果没有英勇的救生措施非常迅速地进行干预,就会导致死亡。

    其他事件包括,例如,钙、钠和磷分布/交换的病理改变以及最终导致的线粒体隔离,因此线粒体钙超载和氧化磷酸化能力降低。 升高的细胞内 Ca++ 会激活膜磷脂酶和蛋白激酶,然后产生游离脂肪酸 [以下简称“FFA”],然后由磷脂酶引起膜降解和钙泵效率的进一步降低,从而进一步导致钙超载和细胞内钙-调节失败,发生在缺血发作期间。 而且,大多数情况下,FFA 还具有其他细胞膜降解作用。

    这些观察得到了许多医学期刊和相关科学期刊中广泛的医学知识的支持,我在格林威治标准时间 24 年 2020 月 11 日晚上 00:262 发表的评论结束时引用了这些知识(评论 #XNUMX)。

    在格林威治标准时间 24 年 2020 月 11 日晚上 00:262 发表的评论中(评论 #24),在许多医学期刊和相关科学期刊中提供的广泛医学知识的支持下,我概述了更多导致和加剧大脑的生化/生理机制缺血,并因此或相关地因窒息导致心脏骤停而死亡。 在这里,我没有复制我在格林威治标准时间 2020 年 11 月 00 日晚上 262:XNUMX 发表的评论中设置的所有生化/生理细节(评论 #XNUMX)——颈动脉或颈动脉产生的致死机制的细节- 静脉阻塞导致大脑缺氧或高碳酸血症 - 在这里我将强调该评论大纲的最重要含义:

    The cops applied their compression-holds for about 8.5 minutes. Floyd fell unconscious 4 to 5 (no more than 6) minutes after the neck-and-dorsal-thorax compression applications began. Floyd became fully limp, quite apparently dead, at some point from one to two minutes after he became unconscious. See the sundry videos of the Floyd-arrest/killing events and also Dr. Michael Hansen (board certified internal medicine, critical care medicine, and pulmonary disease medicine expert), https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=0oqEp63duIc&feature=emb_title%5D

    窒息过程不可能在警察开始应用颈部压迫和背部胸部压迫后立即开始。 窒息过程可能在开始对颈部和背部胸部施加压力的 4 或 5 分钟(不超过 6 分钟)内完成。

    Now compare this quote of Booker v. Gomez, 745 F. 3d 405 (10th Circuit 2014), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5929342124076407343&q , where, at p.413, the court observed:

    According to the Denver Sheriff Department’s training materials, “[t]his technique compresses the carotid arteries and the supply of oxygenated blood to the brain is diminished while concurrently sealing the jugular vein which returns the deoxygenated blood.” …. The hold is capable of rendering a person unconscious within “10-20 seconds.” *** The Sheriff’s training materials warn that “[b]rain damage or 如果使用该技术超过一分钟,可能会导致死亡,”和“[t] 因此,该技术的应用不应超过一分钟。” …… [省略引文、强调和我添加的一个省略号,Loup-Bouc]

    我回顾一下我在此评论开头附近提出的意见:

    …[I]n 布克庄园诉戈麦斯案 , 745 F. 3d 405 (10th Circuit 2014), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5929342124076407343&q , the victim was lying prone, front-down (on his chest and abdomen) when the carotid-artery/jugular-vein obstructing neck-compression hold was applied to him — so that the culprit cop had to exert pressure on the carotid and jugular vessels by pulling sideways and squeezing with his arm, NOT by squeezing with his arm and applying his body-mass, hence force of gravity.

    因此,在 布克庄园诉戈麦斯案 ,施加的力明显小于肖文警官用他(肖文的)膝盖按压扼流圈施加在弗洛伊德脖子上的力,这不仅施加了肖文的腿部肌肉源压力,而且还施加了肖文的体重,因此力-重力。

    所有处理过弗洛伊德案件的专家——以及所有相关的医学和生化/生理学专家文献——都清楚地表明,问题不在于手臂、腿、膝盖、胫骨、腰带、绞索,还是其他任何东西都会阻塞颈动脉、颈静脉或两者兼而有之。 问题只是在受害者失去知觉后大约 2 分钟,颈动脉、颈静脉或两者是否遭受脑缺氧或脑高碳酸血症导致闭塞。

    Very little side-of-neck pressure is needed to cause such effect. I — or any normal person — could accomplish such pressure with one finger, even a little finger of one hand. Quite so, because Officer Chauvin (likely about 185 pounds) applied for about 8.45 minutes his knee-press neck-compression hold to Floyd’s neck, Floyd’s death was a CERTAINTY — 甚至,如果 Chauvin 只使用了大约 2 分钟的前臂压力颈部压缩技术,大约 2 分钟,在 布克庄园诉戈麦斯案 .

    See also my comment of June 10, 2020 at 9:48 pm GMT (comment # 470) posted under the above referenced Fred Reed article “Her Name Is Breonna Taylor,” https://www.unz.com/freed/her-name-is-breanna-taylor/?showcomments

    我向你保证,在对肖万警官和弗洛伊德案的其他罪魁祸首的刑事审判中,在明尼苏达州向法庭提供所有可用证据(或仅是我、FB 和手术刀在此处或下方引用的证据之后)其他Unz Review文章),检方将在警察的辩护律师提交的解雇动议中幸存下来,案件将提交陪审团。

    当然,如果至少有一名陪审员是像你这样无知、不了解真相、黏糊糊的种族主义者,那么陪审团可能会被绞死,而检方需要决定是否重新审判肇事警察。 但是,如果州检察长、地方检察官和实际检察官不是傻瓜,他们应该能够与罪犯警察讨价还价,以承认一级过失杀人罪。

    现在,真相盲,粘液袋,种族主义偏见,弱小毒蛇,永远闭嘴。

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
  261. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    In my comment of July 26, 2020 at 2:34 am GMT (comment # 266), on the second line of the language quoted immediately below, the word “man” is a typing error. The word ought to be “may.”

    现在,手术刀的一些详细的科学支持,迈克尔汉森博士的 (),以及我的真实断言,即一名受害男子在因颈动脉、颈静脉或两者兼而有之的闭塞而失去知觉后最多活 2 分钟:

    Therefore, that same (now above-quoted) language ought to be:

    现在,手术刀的一些详细的科学支持,迈克尔汉森博士的 (), and my TRUE assertion that a victim may live at most 2 minutes after falling unconscious because of occlusion of a carotid artery, a jugular vein, or both:

  262. 我写的

    无论您的一般智商产生了多少废话,当用于为偏见服务时,这一切都是徒劳的,这仍然会导致您得出错误的答案。

    我刚刚遇到了一种更好的表达方式:

    “心性如水,不扰则清。”

    (Erik Weihenmayer 在文化十字路口采访中引用夏尔巴人的话
    https://www.facebook.com/IdriesShah/posts/idries-shah-foundation-podcast-practical-psychology-for-today-cc2-cultural-cross/2105827342804294/ )

    在这个案例中,研究清楚地表明,死因是芬太尼和海洛因。 索罗斯资助的颜色革命策略助长了对警察暴行的先入之见,扰乱了这种清晰性。
    如果你是一名律师,你应该知道目击者证据的弱点。 一个人在警察按住他的情况下说“我无法呼吸”,人们将两者之间的因果关系联系起来。 它 似乎 对他们清楚。
    事实上,芬太尼过量会导致致命的呼吸困难和导致需要克制的谵妄。

    我再说一遍,MPD 批准的膝盖不是颈动脉约束。 你的动脉不在脖子的一侧,而是更靠近前面。 阻塞动脉不需要太大的压力,但必须准确应用,因为它们很窄。 颈部前部的肘部用于约束颈动脉,导致昏厥。

    我厌倦了为一个歇斯底里的非听众重复自己。

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
  263. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @John Leonard

    你的动脉不在脖子的一侧,而是更靠近前面。

    您的错误解剖学断言是您的种族主义白痴造成的另一个可鄙的错误。

    颈动脉 ,那恭喜你,双方 颈部:
    * https://ranzcrpart1.fandom.com/wiki/Carotid_sheath:Internal_carotid_artery
    ** https://www.pinterest.com/pin/758645499707301013/

    再一次,你只是吐出没有科学或明确解剖事实支持的有毒渣滓,因为它是呕吐的有毒渣滓。

    [更多]

    您没有回答我在回复您的评论的评论中提供的任何科学证据——回复评论直接回复您的评论或间接通过引用(当我回复您时)我的评论回复您以外的评论者。

    科学是对你明显的有毒种族主义意识形态的诅咒。

    你的夏尔巴人的“说法”不仅愚蠢而且无关紧要,而且,无论可能的问题是什么,它都不能代替科学或逻辑或实际有效、可靠的证据或科学或其他逻辑-理性-可辩护的事实断言。

    您的芬太尼废话已被所有解决此问题的医学专家揭穿。 除了我之前在回复你的评论中提到的那些——在这个线程和你荒谬的文章下设置的线程“或者乔治弗洛伊德死于药物过量吗?, https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ — see also this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=xRoqSyIi-98&feature=emb_title

    MPD 批准的护膝不是颈动脉约束装置

    你擅长不道德地设计的视觉和智力盲区以及完全公然虚假的不道德断言; 这是您唯一的专长。

    In EVERY video of Chauvin’s knee-press applied to Floyd, anyone NOT morally blind must see that Chauvin’s knee and shin are pressing on exactly where Floyd’s jugular vein and carotid arteries are located. And anyone possessing moral integrity must agree that, with the force his leg muscles exerted and with the gravitational force of his body’s mass, Chauvin applied severe occlusory pressure to Floyd’s carotid arteries and jugular vein. [Like the carotid arteries, the jugular veins are located at the sides of the neck:
    * https://healthjade.net/jugular-vein/
    * https://www.pinterest.com/pin/832673418582495072/
    * https://bodytomy.com/internal-jugular-vein-diagram-functions ]

    至少因为你对医学的极度无知、普遍的白痴和种族主义导致的失明,你没有解决这样一个现实,就像肖文的膝盖按压颈部压缩通过导致大脑缺氧和随后的致命生化而导致窒息导致的心脏骤停一样/生理事件,肖文的膝盖按压颈部压迫导致弗洛伊德因阻塞弗洛伊德的颈静脉而死亡,因此导致脑高碳酸血症,进而窒息导致心脏骤停。

    再次,您的废话已被每位解决此问题的医学专家的意见所驳斥。

    索罗斯资助的颜色革命策略助长了对警察暴行的先入之见,扰乱了这种清晰性。
    ***
    一个人在警察按住他的情况下说“我无法呼吸”,人们将两者之间的因果关系联系起来。 他们似乎很清楚。

    “Soros-financed color revolution…”? Why not trot out Snowwhite and the Seven Dwarves and The Big Bad Wolf and the Three Little Pigs.

    Soros did not create the CLEAR evidence and the CLEAR law that indicate, irrefutably, that exactly your “’I can’t breathe’ with cops holding him down” observation is part of the reason why Chauvin and at least one other cop are guilty of “depraved mind” murder and felony murder. Soros’s politics, his political activities, and those activities’ political or other effects — and even Soros’s existence — carry ZERO bearing respecting the matter that the clear evidence and the clear law indicate, clearly, that the cops murdered Floyd.

    你甚至还没有开始回答——因为,你无法回答——我经常提出的法律论点表明肖文和至少另一名警察谋杀了弗洛伊德:我的意思是我的证据分析和相关的法规和司法判决支持涉及蛋壳头骨规则,杀人伤害的可预见性以及堕落无视导致这种杀人伤害可预见性的“增强”的论点。

    正如您不了解或故意视而不见表明杀人的医学考虑一样,您也不了解或故意视而不见相关法律。

    你是我多年来遇到的最可鄙的坏蛋——不是因为你愚蠢的、依赖推诿的种族主义(这对许多 Unz Review 的作者和评论者来说很常见),而是因为你透明的、令人作呕的伪礼貌的酸复杂的伪装。 池塘浮渣胜过你,一条有毒的种族主义毒蛇。

    哦,我的大灰狼典故提醒我,你甚至不能错误地对构成我的笔名 Loup-Bouc 的两个法语术语进行单一、简单的翻译。 在您 25 年 2020 月 3 日格林威治标准时间上午 32:263 发表的评论中(评论 #XNUMX),您的第一句话是“狼山羊说”。 Loup-Bouc 不翻译为 Wolf-Goat。 它翻译为雄性-狼-雄性-山羊。

    法语区分公狼和母狼,公山羊和母山羊。 母狼是“louve”,母山羊是“chèvre”。

    一些文盲或半文盲(如谷歌翻译)坚持使用愚蠢多余的“chèvre femelle”,翻译为“雌性山羊”,因为“chèvre”的意思是雌性山羊。” Alors,“ce bouc est beau”,mais “cette chèvre est belle”。 但你的文盲更糟糕,因为它源于假装熟悉 la plus belle langue。

  264. Tusk 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    Allow ME to apply to YOU the kind of neck-restraint Officer Chauvin applied to Floyd. After about 3 minutes, you will feel your life threatened; and it WILL BE THREATENED

    You can apply the neck restraint for a week if you want. As a healthy individual it’s not going to affect me at all.

  265. 感谢您绘制显示动脉位置的图。
    一个问题是它只是二维的。 动脉位于颈部内部,而不是靠近表面。 它们凹陷在下巴下方,不会受到来自侧面的压力,这只会影响颈部更暴露、肌肉发达和骨质疏松的部分,比喉咙和动脉更靠近背部。
    可以通过将自己的拳头按在脖子侧面来立即确认这一点。 它压在肌肉和骨骼上,如果你用力按压会很痛,但对血液流动或空气流动没有任何影响。
    这就是为什么当弗洛伊德被捕时,护膝(以最小的必要压力)仍然是批准的 MPD 政策。
    此外,您选择的绘图是侧视图 - 因此它显示了侧面的动脉。 在正面视图中,可以看到前面的动脉。 事实上,它们位于侧面和正面之间大约 45 度角——但我没有看到它们靠近表面,所以你所说的“颈动脉位于颈部两侧”似乎不准确。 它们位于颈部内部,靠近气管。
    我在这里看一张图片,它从前面和横截面高度显示了动脉,所以你可以看到它们在其他组织后面的凹陷程度。 http://www.medicalexhibits.com/medical_exhibits_image.php?exhibit=13069_03X
    这张图片上有版权警告,无论如何我在这里看不到如何在帖子中嵌入图片。
    这是一个 Youtube 的链接,它提供了颈动脉的几个解剖视图。

    “颈总动脉解剖 – 起源、路线、关系、分支、临床解剖 – USMLE”
    1:35 – 2:05 侧视图显示动脉在进入头部时如何拥抱脊柱。 显示前视图的图像。 “颈动脉分为颈外动脉和颈内动脉……动脉位置很深,被胸节乳突肌覆盖。” 那是脖子表面的一块大肌肉,从锁骨一直延伸到耳后; 这是你的拳头推动的肌肉。 (它旋转头部并弯曲颈部。)
    您可以在此视频剪辑中看到颈动脉不靠近表面。
    尽管如此,仍然可以用肘部扼住动脉来阻塞动脉流动,但不能用膝盖在侧面。 解剖学就是这么棘手,你必须触摸正确的点,任何尝试雕刻烤鸟的人都知道。
    当然,那些不想得到这个的人永远不会。

  266. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @John Leonard

    我没有足够的空闲时间来校对这条评论。 它可能会出现打字错误。 如果是这样,那就这样吧。 此外,我的职业责任可能会妨碍我回复您在此评论回复的评论之后发布的任何评论。 我未来的沉默并不意味着我承认你发表的任何未来论点。 并注意:本评论通过引用包含了我在格林威治标准时间 26 年 2020 月 2 日凌晨 34:266(评论 #26)、格林威治标准时间 2020 年 3 月 58 日凌晨 267:26(评论 #2020)的所有评论,以及格林威治标准时间 11 年 54 月 269 日晚上 XNUMX:XNUMX(评论 #XNUMX),以及我在此评论下面引用的所有其他评论。

    您可以在此视频剪辑中看到颈动脉不靠近表面。
    Nonetheless, it’s still possible to block the arterial flow with an elbow chokehold, but not with a knee on the side.

    您引用了一段视频,该视频在其第一段中具有严重误导性,因为它呈现的正面视图似乎表明颈动脉和颈静脉在颈部前部或附近运行。 但是,从大约 1 点 27 分开始,视频显示了颈动脉和颈静脉的实际位置——它们的位置在颈部两侧,而不是在或靠近颈部前部。

    该视频没有任何显示支持你的错误断言,即肖万警官的膝盖按压颈部压缩没有“阻塞动脉流动”。 此外,“动脉流动”在医学上是不称职的语言:人头的一侧视图显示 17 条动脉。 请参阅我在 26 年 2020 月 11 日格林威治标准时间晚上 54:269 发表的评论中包含的图片(评论 #XNUMX)。

    As I have stated several times, I am a physician, have been since 1998. (I mean that I completed my internship and residency mid-1998, and began solo practice in 1998. For three years earlier, I was in residency.) I do not see what you hallucinate, with your warped vision of the anatomy — what you hallucinate so your racism can “see” what it desires to convince your psychopathic racist self and your fellow racists that Floyd’s murder was not murder.

    Like the Medical Examiner and ALL the other medical experts who have viewed the videos of Chauvin’s knee-press neck-compression, I see that Chauvin DID occlude Floyd’s carotid arteries and jugular veins of one side of Floyd’s neck and that such compression
    (a) obstructed blood flow to Floyd’s brain and caused his brain to suffer hypoxia and
    (b) obstructed venous return-blood-flow from Floyd’s brain to his lungs and caused brain-hypercapnia and
    (c) 导致窒息,导致心脏骤停。
    [至少另一名警察的胸背压迫参与了弗洛伊德的杀害。 我在其他一些评论中已经表明了这一点。 因为,在您对此评论回复的评论中,您没有解决胸背受压问题,因此我不会在此评论中提及胸背受压。]

    [更多]

    在我 24 年 2020 月 12 日格林威治标准时间上午 11:258 发表的评论中(评论 #XNUMX)[hereinafter “comment 258″]以及我在格林威治标准时间 24 年 2020 月 11 日晚上 00:262 发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX)[hereinafter “comment 262″],我与自称是医生的 RT 争论不休。 通过这两条评论,我展示了我在此类生化/生理问题方面的专业知识。 我向 RT 提出质疑,对我的陈述提出异议,这表明 RT 的说法是虚假的,他声称“对导致死亡的宫颈血管进行一定程度的压缩将给大脑留下可检测的缺血性损伤”。 [Rt 的确切词,我强调他的词“意志”。]

    RT 的断言是,在每一个“导致死亡的宫颈血管受压”的情况下,都会发生“可检测到的缺血性 [脑] 损伤”。 RT 的说法是错误的。

    在我的评论 258 和 262(回复 RT)中,我详细介绍了宫颈血管受压引起的缺血效应的发生和进展的生物化学/生理学的医学专家介绍。 我的演讲不仅对宫颈血管受压引起的缺血效应的发生和进展进行了广泛详细的医学专家阐述。 它引用了 21 篇学术医学文章,其内容和结论与我的论述相符。

    我的演示表明 RT 的断言是错误的。 RT 没有回应,因为他无法回应,因为他的断言是错误的。 因此,正如我在之前的评论中所观察到的,RT 不是医生,或者他的执照应该被吊销。

    尽管如此,RT 的断言即使是真的也不会改变案件:(a) 没有任何迹象表明弗洛伊德没有遭受缺血性脑损伤。 (b)由于(由于我上面引用的评论最终显示的原因)缺血性脑损伤不是发生致命的颈部血管闭塞所必需的,缺血性脑损伤的缺席不能减少警察谋杀弗洛伊德的情况。

    You engage in wishful hallucination (or racism-driven patent falsehood) with your assertions (a) that Chauvin could not “block…arterial flow with a knee on the side” because “the carotid is not close to the surface” but that “it’s still possible to block the arterial flow with an elbow chokehold” and (b) that the carotid arteries are “recessed under the jaw, are not exposed to pressure from the side, which only impacts the more exposed, muscular and bony part of the neck, situated more towards the back than the throat and the arteries.”

    The jaw does NOT block side-of-neck knee, shin, forearm, or upper-arm compression of the carotid arteries. The carotid arteries are compression-accessible from about one inch below the jaw to immediately above the clavicle. In Estate of Booker v. Gomez , 745 F. 3d 405 (10th Circuit 2014), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5929342124076407343&q , a side-of-neck-applied forearm-effected-compression choke-hold killed the victim — NOT an “elbow shocke-hold.

    肘部扼流圈不太可能实现颈动脉的致命压缩。 前臂和上臂肌肉块将至少部分地阻碍肘弓内侧接触涉及颈动脉的颈部侧面区域。

    膝盖按压/胫骨按压(如 Chauvin 的)可能会过度压缩颈动脉,因为在使用膝盖按压时,所涉及的颈跨度将“扩大,但膝盖按压会向上推动下巴和离开。

    此外,在 Booker v. Gomez 案中,当对他施加颈动脉/颈静脉阻塞的颈部压缩保持时,受害者俯卧,正面朝下(在他的胸部和腹部)。 因此,肇事警察不得不通过侧向和向上拉动来对颈动脉和颈静脉施加压力,以抵抗重力,并用他的手臂挤压。 罪犯警察不能用他的手臂挤压,也不能将他的手臂结构和身体质量向下施加以增强重力的压缩。

    因此,在布克庄园诉戈麦斯案中,施加的力明显小于肖文警官用他的(肖文的)膝盖按压扼流圈施加在弗洛伊德脖子上的力,这不仅施加了肖文的腿部肌肉源压力,还有肖文的体重,因此是重力。

    See also my comment of June 10, 2020 at 9:48 pm GMT (comment # 470) posted under the above referenced Fred Reed article “Her Name Is Breonna Taylor,” https://www.unz.com/freed/her-name-is-breanna-taylor/?showcomments
    我持有合气道黑带。 在训练期间,我被要求防御各种阻碍——就像在我获得黑带的道场教的每个学生一样。 在上面引用的评论中,我讨论了各种扼流圈的物理原理,我报告说,在少数使用膝压扼流圈的情况下,学生不得不被紧急送往急诊室,因为该学生出现了遭受窒息。

    我也是一名律师和低级教授——自 1968 年起担任律师,1972 年至 1976 年担任法学助理教授,1976 年担任法学终身教授,1978 年至今担任法学终身教授。 我的论点赢得了美国最高法院、联邦上诉法院、联邦地区法院、州最高法院和其他州上诉法院和州初审法院的诉讼。 我发表的法律奖学金(书籍、法律评论文章、交付、发表的正式论文)在法院、法学家和律师中享有广泛的尊重和影响。

    In quite enough comments of this thread and of the thread set under your (contemnible) Unz Review article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?, https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ , I showed that Chauvin and at least one other cop killed Floyd and that the killing was “depraved mind” 3rf degree murder and felony murder (the predicate felonious offense of which was felony assault or felony civil rights violation, 18 U.S. Code §242, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242 — or both of those predicate offenses).

    在对上述两个线程的多次评论中,我表明弗洛伊德凶杀案的三级谋杀形式涉及(a)“堕落的思想”无视警察的压迫会杀死弗洛伊德的可预见性,(b)蛋壳骷髅规则,以及(c)肖文的“堕落思想”无视可预见性“增强”了可预见性这一事实。

    再次,您发表的评论与处理弗洛伊德案件的所有医学专家(包括亨内平县法医)的意见相冲突。
    (1) 体位性窒息-猝死,美国司法部国家司法研究所项目,司法项目办公室,国家司法研究所(1995 年 XNUMX 月),
    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/posasph.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1ylGj-3k7BXhz5s3JdwfKxWXlK3kW2TltokyHr47d_y9k408vMt2t0LAw .
    (2) the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Autopsy Report, which ruled that Floyd’s death ws caused by “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement Subdual, restraint, and neck compression” [top of p.1 of that Report, https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf
    (3) the Hennepin Cnty Medical Examiner’s press release, which ruled Floyd’s death “homicide” https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd,%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf
    (4) “The Scalpel,” a long-time Emergency Room physician, see my [See The Scalpel’s comments cited and discussed in my comment of June 23, 2020 at 2:17 am GMT (comment # 399), posted under John-Pual Leonard’s article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ ]
    (5) Judy Melinek, MD, forensic pathologist and CEO of PathologyExpert Inc. [See my comment of June 23, 2020 at 2:17 am GMT (comment # 399), posted under your article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ ]
    (6) Dr. Michael Hansen (board certified internal medicine, critical care medicine, and pulmonary disease medicine expert), https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=0oqEp63duIc&feature=emb_title%5D
    (7) Dr. Karl Williams, forensic pathologist and chief medical examiner of Allegheny County (home to Pittsburgh), Pennsylvania, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-autopsies-of-george-floyd-arent-as-different-as-they-seem/
    (8) Opinnon of Dr. Bernard,

    还有相关的:
    (1) Several state and munipal formal warnings that police must not apply neck-compression holds for more than a minute of a similarly brief time, see, e.g. Estate of Booker v. Gomez, 745 F. 3d 405 (10th Circuit 2014), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5929342124076407343&q , where, at p.413, the court observed:

    Deputy Grimes put Mr. Booker in a “carotid restraint.” …. According to the Denver Sheriff Department’s training materials, “[t]his technique compresses the carotid arteries and the supply of oxygenated blood to the brain is diminished while concurrently sealing the jugular vein which returns the deoxygenated blood.” …. The hold is capable of rendering a person unconscious within “10-20 seconds.” *** The Sheriff’s training materials warn that “[b]rain damage or death could occur if the technique is applied for more than one minute,” and “[t]herefore the application of the technique should not be applied for more than one minute.” …. [Citations ommitted and one ellipsis added by me, Loup-Bouc]

    (2) 解决位置性窒息、机械性窒息或压缩-0 性窒息致死性的来源
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6023692/
    http://charlydmiller.com/LIB05/2003sep2PAcases.pdf
    https://forensicmed.webnode.com/pathology/pressure-to-the-neck/
    https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/hhsa/programs/phs/EMS/Medical_Director_Report/10-16-18%20Hanging%20Strangulation%20and%20Other%20Dr.%20Campman.pdf
    * https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/forensicsasphyxia.html

    您再次发表与法律专家的法律意见相冲突的评论——我自己和明尼苏达州总检察长以及亨内平县 DA 和其他人。 相比, 例如,四位美国最高法院大法官的观察认为
    警察用颈动脉/颈静脉颈部压迫杀死了相当多的平民(尤其是黑人)。 就在 1980 年,加利福尼亚州洛杉矶,一个黑人男性占人口 9% 的城市,黑人男性占因警察使用扼流圈而导致的 75 人死亡的 16%。
    参见 Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 US 95 (1983), Marshall, Brennan, Blackmun 和 Stevens 大法官的异议,该异议的脚注 3,
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4587981977816900853&q=Los+Angeles+v.+Lyons,+461+US+95&hl=
    扼流圈有各种各样的。 另请参阅我在格林威治标准时间 26 年 2020 月 2 日凌晨 34 点 266 分发表的评论(评论 #XNUMX),其中我提供了更多证据证明各种颈侧按压的致命性。

    在布克庄园诉戈麦斯案中(),法院裁定警察不能免除杀人罪的责任,因为他们的行为涉及鲁莽无视受害者会因警察过度使用武力而死亡的可预见性; 主要原因是一名警察使用颈部压缩保持超过一分钟。 在弗洛伊德的案例中,肖万使用了最糟糕的颈部压缩保持约 1 分钟,其中包括弗洛伊德失去知觉后的 8.45 多分钟。

    In Floyd’s case, a telling matter is the Minnesota history of life-threatening use of the kind of choke-hold Chauvin applied to Floyd. In Minneapolis, in 44 cases of a total of about 200 neck restraint incidents, suspects have lost consciousness. See The Scalpel’s of June 10, 2020 at 1:29 am GMT (comment # 392) posted under Fred Reed’s Unz Review article “Her Name Is Breonna Taylor,” https://www.unz.com/freed/her-name-is-breanna-taylor/?showcomments . That comment’s direct link is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=vEeMHFik9Xo&feature=emb_title The Scalpel is a long-time Emergency Room physician. One may infer that in at least some such 44 consciousness-loss cases, the choke-holds were the kind Chauvin applied to Floyd, since Hennepin County (Minneapolis’s county) is the most populous of Minnesota — has more thn twice the population of the next-most-populous county. https://www.minnesota-demographics.com/counties_by_population

    I have shown — see my comments ## 258 and 262 — that if neck-compression lasts 2 minutes after ischemic progression begins, death is a certainty. The Scalpel has observed the same: In his comment of June 10, 2020 at 10:06 pm GMT (comment # 472) (of the same above-cited Fred Reed article), The Scalpel stated: “…[If] you choke someone to the point they pass out, they could be mere seconds from death. 当然不会超过一两分钟。 大脑不能很好地耐受缺氧。=

    …the kneehold (with minimum necessary pressure) was still approved MPD policy when Floyd was arrested.

    (a) MPD 批准无效,因为(正如我在至少另一条评论中解释的那样)批准允许使用违反联邦宪法第 4 和第 14 修正案的过度武力,或者 (b) 它无法有效地授权, Chauvin 适用于弗洛伊德的膝压颈部压缩,原因在我的其他评论中已经足够多。 再次参见布克庄园诉戈麦斯案() and 比较 Richman v. Sheahan, 512 F. 3d 876 (7th Cir. 2008), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6725673574912167448&q=Richman+v.+Sheahan,+512+F.+3d+876+(7th+Cir.+2008)&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38 , AND Salcido v. Harris County (SD Texas 2018), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11564922298315914148&q=eggshell+skull+homicide+police+or+sheriff+choke+hold+or+compression&hl=en&as_sdt=3,38 ,
    被告县的首席执法官加西亚警长作证说,被告官员在整个事件中都遵循哈里斯县的培训和政策,法院认为该事件被证明是过度使用武力,侵犯了受害者的联邦宪法权利。 法院称, 除其他外,, 这:

    The testimony of Sheriff Garcia, Leveston, and Bell that the officer defendants were “maintaining their training” throughout the incident, including when they ignored Lucas’s complaints that he could not breathe, is evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Harris County trained its officers to ignore complaints of an inability to breathe during restraint, and that that training reflects deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.

    哈里斯县的政策和培训是“故意漠视严重的医疗需求”的重要原因,这是凶杀案的基本要素。 因此,该政策和培训本身就是违宪的,不能为被告警察过度使用武力的杀人行为提供理由或借口,也不能免除这些被告警察的法律责任。

    您错误地依赖您在评论中链接到的该评论所回复的视频,您错误地断言“您可以在此视频剪辑中看到颈动脉没有靠近表面。”
    The carotid arteries ARE close “to the surface”: I, a physician since 1998 and a holder of an Aikido black belt and expert in martial arts choke-holds, repeat that any normal person can accomplish asphyxiation-commencing pressure with just one finger pressed against the carotid arteries or jugular veins quite as I am doing to myself right now with the middle finger of my left hand.

    再一次,你发表的评论充其量只是表明你对医学、人体解剖学和法律的极度无知,以及你的种族主义者喜欢使用虚假、虚假、缺乏证据的断言来推进你的种族主义激发的否认发生的需要似乎受到种族主义启发的警察暴行。

  267. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @John Leonard

    我的妻子在格林威治标准时间 27 年 2020 月 11 日晚上 06:272 阅读了我的 Word Prefect 草稿(评论 #XNUMX)。 她就同一评论语言的以下段落提出了一个很好的问题:

    我已经证明——参见我的评论 ## 258 和 262——如果颈部压迫在缺血进展开始后持续 2 分钟,死亡是肯定的。 手术刀也观察到了同样的情况:在格林威治标准时间 10 年 2020 月 10 日晚上 06:472 的评论中(评论 #XNUMX)(上面引用的同一篇 Fred Reed 文章),手术刀说:“……[如果]你窒息了某人到他们昏倒的地步,他们可能离死亡只有几秒钟的时间。 当然不会超过一两分钟。 大脑不能很好地耐受缺氧。”

    她的问题与我的写作“如果颈部压缩在缺血进展开始后持续 2 分钟,死亡是肯定的”有关,尽管手术刀说:“[如果]你窒息某人到他们昏倒的地步,他们可能只是几秒钟后死亡。 当然不会超过一两分钟。”

    问题是我犯了一个打字错误(没有输入一个单词的错误,这是我努力用打字语言呈现的想法的一部分)。 缺少的词是“无意识”。 我的陈述应该是:“如果颈部压迫在缺血进展开始失去意识后持续 2 分钟,死亡是肯定的。”

  268. NoNwoNow 说:

    By saying you can depress the artery with a finger, you confirm my point that it has to pressed on the right spot, it can’t be blocked by something so blunt as the knee on the wrong spot.
    I suppose your fist was otherwise occupied, and not available to try pressing it against the side of the neck.

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
  269. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @John Leonard

    因为我的妻子发现了我在 27 年 2020 月 11 日格林威治标准时间晚上 06:272 发表的评论中报告的打字错误(评论 #XNUMX),所以我留出时间校对该评论。 我发现了两个需要纠正的错误。

    [更多]

    (1) 在上面引用的同一条评论 (# 272) 中,出现了这种语言:

    膝盖按压/胫骨按压(如 Chauvin 的)可能会过度压缩颈动脉,因为在使用膝盖按压时,所涉及的颈跨度将“扩大,但膝盖按压会向上推动下巴和离开。

    错误在于:“'放大,byut。” 这种语言应该被“放大”。 因此:

    膝盖按压/胫骨按压(如 Chauvin 的)会过度压缩颈动脉,因为在使用膝盖按压时,所涉及的颈部跨度会因膝盖按压向上推动下巴而“扩大”,并且离开。

    (2)以下语言更正了我上面引用的相同评论的另一段(评论#272):

    In Floyd’s case, a telling matter is the Minnesota history of life-threatening use of the kind of choke-hold Chauvin applied to Floyd. In Minneapolis, in 44 cases of a total of about 200 neck restraint incidents, suspects have lost consciousness. See The Scalpel’s of June 10, 2020 at 1:29 am GMT (comment # 392) posted under Fred Reed’s Unz Review article “Her Name Is Breonna Taylor,” https://www.unz.com/freed/her-name-is-breanna-taylor/?showcomments . That comment’s source is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=vEeMHFik9Xo&feature=emb_title

    One may infer that in at least some such 44 consciousness-loss cases, the choke-holds were the kind Chauvin applied to Floyd, since Hennepin County (Minneapolis’s county) is the most populous of Minnesota — has more than twice the population of the next-most-populous county. https://www.minnesota-demographics.com/counties_by_population 。 和, , that same source found that Minneaplois police records show that the 44 consciousness-loss cases involved arm-applied OR LEG-APPLIED neck compressions. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=vEeMHFik9Xo&feature=emb_title
    并在 0:31 到 1:56 的时间观看该 YouTube 视频.

  270. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @NoNwoNow

    “Can” does not equal “must.” But you, abysmally idiotic creature, will not comprehend that answer, despite is suffices. So, I shall illuminate.

    The one-finger-compression matter addressed the needed quantum of the neck-compression’s [that of a mere single finger] — 不能 any limit of the 尺寸 (length/width/height) of an effective compression’s 资源 [finger(s), hand(s), arm(s), leg(s), knee, or shin].

    Your deeply moronic comment does NOT answer ANYTHING that I wrote in ANY of my comments.

    And your infantile lewdness is mere stupidity — not wit. Wit?

    Car soit vous ne comprenez pas la langue française, soit vous abusez de la plus belle langue avec le cerveau d’un crétin, je vous renvoie à un film français qui démontre la nature de «l’esprit» [en anglais, “wit”].

  271. ANON[186]• 免责声明 说:
    @FB

    “And btw, if he was having trouble breathing BEFORE several police officers put their weight on his neck and back while handcuffed in a prone position, then why did they go ahead do the one thing that would make it even harder to breath…?”

    Because the hold wouldn’t obstruct breathing if executed properly. But yeah everything else in your comment is just BS and I don’t need to reply to it directly.

  272. ANON[186]• 免责声明 说:
    @John Leonard

    Thanks for a long whinging comment where you attack a person on tiny specific details and throwing a big haze of BS based on spewing out medical trivia in an effort to obscure the essential facts; Floyd said he couldn’t breathe prior to any restraint and also requested to be laid down, he had a lethal cocktail of drugs in him on top of numerous medical issues that almost certainly did him in with the hold at most speeding that up, and therefore the officers didn’t kill him and didn’t have any real reason to believe they where killing him.

    He said he couldn’t breath prior to any restraint and the hold they put him in couldn’t have compressed his windpipe. To argue that Chauvin may have possibly killed him by blocking an artery is blatantly fallacious and is a significant back peddle from the claim he intentionally suffocated him to the point where under this new point of contention it would be negligent manslaughter at most not murder in the third degree.

  273. 因此,如果不回答关于拳头与颈部侧面成直角的问题,默认情况下您同意结果,即这不会影响气流或血液循环。

    一个简单的测试,一个人可以在某个时刻自己完成,而不需要权威机构、图书馆或网络搜索。
    来不及尝试这个,你请我花 98 分钟看电影 的课 观点。 我感谢你,它看起来很有趣! 我会尽量找时间看看。

    关于英法分歧,我不支持全球单语英语项目,这会导致知识遗产的严重损失。 这是文化帝国主义,是通向政治总体的大道。

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
  274. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @John Leonard

    在格林威治标准时间 27 年 2020 月 11 日晚上 06:272 开始我的评论时(评论 #XNUMX)——从该评论的第三句话开始——我说:

    …my professional responsibilities may preclude my responding to any comments you may post after your comment to which this comment replies. My future silence shall not imply my conceding any future arguments you post.

    然而,在您于 28 年 2020 月 4 日格林威治标准时间下午 13:279 发表的评论中(评论 #27),该评论并未明确提及我,但可能试图回应我的上述评论和我在 2020 年 11 月 30 日 273 点发表的评论:格林威治标准时间下午 28 点(第 2020 条评论)和格林威治标准时间 1 年 11 月 275 日凌晨 XNUMX:XNUMX(评论#XNUMX)[也许甚至是我对一些假名是“NoNwoNow”的愚蠢生物的评论],您写道:

    因此,如果不回答关于拳头与颈部侧面成直角的问题,默认情况下您同意结果,即这不会影响气流或血液循环。

    我不仅“默认”不同意,而且还明确地反驳了你的“拳头与脖子侧面成直角”的胡说八道。

    [此外,气流从来都不是问题。 这是无关紧要的。 在所有讨论过弗洛伊德谋杀案的专家中,没有人认为弗洛伊德的气管被阻塞了。 问题是进出大脑的血流。]

    [更多]

    在格林威治标准时间 27 年 2020 月 4 日下午 56:271(评论 #XNUMX)的评论中,您写道:

    动脉位置很深,被胸节乳突肌覆盖。”

    The sternodeidomastoids appears to “cover” the carotid arteries ONLY IF one views the neck’s anatomy from the artificial frontal angle shown at the start of the video you included in your comment of July 27, 2020 at 4:56 pm GMT (comment # 271).

    But the carotid arteries are set at the neck’s SIDES, and the sternodeidomastoid do NOT “cover” the carotid arteries viewed from, or compressed at, the neck’s sides. Rather, each sternodeidomastoid’s narrower, thinner segment — an circa 1-inch-or-shorter-segment — crosses over a small portion (a circa 1-inch-long portion) of the carotid arteries, about 2/3 of which arteries are not “covered” by the sternodeidomastoids but covered only by a rather thin dermal tissue that would separate the carotid arteries from an object pressing the side of the neck.

    此类出现在同一视频(您的展览)中,从同一视频的大约 1:27 开始,到同一视频的大约 1:44 结束。 在那里——在那个时间跨度里——同一个视频显示了颈动脉的实际位置——它们在颈部两侧的位置,而不是在颈部前面或附近。 同一个视频还显示,像胸节乳突肌一样,颈部的后部肌肉结构不覆盖颈动脉。 颈部的后部肌肉(例如,肩胛提肌)设置在颈动脉的后部,并且不跨越这些动脉和颈部表面。

    And COMPARE this: https://www.crossfit.com/essentials/lon-cervical-muscles-part-1

    AND
    这个: https://ranzcrpart1.fandom.com/wiki/Carotid_sheath:Internal_carotid_artery

    Those images indicate that one finger or a hand or fist or a forearm or upper-arm or a knee or shin or foot can occlude the carotid arteries. And Chauvin’s knee DID occlude Floyd’s carotid arteries for about 8.45 minutes, occluded his carotid arteries even for more about 3.5 minutes after Floyd fell unconscious. After 1 to 2 minutes of carotid artery occlusion of a victim who has been rendered unconscious by that occlusion, the victim WILL DIE. [I say 1 to 2 minutes, because the matter depends partly on the victim’s pre-artery-occlusion condition.]

    更重要的是:一个正常的成年人可以用一根手指压缩颈动脉——压缩到足以让受试者感觉到失去意识的可能性。 部分原因是,如果一个人在颈动脉位置区域按压颈部一侧,一个人通过按压覆盖它们的薄真皮层来几乎直接地按压动脉,或者一个人这样做并且同时, ,一个人将胸节乳突肌结构压在颈动脉上。

    由于单指按压会导致受试者-人类感到失去知觉的可能性,因此肖文的膝盖按压颈部压缩“保持”确实导致弗洛伊德失去知觉,并且因为肖文继续如此压缩弗洛伊德的脖子更长时间弗洛伊德失去知觉后不到 3 分钟,肖文杀死了弗洛伊德——或者弗洛伊德被乔文的膝盖按压颈部压迫和至少另一名警察的背部胸部压迫杀死,两者共同谋杀弗洛伊德。

    各种逮捕弗洛伊德的视频显示,弗洛伊德在失去知觉大约 1.5 分钟后死亡——大约 6.5 分钟后,肖文开始对弗洛伊德进行膝盖按压颈部压缩保持。 [我在我的一些评论中包含了此类视频的链接。 它们在互联网上大量出现。]

    弗洛伊德失去知觉是因为肖文用膝盖按压弗洛伊德的脖子,或者那个压迫加上另一名警察或另外两名警察,压迫弗洛伊德的后胸。 结果就是杀人。 逮捕弗洛伊德的视频,以及至少两个专家视频发表的意见,清楚地表明弗洛伊德并没有因为弗洛伊德系统中存在的任何一种或多种药物而失去知觉。
    见视频演示
    (1) Opinion of Dr. Bernard,

    AND
    (2) Opinion of Dr. Hansen, https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=0oqEp63duIc&feature=emb_title%5D
    参见
    (1) the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Autopsy Report, which ruled that Floyd’s death ws caused by “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement Subdual, restraint, and neck compression” [top of p.1 of that Report, https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf
    (2) the Hennepin Cnty Medical Examiner’s press release, which ruled Floyd’s death “homicide” https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd,%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf
    (3) “The Scalpel,” a long-time Emergency Room physician, see my [See The Scalpel’s comments cited and discussed in my comment of June 23, 2020 at 2:17 am GMT (comment # 399), posted under your article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/
    (4) Opinion of Judy Melinek, MD, forensic pathologist and CEO of PathologyExpert Inc. [See my comment of June 23, 2020 at 2:17 am GMT (comment # 399), posted under your article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ ]
    (5) Opinion of Dr. Karl Williams, forensic pathologist and chief medical examiner of Allegheny County (home to Pittsburgh), Pennsylvania, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-autopsies-of-george-floyd-arent-as-different-as-they-seem/
    (6)对乔治·弗洛伊德进行独立尸检的两位著名病理学家的意见

    Beyond question, Chauvin’s knee occluded Floyd’s carotid arteries, as all the medical experts have stated. All the videos show Chauvin’s knee pressing sufficiently at Floyd’s neck quite where the occlusion occurred.

    视频显示,您的“膝盖太大,无法胜任”的论点纯属胡说八道。 事实是:Chauvin 的膝盖比拳头更好地完成了谋杀工作,因为 Chauvin 的膝盖(和胫骨)按压颈部压力施加在弗洛伊德的脖子上,因此弗洛伊德的颈动脉(和弗洛伊德的颈静脉)的力明显大于任何拳头都可以——因为所涉及的腿部肌肉的力量和肖文身体质量的重力。

    Since apparently you could not bear READING the following when I posted it yesterday, I post it again, here. The involved Minneapolis police records will be admissible in Chauvin’s murder trial. The records indicate that the Minneapolis police knee-press neck-compression technique has caused victims to become unconscious. Then the only — and conclusive — matter is how long does unconsciousness last while the knee-press neck-compression continue after the victim loses consciousness. If for 2 minutes, death WILL occur.

    现在我重新发布我昨天发布的观察结果:

    In Floyd’s case, a telling matter is the Minnesota history of life-threatening use of the kind of choke-hold Chauvin applied to Floyd. In Minneapolis, in 44 cases of a total of about 200 neck restraint incidents, suspects have lost consciousness. See The Scalpel’s of June 10, 2020 at 1:29 am GMT (comment # 392) posted under Fred Reed’s Unz Review article “Her Name Is Breonna Taylor,” https://www.unz.com/freed/her-name-is-breanna-taylor/?showcomments . That comment’s source is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=vEeMHFik9Xo&feature=emb_title

    One may infer that in at least some such 44 consciousness-loss cases, the choke-holds were the kind Chauvin applied to Floyd, since Hennepin County (Minneapolis’s county) is the most populous of Minnesota — has more than twice the population of the next-most-populous county. https://www.minnesota-demographics.com/counties_by_population . And, ACTUALLY, that same source found that Minneaplois police records show that the 44 consciousness-loss cases involved arm-applied OR LEG-APPLIED neck compressions. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=vEeMHFik9Xo&feature=emb_title
    并在 0:31 到 1:56 的时间观看该 YouTube 视频。

    这必须是我对你的医学科学无知、法律无知、否认事实、否认证据、几乎完全不合逻辑、虚假、甚至是非常错误、有毒的垃圾的最后评论,这些垃圾来自你可怕的种族主义。 我必须尽快准备好过失致死投诉和相关的法院动议,这些动议必须尽快提交初审法院。

    我绝对不能花时间校对这条评论。 任何打字错误都必须不被纠正。

    你不敢将我的沉默视为我承认你可能试图在未来评论中提出的任何观点(或你曾试图提出过去评论)的证据,以免进一步表明你是一个有毒的、撒谎的种族主义者。

    我已经摧毁了你试图提出的每一个论点,以及你以后可能试图提出的每一个论点。

    Taisez-vous,Salope-Vénéneuse de Racisme 先生

  275. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @John Leonard

    In my last-previous comment — my comment of July 28, 2020 at 9:14 pm GMT (comment # 280) — I included a list of physicians who have opined that Floyd’s death was homicide caused by Officer Chauvin or by him and other police who arrested Floyd. The last-listed reference was this:

    (6)对乔治·弗洛伊德进行独立尸检的两位著名病理学家的意见

    有关这两位病理学家的身份和意见,请参见:
    * My comment of June 23, 2020 at 2:17 am GMT (comment # 399), posted under your article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/
    * Opinion of Dr. Hansen, https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=0oqEp63duIc&feature=emb_title%5D [从 15:08 开始]

  276. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @John Leonard

    See my comment of July 29, 2020 at 10:36 pm GMT (comment # 737) posted under your article, “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/

  277. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8576371/Police-bodycam-footage-shows-moment-moment-arrest-George-Floyd-time.html

    1. 弗洛伊德在被警方联系时表现出妄想行为。

    2. 弗洛伊德声称他站在警车旁时无法呼吸。

    3. 弗洛伊德告诉警察他想在警车里躺下。

    4. 弗洛伊德声称他在上警车之前患有“幽闭恐惧症”……在被从他坐在驾驶座上的车辆中移走之后。

    5. 弗洛伊德在整个遭遇过程中与警察发生争执。

    6. 国家媒体之前播放的视频仅捕获了一小部分遭遇,因此完全不可靠作为证据表明其全部被用于做出实质性结论并告知公众思想。

    7. 没有任何合理的陪审团会做任何事情,只会无罪释放所有四名警官。 没有犯罪。

    8.就政治后果而言,乔治·弗洛伊德的死亡骗局与伊拉克的虚假“大规模杀伤性武器”或越南战争开始时的“东京湾”事件一样严重。

    • 同意: John Leonard
    • 回复: @geokat62
    , @Loup-Bouc
  278. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Shabbaranks

    First, I thought I should urge you seek remedial reading lessons (provided by a tutor who can READ). But, feeling specially empathic today, I reconsidered your comment, more carefully. I saw that my first reading’s haste misled my reaction.

    您需要进行脑移植,然后进行全面的教育,包括学习语言、逻辑、医学、法律以及哪些品质实际上构成了证据和事实。

    身体凸轮显示毫无疑问:

    (1) Floyd did not resist arrest, at least not with manner, means, or degree that could justify the cops’ conduct. Floyd’s only “resistence” was his begging the cops that they not put him in the cop car because he suffered claustrophobia. Floyd’s plea may not have been rational, since he had been sitting in a car with other people. But Floyd was panicking; and he did not try to flee and did not try to harm the cops. Hence, the cop’s reactions constituted a perfect case of use of excessive force.

    根据法律,弗洛伊德的恐慌并不能证明警察过度使用武力是正当的。 相反,弗洛伊德的恐慌要求警察不要像他们那样行事:这种行为对于警察履行其合法职责是不必要的。 警察应该预见到他们的行为会杀死弗洛伊德。

    (2) 弗洛伊德没有遭受兴奋性谵妄。

    (3) Floyd’s physiological and psychological condition rendered clearly foreseeable Floyd’s dying because of the cops’ conduct.

    (4) Vis-a-vis the clear fact that the cops’ conduct caused Floyd’s alarming physiological reaction, the cops’ pursuing and worsening their conduct “enhanced” the foreseeability that their [the cops’] conduct would kill Floyd.

    (5) 本案非常适合蛋壳颅骨规则和过分武力法的适用。

    In my many comments of this thread and of the comment-thread set under John-Paul Leonard’s article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ , I presented a great abundance of details of the strong case that Floyd’s death was 3rd degree “depraved mind” murder and 2nd degree felony murder committed by Officer Chauvin and the cops compressing Floyd’s dorsal thorax. In some such comments, I showed that the legal rules of evidence render admissible in the cops’ murder trial evidence like the body cam footage.

    我不会在此评论中重新陈述我的所有其他评论的陈述。 但我建议您尝试阅读下面列出的我的评论,由评论编号引用:

    [更多]

    (a) 在此线程中,除我的其他评论外,我的以下评论(按评论编号列出)以及这些评论引用的所有其他评论(无论引用的评论是在此线程中还是在 John-Paul 下设置的线程中上面引用伦纳德的文章):
    看,在这个线程中,我的评论编号
    172,192,195,199,201,203
    207,217,221,222,223,225
    227,230,241,244,247,248
    252,254,255,256,258,260
    261,262,264,265,266,268
    269,272,273,280,281,282

    (b) in the thread set under John-Paul Leonard’s article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ , my following comments (listed by comment-number) AND all the other comments that those comments cite (whether the cited comments are in THIS thread or in the thread set under John-Paul Leonard’s article cited above or in any other thread cited in those comments):
    看,在约翰-保罗伦纳德的上面引用的文章下,我的评论编号
    399,403,426,428,432,433,461,463
    483,486,489,491,507,509,523,555
    563,602,633,639,657,660,661,662
    672,673,675,687,695,707,708,709
    714,715,716,718,724,725,730
    732,733,735,737,739

    身体摄像头镜头不是 必要 将肖万和其他警察定罪; 因为,足够多的其他证据表明,毫无疑问,警察犯下了检方指控的罪行。 身体凸轮的证据只是使检方的案件 不朽的 强大。

    Again, I urge that you obtain a brain-transplant, thence a thorough re-education. Perhaps, if the transplanted brain’s donor-body was that of a non-psychopath, honorable, empathic human having at least average intelligence, you will not be a bigot but know honor, integrity, and capacity of perceiving truth.

  279. @Loup-Bouc,

    Your petty invective demeans only yourself and reveals the overall weakness of your argument(s). However, I’m glad to see you spent so much of your time writing your review comment. I assume what you’ve written is the best you’ve got. Alas, IT FALLS WOEFULLY SHORT and a jury will reject it out of hand at trial.

    身体凸轮显示毫无疑问:

    (1) (a) Mr. Floyd obviously resists arrest from the moment he’s contacted by police as he sits in the driver’s seat of the vehicle that he exits as seen on the latest body cam footage. Mr. Floyd was “panicking” because he had been caught moments after the commission of a crime and was high on narcotics. Furthermore, he [Mr. Floyd] not try[ing] to flee” and “not try[ing] to harm the cops” does not constitute the entire spectrum of his behavior as he attempts to resist arrest by refusing to follow commands, physically resisting officers, pretending like he had once previously been shot by police (of course, entirely untrue), and general attitude of “f#@k the police, I’m not complying with lawful orders in the performance of their legal duties.” Your language is deliberately obfuscatory.

    (1)(b) You construct a false dichotomy by writing that “he [Mr. Floyd] did not try to flee and did not try to harm the cops. Hence, the cop’s reactions constituted a perfect case of use of excessive force.” That according to you, Mr. Floyd didn’t harm the police or attempt to flee would thus make the police practitioners of excessive force IS NONSENSICAL. It simply doesn’t address the full range of actions that occurred and are documented on the recently released body cam. Willful delusion on your part by ignoring the contents of the new video doesn’t make for evidence but rather is indicative of a DSM-V mental disorder on your part [Delusional Disorder DSM-5 297.1 (F22)].

    (1)(c) You wrote “According to LAW, Floyd’s panic did not justify the cops’ use of excessive force. Rather, Floyd’s panic required that the cops NOT act as they did: Such action was not necessary to the cop’s performance of their legitimate duties. The cops ought to have foreseen that their actions would kill Floyd.” This is WOEFULLY DEFICIENT. What law? No cite of Minnesota code, trial cases, appellate decisions, anything. Your opinion is irrelevant. You use trigger words like “not necessary” and “legitimate” in an effort to couch your opinion in a veil of authority, but you don’t even give readers the slightest bit of relevant legal evidence or code support for your outlandish assertions.

    (2) Floyd was suffering from excited delirium syndrome (EDS). Expect detailed testimony from medical professionals to be introduced into evidence during the trial to support that remark. It’s likely the state will not attempt to rebut that evidence but rather attempt an end run by saying – as you imply – that it is irrelevant. Here you and they will be mistaken, for as you wrote:

    (3) (a) “Floyd’s physiological and psychological condition rendered clearly foreseeable Floyd’s dying because of the cops’ conduct.” Thus you admit that Mr. Floyd suffered from some “physiological and psychological condition” – one which I contend the medical evidence from the autopsy and medical witnesses will establish as fentanyl and methamphetamine overdose leading to or involving EDS – or will leave at least enough doubt in the mind of the jurors to achieve acquittal or merely one juror (thank you US Supreme Court in Ramos vs. Louisiana!) for a mistrial.

    (3)(b) You also conflate two separate issues: a. Floyd’s medical condition and b. Police (mis)conduct. They are separate elements. I detect a measure of hastiness from you on this part of your argument. Thus you contend that the police are capable foreseeing the effects of EDS and as you wrote, the “physiological and psychological condition” that Mr. Floyd suffered from. Even if that were true, the police called the ambulance and it arrived a mere 9 minutes later, likely a fine response time in a big city like Minneapolis. Hence, Mr. Floyd received timely medical treatment that the law provides for. His medical condition killed him, not police (mis)conduct. The video strongly demonstrates this.

    (4) You wrote: “Vis-a-vis the clear fact that the cops’ conduct caused Floyd’s alarming physiological reaction, the cops’ pursuing and worsening their conduct “enhanced” the foreseeability that their [the cops’] conduct would kill Floyd.” The police IN NO WAY EVER caused Mr. Floyd’s physiological condition. As the autopsy shows, he had a potentially fatal dose of fentanyl in his system. As the video shows, he was saying he couldn’t breathe when he was standing by the police vehicle, then said the same thing as he sitting in the back of the police vehicle, and then said that he wanted to lie down when exiting the police vehicle. He died on the spot from EDS and/or fentanyl overdose. The police IN NO WAY EVER pursued Mr. Floyd. He was in their custody and was treated in the manner in which all defendants who resist arrest as he did should be treated – by cautious physical restraint and verbal persuasion – both overwhelmingly evident by the police on the video. Nothing was enhanced, nothing was “foreseeable.” You are apparently a mind reader and ask others to do so too.

    (5) The eggshell skull rule argument is quaint and expected. But alas, Mr. Floyd was going to die from his overdose of fentanyl and EDS anyways, so the fact that the police lawfully, peacefully and properly arrested him is more than sufficient to shield them from your trite assertion of the doctrine. The law as established in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) makes your appeals to “excessive force” moot which you no doubt know or willfully disregard. Countless police officers have walked from cases like this in the lawful and proper performance of their public safety function as demanded by and empowered by the American public and as any reader can tell it eats up liberals inside to know that the law is what it is, but that’s the fact, too bad. Every SCOTUS ruling isn’t Dred Scott, just waiting for your liberal appeal to make it all change.

    (6) A new one just for you: The autopsy review performed by Dr. Michael Baden. Let it be known that Dr. Baden has performed reviews of autopsies (not the actual autopsy itself) and has opined on his “findings” in court. Specifically, he testified in the case of Rick Tabish and Sandy Murphy vs. Nevada, for the murder of Ted Binion in 1998. Dr. Baden testified that Mr. Binion died of forced suffocation or burking by someone, presumably one or both of the defendants. His testimony was pivotal in establishing the cause of death in a case where there was contravening medical evidence of narcotic overdose that lead to the death of the victim. HOWEVER, when granted a second trial, jurors rejected Baden’s theory out of hand, saying it lacked plausibility. In my discussion with a member of the press who attended the entire trial and then authored a book about that case, she indicated that Baden’s testimony lacked credibility in light of the other medical evidence of drug abuse. In any case, Dr. Baden’s testimony has proven very effective for confusing juries. From Binion to O.J. Simpson to Claus von Bulow , Baden has left a legacy of being very helpful to the defense. I suggest to you that should he appear in court, he will again muddy the waters just enough to get a mistrial or better yet, a complete and full acquittal that is throughly deserved by the accused in this case.

    PS – Next time, save the cheap remarks and the silly talk about bigotry and other affronts to your sensibilities (the horror!) for one of your friends if you have any. Good luck. You’re going to need it.

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
  280. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Shabbaranks

    Mostly, your reply states falsehood, evidence misrepresentation, simple illogic or logical fallacy, false law, and legal irrelevancy. False law? Your propositions’ necessary implications clash utterly with all of the pertinent legal rules, legal principles, and legal doctrines.

    Example — your treatment of Dr. Michael Baden’s past testimonies in other cases: That treatment has zero legal bearing on the legal relevance, legal admissibility, or weight of Dr. Baden’s opinion respecting Floyd’s death. Also, Dr. Baden’s Floyd-case opinion rests on basis that comports with legal evidence rules concerning expert testimony — rules that, clearly, you do not know.

    你写了:

    You construct a false dichotomy by writing that “he [Mr. Floyd] did not try to flee and did not try to harm the cops. Hence, the cop’s reactions constituted a perfect case of use of excessive force.” That according to you, Mr. Floyd didn’t harm the police or attempt to flee would thus make the police practitioners of excessive force IS NONSENSICAL. It simply doesn’t address the full range of actions that occurred and are documented on the recently released body cam.

    The “full range of actions”? What actions? Of whom? What significancies?

    I did not put a false dichotomy, or ANY dichotomy. You do not know the meaning of “dichotomy.” In our comment-exchange, the only dichotomy resides in the difference of
    (a) the actual evidence and the legally material facts (medical and other legally material facts) that the evidence implies

    (b) the risible nonsense of YOUR “argument” — nonsense attributable to your bigotry or pro-cop bias, your fallacies, your disregard of the legally/medically material evidence, and your obviously abysmal ignorance of the pertinent legal and medical considerations.

    I shall not wade through the rest of the dreck your comment splatters. It is mere toxic dreck — not worthy of my time. In my MANY OTHER comments, I answered 每周 detail of your reply’s dreck — and also many other details of toxic dreck emitted by Paul Craig Roberts, by other bigoted or pro-cop biased commenters like you, and by John-Paul Leonard’s comments and his Unz Review article that I cited several times in my comment of August 4, 2020 at 11:49 pm GMT (comment # 287), which replied to your comment of August 4, 2020 at 2:58 pm GMT (comment # 285).

    In my comment of August 4, 2020 at 11:49 pm GMT (comment # 287), I cited eighty (80) of my other comments — posted in THIS thread and under John-Paul Leonard’s article. Either you did not read those 80 comments, or your bias prevents your READING them.

    Those 80 other comments debunk every detail of your comment of August 4, 2020 at 2:58 pm GMT (comment # 285) and your comment of August 5, 2020 at 7:12 am GMT (comment # 288). Those 80 other comments expose your ignorance of the legal and medical considerations that pertain to, and control, the case of the cops’ murder of Floyd. They expose also the fallacies of your treatments of the available evidence involved in Floyd’s case.

    READ those 80 other comments. If you do not respond to every material proposition of the totality of those 80 other comments, you have nothing legitimate to say.

    你写了:

    Your petty invective demeans only yourself and reveals the overall weakness of your argument(s).

    I reserve respectful rebuttals for responding to people who present legitimate arguments. YOU deserve contempt.

  281. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Shabbaranks

    I neglected to note that Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), neither established nor altered the eggshell skull rule and the further rules that are the progeny or adjuncts of that rule. Nor does Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) “moot” anything in Floyd’s case.

    Among my 80 other comments to which I referred you in my comment of August 4, 2020 at 11:49 pm GMT (comment # 287), more than a few show that the eggshell skull rule and its progeny and adjuncts (a) control Floyd’s case and (b) in conjunction with Minnesota’s murder law, make Floyd’s death 3rd degree “depraved Mind” murder and 2nd degree felony murder.

    Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), does not hold anything like what you appear to think it means. And, because you do not understand Graham v. Connor or know or understand the truly apposite cases you do not cite, you both misapprehend and misrepresent the pertinent evidence and the pertinent facts that evidence implies.

  282. W4llb4ng3r 说:

    “What is a fatal dose of fentanyl?”

    “When Floyd arrived at the hospital, his blood was drawn. According to the toxicology report, postmortem testing of that blood established the presence of, among other drugs, ‘Fentanyl 11 ng/mL’ (nanograms per milliter).

    In that regard, tucked away in the report’s ‘Reference Comments’ is this: ‘Signs associated with fentanyl toxicity include severe respiratory depression, seizures, hypotension, coma and death. In fatalities from fentanyl, blood concentrations are variable and have been reported as low as 3 ng/mL.’ “

    https://spectator.org/george-floyd-death-toxicology-report/

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
  283. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @W4llb4ng3r

    愚昧。 与医学和制药现实相反。

    Humans have survived bearing more than four times 11 ng/mL serum fentanyl. See all my many comments posted in this thread and posted under John-Paul Leonard’s article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/
    And see, 例如, Fatal Fentanyl: One Pill Can Kill,” http://uthscsa.edu/artt/AddictionJC/2020-02-11-Sutter.pdf
    at p. 110, in the Key of Table 2:

    The therapeutic (TL) and toxic (TX) serum levels…are: fentanyl TL = 1-2 ng/mL, TX = 2-20 ng/mL, lethal > 20 ng/mL….

    [The term “> 20 ng/mL” means “greater than 20 ng/mL.” ]

    [更多]

    也, if Floyd’s serum fentanyl quantum was producing symptoms and those symptoms eventually could have been fatal, such fact would be evidence that the cops MURDERED Floyd. Again see all my many comments posted in this thread and posted under John-Paul Leonard’s article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ See especially, but not only, my below-listed comments, cited here by comment number:

    In THIS thread (set under Paul Craig Roberts’s article), read at least these comments (cited by comment number):
    172,192,195,199,201,203
    207,217,221,222,223,225
    227,230,241,244,247,248
    252,254,255,256,258,260
    261,262,264,265,266,268
    269,272,273,280,281,282

    In the thread set under John-Paul Leonard’s article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/
    read at least these comments (cited by comment number)
    399,403,426,428,432,433,461,463
    483,486,489,491,507,509,523,555
    563,602,633,639,657,660,661,662
    672,673,675,687,695,707,708,709
    714,715,716,718,724,725,730
    732,733,735,737,739,768

    如果您不准备阅读我上面引用的 81 条评论和其他评论以及我在上面引用的 81 条评论中引用的其他评论,请保持沉默。

    • 回复: @W4llb4ng3r
  284. 我们必须在通常的列表中添加一个新的逻辑谬误子类型,感谢这里真正的信徒,他们慷慨地贡献了 匿名权威谬误,并命令我们加入他们,向“匿名认证”圣人手术刀致敬。
    这位经过认证的通灵者董事会成员的聪明才智不亚于他的崇拜者,因为他阐述了芝诺悖论的一种新的医学变体:

    手术刀:“芬太尼的作用很短。 它的效果几乎立即达到峰值,并在几分钟内下降。 因此,无论他死时拥有什么,在他“被捕”之前他还拥有更多,并且一切都很好。”

    你可能还记得,芝诺是像阿喀琉斯和乌龟这样的思想实验的创新者。
    “在一场比赛中,跑得最快的人永远赶不上最慢的人,因为追赶者必须先到达被追赶者的起点,所以慢的总是领先。”

    因此,你永远无法到达任何地方——芝诺反驳了这一点 荒谬的还原。 在这种情况下,Scalpel 的荒谬之处在于,如果芬太尼不立即杀死你,它永远不会。

    当然,对诡辩最简单的反驳是经验主义的,所以我找了一个案例,发现了这个:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/us/carey-dean-moore-nebraska-execution-fentanyl.html
    一名罪犯被注射芬太尼和其他 3 种药物处决。 他死了23分钟。 但是他死得很好。

    另请参阅我的新帖子 https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ 引用明尼阿波利斯警察局关于膝部约束的协议,该协议在肖万实施该政策时生效:

    “有意识的颈部约束:对象被置于颈部约束中,目的是控制,而不是通过仅施加轻微到中等压力来使对象失去意识[即限制颈动脉]。 (04/16/12)
    Conscious Neck Restraint 可用于对抗积极抵抗的对象。 (04 年 16 月 12 日)”

  285. 人类承受超过四倍的 11 ng/mL 血清芬太尼存活下来。

    那是在重症监护室,而不是在街上。

    致死 > 20 ng/mL

    如果你计算弗洛伊德的剂量绝对是致命的,他有 19 纳克/毫升的芬太尼加上 86 纳克/毫升的吗啡临界致命剂量。
    我不知道为什么大多数评论员都忽略了吗啡/海洛因的剂量,而提到冰毒的剂量并不是特别高。

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
  286. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @John Leonard

    我多次揭穿你所有虚假的、医学无知的、法律无知的、谬误的、缺乏证据的、通常很愚蠢的论点。

    [更多]

    Under your article, John-Paul Leonard, “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ ,尤其是,但不仅是,我在下面通过评论编号引用的所有评论,以及我在下面引用的评论中引用的所有其他评论:
    399,403,426,428,432,433,461,463
    483,486,489,491,507,509,523,555
    563,602,633,639,657,660,661,662
    672,673,675,687,695,707,708,709
    714,715,716,718,724,725,730,732
    733,735,737,739,754,756,757,768
    769,772,774

    根据约翰-保罗伦纳德的文章“或者乔治弗洛伊德死于药物过量吗?”, https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ , , 在这个线程中,, 尤其是, 但不仅,我的所有评论都在下面通过评论编号引用,以及我在下面引用的评论中引用的所有其他评论:
    172,192,195,199,201,203
    207,217,221,222,223,225
    227,230,241,244,247,248
    252,254,255,256,258,260
    261,262,264,265,266,268
    269,272,273,280,281,282

    如果你计算弗洛伊德的剂量绝对是致命的,他有 19 纳克/毫升的芬太尼加上 86 纳克/毫升的吗啡临界致命剂量。

    Your assertion is FALSE, as is indicated by all the actually expert opinions rendered in Floyd’s case (opinions I have referenced in many of my above-cited comments).

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
  287. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    [It’s bad behavior to spam these threads with comments that mostly consist of numbered lists of your previous comments. Henceforth provide substantive comments if you want them published.]

  288. Loup-Bouc 说:

    To the Censor:

    你写了:

    [It’s bad behavior to spam these threads with comments that mostly consist of numbered lists of your previous comments. Henceforth provide substantive comments if you want them published.]

    “Bad behavior”? I acknowledge your scourging, O Yahweh. But I am neither your supplicant nor your frightened child or tethered dog. I will not repent my sin. May your hell swallow your arrogant existence.

  289. W4llb4ng3r 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    你说我的评论是:

    愚昧。 与医学和制药现实相反。

    The portion of my comment you are taking issue with is a direct quotation from George Floyd’s toxicology report. See here: https://www.scribd.com/document/464269559/George-Floyd-Autopsy-FULL-REPORT (页13)

    The toxicology report was authored by Dr. Robert A. Middleberg, PhD of NMS Labs… Here is his bio: https://www.nmslabs.com/about-nms-labs/leadership/robert-middleberg-phd-f-abft-dabcc-tc

    You (an anonymous internet expert) really have the guts to call this man “ignorant”? You’re really something else aren’t you? You honestly believe (and expect all of us to believe as well) that you have a better grasp on “medical and pharmaceutical reality” than Dr. Middleberg?!? GTFOH

    人类承受超过四倍的 11 ng/mL 血清芬太尼存活下来。

    OK… And? So what?

    Middleberg 博士告诉您,人类也因低至 3 ng/ml 的浓度而死亡。 你能把你的医生/律师/胡说八道的想法围绕在这句话上吗?

    如果您不准备阅读我上面引用的 81 条评论和其他评论以及我在上面引用的 81 条评论中引用的其他评论,请保持沉默。

    Judging by the sheer volume of your spammy comments cluttering up, obfuscating and muddying up these threads, I’m going to have to say, without doubt it is you who needs to be silent.

    • 回复: @map
    , @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
  290. map 说:
    @W4llb4ng3r

    现在你们明白卢克杜什的谎言了吗?

    现在我们从人体摄像头视频中看到,事件发生在晚上 9:00 之前,但乔治·弗洛伊德 (George Floyd) 的死亡时间是晚上 9:25。

  291. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @W4llb4ng3r

    前言

    I reconsidered my original comment that replied to you. I decided my comment was too curt. I had replied to more than 100 (perhaps about 125) Floyd-case comments (in THIS thread and elsewhere) and to four or five Floyd-case articles. My replies’ objects (comments and articles) — all of them — presented pro-defendant-cop or anti-Floyd arguments that put false facts, logical fallacies, and false law and disregarded, misinterpreted, misrepresented, or denied the existence of facts, evidence, logical considerations, legal rules, statutes, and judicial precedents — all for motive reeking of racism or White supremacism.

    So, though for I time I cast my replies with language of decorum, eventually I lost patience and began being curt and labeled John-Paul Leonard and several commenters racists, bigots, even slime-bags, scum, or snakes and their “arguments” not only fallacious, specious, spurious, or scurrilous, but also even toxic dreck. Your comment was among the last few to which I replied — when my patience had reached zero. I have decided I ought render to you a more scholarly reply.

    我的回覆

    [更多]

    The Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Press Release ruled Floyd’s death “homicide,” https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd,%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf
    The Medical Examiner’s Press Release was an official legal statement of the Hennepin County Medical Examiner. , 例如, FB’s comment of July 11, 2020 at 5:52 pm GMT (comment # 163) posted under Paul Craig Roberts’s above-cited article [the article linked at https://www.unz.com/proberts/what-is-a-fatal-dose-of-fentanyl/

    The Hernnepin County Medical Examiner’s Autopsy Report [hereinafter cited as “A-Report”] stated that the cause-of-death was “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement Subdual, restraint, and neck compression.” [Top of page 1 of A-Report.] Commenting in this thread and also under John-Paul Leonard’s article, “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/ , several commenters have misread or misrepresented that A-Report language, as if that language means that the cause-of-death was cardiopulmonary arrest rather than the compression-restraints the cops applied to Floyd — though cardiopulmonary arrest was not the cause-of-death but the end death-event.

    Relatedly, several commenters have misread or misrepresented “cardiopulmonary arrest,” as if it means “heart-attack.” “Cardiopulmonary arrest” can be the result of a “heart-attack,” but it is NOT a “heart-attack.” “Cardiopulmonary arrest” denotes cessation of the heart’s beating and of the lungs’ drawing air and expelling carbon dioxide and other gasses (nitrogen and argon, even oxygen), water vapor, constituents of intentionally-inhaled tobacco smoke, particulate matter and toxic gasses polluting indoor or outdoor atmosphere. Many diverse agents or events (not just “heart-attack”) can cause “cardiopulmonary arrest”

    Because of such misreadings or misrepresentations, including YOUR misreading, of the A-Report, I shall parse language of the A-Report’s statement of cause-of-death.

    “subdual”一词既是名词又是形容词; 它的主格外延是“一种压制或试图压制的行为”; 其形容词外延表示修饰的主格表示具有制服或寻求或能够制服的性质的事物。 在报告中,这个词是主格的——“subdual”,是一种制服的行为。

    The term restraint is a nominative denoting an act or event that involves or achieves precluding movement or free movement of the thing that is the object of the act or event. Since “Subdual” and “restraint” are separated by a comma and since a comma and the conjunction “and” separate “restraint” from “neck compression,” “restraint” denotes an independent event or independent determination — particularly, a determination that, inter alia, a “restraint” was involved in causing death.

    术语“颈部压缩”表示施加到颈部的收缩压力。 “压缩”不仅仅是压力,而是收缩的压力(就像蟒蛇施加在猎物呼吸器上的压力一样)。

    In the Report’s cause-of-death language, the term “complicating” denotes “enhancing” or “exacerbating” the effect of the subdual, the restraint, and the neck-compression. Such “complicating” meaning is rather common in law and medicine. See, e.g., Brackett v. Peters, 11 F.3d 78 (7th Circuit 1993), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1014585782824481484&q=Brackett+v.+Peters,+11+F.3d+78+(1993)&hl=en&as_sdt=7ff87fe0000000000100000000000000004 , at p.82, where, discussing felony murder, the court states:

    No intent to kill…is required; and though the Illinois cases do require that death be a “foreseeable” consequence of the felony…; all they [Illinois cases] mean is that the death must be caused by the felony; for remember that “cause” in law means not just but-for cause but also an 增强 of the likelihood (what in law is often called “foreseeability”) that the [lethal] class of events would occur. [Case-cites omitted and ellipsis and emphasis added by me, Loup-Bouc].

    因此,报告中的死因声明并不意味着
    (a) 弗洛伊德心脏骤停,同时还受到约束,颈部受压。
    or
    (b) 弗洛伊德心脏骤停,然后受到双重、束缚和颈部压迫
    比较, the Report’s cause-of-death statement means that cardiac arrest “enhanced” the life-threatening effect(s) (e.g., brain-hypoxia, brain-hypercapnia, and unconsciousness) of the subdual, the restraint, and the neck-compression.

    The Medical Examiner’s Press Release renders my preceding A-Report language-interpretation linguistically/grammatically, medically, and legally irrefutably correct. The Medical Examiner’s Press Release concluded that Floyd’s death was “homicide.” If cardiopulmonary arrest were THE (only) cause-of-death, Floyd’s death would not be homicide. [Also (though not a necessary consideration) very, very few (if any) humans die simply and only because of sudden auto-induced total cessation of heart-and-lung function (, with ZERO involvement of ANY other causative agent or event).]

    But those are only the medical and A-Report-interpretation considerations. One must appreciate that, in law, the death-cause matter is a matter of “proximate cause” — because, in Floyd’s case, the core legal issue is the “近因” of Floyd’s death.

    “Proximate cause” is a cause that, in a direct sequence, unbroken by a new independent cause, produces the death and without which the death would not have occurred. The concept “a proximate cause” does NOT equal “练习 cause” — , “proximate cause” is NOT the one and only cause. As observed by the court in Brackett v. Peters, 11 F.3d 78 (7th Circuit 1993) [quoted above], “proximate case” is “not just but-for cause but also an 增强 of the likelihood (…“可预见性”) that the [lethal] class of events would occur.” See also my comment of July 10, 2020 at 3:21 am GMT (comment # 724, posted under John-Paul Leonard’s article, “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/

    Also, recall that my earlier comment [August 8, 2020 at 8:37 am GMT (comment # 2929)] observed:

    …see, e.g., Fatal Fentanyl: One Pill Can Kill,” http://uthscsa.edu/artt/AddictionJC/2020-02-11-Sutter.pdf
    at p. 110, in the Key of Table 2:

    The therapeutic (TL) and toxic (TX) serum levels…are: fentanyl TL = 1-2 ng/mL, TX = 2-20 ng/mL, lethal > 20 ng/mL…..

    [The term “> 20 ng/mL” means “greater than 20 ng/mL.” ]

    Also, if Floyd’s serum fentanyl quantum was producing symptoms and those symptoms eventually could have been fatal, such fact would be evidence that the cops MURDERED Floyd.

    That blockquote’s last paragraph is supported my perhaps 30 or more of my earlier comments that I cited to you in my comment of August 8, 2020 at 8:37 am GMT (comment # 292).

    Now the matter of the fentanyl quantum present in Floyd’s postmortem blood and your reference of what you call “The toxicology report”

    You say the “Toxicology Report [hereinafter cited as “T-report”] was authored by Dr. Robert A. Middleberg, PhD of NMS Labs. You state: “Dr. Middleberg is informing you that humans have also died from as little as 3 ng/ml.” But, alas, your statement is false.

    The toxicology report was produced and signed by Daniel S. Isenschmid, Ph.D., F-ABFT, Forensic Toxicologist, NOT by Dr. Robert A. Middleberg. [T-Report p.5.]

    In note 9 of its footnotes [labeled a “Reference Comments”], the T-report stated: “In fatalities from fentanyl, blood concentrations are variable and have been reported as low as 3 ng/mL.”

    Dr. Isenschmid, Ph.D., F-ABFT is NOT a physician. As appears below, Dr. Isenschmid’s language “In fatalities from fentanyl, blood concentrations…have been reported as low as 3 ng/mL” is NOT evidence admissible in a criminal trial (or even a civil trial).

    Dr. Isenschmid’s language “In fatalities from fentanyl…have been reported” is at best ambiguous. Because Dr. Isenschmid is not a physician and did not cite even one actual case in which death occurred quite and only because of intake of fentanyl, we must question whether “fatalities from fentanyl” excludes the possibility of a comorbidity’s or comorbidities contributing to the fentanyl-involved deaths.

    Just as very, very few (if any) humans die simply and only because of sudden auto-induced total cessation of heart-and-lung function (, with ZERO involvement of ANY other causative agent or event), so also, few humans die simply and only because of intake of some quantity of fentanyl or any other opioid (, with ZERO involvement of ANY other causative agent or event).

    Physicians know that numerous such “reports” (“In fatalities from fentanyl…have been reported”) are highly suspect, because they are anonymous or do not specify their pathology-bases or the specified bases are clearly inadequate (例如, for lack of showing of performance of all the necessary pathology-investigation).

    Also, many medical-test laboratories [hereinafter “lab” or “labs”] operate in the U.S. Each lab has its own “normal,” “low,” and “high” “reference”-ranges respecting every chemical substance respecting which runs quantity-tests. Lab-to-lab, ranges vary, sometimes markedly. Example: LabCorp’s free triiodothyronine [“free T3″] “normal” range” is 2.0-4.4 pg/mL; but Quest Diagnostics “normal” range” is 2.3-4.2 pg/mL. The difference can be significant vis-a-vis the patient’s reverse-T3, thyroxin [“T4″], and thyroid stimulating hormone [“TSH”] levels.

    Labs obtain their reference-ranges much from “reports” of serum, urine, mucous, or solid-tissue levels of the substances that are subjects of tests; but many such reports are not verified scientifically valid and reliable. Too many lab results are false (false counts, false positives, false negatives, erroneous test-procedure applications…….).

    Only a properly conducted immensely thorough, peer-reviewed and empirically sound forensic pathologist’s autopsy analysis 可以, 或者, be a scientifically trustworthy basis of a conclusion that, ALONE (without presence of any possible comorbidity), some certain serum fentanyl quantity — per your assertion, 3 ng/mL — caused death. “Empirically sound”? If valid, reliable scientific studies produced results that impeach such forensic pathologist’s autopsy analysis, then the related autopsy report must be treated as questionable — despite the report obtained support of a peer review.

    I note that you incline not to read my earlier comments I cited to you — because you view them as products of “spamming” (whatever THAT means, to you). But, if you read those comments, you may perceive the matter very differently. 注意, , that of the two sets of comment numbers I put in my comment of August 8, 2020 at 8:37 am GMT (comment # 292 of THIS) thread, the second set, posted under the above-cited John-Paul Leonard’s article “Or Did George Floyd Die of a Drug Overdose?,” ought to include three additional comments, comments 769, 772, and 790.

    Now the matter of the admissibility of the T-report attached to the A-Report — a matter of scientific or statistical validity and reliability, not just judicial policy

    The T-report’s “as low as 3 ng/dL” statement would be inadmissible in the defendant cops’ criminal trial for the reasons I put above. It would be inadmissible also for other, legal reasons owed to the law’s requirements of validity and reliability, or trustworthiness.

    All Anglo-American jurisdictions have a “hearsay rule” — that if a statement is made outside a judicial trial in which a party seeks to introduce that statement as proof of what the statement says, the statement is inadmissible, unless it fits certain exceptions the law deems trustworthy enough to deserve admission as independent evidence. Minnesota’s hearsay rule consists of two, interrelated rules, Minnesota Court Rules: Evidence Rules 801 and 802: here https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/ev/id/801/ AND 此处 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/ev/id/802/

    Minnesota’s hearsay rule permits, per exception, admission of certain “public records and reports.”

    Unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness, records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth…matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, in criminal cases and petty misdemeanors matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel…..

    Minnesota Court Rules: Evidence Rule 803(8), https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/ev/id/803/

    Notice that the report must be that of “public officers or [public] agencies. Dr. Isenschmid is NOT a public officer, surely not a public agency. He was an employee of a private, independent firm, “NMS Labs.”

    Is Dr. Isenschmid’s report an admissible hearsay rule exception because the Hennepin County Medical Examiner used it? No: It is NOT the Medical Examiner’s record, report, statement, or data compilation setting forth matters the Medical Examiner observed.

    The T-report’s statement is hearsay within hearsay — double hearsay — hence deemed specially lacking trustworthiness unless “each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule.” Minnesota Court Rules: Evidence Rule 805, https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/ev/id/805/ The “fatalities…have been reported [caused by serum fentanyl concentrations]…low as 3 ng/dL” statement is inadmissible hearsay for the same reason that makes the T-report itself inadmissible hearsay. Also, who or what “reported” the fatalities? What methods were used? Were comorbidities ruled out validly, reliably?

    But suppose (as is near-absolutely certain) the Medical Examiner testifies, first for the prosecution. Then Minnesota Court Rules: Evidence Rule 703 governs:

    (a) The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.
    (b) Underlying expert data must be independently admissible in order to be received upon direct examination; provided that when good cause is shown in civil cases and the underlying data is particularly trustworthy, the court may admit the data under this rule for the limited purpose of showing the basis for the expert’s opinion. Nothing in this rule restricts admissibility of underlying expert data when inquired into on cross-examination.

    If the case were NOT a CRIMINAL case, during a direct examination (not cross-examination), the Medical Examiner could reference the T-report. But, the prosecution would not ask a question that could lead the Medical Examiner to address the T-report’s “as low as 3 ng/dL” footnoted reference: The “as low as 3 ng/dL” footnoted reference would create need of the prosecution’s having to disprove a matter that would unfairly prejudice the state’s case. “Unfair prejudice”? Arguably relevant evidence will be excluded if its “probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. Minnesota Court Rules: Evidence Rule 403, https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/ev/id/403/

    Also, The T-report’s “as low as 3 ng/dL” footnoted reference would need to be proved a “type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject.” For reasons I put above, that proof would be very difficult if not impossible. And more important: The “expert data must be independently admissible…to be received upon direct examination,” and the data are NOT independently admissible since they are inadmissible hearsay. Compare Rule 703(a), Rule 703(b)’s first sentence, and Rules 801, 802, 803(8), and 805.

    But MORE IMPORTANT, and CONCLUSIVELY CONTROLLING, the T-report (including its “as low as 3 ng/dL” footnoted reference) could not be admissible in direct examination, because the case is a CRIMINAL case: “…when good cause is shown in CIVIL CASES and the underlying data is particularly trustworthy, the court may admit the data under this rule for the limited purpose of showing the basis for the expert’s opinion.” Rule 703(b), 1st sentence.

    During cross-examination, defense counsel may inquire into the T-report — to impeach the Medical Examiner or his direct examination testimony supporting the Medical Examiner’s ruling that Floyd’s death was homicide. But though “Nothing in this rule [Rule 703 (quoted above)] restricts admissibility of underlying expert data when inquired into on cross-examination, other Rules do restrict such data’s admissibility— Rules 403, 801, 802, 803(8). Those other rules would render very difficult defense counsel’ convincing the judge to allow admission of the T-report’s “as low as 3 ng/dL” footnoted reference.

    Beyond the above-presented reasons why the T-report’s “as low as 3 ng/dL” footnoted reference would not be admissible, an immensely critical reason obtains in the opinions of medical experts of medical fields specially pertinent to the drug issues of Floyd’s case. See:
    * Opinion of Dr. Bernard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=xRoqSyIi-98&feature=emb_title
    * Opinion of Dr. Hansen: Opinion of Dr. Hansen, https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=0oqEp63duIc&feature=emb_title%5D
    * Opinion of “The Scalpel,” a long-time Emergency Room physician, see my [See The Scalpel’s comments cited and discussed in my comment of June 23, 2020 at 2:17 am GMT (comment # 399) posted under John-Paul Leonard’s article cited above, https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/
    In various of my earlier comments, I cited other expert medical opinions that reach the same conclusion.

    The Medical Examiner’s Press Release concluded that Floyd’s death was “homicide.” The A-Report (Medical Examiner’s Autopsy Report) confirms the Medical Examiner’s Press Release. If fentanyl were THE cause-of-death, Floyd’s death would not be homicide. The A-Report and Medical Examiner’s Press Release would not rule Floyd’s death homicide if the Medical Examiner believed fentanyl was, or could have been, the cause of Floyd’s death.

    A few commenters seem to argue that the cops’ neck and dorsal thorax compression-restraints must not have killed Floyd because, they assert, Floyd died about a half-hour after Floyd was removed from the arrest-scene. 即使 Floyd was alive when he was removed from the arrest scene (a matter that is debatable), the cops’ compression-restraints were 练习 legal proximate cause of Floyd’s death. Those compression-restraints would have been the legal proximate cause of Floyd’s death 即使 Floyd lived hours after being removed from the arrest scene 或者如果 a panicked Floyd resisted, mindlessly, a medical attempt of resuscitating him 或者如果 he refused certain resuscitation means because he was a Jehovah’s Witness. See, 例如, my comment of July 10, 2020 at 3:21 am GMT (comment # 724) posted under John-Paul Leonard’s article published at https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/

    Floyd alive when he was removed from the arrest scene? The matter depends partly on a statement included in the A-Report: “Toxicology…testing performed on 前验尸 blood specimens collected 5/25/20 at 9:00 p.m. at HHC and on postmortem urine….” [A-Report p.2.] Floyd was PRONOUNCED dead at 9:25 PM.

    But, according to rule, or negligently, paramedics or emergency room physicians, technicians, or nurses may consider pre-official-death-pronouncement tests technically “antemortem,” because (a) they are using heroic measures to resuscitate the patient who has not been officially pronounced dead or (b) the paramedic or emergency room protocol may be that a patient is not “dead” until he is formally, officially, pronounced dead. Arrest scene videos and the police body-cam record show that paramedics tried to resuscitate Floyd. If not the paramedics, emergency room staff would have drawn blood for testing near-immediately during resuscitation efforts. The police body-cam record and sundry arrest scene videos suggest, strongly — arguably PROVE — that Floyd died at the arrest scene. Compare, 例如,这些来源:
    Opinion of Dr. Hansen, https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=0oqEp63duIc&feature=emb_title%5D
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/george-floyds-autopsy-and-the-structural-gaslighting-of-america/
    https://www.nytimes.com/article/george-floyd-autopsy-michael-baden.html
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/dr-michael-baden-factors-responsible-george-floyd-death
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/01/independent-autopsy-finds-george-floyd-died-by-homicide-caused-by-asphyxia/#970b68a7f8fb
    https://abcnews.go.com/US/independent-autopsy-george-floyd-findings-announced/story?id=70994827
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=116&v=JHqM24o8TuI&feature=emb_title
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/george-floyds-autopsy-and-the-structural-gaslighting-of-america/

  292. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @W4llb4ng3r

    In my comment of August 16, 2020 at 9:21 pm GMT (comment # 300), the final sentence is this:

    The police body-cam record and sundry arrest scene videos suggest, strongly — arguably PROVE — that Floyd died at the arrest scene.

    I linked seven sources to support that sentence’s assertion (alas, one being duplicative).

    But I failed to cite one source that provides clear support of my same assertion that Floyd died at the scene of the arrest — a source that reports a police body-cam record of the arrest and observes that Floyd was dead at the arrest-scene. That source is here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8576371/Police-bodycam-footage-shows-moment-moment-arrest-George-Floyd-time.html

    [更多]

    Also, I failed to link a video that shows Floyd is apparently dead after the cops applied neck and dorsal thorax compression-restraints to Floyd for about 9 minutes, even more than 3 minutes after Floyd became unconscious. That video is here:

    That video is among several that show Floyd appearing dead when the cops ceased applying compression-restraints to him.

    另见这些:

    • 回复: @W4llb4ng3r
  293. W4llb4ng3r 说:
    @Loup-Bouc

    Good Lord! Do you really think anyone will read all of that? That is the very definition of tl;dr.

    You’re going way off topic here anyhow… The question was, ‘What is a fatal dose of fentanyl?’. My quote from the toxicology report stands no matter which doctor actually authored it:

    In fatalities from fentanyl, blood concentrations are variable and have been reported as low as 3 ng/mL.

    Look, it would appear that Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker also agrees that 11 ng/mL would likely have been fatal:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/chief-medical-examiner-in-george-floyd-case-that-is-a-fatal-level-of-fentanyl-under-normal-circumstances/

    • 回复: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
  294. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @W4llb4ng3r

    I cannot spare time enough to proofread this comment. I tyhpe badly, commit typing errors. I apologize noww for any typing errors that mar this comment.

    你写了:

    Good Lord! Do you really think anyone will read all of that?

    Alas, your attention deficit disorder shows also in your impression of the material you think you accounted by including the internet-link you included.

    Your linked reference does NOT support your assertion “that Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker also agrees that 11 ng/mL would likely have been fatal.” The link opens an article posted by arch racist Steve Sailor, who puts a 推定的 quote of something putatively stated by someone or some entity Mr. Sailor does not name or otherwise identify. Instead, Mr. Sailor provides a hyperlink that opens an article [hereinafter “hyperlinked article”] that misrepresents what is claimed to be statements made by the Medical Examiner.

    The hyperlinked article quotes what it purports to be a record of an interview involving two Assistant Hennnepin County Attorneys and the Medical Examiner. The hyperlinked article does not quote the entirety of the interview-record, which record is apparently an assistant county attorney’s notes, which purport to quote statements of the Medical Examiner.

    Consider the record’s language “Fentanyl – 11” can “cause pulmonary edema,” and Floyd’s lungs were “2-3x their normal weight at autopsy,” and a “Fentanyl – 11” quantity is a “fatal level under normal circumstances,” and if Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he [the Medical Examiner] would conclude that it was an overdose death.”

    [更多]

    Those statements were NOT quotes of the Medical Examiner. They were purported quotes of what appears to be a set of notes [hereinafter “notes”] of an assistant county attorney and apparently filed in a Minnesota State Court. The matter is what the Medical Examiner actually said. That matter is NOT established by notes written by an assistant county attorney; and it is NOT established by those notes’ having been court-filed.

    The notes’ preparer may have — very likely had — misunderstood or misreported the Medical Examiner’s statements, a possibility heightened by the fact that very likely a pathologist (and the Medical Examiner is a pathologist) would not have stated, as the notes state, that Floyd had “Fentanyl – 11” — a statement that is medically incompetent because of its critically ambiguous: 11 WHAT - 和 哪里, serum, urine, liver, kidneys, fat, lungs……?

    [I account that elsewhere the notes said the Medical Examiner said that “the only thing that matters is what’s in his blood.” But 笔记 做了 不是 比如说 the Medical Examiner said Flood’s 血液 bore 11 ng/mL fenantyl.]

    Much questionable also is the notes’ assertion that the Medical Examiner said Floyd’s lungs were “2-3x their normal weight.” The Medical Examiner had no basis of knowing the “normal” weight of Floyd’s lungs. Nothing suggests that the Medical Examiner had even examined, or even ever encountered, Floyd before the Medical Examiner autopsied Floyd’s corpse.

    a particular human’s lungs weigh what they weigh because of, 例如, the particular human’s anatomy, body weight, health, ethnicity, physical-activity-history……. Medicine can establish an lung weight of a normal human adult male. But no “normal” lung-weight exists. See, 例如, https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ari/2018/4687538/

    The weight of the lungs was found to be 442.0 ± 152.3 g left lung and 504.6 ± 174.6 g right lung in the male population …. The percent body weight of the lungs in males was 0.76% for the left lung and 0.86% for the right lung.

    也不 a competent Medical Examiner or competent pathologist 也不 any other competent physician would say “Floyd’s lungs were “2-3x their 正常 重量。”

    The notes’ statement “Fentanyl – 11” is a “fatal level under normal circumstances” is medical nonsense. Again, 11 WHAT? And, does “normal” refer to the norm of use, the norm of users, the norm of health measured by 什么 standard, the norm of conditions in which the fentanyl is introduced, by what means — injection, pill, snorting, anal-insertion, patch…..?

    And a competent physician would address, instead, an “average,” not a “normal.” What is “normal” lethality of fentanyl intake?

    And, IF the Medical Examiner HAD stated something like “11 ng/mL serum fentanyl tends to be lethal,” would the Medical Examiner amend such statement if confronted by, 例如, the following quote of a proper study of fentanyl’s therapeutic, toxic, and lethal serum-quantities?

    The therapeutic (TL) and toxic (TX) serum levels…are: fentanyl TL = 1-2 ng/mL, TX = 2-20 ng/mL, lethal > 20 ng/mL…..

    “Fatal Fentanyl: One Pill Can Kill,” http://uthscsa.edu/artt/AddictionJC/2020-02-11-Sutter.pdf — at p. 110, in the Key of Table 2 [The term “> 20 ng/mL” means “比...更棒 20 ng/mL.”]

    And does NOT “normal” require comparison of the 实际 circumstances of 弗洛伊德的 death, the neck-press and dorsal thorax compression-holds, etc.? And who, exactly, used the language “normal circumstances”? The Medical Examiner, or the assistant county attorney?

    Who, actually, used the exact language “if Floyd had been found had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death.” Notice the terms “he would conclude.” The terms are NOT “I [the Medical Examiner} would conclude.”

    And the key related question is the intended meaning of “under normal circumstances” and “had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors”? In the 实际 case, the “contributing factors” were grave: the compression holds that lasted about 9 minutes, more than 3 minutes after Floyd became unconscious.

    Then, too, such purported “medical” statements do not account 法律.

    Even if, eventually, Floyd would have died in his home had he not encountered the police and simply returned to his residence, the LEGAL matter is that all the video evidence and other related evidence (including numerous expert opinions) show that Floyd never exhibited any symptom of immediate moribundity during the entirety of his arrest until after he suffered 4 or 5 minutes of the police’s 9-minutes-long application of both of two asphyxia-death-threatening compression-holds.

    As I have shown numerous times, the LAW holds that even if the police merely hastened Floyd’s death, they committed homicide against Floyd. According to the law (which I have described more than a few times in this thread and elsewhere at Unz Review), even if, absent the compression holds, Floyd would have died just one second later than he did die, still the compression holds were homicidal acts and Mr. Chauvin and at least one other arresting officer murdered Floyd.

    Add that the the Medical Examiner’s Autopsy Report and Press Release indicate that Floyd’s death was homicide. The assistant county attorney’s notes do not impeach the Autopsy Report or Press Release, partly because the assistant county attorney’s notes are too medically ambiguous and medically incompetent, partly because they do not equal what the Medical Examiner actually said or likely would have said.

    The question is what the Medical Examiner will say in testimony adduced during the criminal trial of the defendant police or ex-police — Mr. Chauvin and the other three.

  295. Loup-Bouc 说:
    @W4llb4ng3r

    This comment supplements my comment of August 31, 2020 at 2:09 am GMT (comment # 303) [which, alas, began with text bearing two typing errors: “tyhpe” (instead of “type”) and “noww” (instead of “now”).

    Some hours after I posted my above-referenced comment, I perceived that I ought to have included another consideration. That consideration appears below.

    [更多]

    My above-referenced comment includes criticism of the assistant county attorney’s notes concerning the relation, if any, of Floyd’s serum fentanyl quantity and Floyd’s lungs — an assertion that the Medical Examiner said “Fentanyl – 11” [an medically incompetent, ambiguous statement (“11” WHAT?)] “can cause pulmonary edema” and “Floyd’s lungs were “2-3x their normal weight.” With this comment, I add a criticism.

    For 9 minutes Chauvin and one or two other arresting officers applied compression-holds to Floyd’s neck and dorsal thorax — even for more than 3 minutes after Floyd became unconscious.

    Directly, the dorsal thorax compression impaired the function of Floyd’s diaphragm. Indirectly, and likely worse, the neck-compression hold weakened 进一步 the function of Floyd’s diaphragm and, eventually, stiffened his diaphragm, because both compression holds caused brain hypoxia and brain hypercapnia (or hypercarbia). Those compression-holds’ effects impaired the lungs’ capacity of evacuating not only oxygen and carbon dioxide (and other gases), but also blood and other fluids.

    假设 that (postmortem) Floyd’s lungs 做了 weigh markedly more than the weight of lungs of a “normal” male human of Floyd’s size, age, ethnicity, and general health-condition. Then the obvious, evidence-based (not hypothetical) cause was the compression of Floyd’s lungs, diaphragm, and neck (carotid arteries & jugular veins).

    The lung, diaphragm, and neck (carotid-artery/jugular-vein) compressions must have caused a condition akin to bloody pleural effusion— pathologically great accumulation of pulmonary blood, lymph, and pulmonary extravascular lung-water. That pulmonary condition must have occurred partly because of the dorsal thorax compression’s impairment of diaphragm-function and lung-function, partly because of the diaphragm-function-impairing effects of brain hypoxia and brain hypercapnia, and partly because the brain hypoxia and brain hypercapnia slowed and weakened the heart’s electromechanical pump (before the brain hypoxia/hypercapnia caused asphyxia that resulted in cardiac arrest).

    Floyd was NOT exhibiting any symptom of potentially lethal fentanyl overdose until after he suffered 4 or 5 minutes of the police’s 9-minutes-long application of two asphyxia-death-threatening compression-holds. 比较:
    * Opinion of Dr. Bernard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=xRoqSyIi-98&feature=emb_title
    * Opinion of Dr. Hansen: Opinion of Dr. Hansen, https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=0oqEp63duIc&feature=emb_title%5D
    * Opinion of “The Scalpel,” a long-time Emergency Room physician, see my [See The Scalpel’s comments cited and discussed in my comment of June 23, 2020 at 2:17 am GMT (comment # 399) posted under John-Paul Leonard’s article cited above, https://www.unz.com/article/or-did-george-floyd-die-of-a-drug-overdose/
    * Opinion of Judy Melinek, MD, forensic pathologist and CEO of PathologyExpert Inc., https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/working-stiff/86913 — summarized in my comment of June 23, 2020 at 2:17 am GMT (comment # 399) posted under John-Paul Leonard’s above-cited/above-linked article

    所以, if (postmortem) Floyd’s lungs weighed markedly more than the <b weight of lungs of a “normal” male human of Floyd’s size, age, ethnicity, and general health-condition, the cause was NOT drug-overdose, but the combined neck and dorsal thorax compressions applied by Officer Chauvin and one or two other arresting police.

当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有Paul Craig Roberts的评论