quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Cheni you have the same access to the toxicology as anyone. You are being obtuse on this point. The Medical Examiner was quite clear that at 11 ng/ml of fentanyl he had a potentially fatal overdose. That’s not fucking speculation. It’s the toxicology report. You are pretending it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t fit your agenda. The ME also went on to say while talking to the AG of the state that absent the video he would have ruled it an accidental overdose. If you won’t take the toxicology report or the ME’s own words you have already made up your mind. You are blind to the evidence that doesn’t support your desired outcome. You saw a video and by goodness that’s enough for you.

If you can’t see the ignorance in that I don’t know what to tell you.

That's not necessarily a lethal dose, that's on the low side of an anesthesia dose so it's obviously not necessarily lethal.

https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/p...profiles/fentanyl_en

The estimated lethal dose of fentanyl in humans is 2 mg. The recommended serum concentration for analgesia is 1–2 ng/ml and for anaesthesia it is 10–20 ng/ml.

My BIL cop and I were discussing this. This case screamed for a venue move. And/or a way to remotely be a juror. If I lived there and was on the jury I have to say I would at least consider that any vote on my part other than “guilty” could lead to people trying to harm my family or myself. This is no way to conduct justice. They should have fucking moved the trial to Alaska. Nobody is going up there to harm a jury that they disagreed with. Hell, maybe all these trials should be held up there.

Interesting that witnesses are allowed to state that “an individual was killed in police custody”

An individual did die in police custody, but the trial is to determine whether or not he was killed in police custody.

Witnesses are seemingly allowed to say he is guilty, that does not seem appropriate to me.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by cheni:


SOP is to suffocate a man 4 to 5 min. after passing out from drug overdose then?

That was an incredibly stupid comment.

The understatement of the month.

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:

That's not necessarily a lethal dose, that's on the low side of an anesthesia dose so it's obviously not necessarily lethal.

https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/p...profiles/fentanyl_en

The estimated lethal dose of fentanyl in humans is 2 mg. The recommended serum concentration for analgesia is 1–2 ng/ml and for anaesthesia it is 10–20 ng/ml.

You forgot the next sentence!!! "Blood concentrations of approximately 7 ng/ml or greater have been associated with fatalities where poly-substance use was involved". His level was 11ng/ml

Does an anesthesia dose include mixing with it with methamphetamines?

Besides which, would you take a dose of something if I told you, “well it’s on the low side of fatal”.

If you read your own link it also clearly differentiates between medically produced fentanyl and that produced by other means. One is 80x the potency of morphine and the other is 400-600x the potency. That is before mixing it with other drugs.

There isn’t a same MD out there that won’t admit that the tax report shows a drug overdose under any reasonable circumstance. They might argue the neck restraint angle as a factor but they can’t get past the fact that the drug level was potentially fatal.

Make no mistake either “potentially” is merely a legal term because you could triple the amount in his blood and they would still say potentially. It’s the medical equivalent of saying allegedly.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
One can qualify as an expert in many ways - it doesn't take PhDs, etc. Experience and training may make an auto mechanic an expert.

Mona Lisa Vito comes to mind.

quote:

Originally posted by cheni:

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Cheni you have the same access to the toxicology as anyone. You are being obtuse on this point. The Medical Examiner was quite clear that at 11 ng/ml of fentanyl he had a potentially fatal overdose. That’s not fucking speculation. It’s the toxicology report. You are pretending it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t fit your agenda. The ME also went on to say while talking to the AG of the state that absent the video he would have ruled it an accidental overdose. If you won’t take the toxicology report or the ME’s own words you have already made up your mind. You are blind to the evidence that doesn’t support your desired outcome. You saw a video and by goodness that’s enough for you.

If you can’t see the ignorance in that I don’t know what to tell you.

SOP is to suffocate a man 4 to 5 min. after passing out from drug overdose then?

You insist on arguing actual innocence or guilt. For the purposes of a trial, the evidence seems to scream reasonable doubt. Dueling experts, conflicting science, and no clear indication of exactly what caused Floyd to die. It is textbook reasonable doubt material. Even if Chauvin is factually guilty, the evidence does not rise to the "beyond a reasonable doubt standard." Perhaps you are confused about the standard the jury will be instructed to apply. It isn't the civil "preponderance of the evidence," which requires, in essence, only 50.01% of certainty.

The question seems to me to be whether the jury will act in accordance with the instruction to apply the reasonable doubt standard. I usually have high faith in this, as I have personal experience with what juries do, and they, perhaps to a surprising degree, generally take the court's instructions quite seriously and strive to apply them. However, this trial has a nearly unprecedented amount of notoriety and publicity. I think it would be hard to get neutral jurors anywhere, never mind in Minneapolis. Plus, they will feel a lot of community pressure.

But remembering that it only takes one juror to hang them, I am still betting that Chauvin will not be convicted when the reasonable doubt standard is applied.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
One can qualify as an expert in many ways - it doesn't take PhDs, etc. Experience and training may make an auto mechanic an expert.

Mona Lisa Vito comes to mind.

Which is a great example of a direct examination of an expert witness, by the way.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Does an anesthesia dose include mixing with it with methamphetamines?

Besides which, would you take a dose of something if I told you, “well it’s on the low side of fatal”.

If you read your own link it also clearly differentiates between medically produced fentanyl and that produced by other means. One is 80x the potency of morphine and the other is 400-600x the potency. That is before mixing it with other drugs.

There isn’t a same MD out there that won’t admit that the tax report shows a drug overdose under any reasonable circumstance. They might argue the neck restraint angle as a factor but they can’t get past the fact that the drug level was potentially fatal.

Make no mistake either “potentially” is merely a legal term because you could triple the amount in his blood and they would still say potentially. It’s the medical equivalent of saying allegedly.

There is another component of anesthesia. Assisted breathing. Wasnt there a famous singer that died from an anesthesia dose because his Dr didnt monitor him?

Lots of folks saying, "Okay, let me kneel on your neck for 8 minutes to see if it kills you."

No one is saying "Take this cocktail of fentanyl and speed with an underlying heart condition and see if it kills you."

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
One can qualify as an expert in many ways - it doesn't take PhDs, etc. Experience and training may make an auto mechanic an expert.

Mona Lisa Vito comes to mind.

Which is a great example of a direct examination of an expert witness, by the way.

And a hostile (and hot) witness no less!

But I'm afraid I'm going to have to cite you for unnecessary use of the word "unprecedented" in your previous post. Please don't let it happen again.

quote:

Originally posted by triggertreat:

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:

That's not necessarily a lethal dose, that's on the low side of an anesthesia dose so it's obviously not necessarily lethal.

https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/p...profiles/fentanyl_en

The estimated lethal dose of fentanyl in humans is 2 mg. The recommended serum concentration for analgesia is 1–2 ng/ml and for anaesthesia it is 10–20 ng/ml.

You forgot the next sentence!!! "Blood concentrations of approximately 7 ng/ml or greater have been associated with fatalities where poly-substance use was involved". His level was 11ng/ml

I didn't miss it at all. Yes, fatalities have happened at 7ng/ml, but they certainly wouldn't use it as an anesthetic requiring a minimum of 10ng/ml if it was at all common. If they did, every one of the patients would die under anesthetic.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Weren't we talking about jury intimidation just a couple pages back? Just heard on the radio that a juror's PR person (???) has been admonished by the judge for taking photos of the jurors in the courtroom.

That was a PR person for one of the minor witnesses (I think it was for the 9 year old).

I think it is disgusting that the prosecutor even called on her (the 9 year old) as she really had nothing to add that the others hadn't already said, it was just for emotional effect, which should have no bearing in this case.

I don't know why the minor had a PR person - and if I recall what I heard correctly, PR person was taking a picture of the minor with the MN AG (you would think he'd know better on a secured floor). The Judge was beyond pissed when he found out.

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:

quote:

Originally posted by triggertreat:

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:

That's not necessarily a lethal dose, that's on the low side of an anesthesia dose so it's obviously not necessarily lethal.

https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/p...profiles/fentanyl_en

The estimated lethal dose of fentanyl in humans is 2 mg. The recommended serum concentration for analgesia is 1–2 ng/ml and for anaesthesia it is 10–20 ng/ml.

You forgot the next sentence!!! "Blood concentrations of approximately 7 ng/ml or greater have been associated with fatalities where poly-substance use was involved". His level was 11ng/ml

I didn't miss it at all. Yes, fatalities have happened at 7ng/ml, but they certainly wouldn't use it as an anesthetic requiring a minimum of 10ng/ml if it was at all common. If they did, every one of the patients would die under anesthetic.

They also have respiratory support while under anesthesia so they dont die.

quote:

Originally posted by triggertreat:
They also have respiratory support while under anesthesia so they dont die.

That is my understanding about surgical anesthetics. They knock you out with sodium pentathol, then immediately intubate and put you on a ventilator with balanced supply of anesthetic gas and oxygen. But maybe we should let someone with an MD comment on this...

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
They knock you out with sodium pentathol,

How olde schoole.

Oops, not an MD. Sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
They knock you out with sodium pentathol,

How olde schoole.

Oops, not an MD. Sorry.

That's what I got every time, but last time under general was in the 90's. Feels like going from sober to really drunk in like 1 second.

The defense needs to do a demonstration for the jury. Take a non-fentanyl & non-meth using member of the jury, handcuff them, lay them on the floor, then hold them there with a knee on their neck. After 10 or 15 minutes the jury member can get up all by themselves, not short of breath, take a bow, and say, "Drugs are bad, mmkay."