Did this really just happen?

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl: I believe he was charged with both murder and manslaughter.

I didn't see that yet. I'll check on it. I've got 2 other cases I'm following right now and a few other cases of lesser interest to me.

The MPD has fired all 4 officers from the job. I'm looking for the remaining 3 officers to be charged as complicit.

They also have a paramedic on camera or audio when he picked up Mr. Floyd at the scene telling the officers "you've killed him". I tend to think that statement won't be allowed in court but I can't swear to it of course. I learn something new from each and every new case.

I never imagined, for example, that someone would be successfully prosecuted for murder without a body of the deceased but sure enough, Patrick Frazee is sitting in prison as I type this. We never know how these cases will go. That's part of my interest in following them.

[_Jersey Girl]

It doesn't matter if there is evidence of asphyxiation or strangulation.

So prosecution only needs the videos and the witnesses, and a report of the moment he was declared dead to win in court.

They'll have gone through a ton of stuff and presented it in order convince the jury and win this case. They'll have the statements by the cops themselves, they'll have radio transmissions, bodycam footage if available, eye witness testimonies, testimony from the shop owner, the coroner, etc. All sorts of stuff. It looks like a slam dunk...but nothing is a slam dunk.

The final determination of the coroner could be:

Cause of death: undetermined.
Manner of death: homicide

I am no expert in autopsy reports. Sorry.

I'm not either. I've been following crime cases going back to OJ and forward. My knowledge is only as good as the last case I've followed.

I do think in this case, the video and the statements BETWEEN officers during the incident are everything. While they had Mr. Floyd restrained, one of them checked his pulse and couldn't get one...and for 2.5 more minutes they continued to restrain him. And they've got the incident on video and they may have bodycam audio that recorded those conversations.

Again, it sounds like a slam dunk. But I will tell you, from all I have seen, nothing is ever a slam dunk in court case.

[_DoubtingThomas]

it doesn't matter which thing he died of. It matters that he died by the actions of Ex-Officer Chauvin that meets the criteria.

So how is the autopsy report going to help the prosecution? Does the autopsy report include Ex-Officer Chauvin actions?

[_DoubtingThomas]

2.5 more minutes they continued to restrain him. .

That is relevant, is that going to be in the autopsy report?

[Guest]

Again, it sounds like a slam dunk. But I will tell you, from all I have seen, nothing is ever a slam dunk in court case.

Exactly! So if the autopsy report has no direct evidence of homicide, then the prosecution wouldn't want the report to be presented to a jury. The prosecution would ask the judge to block it.

[_Jersey Girl]

it doesn't matter which thing he died of. It matters that he died by the actions of Ex-Officer Chauvin that meets the criteria.

So how is the autopsy report going to help the prosecution? Does the autopsy report include Ex-Officer Chauvin actions?

You're asking me a question that even the prosecution cannot answer right now because the full report doesn't exist until the tox report is received and there could be more than one autopsy performed.

No, the autopsy report doesn't include the officer's actions. The autopsy report is about the body. The body is one of the pieces of evidence. It includes a narrative of the examination of his entire body, photos, lab reports, and a conclusion as to the cause of death and manner of death.

[_Jersey Girl]

2.5 more minutes they continued to restrain him. .

That is relevant, is that going to be in the autopsy report?

No. The autopsy report is only about the body. The body is a piece of evidence.

The conversation between officers that I mentioned has to be corroborated by the officer's testimony, any audio they can come up with, and time stamped photos or video that match the testimony of the officers.

[_DoubtingThomas]

You're asking me a question that even the prosecution cannot answer right now because the full report doesn't exist until the tox report is received and there could be more than one autopsy performed.

No, the autopsy report doesn't include the officer's actions. The autopsy report is about the body. The body is one of the pieces of evidence. It includes a narrative of the examination of his entire body, photos, lab reports, and a conclusion as to the cause of death and manner of death.

If the autopsy report has no direct evidence of homicide, then the prosecution wouldn't want the report to be presented to a jury. The prosecution would ask the judge to block it.

[_Jersey Girl]

Again, it sounds like a slam dunk. But I will tell you, from all I have seen, nothing is ever a slam dunk in court case.

Exactly! So if the autopsy report has no direct evidence of homicide, then the prosecution wouldn't want the report to be presented to a jury. The prosecution should ask the judge to block it.

Remember when I said this?

Cause of death: undermined
Manner of death: homicide

The conclusions of the coroner do not have to indicate a cause of death in order for the manner of death to be determined as homicide.

I know that sounds crazy, but it's true.

In the Casey Anthony case, there was no cause of death that could be determined. The manner of death was determined to be homicide. There was what I would consider to be preponderance of circumstantial evidence.

Casey Anthony was found not guilty of killing her 3 year old daughter.

Now get this. In the Patrick Frazee case, there was no body at all. To this day, Kelsey Berreth's remains have never been recovered and Frazee isn't talking. He was prosecuted on forensic and circumstantial evidence. He's rotting away in prison in Colorado at this very moment having been found guilty of all charges.

[_Chap]

So, no taxes then? Well, I suppose that means you can't drive on the roads, because you don't pay for them. Oh, and don't call the police either, OK? And when you come to a bridge over a river, please be sure to wade across.

Because you wouldn't want to be a freeloader, would you?

You know we still managed to build roads after we kicked your kind back across the pond and got out from under King George and his taxes. We're kind of saying the same thing to would be tyrant EAllusion as we did to King George in 1776. We're not your tax chattel.

The issue as presented by advocates of independence at the time was that it was improper for people to be taxed without representation in the House of Commons, the only body which could legally impose taxation on the British population. Seems reasonable enough to me. I don't think that the majority of colonists disputed that it was acceptable for people enjoying the benefits of an organised society to have to pay taxes to whatever the governing power happened to be - the issue, rather, was whether they accepted the legitimacy of that government.

After independence, the new governing structures in America continued to levy taxes like any other government, because they needed the money to build roads, bridges, and so on.

Is ajax17 suggesting otherwise?