GO TO JAIL. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.00

[Rick N. Backer]

https://www.national...ation-campaign/

 

Everyone ok with this because the outcome we wanted occurred?

 

National Review positions itself as providing commentary, rather than being a "news source", so it's hard to tell from the article if this is justified. If his science is faulty, however, his past findings should be reviewed. If his science and procedures have been good so far he has little to fear. I don't think a review is necessarily an "intimidation campaign." It could also be noted that the names of the Chauvin trial jurors had to be sealed because of violent threats against them.

 

Sorry, chica, but I don't agree with this at all. It's no answer to say, "if his science and procedures have been good so far he has little to fear," any more than it would be appropriate to respond to police indiscriminately searching homes with, in essence, "if you haven't done anything wrong you'll be fine." In both cases, it is the impropriety of the process that is the problem. Dr. Fowler testified in favor of an unpopular defendant. The state could, and did, cross examine him at trial to show why the jury should not be swayed by his opinion based on his review of the facts. That's the appropriate response. Punishing people for participating in a criminal trial on behalf of an unpopular defendant is really, really bad for society, and people should think twice about just shrugging their shoulders about that.

[Tony R]

https://www.national...ation-campaign/

 

Everyone ok with this because the outcome we wanted occurred?

Awful.

[Rick N. Backer]

I do need to repeat that Dr. Fowler did not testify as a fact witness. He didn't get on the stand and lie about something he experienced. His testimony was that he formed an opinion based on what he reviewed. It's important to remember that expert witnesses don't commit perjury by being wrong.

[blueschica]

https://www.national...ation-campaign/

 

Everyone ok with this because the outcome we wanted occurred?

 

National Review positions itself as providing commentary, rather than being a "news source", so it's hard to tell from the article if this is justified. If his science is faulty, however, his past findings should be reviewed. If his science and procedures have been good so far he has little to fear. I don't think a review is necessarily an "intimidation campaign." It could also be noted that the names of the Chauvin trial jurors had to be sealed because of violent threats against them.

 

Sorry, chica, but I don't agree with this at all. It's no answer to say, "if his science and procedures have been good so far he has little to fear," any more than it would be appropriate to respond to police indiscriminately searching homes with, in essence, "if you haven't done anything wrong you'll be fine." In both cases, it is the impropriety of the process that is the problem. Dr. Fowler testified in favor of an unpopular defendant. The state could, and did, cross examine him at trial to show why the jury should not be swayed by his opinion based on his review of the facts. That's the appropriate response. Punishing people for participating in a criminal trial on behalf of an unpopular defendant is really, really bad for society, and people should think twice about just shrugging their shoulders about that.

 

I don't disagree with you. I would like to see an actual news article about what is happening with Dr. Fowler, as the National Review is an opinion source rather than a news source.

 

Ok, here s one. https://www.foxnews.com/us/maryland-chief-medical-examiner-derek-chauvin-defense-testimony

 

Apparently at least one other Chief Medical Examiner considers that "Fowler’s conclusions were so far outside the bounds of accepted forensic practice that all his previous work could come into question." Death rulings are reexamined in our system, just as trial verdicts are appealed. The dude knows it's part of the territory, especially when you are a hired gun in a trial. I object less to his findings than I do to the hysteria of the National Review. ;) ;)

Edited April 26, 2021 by blueschica

[laughedatbytime]

https://www.national...ation-campaign/

 

Everyone ok with this because the outcome we wanted occurred?

 

National Review positions itself as providing commentary, rather than being a "news source", so it's hard to tell from the article if this is justified. If his science is faulty, however, his past findings should be reviewed. If his science and procedures have been good so far he has little to fear. I don't think a review is necessarily an "intimidation campaign." It could also be noted that the names of the Chauvin trial jurors had to be sealed because of violent threats against them.

 

Sorry, chica, but I don't agree with this at all. It's no answer to say, "if his science and procedures have been good so far he has little to fear," any more than it would be appropriate to respond to police indiscriminately searching homes with, in essence, "if you haven't done anything wrong you'll be fine." In both cases, it is the impropriety of the process that is the problem. Dr. Fowler testified in favor of an unpopular defendant. The state could, and did, cross examine him at trial to show why the jury should not be swayed by his opinion based on his review of the facts. That's the appropriate response. Punishing people for participating in a criminal trial on behalf of an unpopular defendant is really, really bad for society, and people should think twice about just shrugging their shoulders about that.

 

I don't disagree with you. I would like to see an actual news article about what is happening with Dr. Fowler, as the National Review is an opinion source rather than a news source.

 

Ok, here s one. https://www.foxnews....y Apparently at least one other Chief Medical Examiner considers that "Fowler’s conclusions were so far outside the bounds of accepted forensic practice that all his previous work could come into question." Death rulings are reexamined in our system, just as trial verdicts are appealed. The dude knows it's part of the territory, especially when you are a hired gun in a trial. I object less to his findings than I do to the hysteria of the National Review. ;) ;)

Your link doesn't work.

[blueschica]

https://www.national...ation-campaign/

 

Everyone ok with this because the outcome we wanted occurred?

 

National Review positions itself as providing commentary, rather than being a "news source", so it's hard to tell from the article if this is justified. If his science is faulty, however, his past findings should be reviewed. If his science and procedures have been good so far he has little to fear. I don't think a review is necessarily an "intimidation campaign." It could also be noted that the names of the Chauvin trial jurors had to be sealed because of violent threats against them.

 

Sorry, chica, but I don't agree with this at all. It's no answer to say, "if his science and procedures have been good so far he has little to fear," any more than it would be appropriate to respond to police indiscriminately searching homes with, in essence, "if you haven't done anything wrong you'll be fine." In both cases, it is the impropriety of the process that is the problem. Dr. Fowler testified in favor of an unpopular defendant. The state could, and did, cross examine him at trial to show why the jury should not be swayed by his opinion based on his review of the facts. That's the appropriate response. Punishing people for participating in a criminal trial on behalf of an unpopular defendant is really, really bad for society, and people should think twice about just shrugging their shoulders about that.

 

I don't disagree with you. I would like to see an actual news article about what is happening with Dr. Fowler, as the National Review is an opinion source rather than a news source.

 

Ok, here s one. https://www.foxnews....xnews....y Apparently at least one other Chief Medical Examiner considers that "Fowler’s conclusions were so far outside the bounds of accepted forensic practice that all his previous work could come into question." Death rulings are reexamined in our system, just as trial verdicts are appealed. The dude knows it's part of the territory, especially when you are a hired gun in a trial. I object less to his findings than I do to the hysteria of the National Review. ;) ;)

Your link doesn't work.

 

Sorry, fixed it. That is how everyone in my family knows it is me, sloppy fingers. Here ya go. https://www.foxnews....fense-testimony

Edited April 26, 2021 by blueschica

[laughedatbytime]

https://www.national...ation-campaign/

 

Everyone ok with this because the outcome we wanted occurred?

 

National Review positions itself as providing commentary, rather than being a "news source", so it's hard to tell from the article if this is justified. If his science is faulty, however, his past findings should be reviewed. If his science and procedures have been good so far he has little to fear. I don't think a review is necessarily an "intimidation campaign." It could also be noted that the names of the Chauvin trial jurors had to be sealed because of violent threats against them.

 

Sorry, chica, but I don't agree with this at all. It's no answer to say, "if his science and procedures have been good so far he has little to fear," any more than it would be appropriate to respond to police indiscriminately searching homes with, in essence, "if you haven't done anything wrong you'll be fine." In both cases, it is the impropriety of the process that is the problem. Dr. Fowler testified in favor of an unpopular defendant. The state could, and did, cross examine him at trial to show why the jury should not be swayed by his opinion based on his review of the facts. That's the appropriate response. Punishing people for participating in a criminal trial on behalf of an unpopular defendant is really, really bad for society, and people should think twice about just shrugging their shoulders about that.

 

I don't disagree with you. I would like to see an actual news article about what is happening with Dr. Fowler, as the National Review is an opinion source rather than a news source.

 

Ok, here s one. https://www.foxnews....xnews....y Apparently at least one other Chief Medical Examiner considers that "Fowler’s conclusions were so far outside the bounds of accepted forensic practice that all his previous work could come into question." Death rulings are reexamined in our system, just as trial verdicts are appealed. The dude knows it's part of the territory, especially when you are a hired gun in a trial. I object less to his findings than I do to the hysteria of the National Review. ;) ;)

Your link doesn't work.

 

Sorry, fixed it. That is how everyone in my family knows it is me, sloppy fingers. Here ya go. https://www.foxnews....fense-testimony

the reference you called out was actually part of the NR article..

 

It would be interesting to see the list of the other 430 signatories to the CME's letter referenced in both articles.

[laughedatbytime]

https://www.national...ation-campaign/

 

Everyone ok with this because the outcome we wanted occurred?

 

National Review positions itself as providing commentary, rather than being a "news source", so it's hard to tell from the article if this is justified. If his science is faulty, however, his past findings should be reviewed. If his science and procedures have been good so far he has little to fear. I don't think a review is necessarily an "intimidation campaign." It could also be noted that the names of the Chauvin trial jurors had to be sealed because of violent threats against them.

 

Sorry, chica, but I don't agree with this at all. It's no answer to say, "if his science and procedures have been good so far he has little to fear," any more than it would be appropriate to respond to police indiscriminately searching homes with, in essence, "if you haven't done anything wrong you'll be fine." In both cases, it is the impropriety of the process that is the problem. Dr. Fowler testified in favor of an unpopular defendant. The state could, and did, cross examine him at trial to show why the jury should not be swayed by his opinion based on his review of the facts. That's the appropriate response. Punishing people for participating in a criminal trial on behalf of an unpopular defendant is really, really bad for society, and people should think twice about just shrugging their shoulders about that.

 

I don't disagree with you. I would like to see an actual news article about what is happening with Dr. Fowler, as the National Review is an opinion source rather than a news source.

 

Ok, here s one. https://www.foxnews....xnews....y Apparently at least one other Chief Medical Examiner considers that "Fowler’s conclusions were so far outside the bounds of accepted forensic practice that all his previous work could come into question." Death rulings are reexamined in our system, just as trial verdicts are appealed. The dude knows it's part of the territory, especially when you are a hired gun in a trial. I object less to his findings than I do to the hysteria of the National Review. ;) ;)

Your link doesn't work.

 

Sorry, fixed it. That is how everyone in my family knows it is me, sloppy fingers. Here ya go. https://www.foxnews....fense-testimony

the reference you called out was actually part of the NR article..

 

It would be interesting to see the list of the other 430 signatories to the CME's letter referenced in both articles.

Couldn't find the signatories but I did find the letter, and it appears the agenda goes beyond Dr. Fowler.

 

https://assets.docum...s=1619210548232

Edited April 26, 2021 by laughedatbytime

[Rick N. Backer]

https://www.national...ation-campaign/

 

Everyone ok with this because the outcome we wanted occurred?

 

National Review positions itself as providing commentary, rather than being a "news source", so it's hard to tell from the article if this is justified. If his science is faulty, however, his past findings should be reviewed. If his science and procedures have been good so far he has little to fear. I don't think a review is necessarily an "intimidation campaign." It could also be noted that the names of the Chauvin trial jurors had to be sealed because of violent threats against them.

 

Sorry, chica, but I don't agree with this at all. It's no answer to say, "if his science and procedures have been good so far he has little to fear," any more than it would be appropriate to respond to police indiscriminately searching homes with, in essence, "if you haven't done anything wrong you'll be fine." In both cases, it is the impropriety of the process that is the problem. Dr. Fowler testified in favor of an unpopular defendant. The state could, and did, cross examine him at trial to show why the jury should not be swayed by his opinion based on his review of the facts. That's the appropriate response. Punishing people for participating in a criminal trial on behalf of an unpopular defendant is really, really bad for society, and people should think twice about just shrugging their shoulders about that.

 

I don't disagree with you. I would like to see an actual news article about what is happening with Dr. Fowler, as the National Review is an opinion source rather than a news source.

 

Ok, here s one. https://www.foxnews....fense-testimony

 

Apparently at least one other Chief Medical Examiner considers that "Fowler’s conclusions were so far outside the bounds of accepted forensic practice that all his previous work could come into question." Death rulings are reexamined in our system, just as trial verdicts are appealed. The dude knows it's part of the territory, especially when you are a hired gun in a trial. I object less to his findings than I do to the hysteria of the National Review. ;) ;)

 

True, National Review is an opinion journal, so when they tell you what conclusion should be drawn from a set of facts you should take their bias into consideration. I'm not aware of them having a reputation like 60 Minutes (for instance) for deceptively editing interviews. I would think they have their facts straight. People of good conscience can debate if their opinions are accurate.

 

Does it seem logical that Maryland's chief medical examiner for 17 years was an incompetent, and that never came out?

[Rhyta]

There was discussion when Dr. Fowler was chosen to testify of a previous case he was involved with (and being sued over) and raised questions on whether he was a good choice.

 

"Fowler's opinion that Floyd's death during police restraint should be classified as "undetermined" was outside the standard conventions for investigating and certifying in-custody deaths, the letter says, adding that it raises concerns about his previous handling of such cases...

"Our disagreement with Dr. Fowler is not a matter of opinion. Our disagreement with Dr. Fowler is a matter of ethics,"

 

"That case has to do with Fowler's handling of the medical records of Anton Black, a 19-year-old Black man who died in police custody in Maryland in 2018.

 

Maryland civil rights attorneys have said that video of the incident shows three white police officers and a white civilian chasing, Tasing and pinning Black face down on the ground until he eventually stopped breathing. Fowler ruled Black's death an accident and named his heart condition and bipolar disorder as contributing factors." https://www.npr.org/...ied-in-chauvin-

 

I don't recall any juror coming forward to say they were threatened, haven't heard anything about this. It was going to be a difficult verdict in any case, no one was going to be completely happy with the outcome. Now it is going to be weaponized for some to use it for ".." fill in the blank reasons.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Rhyta

[Rick N. Backer]

I had never heard of Anton Black. But it doesn't sound like a good faith argument can be made that case somehow justifies investigating Dr. Fowler for unethical conduct.

 

Greensboro Police Chief Mike Petyo provided a link Thursday night to The Baltimore Sun of police body-camera footage from the fatal encounter between police and 19-year-old Anton Black on Sept. 15.

 

The video shows Black being approached after a report of a kidnapping. Black had been with a 12-year-old child who relatives said was a close friend, part of the family and someone who was not in danger.

 

In the video, Greensboro Officer Thomas Webster IV tells Black to put his hands behind him, but he runs, fleeing along Route 313.

 

Webster states on the video that the teenager is suffering from a mental illness health disorder.

 

The officer and two others — members of nearby police departments, who happened to be near the scene — chase Black to his parents’ home in a trailer park, along with a passing motorcyclist who joined in, the video shows.

 

Black goes into a family member’s car parked outside the mobile home.

 

There, per the video, Webster smashes the car’s window with his baton and shocks Black with a Taser in an attempt to restrain him.

 

It appears the Taser may not have worked, and Black climbs out of the passenger side of the car.

 

Officers struggle with him as he tries to go up a ramp to his family’s home, forcing him to the ground, with one officer appearing to lie across him. The civilian who joined in the chase assists the officers in restraining Black.

 

His mother, Jennell Black, steps out the front door of her home to see her son pinned down by multiple police officers.

 

“Anton!” she screams.

 

There is a cacophony of voices: Police say he’s under arrest; Black tells his mother that he loves her; she yells, “Anton, stop, baby.”

 

“I had him evaluated and he got let go last week,” his mother says. An officer says, “It’s not good. They won’t hold them. He needs help.”

 

Officers put him in handcuffs and leg shackles, and Black quickly shows signs of medical distress.

 

His mother asks: “Is he breathing?” The video shows him slumped over and not moving.

 

Officers call for an ambulance and begin performing CPR, the video shows. They administer Narcan, which is used to block the effects of opioids. They say this is a mental health emergency. Some officers on the scene speculate aloud that Black is on drugs, though that was not substantiated in the autopsy.

 

As the video rolls, Black’s pregnant girlfriend can be seen in the front yard, illuminated by flashing police lights.

 

Eventually, his shackles are removed.

 

Black is carried into an ambulance. His mother asks if he started breathing again.

 

“Not yet,” someone says. “They’re still working on him.”

 

Webster makes a call to his chief: “We get him into custody and he goes out,” he says. “...It turned into a real show.”

 

Black was taken to Easton Memorial Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

 

An autopsy report prepared by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and released Wednesday to The Baltimore Sun deemed his death an “accident,” saying he suffered “sudden cardiac death” and it is likely that his struggle with law enforcement contributed. An underlying heart condition and a mental illness were factors in Black’s death, according to the report.

 

Attorneys for the family released a statement Thursday: “There was no good reason for these officers to inflict this degree of force on Anton Black, or even to arrest him.

 

“There was no reason to tase him. There was no reason for the officer to tackle him, restrain him and shackle him. There was no reason to inflict 43 blunt trauma wounds on Anton Black,” the statement said. “There was no reason for Anton Black to die.”

 

A lawyer for the family, Timothy F. Maloney, said they would ask the Department of Justice’s civil rights division to review Black’s death.

 

But Thursday evening, Caroline County State’s Attorney Joseph Riley said that there was insufficient evidence to indict or present the case to a grand jury.

 

“I have an ethical obligation to only put cases in front of the grand jury that I believe are supported by probable cause,” Riley told The Sun. “It would be unethical of me to put a case in front of the grand jury without probable cause, believing that they would not return [an] indictment simply to remove pressure on myself or this office.”

 

https://www.capitalg...0124-story.html

[Rhyta]

"That case has to do with Fowler's handling of the medical records of Anton Black, a 19-year-old Black man who died in police custody in Maryland in 2018. " It is about Fowler's conduct in the case, not the officers. His judgement is in question, just as in his testimony in the Floyd case. He is stating Black died due to his heart condition and being bipolar. He overlooked Black's 43 blunt trauma wounds and (held down in a similar manner as Floyd) being asphyxiated.

[Rick N. Backer]

"That case has to do with Fowler's handling of the medical records of Anton Black, a 19-year-old Black man who died in police custody in Maryland in 2018. " It is about Fowler's conduct in the case, not the officers. His judgement is in question, just as in his testimony in the Floyd case. He is stating Black died due to his heart condition and being bipolar. He overlooked Black's 43 blunt trauma wounds and (held down in a similar manner as Floyd) being asphyxiated.

 

Funny that in his 17 years as chief medical examiner of the state of Maryland questions about his ethics (which is what is being questioned) didn't come up.

 

Like I said, people are free to shrug their shoulders about SJWs retaliating against people who testify for unpopular defendants. If you've never seen the state mobilize it's powers against a criminal defendant you may not fully understand what that will mean in the long run. Or what it meant in the not too distant past.

[Fordgalaxy]

"That case has to do with Fowler's handling of the medical records of Anton Black, a 19-year-old Black man who died in police custody in Maryland in 2018. " It is about Fowler's conduct in the case, not the officers. His judgement is in question, just as in his testimony in the Floyd case. He is stating Black died due to his heart condition and being bipolar. He overlooked Black's 43 blunt trauma wounds and (held down in a similar manner as Floyd) being asphyxiated.

 

Funny that in his 17 years as chief medical examiner of the state of Maryland questions about his ethics (which is what is being questioned) didn't come up.

 

Like I said, people are free to shrug their shoulders about SJWs retaliating against people who testify for unpopular defendants. If you've never seen the state mobilize it's powers against a criminal defendant you may not fully understand what that will mean in the long run. Or what it meant in the not too distant past.

 

"Mobilize it's powers". You can sure tell what side of that fence you're on.

[Rick N. Backer]

"That case has to do with Fowler's handling of the medical records of Anton Black, a 19-year-old Black man who died in police custody in Maryland in 2018. " It is about Fowler's conduct in the case, not the officers. His judgement is in question, just as in his testimony in the Floyd case. He is stating Black died due to his heart condition and being bipolar. He overlooked Black's 43 blunt trauma wounds and (held down in a similar manner as Floyd) being asphyxiated.

 

Funny that in his 17 years as chief medical examiner of the state of Maryland questions about his ethics (which is what is being questioned) didn't come up.

 

Like I said, people are free to shrug their shoulders about SJWs retaliating against people who testify for unpopular defendants. If you've never seen the state mobilize it's powers against a criminal defendant you may not fully understand what that will mean in the long run. Or what it meant in the not too distant past.

 

"Mobilize it's powers". You can sure tell what side of that fence you're on.

 

You can? Have you ever participated in a criminal investigation or prosecution in any capacity that would allow you to see the state prepare its case?

[Fordgalaxy]

"That case has to do with Fowler's handling of the medical records of Anton Black, a 19-year-old Black man who died in police custody in Maryland in 2018. " It is about Fowler's conduct in the case, not the officers. His judgement is in question, just as in his testimony in the Floyd case. He is stating Black died due to his heart condition and being bipolar. He overlooked Black's 43 blunt trauma wounds and (held down in a similar manner as Floyd) being asphyxiated.

 

Funny that in his 17 years as chief medical examiner of the state of Maryland questions about his ethics (which is what is being questioned) didn't come up.

 

Like I said, people are free to shrug their shoulders about SJWs retaliating against people who testify for unpopular defendants. If you've never seen the state mobilize it's powers against a criminal defendant you may not fully understand what that will mean in the long run. Or what it meant in the not too distant past.

 

"Mobilize it's powers". You can sure tell what side of that fence you're on.

 

You can? Have you ever participated in a criminal investigation or prosecution in any capacity that would allow you to see the state prepare its case?

 

No. That post, along with some others you've made, make it pretty clear to me that you're no friend of "the State".

[Rick N. Backer]

"That case has to do with Fowler's handling of the medical records of Anton Black, a 19-year-old Black man who died in police custody in Maryland in 2018. " It is about Fowler's conduct in the case, not the officers. His judgement is in question, just as in his testimony in the Floyd case. He is stating Black died due to his heart condition and being bipolar. He overlooked Black's 43 blunt trauma wounds and (held down in a similar manner as Floyd) being asphyxiated.

 

Funny that in his 17 years as chief medical examiner of the state of Maryland questions about his ethics (which is what is being questioned) didn't come up.

 

Like I said, people are free to shrug their shoulders about SJWs retaliating against people who testify for unpopular defendants. If you've never seen the state mobilize it's powers against a criminal defendant you may not fully understand what that will mean in the long run. Or what it meant in the not too distant past.

 

"Mobilize it's powers". You can sure tell what side of that fence you're on.

 

You can? Have you ever participated in a criminal investigation or prosecution in any capacity that would allow you to see the state prepare its case?

 

No. That post, along with some others you've made, make it pretty clear to me that you're no friend of "the State".

 

Then I misspoke. You were right.

[laughedatbytime]

"That case has to do with Fowler's handling of the medical records of Anton Black, a 19-year-old Black man who died in police custody in Maryland in 2018. " It is about Fowler's conduct in the case, not the officers. His judgement is in question, just as in his testimony in the Floyd case. He is stating Black died due to his heart condition and being bipolar. He overlooked Black's 43 blunt trauma wounds and (held down in a similar manner as Floyd) being asphyxiated.

 

Funny that in his 17 years as chief medical examiner of the state of Maryland questions about his ethics (which is what is being questioned) didn't come up.

 

Like I said, people are free to shrug their shoulders about SJWs retaliating against people who testify for unpopular defendants. If you've never seen the state mobilize it's powers against a criminal defendant you may not fully understand what that will mean in the long run. Or what it meant in the not too distant past.

 

"Mobilize it's powers". You can sure tell what side of that fence you're on.

 

You can? Have you ever participated in a criminal investigation or prosecution in any capacity that would allow you to see the state prepare its case?

 

No. That post, along with some others you've made, make it pretty clear to me that you're no friend of "the State".

 

Then I misspoke. You were right.

You probably believe in a right to a fair trial or something like that, too, teatard.

[Rick N. Backer]

"That case has to do with Fowler's handling of the medical records of Anton Black, a 19-year-old Black man who died in police custody in Maryland in 2018. " It is about Fowler's conduct in the case, not the officers. His judgement is in question, just as in his testimony in the Floyd case. He is stating Black died due to his heart condition and being bipolar. He overlooked Black's 43 blunt trauma wounds and (held down in a similar manner as Floyd) being asphyxiated.

 

Funny that in his 17 years as chief medical examiner of the state of Maryland questions about his ethics (which is what is being questioned) didn't come up.

 

Like I said, people are free to shrug their shoulders about SJWs retaliating against people who testify for unpopular defendants. If you've never seen the state mobilize it's powers against a criminal defendant you may not fully understand what that will mean in the long run. Or what it meant in the not too distant past.

 

"Mobilize it's powers". You can sure tell what side of that fence you're on.

 

You can? Have you ever participated in a criminal investigation or prosecution in any capacity that would allow you to see the state prepare its case?

 

No. That post, along with some others you've made, make it pretty clear to me that you're no friend of "the State".

 

Then I misspoke. You were right.

You probably believe in a right to a fair trial or something like that, too, teatard.

 

In the Chauvin case, the state's "star" witness volunteered his time. People should be concerned about that. The state doesn't need people to help it win criminal cases for free.

[Fordgalaxy]

"That case has to do with Fowler's handling of the medical records of Anton Black, a 19-year-old Black man who died in police custody in Maryland in 2018. " It is about Fowler's conduct in the case, not the officers. His judgement is in question, just as in his testimony in the Floyd case. He is stating Black died due to his heart condition and being bipolar. He overlooked Black's 43 blunt trauma wounds and (held down in a similar manner as Floyd) being asphyxiated.

 

Funny that in his 17 years as chief medical examiner of the state of Maryland questions about his ethics (which is what is being questioned) didn't come up.

 

Like I said, people are free to shrug their shoulders about SJWs retaliating against people who testify for unpopular defendants. If you've never seen the state mobilize it's powers against a criminal defendant you may not fully understand what that will mean in the long run. Or what it meant in the not too distant past.

 

"Mobilize it's powers". You can sure tell what side of that fence you're on.

 

You can? Have you ever participated in a criminal investigation or prosecution in any capacity that would allow you to see the state prepare its case?

 

No. That post, along with some others you've made, make it pretty clear to me that you're no friend of "the State".

 

Then I misspoke. You were right.

You probably believe in a right to a fair trial or something like that, too, teatard.

 

In the Chauvin case, the state's "star" witness volunteered his time. People should be concerned about that. The state doesn't need people to help it win criminal cases for free.

 

Who was that? Also, are witnesses typically paid?

 

Also, again, don't lawyers sometimes work pro bono?

[Rick N. Backer]

"That case has to do with Fowler's handling of the medical records of Anton Black, a 19-year-old Black man who died in police custody in Maryland in 2018. " It is about Fowler's conduct in the case, not the officers. His judgement is in question, just as in his testimony in the Floyd case. He is stating Black died due to his heart condition and being bipolar. He overlooked Black's 43 blunt trauma wounds and (held down in a similar manner as Floyd) being asphyxiated.

 

Funny that in his 17 years as chief medical examiner of the state of Maryland questions about his ethics (which is what is being questioned) didn't come up.

 

Like I said, people are free to shrug their shoulders about SJWs retaliating against people who testify for unpopular defendants. If you've never seen the state mobilize it's powers against a criminal defendant you may not fully understand what that will mean in the long run. Or what it meant in the not too distant past.

 

"Mobilize it's powers". You can sure tell what side of that fence you're on.

 

You can? Have you ever participated in a criminal investigation or prosecution in any capacity that would allow you to see the state prepare its case?

 

No. That post, along with some others you've made, make it pretty clear to me that you're no friend of "the State".

 

Then I misspoke. You were right.

You probably believe in a right to a fair trial or something like that, too, teatard.

 

In the Chauvin case, the state's "star" witness volunteered his time. People should be concerned about that. The state doesn't need people to help it win criminal cases for free.

 

Who was that? Also, are witnesses typically paid?

 

Also, again, don't lawyers sometimes work pro bono?

 

Dr. Tobin. Expert witnesses are always paid for their review and their court time, unless they are a government employee (e.g., medical examiner, fire cause and origin analyst) who is being paid to do state investigations and testify in court. Dr. Tobin volunteered.

 

Lawyers do pro bono work for indigent people who couldn't otherwise afford to pay them. Minnesota a) had its own doctors who could testify about how Floyd died, and b) has enough money to pay Tobin.

 

It's an extremely unhealthy relationship if you look beyond whether Chauvin should have been hooked or not.