Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is the followup autopsy any more believable than the original?
It isn't. You can’t go around “coroner shopping”.
Baden always rules in favor of who’s paying him in cases like this its how it works.
If there was a 3rd autopsy by another party it would contradict the first 2. We all saw what likely killed him but that isn't going to render the upcoming toxicology reports null and void either.
If he can't breath...his wind pipe is closed....if his wind pipe is closed....he can't say "I can't breathe"
...if he's having heart problems...that makes you feel like you can't breathe...but you can still talk
This was the same stupid logic the cops used. Your windpipe doesn't need to be completely closed. If you can't get enough oxygen into your lungs, you will eventually pass unconscious. When he passed unconscious, his chest could no longer make the effort to breath due to 3 officers on top of him, and he died.
Independent autopsy finds asphyxiation caused Floyd’s death. And your initial one didn’t, why not? Which one is the “more correct” one? Nobody believes the first one because we all saw the video. Why would anyone trust the authorities because they always try to cover up everything for upper levels. Their is no faith in how the prosecution handles things.
Because you don't ask the police to police themselves. You get an independent autopsy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheepie2000
Because it was done by the former Chief Medical Examiner of NYC.
Neither response answers my question. Certainly it's reasonable enough to suspect the original autopsy may have been biased towards a particular outcome, but why would one believe that the 'independent' autopsy wasn't any less biased towards the opposite outcome. After all it's only 'independent' with respect to the fact that it's not tied to an agency, however, it's an autopsy that was initiated by a group that has skin in the game which makes it sound very far from 'independent' to me.
A cynical person could ask the question 'if you thought the outcome of the initial autopsy was going to be exactly what it was, did you honestly think the outcome of the second family ordered autopsy would also be any different than what it ended up being?'
First autopsy had plenty of wiggle room for reexamination. The second one probably is more accurate. Anyway, plenty of heart patients couldn't take a knee to the neck. I agree with not overcharging the cop though, you definitely want a conviction.
Neither response answers my question. Certainly it's reasonable enough to suspect the original autopsy may have been biased towards a particular outcome, but why would one believe that the 'independent' autopsy wasn't any less biased towards the opposite outcome. After all it's only 'independent' with respect to the fact that it's not tied to an agency, however, it's an autopsy that was initiated by a group that has skin in the game which makes it sound very far from 'independent' to me.
A cynical person could ask the question 'if you thought the outcome of the initial autopsy was going to be exactly what it was, did you honestly think the outcome of the second family ordered autopsy would also be any different than what it ended up being?'
The confirmation bias is strong in this thread.
Actually, either autopsy is sufficient. Whether he had underlying conditions or not, the fact remains he would most likely still be alive had his neck not been under a cop's boot for 8-9 minutes or longer. The man was handcuffed. He couldn't breathe. The cop killed him, viciously and barbarically, in cold blood. No other way to spin it. It's like if I had cancer and was killed in a car wreck. What killed me, the cancer or car wreck?
Baden is a celebrity coroner who is a little past his prime at 85. I have no problem with older folks, my grandfather is about the same age, but I wouldn’t want him in charge of an autopsy report. People pay Baden to say what they want. He also ruled Epstein’s death a homicide. An independent autopsy should have been performed, not one funded by the family’s laywer who’s counting on a multi-million dollar payout.
First autopsy had plenty of wiggle room for reexamination. The second one probably is more accurate. Anyway, plenty of heart patients couldn't take a knee to the neck. I agree with not overcharging the cop though, you definitely want a conviction.
Overcharging? The cop had a hand-cuffed man on the ground with his boot on his neck for almost ten minutes. At the first sign the man couldn't breathe, he should have gotten him up. Overcharge? There is nothing they could charge him with that would be an overcharge.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
