It seems you're not man enough to defend your own mistakes instead of depending on someone else to do it for you, and that's of no surprise to anyone. Simple as that. But I'll post it again just to be as fair as possible.

But to be very clear, I don't care if you respond or not. You were simply wrong as anyone can see below. The only question to be answered is if you are honest enough to admit to it. Yet even at that, this is a public forum, and you can post as you please. It's completely up to you.

Then why is it you were so certain of this? "Not a single witness testified that Floyd likely would have survived if not for several underlying med conditions. NOT ONE! You're making this up out of whole cloth." How is it you were totally unaware that, as CNN reported, "Maryland's former chief medical examiner testified for Derek Chauvin's defense on Wednesday that George Floyd died due to his underlying heart disease -- not the police restraint." How did you manage to not know that, having watched it everyday as you claim to have done?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Oh please. His rhetoric was no more aggressive than MW's. In fact, hers was moreso, or at least I think it was.

---

One of the more absurd posts here. Comparing Maxine Waters as worse that Trump rhetoric. I repeat - You are semi-literate and cannot process language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

"if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore."

Sounds a lot like this, doesn't it? "“They’re not going to be able to go to a restaurant, they’re not going to be able to stop at a gas station, they’re not going to be able to shop at a department store,” Waters said. “The people are going to turn on them, they’re going to protest, they’re going to absolutely harass them.”

---

Sounds like the world and times I grew up in. And unfortunately it's still true in too many places.

For your viewing pleasure -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

It seems you're not man enough to defend your own mistakes instead of depending on someone else to do it for you, and that's of no surprise to anyone. Simple as that. But I'll post it again just to be as fair as possible.

Then why is it you were so certain of this? "Not a single witness testified that Floyd likely would have survived if not for several underlying med conditions. NOT ONE! You're making this up out of whole cloth." How is it you were totally unaware that, as CNN reported, "Maryland's former chief medical examiner testified for Derek Chauvin's defense on Wednesday that George Floyd died due to his underlying heart disease -- not the police restraint." How did you manage to not know that, having watched it everyday as you claim to have done?

---

Dr. David Fowler, a former chief medical examiner of Maryland who has testified in numerous high-profile police use-of-force cases, told jurors that he believed Mr. Floyd died after a combination of factors — including pre-existing heart conditions, drug use and exposure to vehicle exhaust from the police cruiser that he was next to — caused his heart to stop.
“You put all of those together, it’s very difficult to say which of those is the most accurate,” he said, characterizing Mr. Floyd’s cause of death as “undetermined.”


Dr. Fowler’s testimony pointed to multiple possible causes of death other than Mr. Chauvin’s restraint: drug use, pre-existing heart conditions, even the exhaust from the vehicle that Mr. Floyd was pinned next to. Still, the prosecution came away with some victories, including that Dr. Fowler said sudden cardiac arrest is often reversible and that Mr. Floyd should have been given medical attention.


https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/clear.gif

Your contention was this. "Not a single witness testified that Floyd likely would have survived if not for several underlying med conditions. NOT ONE!"

That was incorrect as the testimony of a chief med examiner showed clearly. Was his conclusion correct? I don't know, but that's not the point. The issue is that your statement was flat wrong and you are too fearful to simply admit to it. Pitiful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Your contention was this. "Not a single witness testified that Floyd likely would have survived if not for several underlying med conditions. NOT ONE!"

---

Sometime this week, ask a 160-pound friend or neighbor to cuff your hands behind your back, toss you onto your concrete or asphalt driveway face down, and then kneel on the side of your neck for 9 minutes, 29 seconds. Then please report back to us.

Quote:

---

Sometime this week, ask a 160-pound friend or neighbor to cuff your hands behind your back, toss you onto your concrete or asphalt driveway face down, and then kneel on the side of your neck for 9 minutes, 29 seconds. Then please report back to us.

---

That has absolutely nothing to do with the mistake Athos made. He contended, "Not a single witness testified that Floyd likely would have survived if not for several underlying med conditions. NOT ONE!" That was incorrect as the testimony of a chief med examiner showed clearly. Was his conclusion correct? I don't know, but that's not the point. The issue is that Athos was wrong in what he said. He's not going to admit it, so we might as well just move on.

I really have no idea what point you are trying to make. I've already said I think DC could be found guilty of manslaughter and that his actions were wrong. What exactly are you after?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

That has absolutely nothing to do with the mistake Athos made.

---

Athos made a mistake???

Quote:

---

I really have no idea what point you are trying to make.

---

Just wondering if you'd survive what GF went through.

Quote:

---

Just wondering if you'd survive what FG went through.

---

It was GF, but I have no idea if I would, so if that's really the weak as water point you are trying to make, then mission accomplished.

I can say I would not have resisted arrest to begin with.

Quote:

---

Athos made a miistake???

---

I'll say one thing for you liberal dems. You stick together even when sticking together means accepting an outrageous, foolish premise. I would encourage you to accept a higher regard for truth.

Uh oh. Chauvin trial judge critical of Auntie Maxine. He clearly does not agree with the liberal dems on this board.

"Judge criticizes Waters for remarks during Chauvin trial"

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/image/...AASUVORK5CYII=Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill criticized Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) for her comments over the weekend regarding the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who's charged with the murder of George Floyd.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/{"defa...&y=374"}}© Greg Nash Judge criticizes Waters for remarks during Chauvin trial"I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function," Cahill said after the jury had been sequestered to begin deliberations on Monday.
"If they want to give their opinions they should do so ... in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution," Cahill continued.
The judge's comments came after Chauvin defense attorney Eric Nelson argued that Waters' comments could have prejudiced the jury and was grounds for a mistrial.

"We have U.S. representatives threatening acts of violence in relation to this specific case, it's mind boggling," Nelson said to Cahill.
Cahill denied Nelson's motion for a mistrial, but said that Waters' weekend remarks could give the defense "something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=uxbndlbing

The jury is not sequestered, so her incendiary remarks could well result in a mistrial. Perhaps it would teach her to control her mouth. And yes, that is a lesson Trump needs to learn as well. No doubt about it.

@JL

How convenient to hide behind the idiocy of your own flaws by ignoring me. Cool, your call, but don't think you can ignore verified facts and make wild statements. For example it takes less than a minute to choke someone into unconsciousness. After that the risk of death or permanent brain damages increase exponentially every MINUTE. Maybe you don't know if you would survive 9 minutes of a knee to the neck while hands cuffed behind your back with 2 other dudes on your back while prone on the ground but I do. YOU'D BE DEAD FOR FACT!

GF didn't resist arrest. He was distressed and said as much from the confines of the squad car and a few minutes to gather himself would probably have saved his life.

In addition consider the black experience in this country has made the words actions and behavior of some white people suspect and dangerous as well as frustrating when other white people just don't see that.

This means you JL, the self proclaimed Christian with no empathy or sympathy except for those you choose. Maybe that's the best you can do, and that's okay if it is...no big deal. I know where your head is at whether you admit it or NOT!

I completely understand your dilemma, but can't help someone who doesn't want it. Please reconsider as it only takes grabbing your ankles and tugging mightily, and freeing you from the dark abyss you are stuck in and freeing you to the reality of fresh air and cleansing sunlight.

DISCLAIMER; No sexual context intended nor should be construed!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Your contention was this. "Not a single witness testified that Floyd likely would have survived if not for several underlying med conditions. NOT ONE!"

That was incorrect as the testimony of a chief med examiner showed clearly. Was his conclusion correct? I don't know, but that's not the point. The issue is that your statement was flat wrong and you are too fearful to simply admit to it. Pitiful.

---

I should have said not a single CREDIBLE witness testified that Floyd could have survived. Fowler was a mess testifying.

He had zero credibility. Considering the causes of death, he ultimately concluded they were “undetermined”, NOT homicide!! He claimed Chauvin leaning on Floyd was NOT the cause of death.

The possibilities he listed were drugs, cardiac arrest, heart problems, even the exhaust from the car. Under cross, Fowler admitted he had not seen any data re carbon monoxide poisoning from the vehicle exhaust. Apparently, he just made that up.

Credible witnesses demolished his bizarre testimony.

Also of note is Fowler's work as a medical examiner in Baltimore. He is either racist or incompetent. His Baltimore experiences as medical examiner were off limits in the Chauvin trial. Fowler is currently named in a lawsuit brought by the family of a black man killed by police in Baltimore. Fowler is charged with complicity in that case as the medical examiner creating a false narrative and not calling the death a homicide. The case is eerily similar to the George Floyd murder.

https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2021/04/14/dr-david-fowler-former-maryland-chief-medical-examiner-called-to-stand-for-defense-in-derek-chauvin-murder-trial/

Another link with Fowler's admissions under cross.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/14/derek-chauvin-trial/

Mr. Nitpick, Jl, has freaked out calling me all sorts of names for not specifying “credible”. His specialty is finding errors in plain language that he does not comprehend. It's an ongoing issue with Mr. Nitpick and does not appear to be going away.

Quote:

---

I should have said not a single CREDIBLE witness testified that Floyd could have survived. Fowler was a mess testifying.

---

But you didn't. At least now you are approaching honesty, sadly accompanied by the usual whining, complaining, name calling, and griping. "Mr. Nitpick, Jl, has freaked out calling me all sorts of names for not specifying “credible”. His specialty is finding errors in plain language that he does not comprehend. It's an ongoing issue with Mr. Nitpick and does not appear to be going away." I have called you no names. I have not "freaked out". I did not even mention you not specifying credible, so those are all either errors or lies. Your pick.

Do you ever take responsibility for your actions? Why is it always someone else's fault? Well, I will be happy that you at least came near to honesty. It's progress. But still, your statement was VERY clear and VERY definite. "Not a single witness testified that Floyd likely would have survived if not for several underlying med conditions. NOT ONE!" And then you claimed that you knew the trial was fair because, after all, you had watched it EVERY DAY. Now you're mad because it has become clear you didn't know what you were talking about.

See why I have problems with believing you??? See??

Quote:

---

See why I have problems with believing you??? See??

---

Is that why you have problems

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

your statement was VERY clear and VERY definite. "Not a single witness testified that Floyd likely would have survived if not for several underlying med conditions. NOT ONE!"

---

Read my reply again re credible. If you needed that, you sure weren't watching the guy. But, in your case, I'll give you "credible" not being there. If only to calm you down.

Quote:

---

And then you claimed that you knew the trial was fair because, after all, you had watched it EVERY DAY.

---

Yup, you got that right. The trial has been eminently fair. Does that bother you?

Quote:

---

Now you're mad because it has become clear you didn't know what you were talking about.

---

Are you the same guy that just whined about insults and name-calling? You have a propensity to think anyone who challenges you is mad or angry or pitiful. See WG. She tries to engage with you and all you do in return is cast nastiness her way.

Quote:

---

See why I have problems with believing you?

---

Oh, I know all too well why you have problems believing me (and others). Simple. It's because you don't like to be contradicted. It bruises your vanity.

Contradicted? Your latest post had at least three lies. Remember? " I have called you no names. I have not "freaked out". I did not even mention you not specifying credible, so those are all either errors or lies. Your pick."

Try that "contradiction" on for size.

This is so funny. You made an incorrect statement. Rather than simply admit it, you have gone on a journey to rival the one Columbus made. You even wanted Tal to answer for you! And all because you couldn't bring yourself to admit the blindingly obvious. Well, at least you made a correction of sorts, so that's something to be thankful for. Why you simply couldn't have done that from the beginning I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Contradicted? Your latest post had at least three lies. Remember? " I have called you no names. I have not "freaked out". I did not even mention you not specifying credible, so those are all either errors or lies. Your pick."

---

Nonsense. You're hardly the one to criticize others. Get a grip. Your blood pressure is rising.

Quote:

---

Try that "contradiction" on for size.

---

I would if I knew what you meant.

Quote:

---

This is so funny. You made an incorrect statement. Rather than simply admit it, you have gone on a journey to rival the one Columbus made.

---

You can't give it up, can you? Btw, that Columbus business is quite a stretch - very lame. Clever writing is not your forte.

Quote:

---

you made a correction of sorts, so that's something to be thankful for.

---

I have dedicated my life for you to be thankful.

give up now and see a reduction in BP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

give up now and see a reduction in BP

---

From your fingers to Jl's ears!

You lied again. You were caught again. You're mad again. Simple truth.

As Lincoln once said, "If you're going to lie, you need to have a good memory." You really should stop. You're not good at it.