Quote from: serveria.com on Today at 01:26:29 PM

Quote from: Arriemoller on Today at 10:56:34 AM

Quote from: JimboToronto on May 31, 2020, 11:46:43 PM

Quote from: Arriemoller on May 31, 2020, 09:09:01 PM

Quote from: JimboToronto on May 31, 2020, 08:30:15 PM

An autopsy report talks about "potential intoxicants"?

It's a preliminary report only, the final report is yet to come, presumably with a toxic report.

Quote from: Arriemoller on May 31, 2020, 06:40:03 PM

The coroners report is in, and he died from medical problems in conjunction with drugs, the cop did not kill him.

I see.

Ok Jimbo, let me refrase that.
The coroners preliminary report is in, and it seems like he died from medical problems in conjunction with possible drugs, the cop might not have killed him

Well, let me think: cops work for government and coroners work for government too... so what did you expect to find in that report? The truth? Grin

There is a pretty big fallacy if you try to equate all government agencies and also attempt to remove both individualism or levels of ability to exercise discretion both in the scope of the carrying out of government/job/professional duties and their individual discretion in that regard.

Of course, you can attempt to apply various amounts of game theory, group psychology, internal dynamics of any particular government agency, including attempting to determine which government agencies are at issue in the action (or lack of action or abuse of power/discretion that you are proclaiming to be at issue), yet in the end, you are likely to engage in vary sloppy thinking (even if you happen to get your conclusions right from time to time) if you lump all motivations in terms of government versus non-government.

Coroners are probably not too likely to be coerced or unduly influenced by other state actors such as policemen or prosecutors, but surely there could be some coincidental leanings of the Coroner in this case that favors police, etc. Sure, that is possible, and Coroners are people too and may even have some political biases and opinions that are less than objective.

In that regard, it seems that Floyd's family request to get an assessment from another coroner of their choosing could be of value to them and to the public, and surely the family (and even the public) should have the right to get such second opinion assessment in a case like this (and surely the family should be able to choose, too, because presumptively the family would choose a second opinion specialist (Coroner) that they believe to be sufficiently detached from local police or in other ways to be perceived as not biased in this case).

Furthermore, there might be a question of additional costs, so it may be reasonable for the family to have to bear such additional costs of getting such second opinion (to the extent that extra costs might be an issue), but costs should not be a reason for their not being able to get a second opinion in a case that seems to be so inflammatory as this, including the fact that the preliminary results seem to be contrary to what visually seemed to be more likely to have been happening.