Messages de ProjectA

Le 09 juillet 2021 à 14:26:00 :
Meilleur son de l'été 2021 en tout ça c'est sûr

c'est indéniable

Le 09 juillet 2021 à 14:27:22 :
J’ai fait 8 ans d’études littéraires et je peux affirmer que Victor Hugo n’a jamais rien écrit d’aussi fort

merci de confirmer

Le 09 juillet 2021 à 14:25:26 :
Go - 15 les cassos

j'ai lâge d'être ton daron c'est juste que tu pipes rien au rap

Le 09 juillet 2021 à 14:22:23 :
Même les sardines c'est mieuxhttps://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2021/18/7/1620572127-jesus-barbe-serein.png

non khey

Le 09 juillet 2021 à 14:21:39 :
Malaise les 2 cassos du topic

toi soit t'écoutes du metal soit t'écoutes des rappeurs fatigués comme Dinos

Le 09 juillet 2021 à 14:14:48 :
Amplement

merci

Throughout the first phases of the Derek Chauvin murder trial, the defense attorney Eric Nelson has made passing reference to the term “excited delirium” as he attempts to build a case for his client.

Nelson referenced the phrase during opening arguments, has asked a number of witnesses about the term and may well explore it when the defense gets to present its case.

But “excited delirium” is a controversial and disputed expression often used in fatal cases of police violence. While certain medical bodies and experts recognize the term, many others do not, and there is no universally accepted definition of what it constitutes. Others have argued the phrase carries racial biases and is often used to justify lethal use of force by police, disproportionately against Black men.

Broadly, the term has been used to describe individuals who become agitated or distressed after using drugs or during a mental health episode. In some instances, those described as experiencing “excited delirium” are perceived to exhibit higher pain thresholds and unusual levels of strength. The term is not recognized by the World Health Organization, the American Psychiatric Association or the American Medical Association

In a statement clarifying its position on the term last year, the American Psychiatric Association said: “The concept of ‘excited delirium’ … has been invoked in a number of cases to explain or justify injury or death to individuals in police custody, and the term excited delirium is disproportionately applied to Black men in police custody.”

In its reasoning for rejecting the phrase, the association added: “The term ‘excited delirium’ (ExDs) is too non-specific to meaningfully describe and convey information about a person. ‘Excited delirium’ should not be used until a clear set of diagnostic criteria are validated.”

The term has, however, been recognized by the National Association of Medical Examiners.

Despite this lack of consensus and accepted evidence, police departments around the country, including in Minneapolis, have trained their officers to identify “excited delirium” as a potentially dangerous medical condition.

In one body-camera video shown to the jury during the murder trial of Derek Chauvin, one of the officers involved in the arrest can be heard stating he was “concerned about excited delirium or whatever”. Nonetheless, Chauvin continues to hold George Floyd in a knee to neck restraint that has been described as a direct violation of police department policy.

The phrase has been used in a number of highly controversial officer-involved deaths of Black Americans and has often been used to justify a decision not to criminally charge police

In 2015, after the in-custody death of unarmed Black woman Natasha McKenna, who was repeatedly Tased by detention deputies in Fairfax county, Virginia, a prosecuting attorney appeared to reference the term when he declined to charge any of the six officers involved. The medical examiner’s report had specifically listed the term as a cause of death.

Speaking to the Guardian as part of a sprawling investigation into fatal police force, McKenna’s family attorney said the decision was based on “junk science”.

There are no national statistics on the number of times the term has been used in official autopsies. But a 2015 Guardian investigation into in-custody deaths where officers deployed a Taser, the “non-lethal” electrical weapon used by many police departments around the country, found it used in at least five of the 49 in-custody Taser deaths that year.

During prosecution evidence on Monday, Dr Bradford Wankhede Langenfeld, the physician who tried to resuscitate George Floyd at the hospital and called his death, said he had considered the term as a contributing factor to Floyd’s death, but ultimately rejected it.

I’ve seen a lot of cases of mental health crises or drug use leading to severe agitated states,” he said. “That is almost always reported by paramedics, and so the absence of that information was telling.

The term is also not mentioned in the medical examiner’s report into Floyd's death .
According to the Brookings Institute, the phrase was first coined in 1985 by a forensic pathologist named Charles Wetli, to explain a series of deaths in cocaine users, many occurring in police custody

But the most extensive examination of cases involving “excited delirium” was published in 2020, which found that “excited delirium” was most often cited during forms of “aggressive restraint” by police.

Pointedly, the research concluded that there is “no evidence” that excited delirium can cause death “in the absence of restraint”.

Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman, will not face mortgage fraud charges in New
York, after the state’s highest court declined to revisit lower court decisions that barred prosecuting Manaforton double jeopardy ground.

The New York court of appeals decision last week closed the door on charges against Manafort in the matterand came less than two months after then-president Trump pardoned him in a similar federal case that had put him behind bars.

Manafort’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, said he was pleased with the ruling.

“This is a case that should never have been brought because the dismissed indictment is a clear violation of New York law,” Blanche said, echoing his stance since the state charges were brought in March 2019.

The decision of the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr, to charge Manafort was widely seen as a
hedge against the possibility Trump would pardon him for federal crimes. Trump’s pardon does not cover
state offenses.

Vance’s office declined to comment.

Manafort was convicted in federal court of tax and bank fraud charges involving allegations he misled the
US government about lucrative unregistered foreign lobbying work, money laundering, hid millions of
dollars from tax authorities and encouraged witnesses to lie on his behalf.Manafort was sentenced to seven
and a half years in prison in March 2019. He worked for Trump’s election campaign for five months in 2016,
including as campaign chair.

Less than a year into his nearly seven-and-a-half-year sentence, he was released to home confinement in May because of concerns about the coronavirus. Lawyers for Manafort, who is serving a seven-year sentence for charges that emerged from special counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016
election, had argued their client was at high risk from the coronavirus due to his age and underlying health
issues.

Trump pardoned him just before Christmas.

Vance, a Democrat, filed the state charges minutes after Manafort’s sentencing in the federal case. The
Manhattan case alleged Manafort gave false and misleading information in applying for residential mortgage loans from 2015 to 2017; he was also charged with falsifying business records and conspiracy.

Manafort’s lawyer quickly raised the double jeopardy claim, saying the New York case was essentially a
copy of the federal one.

Vance’s office contended its case was exempt from state double jeopardy protections because the charges
involved different aspects of some of the offenses covered in the federal case.

A trial court judge, and then an intermediate appeals court, disagreed.
Vance’s office appealed to the state’s highest court, the court of appeals, in November.

The state’s chief judge, Janet DiFiore, took on the matter herself and issued a one-page decision denying
Vance’s office an opportunity to pursue its appeal further, effectively ending the case.
The New York Times was first to report the news of DiFiore’s decision.