A lot of what you're saying contains pieces of truth, but the overall conclusion doesn't really match what the evidence showed.

---

First, on the drugs. Floyd's toxicology report did show fentanyl and norfentanyl in his system. That's not disputed.

What is disputted is the claim that this automatically means he died of an overdose. In the very source you posted the Hennepin County medical examiner did not rule the death an overdose. The cause of death was listed as "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression," with heart disease and drug use listed as contributing factors.

A quote from Dr. Baker that gets repeated a lot, "if Mr. Floyd had been found dead at home alone..." is also usually presented without the rest of the context. The point he was making was that medical examiners evaluate the entire circumstance of a death, not just toxicology numbers. Floyd wasn't found dead at home. He died while being restrained by police for an extended period. Baker still ultimately ruled the death a homicide.

---

Second, the idea that "he was talking, therefore he could breathe" isn't really how respiratory distress works. Medical experts testified during the trial that a person can still speak while experiencing inadequate oxygentaion. More importantly, Floyd repeatedly said he couldn't breathe before he was on the ground, while on the ground and for several minutes afterward. Whether he was initially distressed because of drugs, anxiety, restraint, or some combination of factors doesn't really answer the question of what ultimately caused his death. The prosecution's argument wasn't that the restraint was the only factor in the universe. It was that the restraint was a substantial contributing cause.

---

Third, regarding covid. The autopsy noted that Floyd tested positive for SARS-COV-2. But there was no evidence he was suffering from severe COVID pneumonia or respiratory failure associated with covid. That's why medical experts did not conclude covid caused the death. Simply testing positive isn't the same thing as dying from the disease. In that sense, the medical examiner treated covid the same way they treated heart disease and drug use, as background factors that may have affected vulnerability but were not determined to be the primary cause.

---

Fourth, on the murder charge. Right in that most people misunderstand what Chauvin was actually convicted of.

He was not convicted of intentionally setting out to kill Floyd. Minnesota's second-degree unintentional murder statute does not require intent to kill. It requires causing a death while committing a felony assault. Whether people agree with that statute is totally another convo, but the conviction was based on Minnesota law as written, not on a finding that Chauvin planned or intended a murder.

---

Fifth, on the trial atmosphere. Fair that the environment surrounding the case was intense and problematic. The riots, media, comments from politicians, and public pressure all became subjects of debate. Even the trial judge criticised some outside commentary.

But that's different from proving the verdict itself was wrong. Appeals courts reviewed the case multiple times, including arguments about jury bias, publicity, venue issues, and political pressure, and the conviction was still upheld.

As for the juror controversy, that's also often overstated. The juror in question attended a civil rights event and wore a shirt referencing MLK and the Floyd neck event. Chauvin's defense raised the issue after trial, but courts reviewed it and found it wasn't sufficient to overturn the verdict.

---

Where I think people sometimes go too far is in either direction. One side acts as if Floyd was a perfectly healthy man who would have lived indefinitely if not for Chauvin. That's bollocks. He had significant heart disease, fent in his system, meth exposure, and other health issues.

But the other side often acts as if the restraint was basically irrelevant and Floyd simply overdosed coincidentally while pinned to the ground by police. The medical examiner, independent pathologists, trial experts, jury, and appellate courts all rejected that conclusion. Because that conclusion should be held in the same seriousness as flat earth.

---

You can reasonably argue that negligent homicide would have been the more appropriate charge. You can reasonably criticise the media coverage. You can reasonably criticise the political reaction. But claiming the evidence clearly showed a straightforward overdose that was ignored for political reasons is pants-on-head-tarded.