Go to jail, do not pass go. We are back to square one.
NO! The doctor did NOT testify to that! He said that RENAL FAILURE was life-threatening, not OADs injury.
Please READ the testimony, and read my post! Under your definition, an untreated hangnail could be life-threatening as it might lead to a tear in the skin, and then an infection, which spreads to the (insert organ here) .... etc.
His injuries were serious--but NOT life-threatening.
Good Post CCG.
If I cut your throat, I guess you'd say that the injury wasn't life-threatening, since the cut wasn't going to kill you, it was all the blood that was going to pour out of the artery once it was cut. The cut itself is a trivial thing easily fixed.
I can't believe I have to actually explain this to you. The doctor testified that, without treatment, the bullet injury would lead to renal failure, which if not treated would kill the patient. If not treated, the death would be the result of the shooting injury, and a if the shooting was found to be unjustified, the person who shot the victim would be charged with murder.
Cause and Effect. You do know the bullet rarely kills anybody, it's the resulting damage which leads to death. Either bleeding out, or the failure of organs that are damaged by the bullet.
Next you'll say that a heart attack doesn't kill anybody, because it's not the heart not beating that kills them, it's the lack of oxygen to the brain. OR that if you jump off a building, that's not what killed you, it was the sidewalk you landed on.
The doctor testified that the injury, if not treated, could lead to renal failure, and thus the injury was life-threatening.
Your argument would almost be passable if renal failure wasn't the natural and expected result of the injury. Comparing the complete separation of the bladder from the urethra to a hangnail shows a profound misunderstanding of the seriousness of his injury.
Last point. My brother-in-law died of a tear in his colon. Well, according to you, he did NOT die of a tear in his colon. Because after his colon was torn, the fluids that leaked out infected his major organs, and they being poisoned shut down and he died.
So under your definition, the tear in his colon was 'serious, but not life-threatening'. Which of course is an assinine argument, one without merit.
So, in YOUR expert medical opinion, how long would Davila last with a separated bladder and no medical treatment? A week, a month, a year? IF you no longer could pee, would you consider that "serious, but not life-threatening"? Would you presume you could put off treatment for a couple of months since it's serious, but not "life-threatening"?
I would have stopped long ago, but given your statement I can't fathom what it will take for you to see how ignorant your statement was.
It is clear that you are not arguing for any purpose other than to be disagreeable. Just like others argued fruitlessly that Davila wasn't really injured.
Any thoughts on the over a million dollars Davila got for his testimony, according to post 7?
BTW< when the prosecuter at the trial tried to use a similar argument to yours in suggesting Davila could get an infection, the doctor’s response clearly put that in a secondary cause category, treating it entirely differently from the direct causal relationship between the shooting and renal failure if not treated.
IN case you are still going to make your lame argument. Read the testimony, it will become clear what the difference is.