George Floyd

[Kasandra]

There is a differential to be established about the duration during which someone may be emotionally distraught after being dumped. If it lasted a couple days, I doubt there would have been an issue, unless he simply had very lousy timing for a periodic psych eval that the department may or may perform.

Otherwise it suggests he was still being impacted by it weeks after the fact. That's not particularly normal when it comes to impacts with on the job performance.

Why hypothesize ways to excuse him?

If you think that's excusing him, you're reading it too quickly, and not comprehending enough. It was intended as a strong implication that the "emotionally unstable" entry was added because it impacted his work performance for a significant period of time. Granted, can't rule out the option that they were looking to terminate his employment for other reasons(provided in this thread already) and might have pounced on that as soon as it happened. But I have doubts that the previous department were being ###holes about that matter.

Not to be obstinate, but why hypothesize about aspects of his firing for which you have no information?  For all we know they might have decided he was completely deranged and got rid of him before he did something irredeemable like shoot a 12 year old kid.  Could be, at least hypothetically.  The only facts I've seen are that they decided he was unfit for duty.  That doesn't sound like the pain of separating.  Who knows?

[DonaldD]

It was intended as a strong implication that the "emotionally unstable" entry was added because it impacted his work performance for a significant period of time. Granted, can't rule out the option that they were looking to terminate his employment for other reasons(provided in this thread already) and might have pounced on that as soon as it happened. But I have doubts that the previous department were being ###holes about that matter.

Here is a reference to Loehmann's termination, and the reasons for it (yes, Wikipedia)

In a memo to Independence's human resources manager, released by the city in the aftermath of the shooting, Independence deputy police chief Jim Polak wrote that Loehmann had resigned rather than face certain termination due to the concern that he lacked the emotional stability to be a police officer. Polak said that Loehmann was unable to follow "basic functions as instructed" and specifically cited a "dangerous loss of composure" that occurred in a weapons training exercise. Polak said that Loehmann's weapons handling was "dismal" and he became visibly "distracted and weepy" as a result of relationship problems. The memo concluded, "Individually, these events would not be considered major situations, but when taken together they show a pattern of a lack of maturity, indiscretion and not following instructions, I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct these deficiencies.

Loehmann lied about his record at the Independence police force, but the Cleveland police force failed spectacularly in following up and reviewing Loehmann's record in Independence.

[wmLambert]

While he cites what clearly is a training deficiency being in play here.

There is no training deficiency in play here.  You're talking about training for police work, which has been ongoing for thousands of years.  You're talking about how to secure suspects which is something that every single police officer has been trained in.  You're talking about killing a man that didn't have to die with a technique that no one has ever been taught to apply in a police setting.

There is zero excuse for officers using techniques where death is a probable result, outside of life or death situations.  Knee on the back?  Could kill someone is a fluke situation.  Knee on the throat?  Will kill someone or potentially cause brain damage if misapplied.  Unless you're literally trying to make him unconscious - which again is using deadly force - why would anyone ever use this technique?

"Training" deficiency is an excuse and a lie to cover for acts that should always have been illegal.  If you want to say he was trained to do this, then I want charges against everyone that wrote that training, approved the use of that training and taught that training.   

Crunch, not sure about the local law, but normally 2nd degree charges require that you prove a specific intent to kill (or at least seriously harm) the person.  First degree also requires the same but that the intent be formed in advance.  So planning to murder someone in the future is first degree.  It's hard to prove that here, or in any case involving an arrest because there is a clear alternative of what the officer's goals could have been.

3rd degree is all that's left a prosecutor can't show the defendant intended to kill or seriously harm the person.  So for example if they were just reckless and disregarded the risk (like a drunk driver), or they were inflamed by serious provocation (like finding your spouse in bed with a lover).  This one though really varies tremendously based on the state in question.  It's entirely possible that this will end up in some  other type of charge.

I usually agree with your posts - but not this one. Chauvin was poorly trained, because he did what he did. If he was well trained - he wouldn't have acted like he did, especially with iPhone cameras pointed at him. Police training is usually put together by State Police Academies, and use the programs available to them. They do not just allow older officers to treat younger ones, because knowing how to do something does not translate into being able to teach it. Each Academy behaves like a local franchise, deciding what to do on a parochial basis: what works best for me. From personal experience putting together training programs in the Criminal Justice genré, I can assure you that much current training is not only patchy, but often completely wrong.

Did you know that individual citizens are told by police that they must protect themselves, because police cannot react in time to protect them? Police will come within 30 minutes to an hour and take notes, but by that time, any perpetrators are long gone. If they can catch them retroactively, they will certainly try, but most crimes go unsolved and criminals escape unprosecuted.

Chauvin appears to be a bad cop. He was certainly clueless about what he was doing. What is the best fix? To only crucify a cop who does wrong - or to be certain future wrongs are prevented?

The worst attorney from Podunk Lawyer School can get Chauvin off from Murder 1 or 2. He will go down for Murder 3, and maybe his whole crew will serve time.

One thing I think we all can see pretty clearly, is that looting and vandalism is the main goal for those doing it. Most don't even know George Floyd is the excuse for them to riot.

[Fenring]

Chauvin was poorly trained, because he did what he did. If he was well trained - he wouldn't have acted like he did

This is exactly what I said you were saying earlier, and I got pushback for saying it! This argument is that it is entirely the environment factor that shapes whether such things will happen or not. Well that's what I thought you were saying. All I was arguing earlier is that this type of argument can be expanded to encompass any area of life and is not only true (if it is true) for police training.

[LetterRip]

DonaldD,

he didn't lie, here is the exact text from his letter of resignation,

Please accept this letter as my official resignation as a patrolman for the City of Independence. I am resigning my commission for personal reasons at this time. Thank you for the opportunity and training I have received.

signed by both Loehmann and his Sergeant, and a note of acceptance by Chief Polak.

He did meet with Loehmann prior to that,

On 12/03/12, Ptl.Loehmann, Sgt.Tinnirello, Mr.Lubin, and I met. I advised him of my intent and reasons for it, and Ptl. Loehmann decided to resign instead for personal reasons. I accepted his written resignation.

here is a far more accurate picture of what went on from an officer who was his Sargent.

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2014/12/cleveland_police_officer_who_s.html

And here is his personnel file.  Memmorandum on page 56.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1374917-independence-timothy-loehmann-personnel-file.html

It is clear that he was miserable living in a small town and planned to move to a larger city immediately after graduating.  If you read the report, what the Chief found most disturbing was his lack of commitment to stay with the Independence Police department.

He keeps referring to being told to stay in Independence,although it appears he often thinks of going to NY,where his best friend lives, and he has opportunities to work for NYPD. He told me that he was called by NYPD,and although he declined their position,he was told he would be on their list for 2 more years. That theme was repeated many times by Ptl. Loehmann,even him stating,"I will work here as long:as possible;-and do-my best,but if I find I don't like it then I will go do something else.I found this lack of commitment to us, disturbing.

So no, I don't think it is fair to characterize what he put in his application as lying.  He had announced his intention to quit long beforehand.  The Chief didn't like his lack of commitment.  Also Loehmann was hired by the previous Chief, which probably didn't help.

It sounds like Loehmann had a bad week in the academy after a break up, and the worst day happened to be on a gun qualification day.  There is nothing to indicate he was any less mature than any other 22 year old I've met who has entered law enforcement.  I'd bet the vast majority of police have had times when they were emotionally distraught enough that they might fail to return to the firing line.  To me his failing to do so may imply good judgement (handling a gun during that time, unless you are in an emergency should be avoided).

There is nothing in his actions during the shooting that demonstrates a lack of judgement.  Under the exact same circumstances any other officer would have acted the same.  You can fault the judgement of the supervising officer in parking so close if he thought he might be an active shooter.  As I said, it was a violation of protocol.  You infer some sort of malicious forethough to it, but it may well have been merely habit.

It seems like you desperately need for there to be a villain, rather than a confluence of unfortunate events that appears to be what happened.

I've no idea why Tamir drew the replica gun - it could be he thought he might get in trouble for having it; it could be that he was thinking he was going to show them the cool gun, or a hundred other reasons that a 12 year old might think.

[wmLambert]

...I've read too many reports about no-knock raids gone terribly wrong, and seen to many videos of cops shooting fleeing people in the back, to think that this problem is just a result of misunderstanding. Explaining away a couple of the alleged instances is of course in the interest of truth. But in my view that doesn't particularly address the trend that I think is real.

There is a disparity on how cadets are trained from one Academy to another. Most do not get a full curriculum that covers what they need to know, and much is left to training officers in the field to spread experience. Some teach more law, and some teach more outcome-based action. IOW, one cadet is taught that all shooting must be to kill, because doing otherwise leaves incidents to be considered negligent homicide. Some cadets are taught the rudiments of self-protection and only returning fire if shot at. Both are basic tactics aimed at avoiding getting sued. A good training program will teach cadets must have sufficient hours of target shooting to prove ability to shoot safely, and to learn when. Unless the time and documentation is kept, any shooting is more risky, for the shooter and the shot. Same thing with kneeling on the neck of an arrestee. That is taught in advanced Martial Arts training - not from an academy. At CJI, we had our own Martial Arts training. The State Academy did not.

[TheDeamon]

Chauvin was poorly trained, because he did what he did. If he was well trained - he wouldn't have acted like he did

This is exactly what I said you were saying earlier, and I got pushback for saying it! This argument is that it is entirely the environment factor that shapes whether such things will happen or not. Well that's what I thought you were saying. All I was arguing earlier is that this type of argument can be expanded to encompass any area of life and is not only true (if it is true) for police training.

He went a bit further on that, if he was being properly trained, he either wouldn't have been doing what he did, or he would have no longer been employed by the police department. In any case, it does come down to a failure of the training program to identify and correct problems within the police force.

[DonaldD]

DonaldD,

he didn't lie, here is the exact text from his letter of resignation,

Please accept this letter as my official resignation as a patrolman for the City of Independence. I am resigning my commission for personal reasons at this time. Thank you for the opportunity and training I have received.

Look, whether he lied is not particularly important to the points that either of us were making, but yes, he did lie about why he left.  He resigned before he could be fired.  Here is the summary portion of the review, of which you curiously excerpted only the part about him being interested in going to New York, but left out the recommendation part:

For these reasons, I am recommending he [Loehmann] be released from the employment of the City of independence.  I do not believe time, not training, will be able to change or correct these deficiencies.

After reviewing the documents of this situation and discussing the events with the HR Dept., I decided to meet with Ptl. Loehmann to advise him I was beginning the disciplinary process of separation.

On 12/03/12, Ptl. Loehmann, Sgt. Tinnirello, Mr. Lubin, and I met. I advised him of my intent and reasons for it, and Ptl. Loehmann decided to resign instead for personal reasons.  I accepted his written resignation.

I will be forwarding this information to you for the Mayor's review.

Do you really believe that hiding knowledge of a performance review so negative that it was about to get one fired is being honest with one's prospective employer, especially when the performance review is material to the job being offered by the prospective employer?  I know you don't believe this.

[DonaldD]

He went a bit further on that, if he was being properly trained, he either wouldn't have been doing what he did, or he would have no longer been employed by the police department. In any case, it does come down to a failure of the training program to identify and correct problems within the police force.

The idea that someone who is correctly trained would a) never make a mistake or b) never choose to ignore one's training is just mind-boggling to me.  As is the idea that training deficiencies, if there were any, would be caught before one made a huge mistake. Or that somebody, once hired, could somehow be fired before making a mistake.

But as it is, the Columbus Police Force was in possession of his quite terrible evaluation from his previous job - they just seemingly chose to ignore it.

[Fenring]

I liked DonaldD's post because I agree with it, but I want to mention that despite it looking like I'm critiquing wmLambert's theory I was actually just trying to expand on it rather than alter it. It is not inherently objectionable to me to suggest that bad behavior in the field will be a result of bad training. In fact that can go nearly under "duh". And I also agree entirely with the premise that superior training would do away mostly with situations like this, even though on rare occasions I would expect a random unpredictable incident to occur - leading to a firing or prosecution. But where I disagree *entirely* is with wmLambert's apologist tone in regard to the general approach towards police training. It may be the case that there isn't enough training, but it is simply illogical and frankly nonsensical to argue that what we see is merely a result of insufficient training. It is obvious to an absurd degree that the training actively includes instruction that is essentially confrontational, that promotes escalation rather than de-escalation, which teaches many officers to view the public as their enemy, and which engenders a culture of corruption where 'everyone knows' that it's totally normal to plant pot in peoples' cars, to commit civil forfeiture on no real grounds (buying snowcone machines with the proceeds), to adopt aggressive and bully attitudes with people they stop, and to lie for each other to the public frequently. This is not a theory, it's documented fact, and it cannot be accounted for in any other manner than out of complete deliberation. This is not a defect in such precincts, it is the design.

But that said I will reiterate that I do agree with wmLambert's principle that it is the training to blame. My objection is that it's the intent of the training that's the blame, not the quantity of it. There is no room for excusing delusions of grandeur as mere organizational and budget issues.

[LetterRip]

Do you really believe that hiding knowledge of a performance review so negative that it was about to get one fired is being honest with one's prospective employer, especially when the performance review is material to the job being offered by the prospective employer?  I know you don't believe this.

An employer is responsible for due diligence.  He answered truthfully the question on the employment form. There are almost no potential employees who would volunteer that information. Also as I pointed out he had made it clear he was leaving ASAP, and the recently promoted chief felt it was disloyal (his predecessor hired the young officer and sometime between then and 6 months retired or lost his position).  I bet there is a very good chance the new chief wanted someone else hired and he was using this to clear the spot to put someone in loyal to himself.

There is no way they could have fired the young officer based on the conduct described.  They are typical new young cop stuff.  There were no official reprimands in the file etc. No police union would have allowed him to fired without a documented history of official reprimands etc.

[LetterRip]

Note that threatening officers with adverse consequences to get them to resign or retire for dubious reasons appears to be a pattern.

https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/2019/10/retired-independence-cop-sues-city-says-he-was-ousted-over-tv-story-on-traffic-ticket-quotas.html

[DonaldD]

Again, LetterRip, that he lied is pretty immaterial to the substantive points being discussed.  However:

An employer is responsible for due diligence.  He answered truthfully the question on the employment form.

Yes, the employer is responsible for due diligence, and the employee also has a responsibility to be honest.  The question at hand is not how he presented his resignation papers to the City of Independence, but rather the fact that he was about to be fired because he was such a bad candidate and he misrepresented the real reason he was forced to leave. That type of misrepresentation is sufficient cause to be fired.

There are almost no potential employees who would volunteer that information.

Maybe, that is possible, but other people lying about their work history does not excuse his own lies.

Also as I pointed out he had made it clear he was leaving ASAP, and the recently promoted chief felt it was disloyal (his predecessor hired the young officer and sometime between then and 6 months retired or lost his position).  I bet there is a very good chance the new chief wanted someone else hired and he was using this to clear the spot to put someone in loyal to himself.

This is wmLambert-level conjecture here. 

There is no way they could have fired the young officer based on the conduct described.  They are typical new young cop stuff.  There were no official reprimands in the file etc. No police union would have allowed him to fired without a documented history of official reprimands etc.

Of course they could - they were going to do so, it was documented at the time, in the very link that you provided. If it helps to understand, he was still on his probationary period at the time: there was very likely much more leeway to release him than a permanent, non-probationary employee.  That's part of what a probationary period means.

[DonaldD]

And I repeat: he was on probation.

I'll also repeat the actual words written by Loehmann's commanding officer:

meet with Ptl. Loehmann to advise him I was beginning the disciplinary process of separation.

You may not think he had the ability to fire Loehmann, but he certainly did.

Which is all quite irrelevant to the topic of Loehmann and his partner acting completely irresponsibly in Rice's killing.

[TheDeamon]

He went a bit further on that, if he was being properly trained, he either wouldn't have been doing what he did, or he would have no longer been employed by the police department. In any case, it does come down to a failure of the training program to identify and correct problems within the police force.

The idea that someone who is correctly trained would a) never make a mistake or b) never choose to ignore one's training is just mind-boggling to me.  As is the idea that training deficiencies, if there were any, would be caught before one made a huge mistake. Or that somebody, once hired, could somehow be fired before making a mistake.

But as it is, the Columbus Police Force was in possession of his quite terrible evaluation from his previous job - they just seemingly chose to ignore it.

If he(and the other officers) had been properly trained, when people were making comments about what was going on, corrections would have been made.

They didn't do so, so we're stuck with the scenario of we either have 4 improperly trained officers, or 4 officers who seemed to have ALL decided to ignore their training at the same time. I guess the latter option is possible, but what that implies is terrifying.

[Fenring]

They didn't do so, so we're stuck with the scenario of we either have 4 improperly trained officers, or 4 officers who seemed to have ALL decided to ignore their training at the same time. I guess the latter option is possible, but what that implies is terrifying.

What about the possibility that's far more likely and obvious than either of these - that they did follow their training. As you say, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that all four magically ignored their training all at once. But you should use the same logic to assume that it's equally unlikely that all four people present were so woefully undertrained - and additionally, lacking common sense or even basic empathy - that they would all let this type of thing happen. Use common sense. They were doing what they've been used to from their police culture. It either comes from their official training, or from observing the way things are 'really done' by their superiors and coworkers. The 2nd most likely scenario after this being a result of following their training, is that the precinct hired a bunch of lowlife hoodlums for officers. The two options you presented sound far-fetched to me, to say the least. Think of it like a system with backups: what's more likely, that the undesired result came from design failure, or from the agent and all backups failing at once? Simplicity dictates it was no wild coincidence.

[Crunch]

Toxicology reports are back. Floyd was on fentanyl and still had methamphetamine in his system. Cause of death is heart attack, not asphyxiation.

The coroner report does classify it as a homicide as the efforts to subdue Floyd were direct contributors to his death.

[Kasandra]

I don't understand why we're even discussing training at all, except to look for a way to take responsibility away from police officers who murdered an unarmed hand-cuffed suspect while he was lying on the ground.  These weren't trainees who quit in disgrace like Loehmann.

Chauvin had 18 prior complaints against him filed by citizens he encountered.  Two were "closed with discipline" and for others:

According to Communities Against Police Brutality, a Minnesota nonprofit that created a database of complaints against officers in the state, Chauvin received oral reprimands for using a "demeaning tone," "derogatory language" and other language that merited discipline.

One of the other officers, Tou Thao, has had 6 complaints filed against him.  AFAIK, neither of the other officers have complaints in their files.

I don't know about the other three, but Chauvin looks like a classic case of a bad cop who was allowed to stay in the system until he finally went too far.  Training can't fix that.

[Kasandra]

Toxicology reports are back. Floyd was on fentanyl and still had methamphetamine in his system. Cause of death is heart attack, not asphyxiation.

The coroner report does classify it as a homicide as the efforts to subdue Floyd were direct contributors to his death.

Does that make it less than murder?  You do know that the autopsy report from the doctors hired by Floyd's family concluded that he died from asphyxiation, not a heart attack.  Why don't you consider both autopsies instead of just one?

[Crunch]

FYI, homicide is another word for murder. You will often see the word “homicide” used in official legal documents. 

[Kasandra]

FYI, homicide is another word for murder. You will often see the word “homicide” used in official legal documents. 

Why don't you consider the results of the other autopsy?

[Crunch]

Why should I?

The hired doctors admit they did not have access to toxicology results, tissue samples or some organs. So they did not conduct as thorough an autopsy as official sources.

The private autopsy concluded that even without evidence of “traumatic” asphyxia, such as broken bones, the compression caused by the officers still led to Mr. Floyd’s death by depriving his brain of blood and oxygen and his lungs of air.

But Dr. Baden acknowledged that the pressure was not necessarily visible in the autopsy because by the time any doctors reviewed the body, the pressure had been released. He added that abrasions on the left side of Mr. Floyd’s face and shoulder showed how hard he was pressed against the pavement.

In other words, they found something that was not there to prove asphyxiation, the evidence doesn't really exist to support asphyxiation. They point to abrasions as proof of asphyxiation.

Also, both reports come to the same conclusion - homicide. There is no need to consider any other autopsy besides the official one.

[TheDeamon]

They didn't do so, so we're stuck with the scenario of we either have 4 improperly trained officers, or 4 officers who seemed to have ALL decided to ignore their training at the same time. I guess the latter option is possible, but what that implies is terrifying.

What about the possibility that's far more likely and obvious than either of these - that they did follow their training. As you say, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that all four magically ignored their training all at once. But you should use the same logic to assume that it's equally unlikely that all four people present were so woefully undertrained - and additionally, lacking common sense or even basic empathy - that they would all let this type of thing happen. Use common sense. They were doing what they've been used to from their police culture. It either comes from their official training, or from observing the way things are 'really done' by their superiors and coworkers.

If it cycles back to how they were officially trained, then the official training was inadequate and we're right back to the assertion that "they were inadequately trained." If its from "how things are really done" it again comes back to being inadequately trained as the training should have covered why "'how it's really done' is a bad idea."

[TheDeamon]

Toxicology reports are back. Floyd was on fentanyl and still had methamphetamine in his system. Cause of death is heart attack, not asphyxiation.

The coroner report does classify it as a homicide as the efforts to subdue Floyd were direct contributors to his death.

I was strongly suspecting a heart attack might turn up in the ME report, as stress/panic can induce one, and if he was having a claustrophobia induced panic attack, it would fit.

Floyd was "a dead man walking" unless they started medical treatment immediately, the knee on the neck didn't kill him, lack of medical treatment for the heart attack did.

[Fenring]

If it cycles back to how they were officially trained, then the official training was inadequate and we're right back to the assertion that "they were inadequately trained." If its from "how things are really done" it again comes back to being inadequately trained as the training should have covered why "'how it's really done' is a bad idea."

"Inadequate" in this context ends up not meaning what you want it to. You are using as if to say inadequate by your standard, but that's a non-obvious usage and also somewhat irrelevant. The only relevant thing is are they following their orders (overt or tacit) or not. If they are, then the training is not "inadequate", it is corrupt. If they are deviating from their training and from what they're taught from their culture, *then* (and only then) is it due to the training not been sufficient enough to get them with the program. But if what they are doing *is* the program then we're talking about something darker and deeper, that is not helped by using neutral sounding euphemisms.

[Kasandra]

Why should I?

The hired doctors admit they did not have access to toxicology results, tissue samples or some organs. So they did not conduct as thorough an autopsy as official sources.

The private autopsy concluded that even without evidence of “traumatic” asphyxia, such as broken bones, the compression caused by the officers still led to Mr. Floyd’s death by depriving his brain of blood and oxygen and his lungs of air.

But Dr. Baden acknowledged that the pressure was not necessarily visible in the autopsy because by the time any doctors reviewed the body, the pressure had been released. He added that abrasions on the left side of Mr. Floyd’s face and shoulder showed how hard he was pressed against the pavement.

In other words, they found something that was not there to prove asphyxiation, the evidence doesn't really exist to support asphyxiation. They point to abrasions as proof of asphyxiation.

Also, both reports come to the same conclusion - homicide. There is no need to consider any other autopsy besides the official one.

Whenever you cite a source I'm suspicious that you cherry-picked what you want to relate. It's no different in this case.  What point are you trying to make by insisting that he wasn't asphyxiated?

[Kasandra]

FYI, homicide is another word for murder. You will often see the word “homicide” used in official legal documents. 

The words aren't synonyms.  Homicide is the legal term for killing another person that includes self-defense (justifiable homicide).  Murder is criminal homicide.

[Crunch]

Why should I?

The hired doctors admit they did not have access to toxicology results, tissue samples or some organs. So they did not conduct as thorough an autopsy as official sources.

The private autopsy concluded that even without evidence of “traumatic” asphyxia, such as broken bones, the compression caused by the officers still led to Mr. Floyd’s death by depriving his brain of blood and oxygen and his lungs of air.

But Dr. Baden acknowledged that the pressure was not necessarily visible in the autopsy because by the time any doctors reviewed the body, the pressure had been released. He added that abrasions on the left side of Mr. Floyd’s face and shoulder showed how hard he was pressed against the pavement.

In other words, they found something that was not there to prove asphyxiation, the evidence doesn't really exist to support asphyxiation. They point to abrasions as proof of asphyxiation.

Also, both reports come to the same conclusion - homicide. There is no need to consider any other autopsy besides the official one.

Whenever you cite a source I'm suspicious that you cherry-picked what you want to relate. It's no different in this case.  What point are you trying to make by insisting that he wasn't asphyxiated?

Full quote:

The findings by the family’s private medical examiners directly contradict the report that there was no asphyxia, said Dr. Allecia M. Wilson, of the University of Michigan, one of the doctors who examined his body. The physical evidence showed that the pressure applied led to his death, she said. In an interview, Dr. Michael Baden, who also participated in the private autopsy, said there was also some hemorrhaging around the right carotid area.

Although she has not had access to the full medical examiner’s report, Dr. Wilson said: “We have seen accounts from the complaint and based on that, yes our findings do differ. Some of the information I read from that complaint states that there was no evidence of traumatic asphyxia. This is the point in which we do disagree. There is evidence in this case of mechanical or traumatic asphyxia.”

She noted that she did not have access to toxicology results, tissue samples or some organs. Those items are not likely to change the results, she said.

The private doctors also said that any underlying conditions Mr. Floyd had did not kill him or contribute to his death.

“He was in good health,” Dr. Baden said.

The private autopsy concluded that even without evidence of “traumatic” asphyxia, such as broken bones, the compression caused by the officers still led to Mr. Floyd’s death by depriving his brain of blood and oxygen and his lungs of air.

But Dr. Baden acknowledged that the pressure was not necessarily visible in the autopsy because by the time any doctors reviewed the body, the pressure had been released. He added that abrasions on the left side of Mr. Floyd’s face and shoulder showed how hard he was pressed against the pavement.

Did you even read that article? smh

[Crunch]

FYI, homicide is another word for murder. You will often see the word “homicide” used in official legal documents. 

The words aren't synonyms.  Homicide is the legal term for killing another person that includes self-defense (justifiable homicide).  Murder is criminal homicide.

JFC.

hom·i·cide
/ˈhäməˌsīd/

the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.

If it wasn't for stupid, you'd have nothing to say.

[DonaldD]

Since the context is a legal one, it might be better to use the legal, as opposed to a general, definition of the term. From FindLaw:

Homicide:

Not all homicides are crimes. However, all killings of humans are included in the homicide definition. Many homicides, such as murder and manslaughter, violate criminal laws. Others, such as a killing committed in justified self-defense, are not criminal. Illegal killings range from manslaughter to murder, with multiple degrees of each representing the gravity of the crime.

Read on to learn more about homicide definitions, when a homicide is not considered a crime, and when one could face civil liability for a wrongful death.

Heck, not even all illegal homicides are murders.

[NobleHunter]

JFC.

hom·i·cide
/ˈhäməˌsīd/

the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.

If it wasn't for stupid, you'd have nothing to say.

He would have a lot less to say if you didn't keep posting.

[wmLambert]

FYI, homicide is another word for murder. You will often see the word “homicide” used in official legal documents. 

The words aren't synonyms.  Homicide is the legal term for killing another person that includes self-defense (justifiable homicide).  Murder is criminal homicide.

Partial meaning, at least. There is Murder 1, 2, and 3, as well - and all need evidenciary rulings. Homicide is a blanket term that encompasses it all.

[Kasandra]

Crunch, does this clarify it for you?

homicide[ hom-uh-sahyd, hoh-muh- ]
noun
the killing of one human being by another.

The terms murder and homicide are frequently interchanged; however, there is a difference between the two.  Homicide is the killing of one person by another.  Murder is a form of criminal homicide, where the perpetrator intended to kill the other person, sometimes with premeditation (a plan to kill).  Manslaughter is another type of criminal homicide.

Homicides are criminal, excusable, or justifiable.   A criminal homicide is unjustifiable, with consequences being severe.  An excusable or justifiable homicide is one without criminal intent to kill someone.  Examples of excusable or justifiable homicide would be someone killing someone else as a means of self defense, or defending another person, or law enforcement who kills someone in the line of duty.

Murders are classified in different degrees depending on the gravity of the crime and the intent of the perpetrator.  The classifications of murder are first degree, second degree, and third degree or manslaughter.  Some states do not use the classification of third degree murder.

[wmLambert]

In the case of George Floyd, Kevin Chauvin will go down under murder 3. The others may allow him to get off, so it will end up at manslaughter.

[TheDeamon]

Whenever you cite a source I'm suspicious that you cherry-picked what you want to relate. It's no different in this case.  What point are you trying to make by insisting that he wasn't asphyxiated?

I'm now intrigued as to a certain item here. If he died from a heart attack, then the resulting lack of blood flow would result in the body dying due to a lack of sufficient oxygen flow to the rest of the body(as the blood cannot transport it). So wouldn't a heart attack death by definition look a LOT like an asphyxiation death?

And IIRC, shortness of breath and reports of difficulty breathing are also potential heart attack symptoms...

[NobleHunter]

I am not a coroner, but I think heart failure is implicated in most deaths (that aren't brain related?). It's not necessarily the injury, it's that a result of the injury is your heart stopping. The difference between a heart attack and asphyxiation would be the physical signs of trauma to the neck, throat, and lungs, along with evidence of a stopped heart. A heart attack would just be evidence in the heart (and surrounding blood vessels?).

[TheDeamon]

I am not a coroner, but I think heart failure is implicated in most deaths (that aren't brain related?). It's not necessarily the injury, it's that a result of the injury is your heart stopping. The difference between a heart attack and asphyxiation would be the physical signs of trauma to the neck, throat, and lungs, along with evidence of a stopped heart. A heart attack would just be evidence in the heart (and surrounding blood vessels?).

And as the independent examiner was missing a few organs, or which I'm sure the heart is one of the missing organs, it means his conclusions could be essentially meaningless beyond statements of the obvious surrounding George Floyd having experienced rough handling by police prior to death, as witnessed by the abrasions... But beyond that,everything else could be consistent with a heart attack, which they couldn't check for because they didn't have access to the heart, or the lab test results from the official ME examination.

[rightleft22]

Not sure what is being argued.

If its proved there were additional conditions that lead to George's death what changes?

Isn't the problem that the laws that should make the officer accountable for delaying/not providing medical treatment while using excessive force / prolonged choke hold while waiting for it... lead to someone in his care to dying. Not to mention no laws that hold officers accountable while standing by and watching. 
   
The reason charges against police take so long to be placed is that the current laws are insufficient to hold them accountable. If we want to address this issue and prevent it occurring again its isn't going to happen by using current law.

[Kasandra]

And as the independent examiner was missing a few organs, or which I'm sure the heart is one of the missing organs, it means his conclusions could be essentially meaningless beyond statements of the obvious surrounding George Floyd having experienced rough handling by police prior to death, as witnessed by the abrasions... But beyond that,everything else could be consistent with a heart attack, which they couldn't check for because they didn't have access to the heart, or the lab test results from the official ME examination.

More hypotheticals.  It makes me wonder what the purpose of them would be since everyone who is bringing them up agrees that Chauvin murdered Floyd.  And how do you know that the heart is one of the missing organs?  And did have a history of heart disease, anyway?  What are you trying to prove?  I'm half waiting for someone to try out suicide-by-cop because Floyd made him do it.

[rightleft22]

And as the independent examiner was missing a few organs, or which I'm sure the heart is one of the missing organs, it means his conclusions could be essentially meaningless beyond statements of the obvious surrounding George Floyd having experienced rough handling by police prior to death, as witnessed by the abrasions... But beyond that,everything else could be consistent with a heart attack, which they couldn't check for because they didn't have access to the heart, or the lab test results from the official ME examination.

More hypotheticals.  It makes me wonder what the purpose of them would be since everyone who is bringing them up agrees that Chauvin murdered Floyd.  And how do you know that the heart is one of the missing organs?  And did have a history of heart disease, anyway?  What are you trying to prove?  I'm half waiting for someone to try out suicide-by-cop because Floyd made him do it.

If I have a heart condition and I get a the flu and die did I die from the heart condition or the flu? Does it matter?

I wonder if engaging in this debate isn't exactly what those who want to change the narrative want. The only reason I can see for this debate when the majority knows pining a guy down by the placing a knee on their neck as they tell you they can't breath is criminal, is to blame the victim. 

[Kasandra]

And as the independent examiner was missing a few organs, or which I'm sure the heart is one of the missing organs, it means his conclusions could be essentially meaningless beyond statements of the obvious surrounding George Floyd having experienced rough handling by police prior to death, as witnessed by the abrasions... But beyond that,everything else could be consistent with a heart attack, which they couldn't check for because they didn't have access to the heart, or the lab test results from the official ME examination.

More hypotheticals.  It makes me wonder what the purpose of them would be since everyone who is bringing them up agrees that Chauvin murdered Floyd.  And how do you know that the heart is one of the missing organs?  And did have a history of heart disease, anyway?  What are you trying to prove?  I'm half waiting for someone to try out suicide-by-cop because Floyd made him do it.

If I have a heart condition and I get a the flu and die did I die from the heart condition or the flu? Does it matter?

I wonder if engaging in this debate isn't exactly what those who want to change the narrative want. The only reason I can see for this debate when the majority knows pining a guy down by the placing a knee on their neck as they tell you they can't breath is criminal, is to blame the victim.

It depends on whether you are trying to track causes of death.  No one dies of a bullet, but typically from organ failure or tissue damage.  Some would rather the death was recorded one of those ways.

[TheDeamon]

And as the independent examiner was missing a few organs, or which I'm sure the heart is one of the missing organs, it means his conclusions could be essentially meaningless beyond statements of the obvious surrounding George Floyd having experienced rough handling by police prior to death, as witnessed by the abrasions... But beyond that,everything else could be consistent with a heart attack, which they couldn't check for because they didn't have access to the heart, or the lab test results from the official ME examination.

More hypotheticals.  It makes me wonder what the purpose of them would be since everyone who is bringing them up agrees that Chauvin murdered Floyd.  And how do you know that the heart is one of the missing organs?  And did have a history of heart disease, anyway?  What are you trying to prove?  I'm half waiting for someone to try out suicide-by-cop because Floyd made him do it.

There was a post earlier in this thread that said the second examiner didn't have all of the organs, and then we have a following report indicating George Floyd had a heart attack -- ergo, it's reasonable to conclude that the heart was one of the missing organs as that was one of the items "pending further investigation" and not turned over as a consequence.

And you've already had other go the rounds on "murder" being applied to this. 3rd Degree conviction may be possible, depending on investigations regarding their interactions at their mutual Employer might manage to bring it up to 2nd or even 1st degree. But it also is entirely possible this is a negligent homicide and that while what Chauvin did was inexcusable, it did not meaningfully contribute to he Floyd's death outside of the "denial of medical care" during a critical time frame aspect of the situation. Which if his defense team is able to make that case, there is a decent chance he walks should it go to trial.

[Kasandra]

But it also is entirely possible this is a negligent homicide and that while what Chauvin did was inexcusable, it did not meaningfully contribute to he Floyd's death outside of the "denial of medical care" during a critical time frame aspect of the situation. Which if his defense team is able to make that case, there is a decent chance he walks should it go to trial.

Ah, so this is what the right wants: It was Floyd's fault after all. Chauvin could turn out to be a hero.

[TheDeamon]

But it also is entirely possible this is a negligent homicide and that while what Chauvin did was inexcusable, it did not meaningfully contribute to he Floyd's death outside of the "denial of medical care" during a critical time frame aspect of the situation. Which if his defense team is able to make that case, there is a decent chance he walks should it go to trial.

Ah, so this is what the right wants: It was Floyd's fault after all. Chauvin could turn out to be a hero.

It isn't about "what the right wants" it is about what the criminal justice system is likely to produce, rather than what you, or any of us are likely to prefer.

But when you hew to the rule of law, it's what happens. Sadly enough.

[Kasandra]

But it also is entirely possible this is a negligent homicide and that while what Chauvin did was inexcusable, it did not meaningfully contribute to he Floyd's death outside of the "denial of medical care" during a critical time frame aspect of the situation. Which if his defense team is able to make that case, there is a decent chance he walks should it go to trial.

Ah, so this is what the right wants: It was Floyd's fault after all. Chauvin could turn out to be a hero.

It isn't about "what the right wants" it is about what the criminal justice system is likely to produce, rather than what you, or any of us are likely to prefer.

But when you hew to the rule of law, it's what happens. Sadly enough.

Why now?  The "rule of law" is how racism is institutionalized and enforced.  How about we try the spirit of the law for the next 50 years and see if it works out better for everyone.

[Fenring]

Isn't the problem that the laws that should make the officer accountable for delaying/not providing medical treatment while using excessive force / prolonged choke hold while waiting for it... lead to someone in his care to dying. Not to mention no laws that hold officers accountable while standing by and watching. 

I have personally never heard of an office taken to task for this particular thing. Now if it were up to me...

But the way things are, I have seen video of officers shooting an unarmed person, and a group of them milling around the downed bullet-ridden body doing nothing while presumably the person dies. No CPR, no emergency care...in fact no care at all. In such instances the magic question is always "was it murder" but never is the question "why didn't you try to save him!" The answer is simple, they were quite satisfied for these people to be out of the picture.

[TheDeamon]

But the way things are, I have seen video of officers shooting an unarmed person, and a group of them milling around the downed bullet-ridden body doing nothing while presumably the person dies. No CPR, no emergency care...in fact no care at all. In such instances the magic question is always "was it murder" but never is the question "why didn't you try to save him!" The answer is simple, they were quite satisfied for these people to be out of the picture.

It gets a little more complicated than that I think. There are legal liability reasons why they probably don't provide treatment, as screwed up as that may seem. Mostly in the form of lawsuits from criminals who survived because of such efforts, and subsequently sued them for "services rendered."

[Fenring]

It gets a little more complicated than that I think. There are legal liability reasons why they probably don't provide treatment, as screwed up as that may seem. Mostly in the form of lawsuits from criminals who survived because of such efforts, and subsequently sued them for "services rendered."

I don't work in law enforcement, but I highly doubt the law would support letting someone die deliberately to avoid possible lawsuits, especially if you have first aid training, and especially if your employment is as a first responder. But let's get serious, if you are a human being and you let someone die to 'avoid getting in trouble', then you are a monster. There is no hedging on this point.

[cherrypoptart]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/minneapolis-police-rendered-44-people-unconscious-neck-restraints-five-years-n1220416

"Since the beginning of 2015, officers from the Minneapolis Police Department have rendered people unconscious with neck restraints 44 times, according to an NBC News analysis of police records. Several police experts said that number appears to be unusually high.

Minneapolis police used neck restraints at least 237 times during that span, and in 16 percent of the incidents the suspects and other individuals lost consciousness, the department's use-of-force records show. A lack of publicly available use-of-force data from other departments makes it difficult to compare Minneapolis to other cities of the same or any size.

...The version of the Minneapolis Police Department's policy manual that is available on-line, however, does permit the use of neck restraints that can render suspects unconscious, and the protocol for their use has not been updated for more than eight years."

Not sure I have a point yet. Just information.

[Kasandra]

The state is investigating the Minneapolis police for racist policies spanning the last 10 years:

[Gov.] Walz said the investigation into the police department's policies, procedures and practices over the past 10 years will determine if the force has engaged in systemic discrimination toward people of color, and root it out. Lucero will lead the investigation.

In other news, the Minneapolis school board has voted not to renew its contract with the city police department.  The difference in how the onsite police resource officers handle complaints and other interactions with non-white students is the main reason for the change.

The self-serving motto of the people of Minnesota is "Minnesota nice".  This could be a replacement for the equally sincere "bless your heart".