Ok, I don't know how, but you're not seeing it, so I'll try again. You wrote this just above:
The other clause only works if another felony can be demonstrated outside "reasonable grounds" for an officer reacting to a subject who had become (briefly) non-cooperative. Which basically boils down to the knee on Floyd's neck, and Chauvin's intent.
This is a somewhat convoluted parsing of the law as written (with you adding in the unnecessary clause that it has to be related to reacting to a subject who had become non-cooperative, which is irrelevant):
Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or
You responded to this clause earlier in the thread but seem to have left it behind. *This* is the one I've been talking about as you go on about how the jury won't find intent. No intent to kill is necessary for this clause, so long as a separate felony (from murder) was being committed at the time.
Okay, going to break in right here. You've been confused by cross talk then. YOU have been talking about subdivision 2 of the statute, which requires the second felony.
Kasandra was talking about subdivision 1 of the statute, which requires intent. Which is why things confusing when you start bringing up subdivision 2 arguments in response to posts about subdivision 1, and Kasandra is bringing up Subdivision 1 arguments in response to posts about subdivision 2.
Are we clear on this now?
A subdivision 1 case required they make an intent case in regards to the death of George Floyd.
What TheDrake and I have been saying is that using a barred choke hold is surely a felony assault by any reasonable standard. You can argue that the court system is corrupt and that no cop will go down for felony assault in this scenario, which is maybe plausible, but all that would mean is that corruption is being used to cover corruption; what else is new.
That isn't necessarily a matter of "the system is corrupt" it is instead a matter of "Police have limited immunity for a reason" and the JURY, in conjunction with the Judge, must determine if (most of) what the officers did "reasonably" falls within the purview of that immunity. As the prosecution is going to need to make the case as to what specific actions these officers took that were "unusual" and
why they were unusual so as to warrant prosecution.
Anything that falls (reasonably) within "normal process" is going to become items that the jurors may need to weigh against limited immunity.
Which just leaves the unusual aspects as ground for prosecution. Which is very likely to boil down to holding George Flynn down for the two officers, and the third one being an "Accessory" by helping prevent other interference. Feel bad for at least two of the officers involved, as I understand one of them had only been on the job for 3 nights, and the other had only been on the force for a few months... While Chauvin was the senior officer present. (And from one of the reports I've caught, the other officers DID say something about things as well, but Chauvin was the ranking senior officer on scene... So hey Kasandra, about that "obeying the orders of those lawfully appointed over me" thing you were on a kick about with the County Sheriffs?)
What we are arguing is what the law seems to say, and how that lines up with the facts as we know them. And you don't need to demonstrate intent to use an illegal choke hold, it should be considered an automatic assumption that you are not going to accidentally execute such a choke hold and then refuse to release it for minutes on end. It is not arguable that he deliberately did the maneuver, and deliberately would not stop when asked to do so. And it is also not arguable that it's legal to use barred techniques on the subject of an arrest. So the "while committing or attempting to commit a felony" is felony assault in this case, and the accidental death which results from it is murder 2. At least, based on the letter of the law.
Choke holds/sleeper holds are well known, and frequently used in movies and other contexts. For a healthy person, or even a reasonably healthy person, there is no reason to expect that such holds will result in death.
Have you trained in MMA? I think I recall that you were in the armed forces, and if so I find this statement of yours bizarre.
I was Navy, while I stood security watches, those were more of the observe and report(and let others handle it) or shoot(if given weapons release authorization) variety. I wasn't part of the response teams that would respond to those situations. Closest I came to hand to hand training was a very basic course on Baton use and where not to hit people with one. The Navy doesn't give close quarters combat training unless you're working in a field where it might happen. We haven't had to repel boarders on a Navy ship since the age of sail after all(USS Pueblo not withstanding).
When I properly execute an artery choke on someone they are gone in a few seconds. If I have it in good, could be as little as 2 seconds and their world is going black. MMA fighters are taught to tap out QUICK and the opponent must release immediately. If you sustain a well-placed choke for more than a few seconds it can cause damage. Much more than that and it can cause massive damage and death. You are literally constricting blood to the brain, the math on this isn't hard. I don't know offhand if the knee choke applied in this case was an artery choke, but I don't see why you'd assume it wasn't. And btw, if it *wasn't* an artery choke that means he was instead crushing Floyd's windpipe with his knee, which comes a lot closer IMO to being murder 1 in that he would know in advance that this would likely kill and proceed with it anyhow.
Well, given that George Floyd was still talking about how he can't breath for longer than 2 seconds, it would seem that he wasn't doing an artery choke. Autopsy report, IIRC didn't indicate any damage to the windpipe, although I'll freely admin I don't know how far that can be pushed before damage would be noticeable. So I'll defer to those with knowledge on the matter.
They're discouraged now because they could cause a death in the right circumstances, as witnessed with George Floyd.
As in, if they work as intended? Perps are not taught to tap out, ergo they should not be used by law enforcement except with intent to kill. Now if someone was assaulting me on the street I might well use an artery choke to incapacitate them, as the only way to be sure of my safety. But place a few cops on the scene and my move turns from self-defense into willful intent to injure.
Except we're also dealing with the matter that Floyd was on drugs, and there are plenty of law enforcement stories of putting multiple officers physically on a guy and being
drug around by a guy they'd never believe was capable of it otherwise. (This is where the toxicology report works in the favor of the officers, if they can credibly claim they saw enough to "indicate drug use" then the over-abundance of caution in regards to their own safety works towards reasonable doubt on the jury's part. George Floyd wasn't a small guy in the first place, bring in some other officers to testify about just how crazy handling someone on the relevant drugs can get, and well.... Suddenly keeping him pinned down can sound like an effort to protect both sides.)
Although arguably, if they exercised proper duty of care, the knee on his neck shouldn't have caused his death either, but the nearly 9 minutes was obviously excessive even if his knee was only above Mr. Floyd's neck for much of the time rather than on it.
I'm not sure even a properly trained cop is in a position to know how much damage, if any, applying pressure to an artery or a windpipe will do. But I agree that giving a crap at all about the guy's life would be a good start.
At least we can agree on that much.
But as I decided to dig a little further we also get this little gem to compound George Floyd's ME tox screen:
He was found to have Fentanyl in his system, which has an "interesting" possible side effect:
https://drugfree.org/drug/prescription-pain-relievers-opioids/Prescription opioids are powerful drugs with a high risk for dependency. Taking them in high doses, and/or in combination with other substances — particularly alcohol — can result in life-threatening respiratory distress and death.
But the ME decided it was a heart attack for cause of death. I'd say the legal defense is going to be drilling into that one pretty hard.
Another thing in the mix is of course, meth:
https://drugfree.org/drug/prescription-stimulants/Stimulants increase the amount of natural chemical messengers called norepinephrine and dopamine in the brain. This in turn increases blood pressure and heart rate, constricts blood vessels, increases blood glucose, and increases breathing — which can cause rapid or irregular heartbeat, delirium, panic, psychosis, paranoia and heart failure. There is also the potential for cardiovascular failure (heart attack) or deadly seizures.
And now we'll visit an article from last fall on NPR about the problems distinguishing between meth users and the mentally ill.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/10/22/772119915/is-it-a-meth-case-or-mental-illness-police-who-need-to-know-often-cant-tell"With somebody that's high on methamphetamine, you want to treat them a little firmer and control them," Osgood says, "because they often are very volatile and aggressive and you just want to treat that hostility, differently."
....
There are visual signs of longer-term meth use that are less likely to show up among mental health patients: skin wounds and scabs, rotting teeth, dilated pupils.
....
"But let's be real, there are some individuals that are so sick," Cochran says, that "officers find themselves having to act immediately to protect safety. Sometimes that may mean a hands-on approach."
Which isn't to get into stories that are out there among law enforcement of tiny guys being able to drag 5 officers around while high on meth. So we're circling the drain centered around how significant were the "tells" on George Floyd and his meth use? If the officers identified him as a meth user, how were they to know how much he was on? And if they had identified meth use, the officer in charge may have been amazed Floyd was being controlled by just the three of them... And didn't let up out of concern of escalation if they "lost control" of George because he was, in fact, "faking it." Because George wasn't a small guy to start with.
The more I dig into this, the more convinced I become the defense is going to shred the case brought against the officers. There will be riots when the jury fails to convict on "any major charges."
