Author Topic: George Floyd  (Read 10898 times)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #200 on: June 05, 2020, 04:06:04 PM »
The jury does. If a member of the jury has a reason to doubt that Chauvin knew Floyd wasn't faking it, then that juror is instructed to not vote to convict. Because they have to be "beyond a reasonable doubt."

It doesn't matter whether he was faking it or not. What does that have to do with using a barred choke maneuver? You seem to be zeroing in on these details and missing the argument.

As TheDrake directed as Kasandra:

Your argument is that he INTENDED to kill him?

Murder 2 under the other provision (no associated felony) requires intent to kill. I think that's also going to be a hard one to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" to a jury.

If we were talking about a Civil Trial where the standard is "reasonable man" instead, it'd be a slam dunk. But here we're talking criminal and "beyond a reasonable doubt."

So you either demonstrate he had intent to kill, or you demonstrate another felony was attempted/committed in the process of detaining George Flynn.

"Violation of policy" is all well and good, very useful in a trial context and can even be used to justify the loss of limited immunity, but still fails to prove intent. Incapacitation was very likely to be on Chauvin's agenda, but I doubt causing a death in front of a camera was.

Which pulls us back to the option with an associated second felony.
Quote
Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of 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 with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or

Where we can revisit the supporting statute I cited earlier which provides further clarification of intended meaning:
Quote
(4) "With intent to" or "with intent that" means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act, if successful, will cause that result.

If Chauvin didn't believe it would result in Floyd's death(because he didn't know Floyd was having a heart attack; and possibly has done similar to others in the past), he escapes any attempt to get that charge to stick.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #201 on: June 05, 2020, 04:10:58 PM »
My argument, if I have one, is that it's hard to know what was in his mind, but absolutely nobody disputes that it was intentional that he kept his knee on his neck for over 3 minutes after Floyd became unresponsive.  My quibble, if I have one, is the false interpretation that the charge of Murder 2 doesn't include deliberate murder without premeditation, which TheDeamon and others seem to want to believe.

Murder 2 is a reasonable charge under the circumstances and the trial will prove his guilt or not.  We need to see and hear the evidence. 

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #202 on: June 05, 2020, 04:13:36 PM »
Quote
If Chauvin didn't believe it would result in Floyd's death(because he didn't know Floyd was having a heart attack; and possibly has done similar to others in the past), he escapes any attempt to get that charge to stick.

How in hell can you know someone won't have a heart attack under those circumstances.  OTOH, how can you know that they won't?  I think Murder 2 is a reasonable charge given Chauvin's knowledge and expertise in restraint and arrest.  That Floyd may have been "impaired" or "high" doesn't excuse Chauvin's action.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #203 on: June 05, 2020, 04:14:20 PM »
If I was Chauvin and his lawyers, I'd be relieved it was a murder 2 charge. He's got a better than average chance of walking on that.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #204 on: June 05, 2020, 04:16:08 PM »
If I was Chauvin and his lawyers, I'd be relieved it was a murder 2 charge. He's got a better than average chance of walking on that.

I wish you were his lawyer.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #205 on: June 05, 2020, 04:18:08 PM »
Smarmy response.  smh

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #206 on: June 05, 2020, 04:18:30 PM »
My argument, if I have one, is that it's hard to know what was in his mind, but absolutely nobody disputes that it was intentional that he kept his knee on his neck for over 3 minutes after Floyd became unresponsive.  My quibble, if I have one, is the false interpretation that the charge of Murder 2 doesn't include deliberate murder without premeditation, which TheDeamon and others seem to want to believe.

Murder 2 is a reasonable charge under the circumstances and the trial will prove his guilt or not.  We need to see and hear the evidence.

Murder 2 does include deliberate murder without premeditation, clearly so. But it the bar for proving it in the case of George Floyd is pretty freaking high.

Quote
(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or

Is pretty freaking clear premeditation is not required for conviction. However, that same clause DOES require intent. Which is where we keep circling around the drain on this.

Quote
(4) "With intent to" or "with intent that" means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act, if successful, will cause that result.

So the enraged significant other who stumbles upon their SO cheating on them, and the presumed homicide that follows as a result immediately after would be Murder 2. The enraged SO attacks with intent using a means of attack that they know is likely to be lethal.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #207 on: June 05, 2020, 05:17:03 PM »
If I was Chauvin and his lawyers, I'd be relieved it was a murder 2 charge. He's got a better than average chance of walking on that.

I don't see why you're ignoring that they can levy multiple charges at him, including this one. That's the standard approach of a prosecutor.

Murder 2 does include deliberate murder without premeditation, clearly so. But it the bar for proving it in the case of George Floyd is pretty freaking high.

Yes, it does include it, but you've been posting for two pages as if it is in fact the only criterion for murder 2, which your own quote on the previous page refutes. Btw, you seem to be ignoring that and relentlessly focusing on intent to kill. It's not like you to post non-responsively like this.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #208 on: June 05, 2020, 05:26:19 PM »
Murder 2 does include deliberate murder without premeditation, clearly so. But it the bar for proving it in the case of George Floyd is pretty freaking high.

Yes, it does include it, but you've been posting for two pages as if it is in fact the only criterion for murder 2, which your own quote on the previous page refutes. Btw, you seem to be ignoring that and relentlessly focusing on intent to kill. It's not like you to post non-responsively like this.

I thought it pretty responsive, he challenged on the premeditation part, I agreed, then pointed out lack of premeditation alone is not enough to qualify for Murder 2. And then showed where the relevant statutes themselves made that clear. Without intent, the charge "doesn't work" under that clause.

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.

Murder 2 charges "feel good" and it would be great if they actually applied to this situation and could be proven in court. I'd be all for it. But the facts don't line up to make it fit. The case is in trouble from the start. I just hope they do include lesser charges in what actually goes to trial, and that people don't riot when Murder 2 fails to happen.


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #209 on: June 05, 2020, 05:52:29 PM »
Quote
A postmortem nasal swab showed that Floyd was positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, according to the autopsy report, which was released Wednesday night. The report says that Floyd was likely asymptomatic of the disease.

So, ME didn't list covid as a factor.  :D

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #210 on: June 05, 2020, 05:56:57 PM »
The only real wriggle room the prosecution has is the "with intent to" definition of:
"the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act, if successful, will cause that result."

Where in this case result == death.

So there is a shades of grey case to be had with regards to the knee on Floyd's neck. And it gets into "will cause death" and haggling over the difference between "is likely to cause death" vs "could possibly, if the right circumstances align, cause death"

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. They're discouraged now because they could cause a death in the right circumstances, as witnessed with George Floyd. 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.

Which is going to be the other problem the Prosecution is going to have, but it will be a compound problem for the defense, as it means the defendant will need to take the stand. What the cameras saw, and what he was doing can be different stories. EMT reports may also play into this, not just from the ME. If George Floyd was still breathing right up until the time Chauvin got off of him, the Murder 2 charge becomes that much harder to make stick.

Further compounding things is while you "see Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck" what you don't KNOW and cannot know is how much pressure Chauvin was exerting on Chauvins neck. If Chauvin claims most of the time was spent with his knee over Floyd's neck, rather than on/in it, you have a new problem for making a case against him and it falls back to the ME report concluding Floyd died from a hear attack which didn't receive timely intervention.

The drugs in Floyd's system also is likely to help the defense case in other ways.

If anything, this entire situation to me seems to scream we some more explicit laws in regards to "duty of care" for law enforcement so they are much more mindful of the health of the people they're bringing into custody. But as it relates to Chauvin and George Floyd, Lady Justice probably isn't going to deliver the outcome most of us would like to see happen, because the laws don't support it.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #211 on: June 05, 2020, 08:44:57 PM »
The only real wriggle room the prosecution has is the "with intent to" definition of:
"the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act, if successful, will cause that result."

Where in this case result == death.

Ok, I don't know how, but you're not seeing it, so I'll try again. You wrote this just above:

Quote
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):

Quote
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. 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. 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.

Quote
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. 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.

Quote
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.


Quote
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.

Quote
Further compounding things is while you "see Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck" what you don't KNOW and cannot know is how much pressure Chauvin was exerting on Chauvins neck. If Chauvin claims most of the time was spent with his knee over Floyd's neck, rather than on/in it, you have a new problem for making a case against him and it falls back to the ME report concluding Floyd died from a hear attack which didn't receive timely intervention.

Since you can knock someone out in seconds from a proper choke, and brain damage or death can result not too long after, I don't how it's relevant even if it were the case that the majority of the 9 minutes wasn't a proper choke hold. 1 minute would be more than enough.

Quote
If anything, this entire situation to me seems to scream we some more explicit laws in regards to "duty of care" for law enforcement so they are much more mindful of the health of the people they're bringing into custody. But as it relates to Chauvin and George Floyd, Lady Justice probably isn't going to deliver the outcome most of us would like to see happen, because the laws don't support it.

Agree about a change needed. I don't think the law is the problem here, it's how it will be applied (read: unjustly).

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #212 on: June 05, 2020, 11:32:52 PM »
Ok, I don't know how, but you're not seeing it, so I'll try again. You wrote this just above:

Quote
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):

Quote
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.

Quote
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?)

Quote
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.

Quote
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).

Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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.)

Quote
Quote
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/
Quote
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/
Quote
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

Quote
"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."

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #213 on: June 05, 2020, 11:38:49 PM »
It's impossible that the lesser included charge of manslaughter won't stick. But even a lesser verdict can set fire to the tinder.

Do you remember that whole thought experiment of a guy who jumps off a roof but gets shot on the way down? I think legal experts were divided on whether that would be called murder or not, given that it was inevitable that the guy was going to die anyway.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #214 on: June 05, 2020, 11:43:24 PM »
It's impossible that the lesser included charge of manslaughter won't stick. But even a lesser verdict can set fire to the tinder.

I haven't looked at the manslaughter statutes, but from my understanding of how they're normally structured, I'd expect that one to be very difficult for Chauvin to wriggle out of. It could still be possible depending on what the Defense team manages to come up with when their experts have a chance to analyze things.

But if all the prosecutor manages is a manslaughter conviction, I expect things are going to burn once more.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #215 on: June 06, 2020, 12:26:34 AM »
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.

Haha, not sure how to respond! Yes, *I* have been talking about this subdivision.  :)

Quote
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.

...and? Why do you need to mention what Kasandra was talking about, and to remind me that what I'm talking about is different? Am actually LOLing right now, not sure what to make of this 'correction'  :D

Quote
Are we clear on this now?

I guess!

Quote
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.

Yes, this is why I cut to the chase and used the word "corrupt" because no honest person could admit in good conscience that a crime wasn't committed here. Most people do not believe the police should be above the law, and technicalities such as you suggest are exactly what give people the impression that they are. I'm calling that corrupt. So yes, many 'legal' results have come down in history that I would call corrupt, and yet they can be 'legal' at the same time.

Quote
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.

I don't think any reasonable person would believe that the situation was particularly unusual, nor that a choke hold was warranted. As someone mentioned above, this probably means that a jury isn't going to be used if the officers want to get off on a technicality.

Quote
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.

Interesting, I had no idea. I would have assumed some level of 'basic' combat for anyone in the Navy, good to know.

Quote
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.

I have no idea what happened either, other than I can say that any choke only partially in place, or not quite on the mark, will leave a lot of room for struggle. So I wasn't saying above that Floyd should have been out in 2 seconds, just that this is what one might expect if the choke is completely successful. This was in response to your comment that choking someone out for multiple minutes shouldn't harm them irreparably. If it works as intended, it would.

Quote
Except we're also dealing with the matter that Floyd was on drugs

I'm really sad that this is relevant to the issue. It feels like a throwback to the 80's, where 'someone on drugs' automatically means they're a degenerate maniac and ED-209 should be unleashed on them. I know you didn't mean it like this, as you're just assessing what might happen in a court, but to whatever extent you might be right it's pathetic. I would call that corrupt as well. Being on drugs isn't a license to be brutalized. In the particular, if this guy was on opioids it probably means it was a downer, which may explain why he looked so copacetic in the clip I saw. So yeah, they probably could have talked him down with a brownie.

Quote
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."

I think you underestimate how malleable the 'justice' system is when the correct parties desire a particular result. If the governor gets on the phone with the DA and tells him "I do not want an acquittal" then I'm fairly sure that will be the result. Likewise, if the in-crown decide to go to bat for the cops it might well be likely that they don't go down for it. The law is ink on a page, the implementation requires good judgement and reasonable intent by those responsible to see justice executed. A law is only as good as those who defend it.

In this particular case, I have a hard time believing the powers that be would allow even a chance of the public hearing "not guilty on all charges." That is, unless they are so daft that they want an uprising.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #216 on: June 07, 2020, 11:37:13 PM »
This writeup excerpt, albeit from a partisan rag, which I came across by way of social media basically echoes some of what I was talking about earlier when it comes to a possible defense case:

Quote
Beyond the findings of serious heart disease and opioid use are those directly related to his fatal encounter with Chauvin.

Floyd suffered multiple “blunt force” wounds, but “no life-threatening injuries [were] identified,” the report says.

A. No facial, oral mucosal, or conjunctival petechiae
B. No injuries of anterior muscles of neck or laryngeal structures
C. No scalp soft tissue, skull, or brain injuries
D. No chest wall soft tissue injuries, rib fractures (other than a single rib fracture from CPR), vertebral column injuries, or visceral injuries
E. Incision and subcutaneous dissection of posterior and lateral neck, shoulders, back, flanks, and buttocks negative for occult trauma

The absence of petechiae — small red or purple spots in the eyes or skin from bleeding capillaries — is significant because they occur in upwards of 85 percent of strangulation or traumatic asphyxia deaths; i.e., increased pressure on the neck of the kind that Chauvin applied to Floyd.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #217 on: June 08, 2020, 06:52:30 AM »
Assuming those details are accurate, they add to the potential confusion about the exact immediate circumstances of Floyd's death.  If we didn't have video with exact footage of Chauvin's knee pressing down on Floyd's neck that clearly shows Chauvin leveraging his weight and certain knowledge that Floyd repeatedly complained "I can't breathe," and didn't know that another officer found that Floyd had no pulse for at least 3 minutes while Chauvin kept his knee on his neck, then - and only then - you might consider the possibility that Floyd's death was the result of a medical issue that Chauvin could not have foreseen.  But we do.  Chauvin killed Floyd; the only question (murder 2) is whether he intended that to happen.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #218 on: June 08, 2020, 04:45:43 PM »
This writeup excerpt, albeit from a partisan rag, which I came across by way of social media basically echoes some of what I was talking about earlier when it comes to a possible defense case:

Quote
Beyond the findings of serious heart disease and opioid use are those directly related to his fatal encounter with Chauvin.

Floyd suffered multiple “blunt force” wounds, but “no life-threatening injuries [were] identified,” the report says.

A. No facial, oral mucosal, or conjunctival petechiae
B. No injuries of anterior muscles of neck or laryngeal structures
C. No scalp soft tissue, skull, or brain injuries
D. No chest wall soft tissue injuries, rib fractures (other than a single rib fracture from CPR), vertebral column injuries, or visceral injuries
E. Incision and subcutaneous dissection of posterior and lateral neck, shoulders, back, flanks, and buttocks negative for occult trauma

The absence of petechiae — small red or purple spots in the eyes or skin from bleeding capillaries — is significant because they occur in upwards of 85 percent of strangulation or traumatic asphyxia deaths; i.e., increased pressure on the neck of the kind that Chauvin applied to Floyd.

“no life-threatening injuries [were] identified" and no petechiae. Basically, the autopsy says Floyd had a few bruises that amount to not much more than a boo-boo and none at the neck or above. In fact, not even around the chest or lungs. Gonna be really hard to say Chauvin suffocated Floyd when there's no forensic evidence of Floyd suffocating.

Chauvin's lawyers are gonna eat this one up.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #219 on: June 10, 2020, 01:53:20 PM »
Turns out, Chauvin was working on a plea deal. That deal fell through on May 28th and Chauvin was arrested May 29th.

Any guesses why that fell through? The autopsy was done on May 26th, Chauvin's lawyers probably got preliminary results on the 27th or morning of the 28th and found out that there was no forensic evidence to support the asphyxiation claim. In fact, major contributors to Floyd's death were arteriosclerotic heart disease, hypertensive heart disease, fentanyl intoxication, and recent methamphetamine use. This very well may be Chauvin's get out of jail free card.

The medical examiner's final findings, issued June 1, classified Floyd's death as a homicide caused by "a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained" by officers who had subjected Floyd to "neck compression". There are going to be a ton of cases sited where this knee on the neck thing did not result in any injury whatsoever to someone being restrained. I've seen dozens just in the last week or so and Chauvin's lawyers will probably be successful in making the case that "neck compression" is not as deadly as it's portrayed.

Now, the autopsy lists fentanyl intoxication as a major contributor to Floyd's death. Do you know what is a common symptom of fentanyl intoxication? Dangerously slowed or stopped breathing. Chauvin's lawyers will find it very easy to say the reason Floyd stopped breathing was his fentanyl abuse - the guy overdosed on fentanyl, his ability to breathe was impaired and then finally stopped. That's why there's no forensic evidence typically associated with manual asphyxiation. Floyd couldn't breathe because of fentanyl, not anything Chauvin did. That's the way lawyers can and likely will spin this.

The lawyers know this and that's why the plea deal broke down. I think Chauvin has at least a 50/50 chance of getting a not guilty verdict. But for the fear of riots, he's probably closer to a 100% chance of not guilty with a halfway competent legal team (that his police union will almost certainly provide or at lease support in some way).

Those riots will make the last week or so look tame.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #220 on: August 11, 2020, 02:02:52 AM »
So I guess the bodycam footage from one of the officers leaked, by someone using a smartphone to record the screen of a device that had the recording and passing it on to the dailymail over in the UK.

It has subsequently resulted in a judge ordering the official public release of the footage, but I'm not finding the official version just yet.

It changes the context of the situation a fair bit, getting a murder conviction off of that is going to be hard.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #221 on: April 20, 2021, 04:04:58 AM »
There are a few facts I never see reported in the media, if they are true:

Floyd’s body contained three times the lethal dose of fentanyl.

Some fentanyl pills were found in the back of the squad car that Floyd had spit out so you wonder if he swallowed some more as he was being arrested to get rid of evidence and if that might explain the lethal dose of fentanyl in his body.

He was saying that he couldn't breathe as they tried to put him in the back of the car.

He was the one who asked to lay down.

But the main thing is if it's true that some fentanyl pills were in the back of the squad car that he spit out then why doesn't the media report that? If he was already saying he couldn't breathe well before the cop was on him then why doesn't the media report that too? It seems like it would make a difference in public perception because the media makes it look like he was saying that because the cop had his knee on him so the cop should have taken it seriously but if he was already saying that from the beginning then the cop wouldn't suspect he was causing it but it was more like a panic attack.

It might be that he died because as he was being arrested he swallowed some fentanyl pills and spit some out and that's also why he couldn't breathe, because he had just ingested three times the fatal dose of fentanyl. Might be. Maybe. That part is just speculation but Ann Coulter wrote that the autopsy report said he had three times the lethal dose of fentanyl and on the radio I heard the part about how the police found fentanyl pills with his saliva on them in the back of the police car and he said he couldn't breathe as they were trying to get him into it. None of which is reported. Now maybe the sources where I got that info are wrong but it's hard to confirm anything when the media refuses to do its job.

It seems like there is more doubt in play if all the facts are revealed but the media doesn't tell the truth. They lie constantly. They did the same thing in the Rodney King case when almost every time the video was shown they left out the parts with King attacking the police.

It's like the media with their constant lies are trying to incite violence. Well it's not LIKE they are trying to incite violence. They ARE inciting violence. And Maxine Waters is with them. And the jury knows all of this so there is no way that cop is getting a fair trial.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #222 on: April 20, 2021, 04:19:31 AM »
Okay, found some info on it.

"Blood concentrations of approximately 7 ng/ml or greater have been associated with fatalities where poly-substance use was involved."

https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/fentanyl_en

VI. Toxicology (see attached report for full details; testing
performed on antemortem blood specimens collected 5/25/20 at
9:00 p.m. at HHC and on postmortem urine)
A. Blood drug and novel psychoactive substances screens:
1. Fentanyl 11 ng/mL
2. Norfentanyl 5.6 ng/mL
3. 4-ANPP 0.65 ng/mL
4. Methamphetamine 19 ng/mL
5. 11-Hydroxy Delta-9 THC 1.2 ng/mL;
Delta-9 Carboxy THC 42 ng/mL; Delta-9 THC 2.9 ng/mL
6. Cotinine positive
7. Caffeine positive
B. Blood volatiles: negative for ethanol, methanol,
isopropanol, or acetone


C. Urine drug screen: presumptive positive for cannabinoids,
amphetamines, and fentanyl/metabolite
D. Urine drug screen confirmation: morphine (free) 86 ng/mL

https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/floyd-autopsy-6-3-20.pdf


That is a lot of drugs. The real key though which I guess we'll never know is did he take some of them that killed him as he was being arrested. Maybe he put them in his mouth and intended to just hide them and spit them out later or something but ended up swallowing some of them. Or he is basically fine just walking around with those levels of drugs in his system?


Now Prince had a high level of fentanyl in his system too:

"According to the AP, the confidential toxicology report indicates that "concentration of fentanyl in Prince's blood was 67.8 micrograms per liter." As the wire service notes, "fatalities have been documented in people with blood levels ranging from three to 58 micrograms per liter."

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/27/597249429/prince-died-with-exceedingly-high-level-of-fentanyl-report-states

It would be nice if they reported these things using the same units instead of switching between mg/l and ng/ml.


cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #223 on: April 20, 2021, 04:42:12 AM »
Well here's the media's side:

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/16/fact-check-fentanyl-george-floyd-not-enough-to-cause-death/7239448002/

"Our ruling: False

We rate the claim Floyd had enough fentanyl in his system to kill three grown men FALSE, based on our research. While Floyd's toxicology report did reveal fentanyl present, expert witnesses at his murder trial have stated there was not enough to be considered fatal or impact his breathing and oxygen levels. Floyd died due to lack of oxygen from the force of Chauvin's knee on his neck."

"... expert witnesses at his murder trial have stated?"

This part is suspect. Expert witnesses state what they are paid to state.

In this story they also only seem to be looking at the fentanyl and I see no mention of the morphine, a dangerous combination and one that should be mentioned. In a story claiming to be fact checking it sure leaves out some important facts.


cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #224 on: April 20, 2021, 04:46:39 AM »
So here's the part about the pills with Floyd's saliva found in the squad car. Note it's MPR news, not NPR news. I listen to NPR news and haven't heart them mention anything about it or the implications.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/04/07/chauvin-trial-george-floyd

"Pills found during the forensic investigation into George Floyd’s death in police custody tested positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl; one contained Floyd’s saliva, officials testified Wednesday during the murder trial of ex-Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.

Pills were found in the SUV Floyd was driving; one that contained DNA from Floyd’s saliva was also found in the back of the police squad vehicle that briefly held Floyd."


msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #225 on: April 20, 2021, 07:50:36 AM »
So when experts disagree with your point of view, they are suspect, but when they agree they are to be listened to?

oldbrian

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #226 on: April 20, 2021, 08:45:08 AM »
micrograms / liter is the same as nanograms / milliliter - so Prince had 6x the levels the Floyd did.  Which was indeed over the fatal level, but not three times over.  I agree that 'expert witnesses' need a large grain of salt, but you can do that math yourself.

And if you are correct that Floyd was complaining about breathing earlier, I would say that is even more damning for Chauvin.  A guy says he can't breath, and his response is to put his knee on the guy's neck?  Seriously?
« Last Edit: April 20, 2021, 08:47:38 AM by oldbrian »

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #227 on: April 20, 2021, 09:58:19 AM »
And even though you can talk, barely, having your neck kneeled on reduces airflow. which causes issues with O2 levels, which causes other issues. Floyd may very well have been getting some air early on, but it was not enough to keep him alive.  It very well could have caused a cascade of issues that lead to his death.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #228 on: April 20, 2021, 03:48:37 PM »
Ok it is about 3:50PM ET and supposedly the jury has a verdict. It will be read at between 4:30PM and 5PM today.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #229 on: April 20, 2021, 05:08:54 PM »
Guilty on all 3 counts.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #230 on: April 20, 2021, 07:51:21 PM »
Well at least we'll avoid some riots and Covid superspreading.

Hopefully police will be a lot more careful in the future.

Crime is going to skyrocket, as it is doing already as police become risk averse, but that's worth it to avoid more innocent black men getting murdered by racist cops.

edgmatt

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #231 on: April 20, 2021, 08:01:52 PM »
I'm glad he got convicted.  I saw the tape like everyone else when it happened, and I thought "That is just murder, wtf."   :(

I hope his appeal gets turned down too.  As bad as the media is, that's not the reason he was found guilty; his actions were the reason.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #232 on: April 20, 2021, 09:23:04 PM »
It's interesting, this idea that crime will skyrocket because police will be slightly more hesitant to use deadly force. People like Floyd might get away with passing a phony $20 bill. How terrifying. Maybe there will be fewer no-knock warrants, and the war on drugs will suffer. Do people really think that's going to triple the number of drug dealers? We already have maxed out incarceration for minor drug offences. Look at other countries like Canada and the UK where police deescalate and don't grab for their guns right away. Does Toronto have a crime ridden city? Does Perth? Does Edinborough?

If people don't hate and distrust cops, you might even see people more willing to cooperate to fight violent crime. People talk about how nobody wants to be a cop if they are held accountable, but how many others might be interested in being a cop if they were respected rather than loathed?

Hopefully we'll get to find out what happens, but that only occurs if there is true reform and this isn't a one-off on accountability. Regardless, I predict it is a short term effect as I fully expect robot peace officers to exist within the next 20 years. With inhuman reaction times and agility, no fear for their own personal safety, and its already happening with the Boston Dynamics police dog robot.

The best way to fight crime is by alleviating the root causes of crime like poverty and poor education. Not by terrifying people into submission and mass incarceration.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #233 on: Today at 01:35:02 AM »

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #234 on: Today at 01:59:41 AM »
I know a lot of us can be real sticklers for semantics so here is a puzzler.

If a law says that you can be convicted of a certain crime if you are a danger to others but in fact during the commission of said crime you only endanger one person would that mean you couldn't be found guilty of that particular crime because the word "others" is plural and you weren't endangering more than one person?

https://news.yahoo.com/explainer-conviction-lesser-murder-count-181307942.html

"At issue is a short phrase in the statute: that the defendant's conduct must be found to be “eminently dangerous to others."

The original charges against Chauvin included third-degree murder. But Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill threw out that count in October, citing the word “others” — plural — in that phrase. Cahill said there was no evidence Chauvin’s actions endangered anyone beyond Floyd."

--------------------------------------------------------

Sure, Chauvin was convicted on all counts so that gives justice some breathing room here but the semantic issue is still in play.

My take is that in this case "others" does not mean more than one person. It means anyone other than yourself.

Like with people who may get committed, the standard is are they a danger to themselves or others? The semantics there and the distinction are pretty obvious. Others isn't plural at all but just means anyone else besides themselves. If the law finds otherwise I'd find that awfully odd.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #235 on: Today at 02:18:55 AM »
Here's a little more about the fentanyl levels. I was curious about how low a level could be and still kill someone. Apparently it's only 3. Maybe that's where the "triple the fatal dose came in" because his level was 11 and 3 can kill some people. Of course each person is different and all that and many could have more than Floyd and be fine I guess. He also apparently had 75% blockage of one artery in his heart which I didn't know though I did read that he had heart troubles. And he also had Covid which has killed over half a million Americans, which is sometimes reported but usually isn't. At least 3 different ways he could have died with drugs, Covid, and a bad heart, all of which are probably three of the top six killers of Americans today, but apparently there's no reasonable doubt about what killed him. It was the knee on the neck.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/new-court-docs-say-george-floyd-had-fatal-level-of-fentanyl-in-his-system/ar-BB18pb0p