runnerboy70 wrote:
Knee on neck is a procedure that is taught to restrain someone. Sometimes these drug addled idiots smash their heads on the ground, Chauvin was not out of line.
No sh*t! Really? He was restrained and he was cutting the guys air passage off. Are you seriously that demented or are you just ignorant to a whole different level?
Tasing is a non-lethal restraint to. Would tasing a person over and over for several minutes then be reasonable because it is a non-lethal form of restraint?
StevePrefonDead wrote:
A quote from Reddit about the Minnesota statute for murder in the third degree, which most people think is the only charge that the prosecution can make stick.
"MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
"(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years."
Chauvin can only be convicted of murder in the third degree if the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was "evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life". Considering the circumstances of the case, I am relatively convinced that the defense may be able to create at least some reasonable doubt regarding Chauvin having a lacking regard for human life.
Let me explain what makes me think that, by going through the body cam footage and then going into what the defense could lean on. (I'm arguing from the standpoint of the defense. What I'm saying here isn't my personal opinion.)
If you watch the entirety of the body cam footage, it's clear that Floyd was acting erratically and the officers were confident that he was under the influence of drugs. The cops were relatively calm throughout most of the proceedings but Floyd had a full blown panic attack when the officers tried to put him into the police car. During this entire time, Floyd kept yelling that he can't breathe, even though nobody was doing anything to his neck, airways, mouth or chest.
At 39:53 of the video, Floyd is sitting on the back seat with his feet on the sidewalk, when his friend, who was with him before the arrest, tells him, "You ain't gonna win." Floyd responds, "I don't wanna win. I'm claustrophobic and I get excited." To which the officer responds "I'll roll the window down." Floyd continues "Man, im scared as fck, man. If I stop breathing, it's going to go out for me, man."
After that, a struggle ensues, where the officers try to get Floyd into the car. He then propels himself out of the other side of the car and yells that he wants to lie on the ground. At 41:27, his friend tells Floyd "You're going to have a heart attack, get in the car." and Floyd keeps yelling that he can't breathe and flops, kicks and struggles around in the car.
At 41:53, the officer with the body cam says "Let's take him out and just MRT." MRT being Maximum Restraint Techniques, which are used as a last resort to get individuals under control who remain violent and/or combative even after being handcuffed. These MRTs are supposed to protect the officers from harm but also to protect the detainee from harming themselves. One of these MRTs, which were trained and recommended by the Minneapolis police department, is the Neck Restraint which they describe as a "non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person's neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck)". If you're looking at the example picture provided in the handbook, Chauvin performed this neck restraint exactly as recommended.
Then, as soon as he's on the ground, Floyd calls for his mom, tells the officers that they should tell his kids that he loves them and keeps repeating that he can't breathe. Then his friend tells him again to just get in the car, to which he responds that he can't breathe. Later he says that his neck and stomach hurt.
At 45:30, he says, "I can't breathe, Officer." Chauvin responds, "Then stop talking and yelling" Floyd interrupts, "You're going to kill me." and Chauvin finishes with "takes a heck of a lot of oxygen."
At 46:40, the officer with the body cam asks whether they should roll Floyd on the side because he's worried about the delirium. Chauvin responds that they should stay put right now and that the ambulance is less than 5 minutes away.
At 47:40, the officer with the body cam says "I think he's passing out.", at 48:05, he says "He's breathing." and at 48:31, he asks again whether they should roll him on the side. During the entire situation, he also keeps checking Floyd's pulse on his calves, which he does one last time at 49:45 and he still seems to feel it. Right after, you can hear the ambulance arriving and the officers slightly loosen their restraint until the EMTs take over.
Now, Chauvin's defense can use a whole lot of those events to avoid a guilty verdict on those murder charges. This is how I would argue if I had to come up with a defense strategy.
•Floyd had paid with counterfeit money and was legally arrested.
•Floyd was under the influence of fentanyl and was behaving erratically when officers tried to put him into the police car. Even though he was cuffed, he kept kicking and fighting, which endangered the officers' and Floyd's health and therefore justified applying MRTs.
•The MRT Chauvin applied was recommended by the police department and was categorized as a non-lethal force option. Therefore, Chauvin used this technique, which he believed to be non-lethal, to safely restrain Floyd.
•Since Floyd had claimed that he can't breathe throughout the interaction, even before anybody even touched is neck, mouth or chest, Chauvin could not take this claim seriously in the situation, especially since Floyd kept yelling and talking, which proved to Chauvin that Floyd could actually breathe. This becomes very apparent when Chauvin tells Floyd that he should stop talking and yelling, so he can breathe easier. This exchange with Floyd does not make sense if Chauvin actually thought he was obstructing Floyd's trachea.
•Since Chauvin's colleague kept checking Floyd's pulse, he was certain that Floyd had simply passed out due to the stress and drugs in his system and would be treated shortly by EMTs who could deal with his issues.
•Chauvin was trying to keep Floyd restrained until the ambulance arrived, with a technique that was taught to him as being non-lethal. He tried to protect the other officers from harm and Floyd from harming himself in his panic attack. He is extremely sorrowful that Floyd lost his life in this situation, but he acted with the best intentions and according to his training. In no instance did he show a lack of regard for human life.
If the defense team is smart, they are going to go much further than this and will argue that the police department was guilty of recommending dangerous restraining techniques and that Chauvin is in favor of reforming the police, having better de-escalation training and mental health experts within the department, so they can assist the police in situations where they have to deal with mentally ill people, people on drugs and people with panic attacks.
Additionally to all of this, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Floyd died due to the neck restraint and not due to heart failure caused by his panic attack and the drugs in his system.
With all of this on the table, I don't think it's unlikely that Chauvin will not be convicted of any of the murder charges. (Again, I'm just arguing the standpoint of the defense. This isn't my personal opinion.)"
Wow!
Well done!
Ego 101 wrote:
runnerboy70 wrote:
Knee on neck is a procedure that is taught to restrain someone. Sometimes these drug addled idiots smash their heads on the ground, Chauvin was not out of line.
No sh*t! Really? He was restrained and he was cutting the guys air passage off. Are you seriously that demented or are you just ignorant to a whole different level?
Where are you seeing that? If DC was cutting GF's air how was GF able to continue to talk?
If DC wanted to kill GF by cutting off his air he could do that in less than a minute with full body weight and applying the knee more towards the front of his neck, right?
Borya wrote:
Muldoon wrote:
This post is worth analyzing. It is a mediocre attempt to deflect from the fentanyl overdose issue with strangely conflated arguments and appeals to emotion, all culminating in what they author really wanted to allege yet again (his reputation for this precedes him) – America is nothing but a racist country.
The author wants to immediately turn attention away from the drug overdose issue and back to an issue he is comfortable with; Chauvin’s knee restraint. But the author isn’t very good at this (certainly not as good as he thinks he is) and his transition is awkward at best (“the definition of drug overdose has expanded”). The author presumes the only possible cause of death is Chauvin’s knee restraint, by attempting to relegate the drug overdose to an irrelevancy. Note also the silly, conjured reference to “assisted dying” thrown in as a distraction/strawman, and then the appeal to emotion following the strawman (“he repeatedly begged for his life”). The author also resorts to hyped up rhetorical questioning when he ponders “what medical procedure Chauvin was following when he kept his knee on his neck” as if the police have clairvoyant knowledge of the type and amount of drugs a resisting arrestee has in their body, and are required to transform into paramedics when a certain thresholds are present.
The author then attempts to pretend there actually is no drug overdose issue with Floyd at all, suggesting that it is nothing but an unsupported message board claim (“as some here claim”). This is highly disingenuous. The author is knowledgeable enough about the Floyd death to know there is an independent autopsy/toxicology report on Floyd that reports he had lethal amounts of fentanyl and methamphetamine in his body. But the author is hoping that uninformed readers will now ponder whether there is such evidence or whether it is merely message board rhetoric.
Possibly realizing the weakness of his attempt at distraction from the drug overdose issues, and also perhaps unable to stop himself, the author then resorts to gross hyperbole with the assertion that it is “apparent that quite a few would give the police the right to execute people on the street that they see as a burden on society.” A quick review of the thread reveals that while there may have been some harsh remarks about Floyd’s past and current lifestyle, no one came close to the author’s exaggerated statements. This is a common technique practiced by politicos (e.g., Donald Trump) all the time - grossly mischaracterize your opponent's view, in hopes of making your own look more reasonable.
Lastly, we come to the real reason the author (Armstronglives) posted here (or anywhere for that matter). The author, who ironically has never set foot in America, has a compulsion with America bashing, particularly regarding racial issues. All of America is forever trapped in some kind of Jim Crow era in his view, and he seeks out any opportunity he can to express that. There is no evidence of racism in the Floyd case (at least yet), although the author is not alone in pretending and/or presuming there is. But I do suspect that even the author’s most hard-core comrades on the far left, even the ones who truly believe there is an epidemic of racist white cops roving around America's streets looking for black people to kill, have grown tired of his uninformed America bashing.
Doesn't this argument apply equally the other way around? Someone who is being knelt on by police might have died of a drug overdose, but someone who has taken drugs might have died as a result of being knelt on by police.
Yes, the argument could apply the other way around. But I don’t think it has anywhere near as much strength. A lethal level of drugs, by definition, will kill a person. Floyd had a lethal level of drugs in his body (he ingested a LOT of fentanyl he was in possession of when the police showed up). Knee restraints to the neck are seldom lethal - we would know about it if they were. So when the standard is “reasonable doubt” as to whether Chauvin’s knee restraint was the cause of death, which it must be to get a conviction, the lethal level of drugs in Floyd's system would seem to at least raise reasonable doubt as to whether Chauvin’s knee restraint was the cause of death.
It doesn’t really work as well the other way around. It is theoretically possible to murder someone who is about to die of other causes. The example I’ve been given in the past is that if someone falls off a 100 foot cliff (from which they will surely die), and someone shoots them through the heart on the way down, that would still be an illegal homicide, despite the fact that the person would have died seconds later from the fall. The prosecution may decide to argue that Chauvin’s knee restraint was the cause of death before the drugs killed Floyd. It’s possible that could be the case, but there seems to be reasonable doubt there too. He was going to die in minutes or seconds, then Chauvin jumped in and killed him before he was going to die anyway? Seems like a stretch to me. But it could work.
I suppose the prosecution may try to challenge whether the fentanyl was lethal at all. That seems very difficult to do, and even trying that could hurt the prosecution’s credibility. Their best option seems to be just to play the video of Floyd’s death over and over, as many times as possible, and hope the emotional impact of the video, coupled with vague allegations of racism, makes the jury upset enough to ignore the fentanyl evidence. That seems to work on many of the posters in this thread.
Borya wrote:
I think you may have been disingenuous. Medical examiner Baker said that Floyd's toxicology report showed he had a "fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances" and that "if he were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD."
An independent autopsy found his death was a "homicide caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain."
I'm not sure if these are the same report/autopsy, in which case it seems they acknowledged drugs but did not conclude they killed him. Otherwise it seems there are differing reports, in which case how do we know who and what we should believe?
I think I pointed out earlier that the “independent autopsy” you mentioned was one commissioned by Floyd’s family (and their lawyers who have a huge civil action payday in the works). It’s an autopsy of a body already autopsied, so there are missing body parts, parts that can’t be tested twice, body structures that were destroyed in the first autopsy, and of course it is inherently biased and not “independent” in the sense that it was done for neutral purposes. Such autopsies seldom get admitted. The state would be saying its own independent examiner is not good enough, so the jury should listen to someone Floyd’s family hired? I don’t see that. Anyway, I think most people would give it very little weight whatever it says.
Borya wrote:
How can we hope to find out the cause of death and whether the police response was appropriate?
Won't prosecutors and defenders each find experts to argue it was the knee/drugs that killed him and the knee restraints was unjustified/justified? How do we know which expert to believe if differing claims are presented?
The prosecution and defense will do that. A person has to just make determinations based on the facts presented, and other things like how credible the expert witnesses are, whether what they say is making sense, etc. You and I won’t get to see a lot of that, not being jurors. But basically that's how you do it, and you try not to let bias or emotion get in your way, and you keep in mind the legal standard of proof and which side has the burden of proof. It's not always easy, but I think most juries take it seriously.
Borya wrote:
Are there cases where someone was not harmed after having a knee on their neck for 8 minutes? Unless there are examples of the police using this restraint for so long against compliant suspects, I can't see how they can justify Chauvin's actions.
I don’t know if there are, but I’d guess there are many such cases. Police restrain tens of thousands of people a year, and from what I’ve read, they often use knee restraints like Chauvin did. They aren’t often (if ever) lethal or intended to be lethal. I assume there will be a lot of trial testimony on that. But again, as someone else pointed out, Chauvin’s behavior can be completely unjustified (and probably was at some point) and he could even be guilty of assault on Floyd, but still not be the cause of death. It sure doesn’t look like it was the cause of death. Floyd had 11ng/ml of Fentanyl (and other other drugs in his system), which was suppressing his respiration (Floyd said so before Chauvin ever went near him), and it killed him, unless you believe Chauvin killed him just before he would have died from the drugs overdose seconds or minutes later.
A lot of posters conflating using a knee to restrain someone to kneeling on a persons neck for 8 minutes, even after they are unconscious.
Perhaps you're not clear on the concept of "restraining." Usually it's not temporary.
It was obvious months ago to all but those truly naive to drug OD's that George died of an OD.
It's also obvious that the correct verdict is being held hostage by the prospect of rioting. The only real question is, assuming Chauvin is acquitted, how many people will be killed.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Usually it's not temporary.
Usually you don't need to restrain unconscious people.
baa baa wool wrote:
A lot of posters conflating using a knee to restrain someone to kneeling on a persons neck for 8 minutes, even after they are unconscious.
Maybe some are. But I think most people get the distinction you just made. I think what's confusing you on that is you are seeing posters wondering how "kneeling on a persons neck for 8 minutes, even after they are unconscious" can be shown to be, beyond a reasonable doubt,
the cause of Floyd's death, when there are lethal levels of fentanyl in Floyd's body. And what is strange to me on that, is how many people like yourself don't even seem to be able to grasp why that is one of the critical issues, if not the primary issue in the case.
StevePrefonDead wrote:Now, Chauvin's defense can use a whole lot of those events to avoid a guilty verdict on those murder charges. This is how I would argue if I had to come up with a defense strategy.
•Floyd had paid with counterfeit money and was legally arrested.
•Floyd was under the influence of fentanyl and was behaving erratically when officers tried to put him into the police car. Even though he was cuffed, he kept kicking and fighting, which endangered the officers' and Floyd's health and therefore justified applying MRTs.
•The MRT Chauvin applied was recommended by the police department and was categorized as a non-lethal force option. Therefore, Chauvin used this technique, which he believed to be non-lethal, to safely restrain Floyd.
•Since Floyd had claimed that he can't breathe throughout the interaction, even before anybody even touched is neck, mouth or chest, Chauvin could not take this claim seriously in the situation, especially since Floyd kept yelling and talking, which proved to Chauvin that Floyd could actually breathe. This becomes very apparent when Chauvin tells Floyd that he should stop talking and yelling, so he can breathe easier. This exchange with Floyd does not make sense if Chauvin actually thought he was obstructing Floyd's trachea.
•Since Chauvin's colleague kept checking Floyd's pulse, he was certain that Floyd had simply passed out due to the stress and drugs in his system and would be treated shortly by EMTs who could deal with his issues.
•Chauvin was trying to keep Floyd restrained until the ambulance arrived, with a technique that was taught to him as being non-lethal. He tried to protect the other officers from harm and Floyd from harming himself in his panic attack. He is extremely sorrowful that Floyd lost his life in this situation, but he acted with the best intentions and according to his training. In no instance did he show a lack of regard for human life.
If the defense team is smart, they are going to go much further than this and will argue that the police department was guilty of recommending dangerous restraining techniques and that Chauvin is in favor of reforming the police, having better de-escalation training and mental health experts within the department, so they can assist the police in situations where they have to deal with mentally ill people, people on drugs and people with panic attacks.
Additionally to all of this, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Floyd died due to the neck restraint and not due to heart failure caused by his panic attack and the drugs in his system.
With all of this on the table, I don't think it's unlikely that Chauvin will not be convicted of any of the murder charges. (Again, I'm just arguing the standpoint of the defense. This isn't my personal opinion.)"
I agree it will be hard to prove murder, but I don't know how persuasive these points will be.
"Even though he was cuffed, he kept kicking and fighting, which endangered the officers' and Floyd's health and therefore justified applying MRTs."
Was applying MRT proportionate? Floyd had not seriously hurt the officers or himself. It seemed like he was causing a nuisance, but he wasn't likely to hurt anyone.
Floyd was having trouble breathing with a knee on his neck. People who are struggling to breathe speak in short sentences. If Floyd wasn't struggling to breathe and wasn't panicking, he might have said: "I'm having trouble breathing" or "your knee on my neck is making it difficult for me to breathe" but he said "I can't breathe" instead.
"Since Floyd had claimed that he can't breathe throughout the interaction, even before anybody even touched is neck, mouth or chest, Chauvin could not take this claim seriously in the situation, especially since Floyd kept yelling and talking"
Floyd might have been crying wolf earlier. Or he might have been having less serious breathing difficulties earlier. It is not reasonable for Chauvin to conclude that Floyd can breathe easily whilst being restrained. It is likely that this type of restraint makes breathing difficult, so it is possible that Chauvin's knee restraint did cause significant breathing problems.
Floyd was already panicking and the knee restraint made it harder for him to breathe. Was it reasonable for Chauvin to assume that Floyd would become calmer in this position?
"The MRT Chauvin applied was recommended by the police department and was categorized as a non-lethal force option. Therefore, Chauvin used this technique, which he believed to be non-lethal, to safely restrain Floyd."
Chauvin continued to restrain Floyd (apparently for 2 minutes, 53 seconds) after he was unconscious. Once Floyd was unconscious, the restraint was no longer making Floyd or the officers any safer. Chauvin's restraint might have caused Floyd to become unconscious, so he knew it might have been dangerous to continue to restrain him. As he continued to keep him in that dangerous position which could no longer possibly make Floyd or the officers safer, he was showing a lack of regard for human life.
"Since Chauvin's colleague kept checking Floyd's pulse, he was certain that Floyd had simply passed out due to the stress and drugs in his system and would be treated shortly by EMTs who could deal with his issues."
Can they prove this?
"If the defense team is smart, they are going to go much further than this and will argue that the police department was guilty of recommending dangerous restraining techniques"
I think this will be hard to argue. He wasn't ordered or even recommended to use MRT (I think he'd have a strong case if a senior officer was at the scene telling him to use it). He could have used other techniques, or he could have used it for a shorter length of time.
StevePrefonDead wrote:
A quote from Reddit about the Minnesota statute for murder in the third degree, which most people think is the only charge that the prosecution can make stick.
"MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
"(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years."
Chauvin can only be convicted of murder in the third degree if the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was "evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life". Considering the circumstances of the case, I am relatively convinced that the defense may be able to create at least some reasonable doubt regarding Chauvin having a lacking regard for human life.
Let me explain what makes me think that, by going through the body cam footage and then going into what the defense could lean on. (I'm arguing from the standpoint of the defense. What I'm saying here isn't my personal opinion.)
If you watch the entirety of the body cam footage, it's clear that Floyd was acting erratically and the officers were confident that he was under the influence of drugs. The cops were relatively calm throughout most of the proceedings but Floyd had a full blown panic attack when the officers tried to put him into the police car. During this entire time, Floyd kept yelling that he can't breathe, even though nobody was doing anything to his neck, airways, mouth or chest.
At 39:53 of the video, Floyd is sitting on the back seat with his feet on the sidewalk, when his friend, who was with him before the arrest, tells him, "You ain't gonna win." Floyd responds, "I don't wanna win. I'm claustrophobic and I get excited." To which the officer responds "I'll roll the window down." Floyd continues "Man, im scared as fck, man. If I stop breathing, it's going to go out for me, man."
After that, a struggle ensues, where the officers try to get Floyd into the car. He then propels himself out of the other side of the car and yells that he wants to lie on the ground. At 41:27, his friend tells Floyd "You're going to have a heart attack, get in the car." and Floyd keeps yelling that he can't breathe and flops, kicks and struggles around in the car.
At 41:53, the officer with the body cam says "Let's take him out and just MRT." MRT being Maximum Restraint Techniques, which are used as a last resort to get individuals under control who remain violent and/or combative even after being handcuffed. These MRTs are supposed to protect the officers from harm but also to protect the detainee from harming themselves. One of these MRTs, which were trained and recommended by the Minneapolis police department, is the Neck Restraint which they describe as a "non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person's neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck)". If you're looking at the example picture provided in the handbook, Chauvin performed this neck restraint exactly as recommended.
Then, as soon as he's on the ground, Floyd calls for his mom, tells the officers that they should tell his kids that he loves them and keeps repeating that he can't breathe. Then his friend tells him again to just get in the car, to which he responds that he can't breathe. Later he says that his neck and stomach hurt.
At 45:30, he says, "I can't breathe, Officer." Chauvin responds, "Then stop talking and yelling" Floyd interrupts, "You're going to kill me." and Chauvin finishes with "takes a heck of a lot of oxygen."
At 46:40, the officer with the body cam asks whether they should roll Floyd on the side because he's worried about the delirium. Chauvin responds that they should stay put right now and that the ambulance is less than 5 minutes away.
At 47:40, the officer with the body cam says "I think he's passing out.", at 48:05, he says "He's breathing." and at 48:31, he asks again whether they should roll him on the side. During the entire situation, he also keeps checking Floyd's pulse on his calves, which he does one last time at 49:45 and he still seems to feel it. Right after, you can hear the ambulance arriving and the officers slightly loosen their restraint until the EMTs take over.
Now, Chauvin's defense can use a whole lot of those events to avoid a guilty verdict on those murder charges. This is how I would argue if I had to come up with a defense strategy.
•Floyd had paid with counterfeit money and was legally arrested.
•Floyd was under the influence of fentanyl and was behaving erratically when officers tried to put him into the police car. Even though he was cuffed, he kept kicking and fighting, which endangered the officers' and Floyd's health and therefore justified applying MRTs.
•The MRT Chauvin applied was recommended by the police department and was categorized as a non-lethal force option. Therefore, Chauvin used this technique, which he believed to be non-lethal, to safely restrain Floyd.
•Since Floyd had claimed that he can't breathe throughout the interaction, even before anybody even touched is neck, mouth or chest, Chauvin could not take this claim seriously in the situation, especially since Floyd kept yelling and talking, which proved to Chauvin that Floyd could actually breathe. This becomes very apparent when Chauvin tells Floyd that he should stop talking and yelling, so he can breathe easier. This exchange with Floyd does not make sense if Chauvin actually thought he was obstructing Floyd's trachea.
•Since Chauvin's colleague kept checking Floyd's pulse, he was certain that Floyd had simply passed out due to the stress and drugs in his system and would be treated shortly by EMTs who could deal with his issues.
•Chauvin was trying to keep Floyd restrained until the ambulance arrived, with a technique that was taught to him as being non-lethal. He tried to protect the other officers from harm and Floyd from harming himself in his panic attack. He is extremely sorrowful that Floyd lost his life in this situation, but he acted with the best intentions and according to his training. In no instance did he show a lack of regard for human life.
If the defense team is smart, they are going to go much further than this and will argue that the police department was guilty of recommending dangerous restraining techniques and that Chauvin is in favor of reforming the police, having better de-escalation training and mental health experts within the department, so they can assist the police in situations where they have to deal with mentally ill people, people on drugs and people with panic attacks.
Additionally to all of this, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Floyd died due to the neck restraint and not due to heart failure caused by his panic attack and the drugs in his system.
With all of this on the table, I don't think it's unlikely that Chauvin will not be convicted of any of the murder charges. (Again, I'm just arguing the standpoint of the defense. This isn't my personal opinion.)"
This is an exceptionally good post. /ends thread.
Thank you for your unbiased, clear and intelligent assessment of events, and we all understand that your personal viewpoint, as for many of us, may not align with the defense position or indeed be opposed to it.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Perhaps you're not clear on the concept of "restraining." Usually it's not temporary.
It was obvious months ago to all but those truly naive to drug OD's that George died of an OD.
It's also obvious that the correct verdict is being held hostage by the prospect of rioting. The only real question is, assuming Chauvin is acquitted, how many people will be killed.
2600? sorry, couldnt resist. a feeble attempt at humour. someone had to do it.
Muldoon wrote:
baa baa wool wrote:
A lot of posters conflating using a knee to restrain someone to kneeling on a persons neck for 8 minutes, even after they are unconscious.
Maybe some are. But I think most people get the distinction you just made. I think what's confusing you on that is you are seeing posters wondering how "kneeling on a persons neck for 8 minutes, even after they are unconscious" can be shown to be, beyond a reasonable doubt,
the cause of Floyd's death, when there are lethal levels of fentanyl in Floyd's body. And what is strange to me on that, is how many people like yourself don't even seem to be able to grasp why that is one of the critical issues, if not the primary issue in the case.
Because much the uproar is about the methods used and many find it to be insanely inappropriate, even if 12 jurors find it to be legal. That his incompetence may be legal is why police reform is a hot topic.
baa baa wool wrote:
Muldoon wrote:
Maybe some are. But I think most people get the distinction you just made. I think what's confusing you on that is you are seeing posters wondering how "kneeling on a persons neck for 8 minutes, even after they are unconscious" can be shown to be, beyond a reasonable doubt,
the cause of Floyd's death, when there are lethal levels of fentanyl in Floyd's body. And what is strange to me on that, is how many people like yourself don't even seem to be able to grasp why that is one of the critical issues, if not the primary issue in the case.
Because much the uproar is about the methods used and many find it to be insanely inappropriate, even if 12 jurors find it to be legal. That his incompetence may be legal is why police reform is a hot topic.
His 'incompetence' is in police procedures. People seem to be unable to understand that police deal with violently dangerous people all the time. Police employment requirements, unions and common sense say that procedures for dealing with violent dangerous people need to put the protection of the law enforcement officer first.
You all expect to be protected in your job by your employer, why shouldnt the police?
pupil3142 wrote:
baa baa wool wrote:
Because much the uproar is about the methods used and many find it to be insanely inappropriate, even if 12 jurors find it to be legal. That his incompetence may be legal is why police reform is a hot topic.
His 'incompetence' is in police procedures.
Even if I take you at face value that continuing to kneel on an unconscious person is police procedure, that illustrates my point precisely!
“That is why police reform is a hot topic”
Millions don’t think that kneeling on a passed out man should be police procedure.
i am in agreement with you that it is a hot topic.
But i am saying that in a situation when an employee is threatened by his work, then his employer's work procedures need to protect the employee first and foremost.
There is a massive friction here, and it must be resolved, sympathetically, in favour of the employee rather than the violent suspected criminal.
pupil3142 wrote:
i am in agreement with you that it is a hot topic.
But i am saying that in a situation when an employee is threatened by his work, then his employer's work procedures need to protect the employee first and foremost.
There is a massive friction here, and it must be resolved, sympathetically, in favour of the employee rather than the violent suspected criminal.
He has to kneel on an unconscious man for minutes to be safe at work?
look, i said there is a massive friction here, so dont over simplify it.
his individual action will be decided by the court.
baa baa wool wrote:
Even if I take you at face value that continuing to kneel on an unconscious person is police procedure, that illustrates my point precisely!
“That is why police reform is a hot topic”
Millions don’t think that kneeling on a passed out man should be police procedure.
and Millions don't think using drugs and fighting with the police should be so common, but sadly that hasn't resulted in any change... I really think the police reform needed begins with the civilians!
Not in my hood wrote:
baa baa wool wrote:
Even if I take you at face value that continuing to kneel on an unconscious person is police procedure, that illustrates my point precisely!
“That is why police reform is a hot topic”
Millions don’t think that kneeling on a passed out man should be police procedure.
and Millions don't think using drugs and fighting with the police should be so common, but sadly that hasn't resulted in any change... I really think the police reform needed begins with the civilians!
You know what the difference is? I'm not sitting here defending Fentanyl abuse or fighting police. You are defending an officer of the state kneeling on the neck of a passed out man. How can civilians reform that?