Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man part II

[T.Lex]

Maybe on the 2nd degree manslaughter. The prosecution has already lost the case on the first two charges if we're all being honest.

The way they get to the other convictions (I think) is a bit nuanced.

The premise is that an officer can commit an assault while effectuating an arrest. The only reason officers are allowed to lay hands on someone is because they are arresting someone, and they are allowed to use a certain amount of force to do that. That is, if the force used is beyond that which is necessary (or mandated by policy), then it converts to a crime: battery (or assault or whatever they have up there). Basically, the officer would commit a separate crime by being too violent.

If you or I lay hands on someone, without intending to kill them, but they end up dead, then that's enough for a criminal conviction. Even if it is in self defense, in the scenario where the initial use of SD might be justified, but we carry it too far. Someone comes at us with a knife, we disarm them, they run away and we chase them, tackle them, then stab them. If they end up dead, we probably committed a crime.

I think that's the logic the prosecution is going for. Chauvin may have been justified initially, but it crossed over at some point into something criminal.

 

[nonobaddog]

Those people are considered experts in their field, and weren't contradicted, by the defense, with the argument you're presenting. If your argument held weight, why wasn't it brought up?

Maybe it will be brought up. The argument is the truth so it should be brought up but that is no guarantee.
Maybe the defense just doesn't know what they don't know. It would be close to incompetence if it is not brought up - providing there are no legal restrictions or games being played.

 

[KLB]

So this brings me back to the point where it kinda doesn't matter for purposes of these charges.

How do you suspect someone is ODing on fentanyl? Being unconscious is one of the primary ways. Unconscious people don't resist, except by just lying there.

If at some point while being restrained, Floyd was unconscious because of fentanyl, that can still support a conviction of Chauvin.

If you look at just that one point, maybe. The testimony a couple of days ago covered all of this. They went over the circumstances in which an officer would not be expected to render aid. Things like, being/having been combative, a hostile crowd, under the influence of drugs....

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The third charge could stick if any can stick. Not that the Jury could actually be impartial on this case. After hearing the testimony of the woke off-duty EMT, her beliefs about it are obviously ideologically contrived. I'm not sure if anyone has an open mind about this that ideology doesn't impact at least a little. But, regardless I think it's possible that the third charge of 2nd degree manslaughter could be appropriate.

But first, I doubt Floyd would be dead if he didn't have lethal doses of Fentanyl/Meth in him. So the drugs had to contribute. Possibly Chauvin's knee contributed as well, but that is less certain. The part that makes me think Chauvin is at least a little responsible for Floyd's death is that he continued well after Floyd became unresponsive. I mean at some point, why would he not check on Floyd? Surely he's had some training to have known that Floyd was acting like he was on drugs. I think that was a level of negligence. The doubt I have is that the knee was really the cause of death.

I agree on the 3rd charge possibility. There was at least one other possible instance of negligence that I can think of. When one of the other officers at the scene asked if they should put Floyd on his side/in the recovery position can't remember the exact verbiage and Chauvin told him no, he's staying right where he is.

I'm not getting this part. Are you saying someone unconscious from an OD shouldn't be in restraints?

I believe the use of force instructor disagreed with that. I would say they should have started life saving measures, but I'm unsure of what all they would have to do to meet that qualification. Maybe calling for EMTs meets the requirement.

I don't believe that is what he is saying, more along the lines of the non handcuff restraint they were using. The prone position with two-three officers holding him down.

Those people are considered experts in their field, and weren't contradicted, by the defense, with the argument you're presenting. If your argument held weight, why wasn't it brought up?

I can think of at least one reason, they have their own expert witness they are planning on calling to rebut the prosecutions. I would be surprised if they didn't have one.

 

[nonobaddog]

People can minimize it all they want. Some people die from that amount of Fentanyl even without a 180lb cop kneeling on them. That's reasonable doubt as to the cause of death, regardless what a coroner testified to. Bottom line is, there is reasonable doubt about the cause of death.

I didn't realize Chauvin was such a small guy - I have seen his height at 5' 9" and weight from 140 to 156 lbs.

ETA - I also found an obviously very biased site that said Chauvin was 180 lbs and 5' 12". Yes, they said 5' 12". They have nothing against lying.

 

[nonobaddog]

Even though Chauvin seems like a real POS person I'm not convinced there is enough honest evidence to prove criminal behavior.
I just hope the court does it's job right.

 

[T.Lex]

That's kinda where I'm at.

I believe Chauvin to be morally and ethically responsible for Floyd's death.

The jury will have to figure out if that amounts to criminal culpability.

And, while I have faith in the jury system, I have little faith in people's ability to accept results they don't like.

 

[nonobaddog]

That's kinda where I'm at.

I believe Chauvin to be morally and ethically responsible for Floyd's death.

The jury will have to figure out if that amounts to criminal culpability.

And, while I have faith in the jury system, I have little faith in people's ability to accept results they don't like.

I used to have more faith in the jury system than I do now. These days honesty is a distant second (if that) to agenda. I think many people are so mentally mired in wokeness that their integrity is gone and replaced by 'the cause'. If/when these people get on juries you don't want to be a defendant.

And yes, results they don't like have become unacceptable to them so they must throw tantrums and burn down their favorite quickie mart.

 

[T.Lex]

I used to have more faith in the jury system than I do now. These days honesty is a distant second (if that) to agenda. I think many people are so mentally mired in wokeness that their integrity is gone and replaced by 'the cause'. If/when these people get on juries you don't want to be a defendant.

And yes, results they don't like have become unacceptable to them so they must throw tantrums and burn down their favorite quickie mart.

Juries reflect our society.

Wokeness is part of our society now, so it will be reflected in the juries.

Gets back to accepting things we don't like.

 

[HoughMade]

I don't know what to think about juries....I "know" less and less about them every time I try a case.

don't tell my clients.

 

[BugI02]

I don't know what to think about juries....I "know" less and less about them every time I try a case.

don't tell my clients.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. " - Agent K

 

[Expat]

Having watched a great deal of TV legal shows, is the objection about "asked and answered already" not an actual objection? I note the defense attorney seems to go back and ask the same or similar question over and over with each witness.

 

[Jaybird1980]

I don't believe that is what he is saying, more along the lines of the non handcuff restraint they were using. The prone position with two-three officers holding him down.

Ok, that makes sense and I can agree with it.

I would have to go back and review the footage to see how long the were using their body weight on him after they realized he lost consciousness, before I could form an opinion on it.

 

[jamil]

The way they get to the other convictions (I think) is a bit nuanced.

The premise is that an officer can commit an assault while effectuating an arrest. The only reason officers are allowed to lay hands on someone is because they are arresting someone, and they are allowed to use a certain amount of force to do that. That is, if the force used is beyond that which is necessary (or mandated by policy), then it converts to a crime: battery (or assault or whatever they have up there). Basically, the officer would commit a separate crime by being too violent.

If you or I lay hands on someone, without intending to kill them, but they end up dead, then that's enough for a criminal conviction. Even if it is in self defense, in the scenario where the initial use of SD might be justified, but we carry it too far. Someone comes at us with a knife, we disarm them, they run away and we chase them, tackle them, then stab them. If they end up dead, we probably committed a crime.

I think that's the logic the prosecution is going for. Chauvin may have been justified initially, but it crossed over at some point into something criminal.

I think that’s a stretch. But I understand why a prosecutor would want to stretch things as far as possible. Is there evidence that it became an assault at some point? I think it’s quite reasonable to doubt it. At the point where they restrained Floyd on the ground he was resisting.

It’s not going to upset my sense of justice if Chauvin gets convicted on the 2nd degree manslaughter. They continued to restrain him several minutes after he stopped moving.

 

[T.Lex]

I think that’s a stretch. But I understand why a prosecutor would want to stretch things as far as possible. Is there evidence that it became an assault at some point? I think it’s quite reasonable to doubt it. At the point where they restrained Floyd on the ground he was resisting.

It’s not going to upset my sense of justice if Chauvin gets convicted on the 2nd degree manslaughter. They continued to restrain him several minutes after he stopped moving.

haha

Your second paragraph is kinda the answer to the question in the first paragraph.

The officers' restraint became an assault (arguably) at the time Floyd stopped resisting.* He MAY have stopped resisting before he passed out, but he definitely stopped resisting WHEN he passed out.

I have no idea from the videos exactly when that may have been, but the one pulmonary guy seemed to be able to identify it on the video.

* At a policy level generally, it is a horrible notion to charge police when someone thinks they became too violent during an arrest. Slippery slope/parade of horribles - all sorts of issues. But at the same time, prosecutors are supposed to make those kinds of determinations. And there are probably instances where we can all agree things went too far. Personally, even without the publicity, I can understand the prosecutor filing this particular case against Chauvin.

 

[actaeon277]

BLM founder buys 1.4 million dollar home.
I'm sure the various donors will be happy their money was well spent.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Having watched a great deal of TV legal shows, is the objection about "asked and answered already" not an actual objection? I note the defense attorney seems to go back and ask the same or similar question over and over with each witness.

This takes me back to a conversation with my captain back when I worked for the Department of Correction on the topic of training. With my background in secondary education methods, we had some common ground. His explanation for the practical parallel of the mastery learning model was "you tell them what you are going to tell them, you tell them, you tell them again, then you tell them what you told them."

 

[BugI02]

Hands up, don't audit the books

 

[IndyDave1776]

haha

Your second paragraph is kinda the answer to the question in the first paragraph.

The officers' restraint became an assault (arguably) at the time Floyd stopped resisting.* He MAY have stopped resisting before he passed out, but he definitely stopped resisting WHEN he passed out.

I have no idea from the videos exactly when that may have been, but the one pulmonary guy seemed to be able to identify it on the video.

* At a policy level generally, it is a horrible notion to charge police when someone thinks they became too violent during an arrest. Slippery slope/parade of horribles - all sorts of issues. But at the same time, prosecutors are supposed to make those kinds of determinations. And there are probably instances where we can all agree things went too far. Personally, even without the publicity, I can understand the prosecutor filing this particular case against Chauvin.

What guarantee did our non-MD officers have that Floyd had definitively passed out as opposed to playing possum in hopes of returning to a position of having resisting a more viable option?

 

[KLB]

It’s not going to upset my sense of justice if Chauvin gets convicted on the 2nd degree manslaughter. They continued to restrain him several minutes after he stopped moving.

Which the prosecution use of force expert said was not an issue.

Nelson asked if the MPD training materials reviewed by Stiger suggested that officers should take particular care providing CPR, if doing so required removing handcuffs (as it would), because the training informed officers that the suspect may come to and be agitated and ready to fight? MPD training does teach that, Stiger answered.

In fact, you have had that same training yourself? Yes.

A suspect was passed out, came to, and fought you more, you’ve had that personal experience as police officer? Yes, answered Stiger.