That could play both ways. The officers didn’t notify their superior because none of them believed that they had injured Floyd. He had a medical issue while fighting with them, so they didn’t feel the need to report it through those channels.
The 911 operator reported it? Yes, that is a pretty good defense argument. The crowd, the 911 operator, indeed the entire American public last year, saw a portion of what happened and rushed to judge these officers based on that single portion. However, when you look at the totality of what happened, you see a different picture.
I hope this isn’t an unfair snip and I don’t think it is, but I like the defense strategy. Short version: These people all THOUGHT that they saw an officer killing a suspect. But that is not what they saw. So don’t attack them or be mean to them simply for being confused. The jury and the whole nation thought that last year when we saw it, so these witnesses cannot be blamed for thinking it.
But I do think this strategy almost forces Chauvin to testify, and as a law nerd, that will be high drama.
It was not a snip at all. I agree that the strategy of asking very simple questions that may highlight the imperfection of the witnesses memory and/or perception of the situation is probably the best defense.
And the best strategy to counter that defense, IMO as a non-lawyer, is to answer the simple questions simply and not argue with counsel or the judge.
I noticed that the defense counsel declined to cross examine the Charles McMillan at all. Probably a wise choice.
I didn’t see any of the officers that testified yesterday but I did read that his supervisor answered some questions regarding the appropriateness of the knee restraint. He testified that it should have been removed once Floyd was cuffed.
In reading the summary of the cross of the supervisor I see he followed my advise above. Almost all of his answers were simple “Yes”, “No”, “Correct”.
I think this is a really core point in this trial. I took all of about 35 seconds to see what I could find, and this – from Ohio came up:
In the Report, the Magistrate Judge wrote that “the aggressor in a sexual situation takes his victim as he finds her.” Hartman reads this as inappropriately importing into criminal law the " thin skull " or “eggshell plaintiff” rule concept from tort law. Instead, Hartman argues:
Under Ohio criminal law, “A defendant cannot be held responsible for consequences that no reasonable person could expect to follow from his conduct, but he will be held responsible for consequences that are direct, normal, and reasonably inevitable when viewed in the light of ordinary experience.” State v . Dykas .
Dykas is an involuntary manslaughter case where the defendant was held responsible for the death that resulted from punching the victim in the head and knocking him unconscious. Immediately following the language Hartman quotes from Dykas , the Eighth District also wrote:
It is not necessary that the defendant be in a position to foresee the precise consequence of his conduct; only that the consequence be foreseeable in the sense that what actually transpired was natural and logical in that it was within the scope of the risk created by his conduct. Only a reasonably unforeseeable intervening cause will absolve one of criminal liability in this context. When the result varied from the harmed intended or hazarded, it must be determined that the result achieved was not so extraordinary or surprising that it would be simply unfair to hold the defendant criminally responsible for something so unforeseeable.
Which doesn’t mean that this point isn’t critical or that it won’t have to be adjudicated (ie, it’s not axiomatic but is subject to argument).
IANAL but if MN law views this issue similarly to the above, I think the Prosecution has a good chance of prevailing on the eggshell plaintiff bit.
Particularly when GF’s eventual death was preceded by some rather lucid and forceful complaints about serious medical problems that he was experiencing, and that there is a very straight line from those symptoms to his death.
In other words, Chauvin “had notice.” It would be hard to argue that GFs death wasn’t foreseeable in this case.
Chauvin had almost 20 years experience. He didn’t follow the policy to move suspects from the prone position to their side? I remember Pleoger said that policy had been in place for over 10 years.
The defense will need to address that policy. I assume they’ll argue Floyd didn’t fully stop resisting. But the video indicates otherwise.
No, not really. I guess if you start that the beginning you could say the officer had a legitimate reason to use force at the onset, but this case is about the continued use of deadly force on a suspect that’s been handcuffed, searched for weapons, and is incapable of significant resistance.
But I think we learned yesterday the officers overreacted from the start. Remember in the old days how police officers were proud they never took their weapon out of its holster while on duty during their entire career?
The officer, Thomas Lane, approached Mr. Floyd, who was sitting in the driver’s seat of a Mercedes SUV outside Cup Foods. Mr. Lane drew his weapon immediately, and Mr. Floyd, from the start, was agitated, crying and seemingly terrified.
During jury selection, Jerry W. Blackwell, a prosecutor, had said that this moment set the tone for what happened later. Explaining why Mr. Floyd had become so agitated, Mr. Blackwell said he had been worried that he was at risk of “having his head blown off over a fake $20 bill.”
Note that this is involuntary manslaughter, and is punishable by not more than ten years. Others familiar with Minnesota law can say what Chauvin may expect, but it would be far less than that. Assuming he is guilty of that.
When should a police officer take those complaints seriously? Always? If so, then you’ve given every criminal an out just by complaining of medical issues, which, in my experience, they many times falsely do.
Is that considered “deadly force”? Again, it was not on his neck and did not constrict his airway; that part is undisputed. He was handcuffed and still resisted. Frankly, I would like an opinion by someone who doesn’t work for an agency that fired four officers for having a contrary opinion and just settled a case for $27 million. That’s just me.
Further, this isn’t about a counterfeit $20 bill. The call said that Floyd was intoxicated. The police show up and Floyd is behind the wheel of a car getting ready to leave. In an alt-history version where the officers permit Floyd to leave and he crashes into and kills someone, people would be demanding that the officers be fired for that.
And when their polite request fails and he mashes the pedal, people will demand their heads for not using more force. I also disagree that we would be given a polite request. He was essentially holding and pointing a loaded gun (his car) which required prompt and assertive action.
When should a police officer not take these complaints seriously? Because if we must rely on their opinion of when someone is faking it, then you’ve given every police officer justification to use excessive force when they want to, which, in my experience, they many times falsely do.
Which is why you take each case on its own evidence. If Floyd was having trouble breathing, why didn’t he sit down in the back seat of the car and say, “Officer, please, you can arrest me, but I am having a medical issue and trouble breathing. Please take me to a hospital” instead of continuing to fight? And the officers DID call 911.
I call bullshit. Cite to any case where a person who was arrested peacefully and politely asked for medical assistance being denied medical care. Hell, people who shoot at police and get wounded by return fire get medical care. This is just BLM nonsense.
In any event, do you get medical care more quickly if you fight four police officers while handcuffed, AND while suffering the medical issue? It’s just a silly proposition. Even if I am predisposed to throw down with the police, once I have a medical issue, the fight is over. I don’t continue to fight once I am suffering from lack of oxygen. That is the time to give up the fight and ask to go to the hospital.
When a mentally ill white man pointed a toy train at a motorist, the police helpfully shot the black aide, lying on the ground nearby with his hands raised Shooting of Charles Kinsey - Wikipedia
Have you ever served on a jury, counselor? Have you ever seen jury instructions?
The ones I’ve seen say that I’ve been entrusted to use my life experience to make determinations as to the credibility and motivations of the witnesses and defendant.
I’ve certainly never seen a judge instruct the jury that they should not attribute any negative thoughts, characteristics or motivations onto the defendant unless they know them personally.
That would be freaking insane, wouldn’t it — especially since “knowing the defendant personally” would typically disqualify a potential juror. If the judge could instruct the jury not to think bad things about the defendant that would be the same as directing a verdict.
Maybe you could take it a step further and say no one is entitled to judge a criminal defendant unless they’ve dated them for over a year, because otherwise they don’t know them well enough to pass judgement on them.
It’s funny how these wonky ideas about fairness only come into play when it’s a cop or conservative on trial.
Can you imagine someone lecturing me about saying that I think the 9/11 hijackers were motivated by hate for America on the grounds that it’s not a fair statement because I don’t know them personally?
I’ve never quite understood why people seem to hold somebody they think is a criminal to a higher standard than they seem to hold our highly trained, professional, state-sponsored law enforcement members.
Which, ISTM, is what you’ve done here.
It reminds me of the DJT supporters who thought that everything these BLM victims experienced was their own fault, but that DJT was the Ultimate Victim – that nothing was his (a man with every conceivable privilege in the world) fault.
I don’t get it.
The stress of these situations is almost unimaginable. One party is trained for it. The other isn’t. Add to the equation that GF apparently was on drugs (I don’t give him credit for this. I just understand the implications) and it would be hard to imagine his physiological reaction – particularly when the precipitating issue was an allegedly counterfeit twenty, and now he’s got a handgun pointed at his head.
At the grocery store, last week, a lady who was paying no attention ran over my foot with her shopping cart. Because I was wearing flip-flops it hurt like heck. Now tell me: should I have followed her out to the parking lot and beaten her brains in with a baseball bat ?
I have control over my reaction. I expect the same control from LEOs. I don’t see it here.
What about your “life experience” tells you that Chauvin suffers from “macho oppositional defiance” or is an “asshole”? You just know by looking at him?
It’s not criminality, it is common sense. I can be the worst criminal you imagine. Let’s say Ted Bundy. I will fight all day, but if I think I’m dying, then take me to the hospital. The fight is over. Why do I fight if I am medically unable to fight?