Before or after they’d killed him?
Shot- accidentally. The Officer was stormtrooper level marksman, aiming at the white guy, firing three shots from his M4 carbine, at 46meters, striking the therapist in the leg (which was touching the white guy). The Officer was arrested and convicted.
Yep, a new capital offense.
I’m sorry, are you trying to say that obviously Chauvin didn’t believe Floyd was having a legitimate medical issue, because if he did believe that, Chauvin would have stopped his restraint? Is the classification of Chauvin as a reasonable person not up for debate?
And is that truly the only reason you can think of why Chauvin would have continued kneeling? Are other explanations, like Chauvin not being particularly concerned with Floyd’s health, also a possibility?
Anybody see this yet ?
The MPLS police chief is on the witness list for the prosecution:
As the prosecutor Jerry Blackwell addressed the jury for the first time in the murder trial of Derek Chauvin last week, he reeled off a list of witnesses expected to testify: from eyewitnesses who watched as the former officer held his knee on George Floyd’s neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds, to forensic pathologists, use of force experts and members of the Minneapolis police department.
Among the most significant on this long list was the most senior member of that department, Chief Medaria Arradondo.
It is, of course, rare for an officer-involved death to make it to criminal trial, but it is rarer still – perhaps unprecedented, experts say – for a police chief to testify against one of their own former officers.
Floyd was literally begging for help, complaining of medical issues like an inability to breathe, and you want to argue that those behaviors never gave a person a reasonable belief that he was having a legit medical problem?!
I am struggling to imagine what he could have done that would have reached that “reasonable level” -
“Please sir, I’m having a bit of a moment” - he is too calm. Clearly this not that serious.
“Oh my god, I only have 15 seconds to live” - this is overly dramatic. He’s a criminal, so he can’t be trusted and as soon as you let up he’ll resume his ferocious attack.
If only someone in the profession would weigh in:
Lt. Richard Zimmerman, head of the homicide division for more than 12 years, testified Friday that Derek Chauvin’s actions violated policy and that police are not trained to kneel on a person’s neck.
“Once the person is cuffed, the threat level goes down all the way,” the lieutenant said on the stand.
“How can that person hurt you?” he asked, adding that “you getting injured is way down.” Keeping the person handcuffed and in a prone position “restricts their breathing,” he said.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/02/us/george-floyd-derek-chauvin-trial-day-5/index.html
Maybe if a 30 seconds seconds prior they screamed they “can’t breath” while simply sitting down in the back of a police cruiser?
Do we really need to wonder about Chauvin’s motivation? Apparently, he told a bystander (on recorded camera) that Floyd was on drugs, an apparently he had also previously dealt with Floyd. It seems obvious to me that Chauvin had a mentality that Floyd was some version of a “degenerate druggie” (my words), and was therefore exceptionally dangerous and perhaps not deserving of typical humane treatment.
…
I was speaking to a former police officer the other day (one who, like our UltraVires, sees this as a clear case of a maligned cop) who told me about “cocaine psychosis”. I think there is a mentality within law enforcement (borne out of urban legends, plus personal ignorance about what drugs do to you when you take them) that leads some cops to believe that chronic drug users are some variation of “super strong”, “immune to pain”, or otherwise a “super predator”, so an extreme reaction seems justified when dealing with them.
(And while this is not explicitly racist, the positive correlation with the story of the “Black super criminal” is eerily similar).
I can understand your hesitance to claim that the manuals show an obvious violation. I think that’s why the expert testimony of superior officers is helpful to clarify the situation.
I will also add that I can find no reference in any other police training manual that knee holds or neck restraints are used after a suspect is handcuffed. Most of them reference using them in order to get a non-compliant suspect into cuffs and that a hobble can be used if a suspect is still non-cooperative after being cuffed.
Basically once a person is properly cuffed and searched for weapons there is almost nothing they can do to hurt an officer or a bystander.
But I say that as a layperson, not a LEO.
Are you sure he was originally faking it? Your statement suggests that is your belief.
Given that he died soon after that, I might be more inclined to think he was having trouble breathing from the start, whether from a panic attack, drug reaction, or other. I’m not sure why you just assume it was a sham.
And “simply sitting down” in a police cruiser? Can you not conceive of how that could be terrifying and anxiety-inducing for a Black man in this country?
What can the MPLS police chief add to the testimony already given?
I don’t think the police chief personally investigated this incident. He may have read the official reports.The use of force policy is defined in the manual. I can’t see how the chief can speak beyond what’s in the manual.
Would the judge allow the chief to discuss his reasons for firing the officers? That’s an administrative decision. It seems prejudicial for the chief to say I fired these bums because they violated our use of force policy.
Obviously, the police chief can testify as to proper police procedures, as taught and used in that department.
There is no way to force them to testify. The only way to have any of them testify is to drop the charges and give immunity.
before the trial it was decided that the firing of the officers could not be brought up.
Maybe if you can’t handle the anxiety of sitting back in the police cruiser you shouldn’t be out committing crimes. Even if he didn’t know the bill was a fake (which hasn’t been proven either way and is probably impossible to prove) he’s out using illegal drugs while in control of a motor vehicle.
What a ridiculous statement. Show some compassion for people with different experiences than you.
I guess that is sort of my point. If a superior, or the manual itself, had said that you never, never, never, never do X, then I could agree with negligence and a manslaughter verdict–or even murder if it is THAT clear. But negligence means more than a simple mistake, something that is not even clear in the manual or something known only to your supervisor.
Further, what do you do if a suspect is handcuffed and still not under control? You say that there is “almost nothing” they can do to hurt people, and lets assume that is true, but as an officer, your goal is to get them to submit to an arrest. On what page does the manual refer to that? As a police officer wanting to follow procedure, or stay out of prison, where does it say that I cannot use this particular restraint in that situation?
Again, I haven’t made up my mind about this case. I really haven’t. But I’m just trying to be realistic about this. Who here follows a procedure manual each day to the max? Aren’t there some procedures that are more fluff than substance? Should you go to prison for not following one? Is this one of them?
I’m also appalled by the fact that the City of Minneapolis has decided to pay the money in the middle of jury selection and make Chauvin their sacrificial lamb instead of waiting for the facts to come forth.
If he is guilty, then he deserves to go to prison. Making a mistake in a heated situation, IMHO, does not deserve a harsh murder conviction. Making a bad judgment call with a guy who is clearly intoxicated and thinking that he is faking it does not deserve any prison sentence.
The city of minn. fired chauvin and the other officers within 24 hours. I’d say they did not see him as a sacrificial lamb.
And maybe if you can’t handle the anxiety of dealing with a suspect and a crowd at the same time, you shouldn’t be a police officer.
So if it just says “don’t do it”, but doesn’t put four "never"s on it, that means it’s A-OK?
Then you call in the Avengers, because a criminal who’s just broken the chains of the handcuffs is not a job for the police.
And yes, everyone violates some procedures at their job. But if you violate procedures and someone dies as a result of that, you’d better believe that you’re going to be held fully accountable.