Derek Chauvin stabbed by inmate in federal prison, seriously injured

Again: Chauvin was explicitly trained that doing what he did to someone on dope would likely kill them, was told not to do it, did it anyway, and killed a man thereby. So yes, that's murder 2.

Its not a hypo, its a fact admitted into evidence without impeachment.

The hands cuffed behind the back and flopped on the stomach restraint position per the training should not be used at all on a suspect on the dope.
Why? Because THAT POSITION TENDS TO KILL PEOPLE ON THE DOPE.

Again: Did you watch the trial? Did you view the evidence? Did you listen to the testimony? These are yes or no questions which you have consistently ignored.
You ignored them because, as is perfectly obvious from your continually demonstrated willful ignorance of the facts, you didn't watch the trial, you haven't viewed the evidence, and you didn't listen to the testimony.

 

FFS dude: I didn't get my opinion from the media. I'm a practising attorney I form my own opinions on the law.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO INTEND IT LIKE YOU PLANNED IT FFS. You demonstrate a sad and willful ignorance of the actual law he was convicted of.

Did you watch the trial itself?

 

You are projecting. Bring your emotions down to a 1, and logic to a 10 please.

The reality is, an uncooperative opponent, regardless of state of intoxication is able to be restrained. This is objectively true. You are not required to allow an intoxicated person free reign of movement simply because they are intoxicated. That is a safety issue for both the officer, the offender, and hte public. Its objectively incorrect.

 

There is no way you are a practicing attourney.

Regardless though, its irrelevant. Its like being a practicing opinion haver.

But your perspectives on this arent well thought out. This man was lynched by the court system, as the BLM mob held the rope.

 

Attorney, and my law license withstands your disbelief friend.

Since its in response to you telling me I take orders from my 'media masters' rather than having the education, knowledge, and experience to analyze the event for myself.

My perspectives are well thought out. The man was tried and convicted for murder 2 because he met the elements. He disregarded his explicit training, he admits on camera to the salient fact (whether or not he thought the suspect was a doper), and per the autopsy the effect of the hold was a significant contributing factor to the death of a suspect in custody.
By disregarding his training, he pierced any protection he gets to claim as a cop and has no excuse for the death. When you don't have an excuse for a death, that's an unjustifiable homicide and you catch the appropriate level based on the facts and your mens rea. Here, that's murder 2.

Again I will ask you: Did YOU watch the trial? Have you seen what evidence and testimony was presented?

 

You only have this issue because he's a blue person. Your emotions cloud your judgment.

No one said he wasn't able to be restrained, yet a further indicator that you're not actually reading what arguments I actually have made and you're inserting your own emotional flights of fancy. He can be cuffed hand and foot, held, and rolled on his side. Which is the training Chauvin received for how to treat a doped up suspect so he didn't kill them in custody. He disregarded that training, willfully, and suffered the consequences of his foolish actions.

 

Not really no PC to arrest on that charge either. Questioning him, yes, maybe an arrest depending on how he answers the questions. They had a person pass a $20 fake bill and yes he was identified as the person who passed it. However, was it intentional by him, did it get it out of an ATM that had the fake bill, did someone give him the money to purchase those things, or what? Those questions need to be asked before you assume that he intentionally or knowingly passed the fake bill. So, there was no PC for that arrest either.

Even in China, this happened and it happened to me. Luckily, some people worked for the Bank of China. Since I did not know, and I explained the circumstances of what happened when we got to the restaurant, we arrived at a mutual agreement. I gave them my DL so that I can have my passport to exchange my $100 US dollar bill for RMB so I could pay them back for the dinner. The dinner cost about 125 RMB for two and was a very nice restaurant. Me being a foreigner, an American in PRC already made me a suspect/suspicious/not trust worty, or whatever floats your boat even without accidentally passing a fake bill. But at least they listened based on my explanation and my offer to find a compromise to pay the bill the next day. And it is quite common in China with 100 and 20 RMB bills that are fake or can pass as fake while most foreigners don't know. And yes, ignorance of the law is no excuse, but there has to be some rationale in which authorities can be and should be called based on the facts and circumstances. That is why police need to ask you some questions to determine the exact facts and not assume. It makes a bad case and can get the charges dismissed quite easily other than the word of an officer or a third person and can make it harder when that person actually intentionally passes a fake $20 bill sometime in the future.

The most important part is for an officer to not escalate the situation. There are specific circumstances in which the officer may handcuff you for their and your safety, but they should also explain that to you at the very beginning instead of just opening up the door and escalating the situation as Chauvin did. There are times when that is necessary, but only after attempts to de-escalate have failed, generally.

 

Those questions are for a court. Not for the cops at the scene.

No one cares about your anecdote. Cite a legal standard.

Read Penn v Mimms, and point out how your 3rd paragraph is wildly wrong so I don't have to.

 

No, I listened to both sides of the argument and make up my own damn mind. Again, it wasn't fatal. What he had in his system allowed him to drive, talk, converse, reason, etc. It was not a fatal dose in his system whether meth or fentanyl. Yes, he had an enlarged heart, but was undiagnosed at the time. So, Floyd did not know.

Nothing in the ME report makes that claim. The defense tried, but failed to convince the jury. their own expert simply tried to argue the defense counsel's point, but even that person was not very good upon gross examination by the prosecution. You are simply regurgitating what you heard and what was told to you by conservative commentators with an overt political point of view.

In the end, what you cannot get around, no matter how much *********, moan, complain, or argue, is that Chauvin did not follow proper police procedures when he had him pinned. That is incontrovertible, and that is why he was found guilty.

 

they are for the police as well. Any good arrest starts with proper questions, determining the facts, and writing the report. that is the case from everything from a traffic accident to homicide and everwhere in between. The DA office takes that good police work and works from there to build a case. Yes, it sounds so clitche, but it is accurate, more or less. But that is how it is done. Doing Real Estate deals and possibly having a civil suit is not the same thing and you are not starting to sound like an

the whole point of the anecdote is that if I am in a communist country, being an American, passing a fake bill and not get arrested, then that says something than what you are saying. It also shows that in America, the police should not arrest because they assume. Assumptions are the mother of all **** ups, whether by police, lawyers, all lawyers, and any other profession you can speak of.

Notice the police "asked him to exit the vehicle." That is a police command, and to some extent a person must obey generally. But if you read the case, and the emphasis of the case, What Mimms was arguing was that by existing the vehicle violated his rights. The court said, and I quote, "Whether the search occurred inside or outside the car was irrelevant to the Court: the officers had stopped Mimms for a legitimate reason and, upon observing the bulge in his jacket, any person of reasonable caution would have conducted the search." Thus, this is the plain exception rule with that bulge. It was not the same thing with George Floyd whether drugs or fake $20 bill.

Want to try again.

 

They already had PC: He attempted to pass a counterfeit bill and resisted arrest when cops arrived to detain him for questioning. Then he started exhibiting signs of being severely inebriated.
They had every right to pull him out of their own police vehicle when he was ALREADY under arrest.

Anecdotes are not legal standards, and your situation wildly differs and is thus irrelevant.

They asked him to exit his own vehicle PRIOR TO BEING ARRESTED. Contrast that with Floyd who when pulled out of the car is already under arrest at that point. That is a command and no you don't get to resist that.
LOL Penn v Mimms is the standard for cops pulling you out of a car at a traffic stop for basically any RAS involving officer safety or a reasonable search. Its reasonable to search someone who is showing signs of serious intoxication. Its reasonable to search someone you've already arrested.
It was not reasonable to disregard training and put him in a position they had been trained was liable to kill him.

 

No one is questioning that he passed a fake $20 bill. But the real question is did he know it was a fake $20 bill. Once it is determined by questioning that George Floyd knew it was a fake $20 bill, that is where PC comes in. George is not going to say it outright, but based on the questions and answers given, then If you have ever done research or look up cases in which someone passed a fake $20 bill, it is either knowingly or intentionally. they do not arrest if the person did not know or did not intentionally pass the $20 fake bill. That is why the police should question the person to determine the facts. That is what they should have done. He was detained when being asked to get out of the vehicle. what happened next was the plain exception rule in which he was searched, you know, that bulge in his jacket. But at no point is the Penn case used to search the vehicle inside or out based on that singular case. It is one out of many.

But in today's viewpoint, you do have people who refuse to exit the vehicle when asked by police from self-described police auditors to whoever. Police have to learn to deal with those situations. In some cases, they may ask to take the keys out of the ignition and stay in the car while calling for backup and possible supervisor. It is a nuisance, it sucks big time, but not worth the officer forcibly opening the car door and attempting to make an unwarranted arrest. That was not reasonable by any standard today. Also, George Floyd never got the chance to ask the police officer if he was under arrest to begin with, Chauvin was not clear in what he was asking George Floyd to exit the vehicle, and some other minor points I saw. The officer should have explained the situation and why he was being asked to get out of the vehicle and specify that he was being detained, not arrested. Period. But what actually happened in the beginning was bad police work and it got worse from there by all concerned, why George Floyd died and why Chauvin was really not following proper procedures to begin with from beginning to end.

Thus, the Penn Case is just one standard. There is another standard when dealing with drugs in a car specifically, whether by a traffic stop or whatever. Others deal with certain exceptions that police officers use. This can either be state decisions or US Supreme Court or Appellate Court decisions within the Appellate Jurisdiction. But the fact is police officers are taught more than one court case and standard. They are taught to apply the facts and circumstances and use those standards and training accordingly. this is learned not only in the classroom but in the 6 months up to a year in on-the-job training by a training officer as well.

the main difference is when an arrest is actually valid or not. He was detained in my view, but Chauvin did not explain that clearly and did not use his training to talk to Floyd in a manner best suited to the situation. I think Chauvin made several bad assumptions, and you are doing the dame too while trying, emphasize the word trying, to use your lawyering skills in the process but failing miserably.

 

This question is for the courts to answer. The cops had PC to believe he did, and further cause after he resisted arrest.
He's on dope, they can search the car dude. This is basic ****. They had cause to pull him out the car he was sitting in. They had cause to question him. He had no cause to resist.
Upon questioning him, they turned up quite a bit of evidence of other criminal behavior and arrested him.

Later: They're quite ****ing clear they're getting him out of the cop car.
I think you don't understand how most of those 'audits' end: The cop breaks the window and hauls their happy ass out of the car. They get arrested for obstruction, and normally resisting. Not a great idea.

To the portion I emphasized: Are you joking? He's in cuffs in a cop car. He's under arrest. Any reasonable person would know that. You don't have to be told or mirandized at the scene, this has already been discussed.

Again: What you cite is not a legal standard.

No, that's beating the rap. You beat the rap in court. You don't beat the ride. This has already been discussed: The arrest was valid and clear. The only **** up was disregarding training and putting the suspect in a position they had been trained was likely to kill him.

 

Chauvin wasn't at the scene to treat any of Floyd's medical issues. He was there to investigate a criminal complaint and, if necessary, effect an arrest. Furthermore, a murder conviction requires either direct intent or such a level of negligence as to reasonably conclude that, knowing what he was doing WAS LIKELY cause death, Chauvin consciously chose to ignore that possibility. During the trial NONE of that was proved but, because the concept of "justice" has changed in this country from a basis of following the law to one of interpreting the law in ways which best satisfy public whims, Chauvin was found guilty. The case was a horrifying corruption of Constitutional justice in favor of Social justice.

 

if an inmate puts Chauvin in handcuffs, his knee on the neck of Chauvin's neck for 9+ min, and he dies, would the death be murder

 

Jerry Blackwell and the Chief of Police Arradondo both said that Floyd could have been given a citation.



'Bodycam video shows officer pulled gun on George Floyd early on'

'Video from body cameras worn by two of the officers involved in the killing of George Floyd was viewed by the public for the first time.'

'Body-worn camera footage from former Minneapolis police officer Thomas Lane showed that George Floyd was given no explanation for why he was being questioned before Lane pointed a gun and swore at him, touched him multiple times and forced him out of his vehicle into the street.'


cont
https://www.startribune.com/bodycam...ulled-gun-on-george-floyd-early-on/571778072/



'Little has been said about the $20 bill that brought officers to the scene.'

'George Floyd used it to buy cigarettes, but a store clerk thought it was fake. Neither side in the trial has spent much time addressing it'.

https://web.archive.org/web/2023051...1/04/19/us/george-floyd-bill-counterfeit.html

 

the cops do not have to escalate every situation

 

once a cop puts cuffs on a suspect, the suspect's health is their responsibility

had the suspect not of been in handcuffs, would have been different

 

There was no PC and you are making assumptions here. Sorry, but Chauvin did not do a good job and made assumptions from the moment he saw George Floyd, probably because they have a history together.

It is not important whether he had the cuffs on or not. People can have cuffs on and still be detained, not arrested. If I had my badge and came behind you, placed your hands in cuffs, does that mean I arrested you with PC?

Again, the issue of whether he was arrested is not as clear as you think, and you are quite literally, not thinking like a lawyer, just an internet troll.

With drugs, police need PC and simply cannot say "do you have drugs on you" to arrest. They need evidence, something. It can be easier with erratic driving to stop a person and suspect them of DUI with illicit drugs, but a stopped vehicle not moving, even on a public road, can get dicy, even in Texas with the new hemp laws and such. So, the police question the person FIRST, not the DA AFTER in court, although, it will be in both places. But police need to do the proper procedures when arresting someone for drug use or with a fake $20 bill. Minnesota Statute 609.631 states, "Whoever, with intent to defraud, utters or possesses with intent to utter any counterfeit United States postal money order, United States currency, Federal Reserve note, or other obligation or security of the United States, having reason to know that the money order, currency, note, or obligation or security is forged, counterfeited, falsely made, altered, or printed, is guilty of offering counterfeited currency and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 4." So, passing a fake $20 bill does not necessarily show intent, and making that an assumption does not make it right either. Hence the police question first before making a decision unless is is so obvious, and that is not as often as you think.

Nothing, from the beginning to the end was for the whole, right or the use of proper procedures. And yes, officers, even patrol officers, are taught some investigative techniques as a police officers. Most of that is used in routine traffic stops but can be used elsewhere with the patrol officer responding to whatever call they need to have.

 

@Reality does not know. It was another assumption and the police escalated the situation when it was not warranted. It was bad all around, and I am not surprised it ended in George Floyd's death when it was preventable, notwithstanding the type of restraint used.

 

You assume I do not know.
Which is silly, I watched the entire trial, and I've kept abreast of developments in the case, for example we're talking about a continuing matter just now.

Cops can pull a gun on you at a traffic stop, or other stop when you're in a car. Make a furtive movement, that's basically all it takes for them to draw down. Shooting takes more, but not covering you with the pistol.
You're making a silly hill to die on. I can't imagine why.

 

He was already arrested by the time the do you have drugs on you was done. They ALREADY had cause to search him ffs.
When you go in cuffs in a cop car? THEY CAN SEARCH YOU THEN.

FFS.

I can't believe I have to explain this but determining intent is for a court of law, not the cops at the scene.
They had PROBABLE CAUSE, that doesn't mean they had BARD PROOF OF HIS GUILT. These are 2 separate things. You can have PC and the person be innocent. That's why we have trials.

 

Searching him prior to taking him to jail to 1) ensure he doesn't have a weapon etc and 2) to ensure he doesn't bring dope into a jail and catch further cases isn't escalating.

Failing to follow their training on excited delirium/ positional asphyxiation of doped up suspects was the mistake. Not the arrest, not the search, not putting him out of the car since he was having a ****ing freak out and they suspected he was doped up. Only the failure to follow training exposed them to any liability or violated the law or anyone's rights.

 

oh, I agree, cops can and do arrest people on bogus charges that are later dropped, just cause they can, and often get away with it

but in this case, I think even most police agree that Chauvin was in the wrong

 

Feel free to link a video with time stamp or find it in the one provied here.

In the meantime
Start at 52:00
then 59:10

https://www.thefallofminneapolis.com/

Who lied on the stand as the documentary shows.

Start at 1:04:30

No that is not the definition of hearsay, I am giving testimonials of highly experience and highly trained officers and the persons on the scence and the documents which the court did not allow and PROVES they were trained to use the MRT in just such a situation.

AGAIN the new evidence and the original autopsy findings say different and the changed one cannot explain how Floyd was still taking and breathing and moving air in and out of his lungs up till the moment he died and why there was not bruising or damage to the breathing pathway. Floyd was dying before he hit the ground.