Derek Chauvin Murder Trial is on

It's a disingenuous interpretation of the law, in my opinion.
The type of "felony" the law had in mind was not the situation here.
This "felony" almost constituted an accident... that is it borders on not being a felony.

Then to take that concept of a "felony" and apply it to a different law.

I think you have myopic vision on this and seem to have trouble seeing the logic of the big picture.

 

It could be borderline acceptable (or close to acceptable in similar situations) in other police training manuals, in other departments.

It's not exactly like this would be the type of thing that would TOTALLY clearly be prohibited everywhere.

You got to have at least some sympathy for this guy. Even if he made a big mistake here, he still probably thought (in that moment) that what he was doing was acceptable, and there was at least some good reason for him to think it.

Both Floyd and Chauvin made mistakes here. Why can't you have sympathy for them both?

 

I am not sure where did you get it.
AP article contradicts your statement.
The Minneapolis Police Department banned all forms of neck restraints and chokeholds weeks after Floyd’s death, but at the time of his May 25 arrest by Derek Chauvin and other officers, certain neck restraints were permitted — provided certain guidelines and conditions were followed.

https://apnews.com/article/was-offi...k-authorized-639cab5a670173ea9cc311db4386abf2


e.g. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/7/17/us-policeman-who-put-knee-on-mans-head-will-not-be-charged

 

Pleae provide not a second hand aljazeera article but the actual police manual which stated certain neck restraints were permitted provided certain guidelines or conditions were followed. I am telling you they never existed and you better do better then an AlJazeera article which provided no reference to any police manual wording.

Go find it yourself. It never contained conditional use of a neck restraint before or after May 25.

 

He's in prison because the political atmosphere today needed an example. Had he gotten off there would have been legal rioting, burning and looting blessed by many shakes of governmental heads and a few tsk, tsks.

 

By the way and seriously THANK YOU for the civil response. I apologize if my responses are sounding snotty. I mean to debate you respectfully like you have me. Thank you. These friggin responses sound more abruptthen meant to be.

 

Associated Press is pretty reputable.

WHAT NECK RESTRAINTS DID MINNEAPOLIS POLICE AUTHORIZE?

The department policy, in place for at least eight years at the time, divided permissible neck restraints into two categories, according to court filings and testimony Monday by the city police chief, Medaria Arradondo. Neck restraints were defined in the policy as a “non-deadly force option.”


Exactly what Chauvin did.

 

Well I won't disagree with you in regards to pretending the above had no influence. How much it had and how much it has in any high profile case...is a question. I mean it certainly played a factor in the OJ Simpson case, maybe it did here in reverse but to what extent? Call me naive, but I am trying only to argue the legal issues that were presented and answered and look only at them and not the public context. To me as a lawyer I keep coming back to the police manual standards for reasonable force, nothing else. That is the basis of my arguments to you. I may disagree with you on that and hope I have done it politely and not like a snot face but in regards to issues like the above Heartburn yes as a lawyer I have to admit-highlhy publicized trials are impacted by external political issues that may compromise the reasoning process. I hope it was not the case. I personally argue it was only based on the police manual limitations. CanI guarantee that is all that determined the decision? No.

 

1. No they did not go read the manual.
2. No he did not the fact the subject was prone and not struggling and as well the force was used after the officer hheard he could not breath and then further continued using it knowing there was no pulse or breathing evidenced this was not the case.
3.AP did get it wrong because they tried to argue the absolute prohibition against neck restraint was qualified under another heading. That other heading and I discussed all of the wordings, did not make exceptions to the neck restraint and so in fact AP, and a lot of wire services did get it wrong and it was then clarified and corrected. Please understand a wire service does not do in depth fact checking. To rely on a wire story to properly represent police manual wording with due respect aint done. Please go to the manual. I have no reason to mislead you. Its a strict prohibition against all neck restraints. The actual alternative restraints allowed woud be hog-tying, legs pulled up to by foot bending leg in and then cuffed to the arms. Other alternative force would be use of baton to place force on the inside of the knee where the fold is. There is also training for pepper spray, certain kinds of foam, nets shot out of gun, pressure point finger insertion and methods designed to use the weight and leverage of the subject against them.

The manual actually is very clear that when a subject identifies a mental health or psychiatric issue as the usbject did, paramedics and fire should be called in after a subject is cuffed and has offered to sit down outside which the subject did.

In this case they probably would have injected the subject with a tranquilizer or could have waited for a larger van or vehicle to transport the subject. He was not a physical threat when he pleaded not to be placed in the car as a result of an anxiety attack caused by claustraphobia. That is a mental health issue that police have training on and was ignored in this case and which would over-ride and supercede all other force measures available to the officer.

That's how the training and law works. Officers have in the past over-acted when subduing mentally ill people because of these subjects unusual strength and in such cases there would be imminent threat of severe danger or death to police, fire, paramedics of civilians. It was not the case here. He was not exhibiting extra strength. In fact he was exhibiting slurred speech and breathing issues which would make most people think he may have had asthma and would have caused them to error on the side of asthma which would mean not placing him on his stomach let alone doing anything to obstruct his airways.

 

The thing that I find troubling is that Chauvin was doing his job. His job is by definition confrontational and physical and human nature responds to those situations in unpredictable ways. I think he was over charged and that was due to prosecutorial zeal that was influenced by the explosive situation we as a country have found ourselves in of late. Manslaughter I could understand and grudgingly accept. This was too much.

 

Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe throughout the encounter and much before he was put on the ground. It was an arrest not a medical examination.

 

Nearly every officer carries them, and I notice you studiously ignored the main point. That the dummy is held in position so the cuffed man can repeatedly kick it, very realistic I must say.
About as realistic as the guy with his hands cuffed in front of him.
As I say where on earth did you did that video up and what buffoon made it?
And more importantly, what buffoon swallows such tripe.

 

The video was not made by the police and has nothing to do with their training. And thank god for that. Stop pretending it has anything to do with their training or their knowledge.

 

of course we should. we should and are also viewing this by what the law says.

no police department teaches their officers to kneel on a subdued, handcuffed, face down laying suspect for 9 minutes.

 

No precinct trains its officers to kneel on a face down laying, hand cuffed suspects neck for over 9 minutes until they die. We have already been over that.

 

your opinion has no bearing on reality or the law.

a felony is not required.

no it doesn't.

I'm simply correcting your misunderstanding of the murder 3 statute, to which Chauvin is guilty.

 

he's in prison because he murdered someone, on video lol.

which has no relevance to the fact he was guilty of 3rd degree murder, as evidence by the video of his murder.

 

I was referring to murder 2.

 

Yes, we have already been over that.

We've been over how it can be used in some places where the suspect is handcuffed in certain extreme situations, although this situation probably didn't quite reach those criteria (although it came close).

 

No precinct anywhere in the US can a police officer kneel on the neck of a subdued, handcuffed and face down laying suspect for over 9 minutes until they die.

 

Maybe not for 9 minutes, but we have already explained to you that they can do it.

This isn't really as much a mistake of doing something or not doing it, but doing it too long.
(and like I explained, we don't know for sure that doing it for too long was actually the cause of death)

 

which has been refuted. You can't kneel on a subdued and handcuffed persons neck while they are laying face down, until they die.

the mistake was doing it at all. Floyd was completely subdued, handcuffed and in custody in the back of the squad car.

we know for a medical fact that it was, as Floyd died as a result, which is confirmed by the ME report.

 

I’m not sure who made it, but they tell you on almost a daily basis not to trust a cuffed suspect since so many of them still manage to hurt or kill police officers. Have you ever arrested anyone?

 

Mind showing us that in the use of force oh, you’re just gonna hide from that remark you made.

 

You have no idea what they train people to do, have you attended a police academy? If you have, just say so.