FBI investigating death of suspect after Minneapolis police officer put knee on neck

[mandrill]

As satisfying as it might be to convict the other three, I would bet on their defense. Kneeling on someone's neck while maybe not procedure is not automatically lethal. The other three cops had no way to know the excessive pressure being applied by Chauvin.
.
I think extreme negligence can be agreed upon between the city and the police union in order for the dismissals to stand. Unfortunately for these three, the police union doesn't want to be on their side in this ugly matter.

What I would argue as counsel too. They DID call an ambulance when he passed out. Not sure why Chauvin is still kneeling on the poor dead guy - unless Chauvin really is a complete asshole.

WaPo narrative stated that C was on the BACK of F's neck - away from the windpipe and other vital shit like the carotid artery and vagus nerve. But angles and continuity aren't great.

F says "I can't breathe at one point." OTOH coroner's partial says no death by strangulation or asphyia. Assuming the report has not been tampered w or faked - and as mentioned, I think the authorities would like to flush C away at this point. Plus, the Minne DA's office has actually carried forward police violence prosecutions in a reasonably diligent manner.

I wonder if you're mis characterizing the Police Assoc though. Those assholes will defend fucking anything!!!

 

[WyattEarp]

What was the logic behind kneeling on his neck for 9 minutes? explain please..

I'm only addressing the three officers present besides Chauvin. As far as the three officer's direct action, kneeling on someone's back for a short time isn't lethal. Indirectly, Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's isn't automatically lethal.

People can be extremely pissed off by the three officer's inaction, but I can't see it as anything other than negligence of duty. Their defense will really be that they were focused on the crowd and had no idea to the extent of force being applied by Chauvin. There's reasonable doubt in my opinion. They will likely lose their jobs, but that's all I can see at this juncture.

 

[mandrill]

There are actually pictures of three of them kneeling on Floyd. They then stood and watched for nine minutes. If civilians don't render assistance to someone they are criminally responsible. To stand and watch and hold the crowd at bay by your presence makes you complicit. Still hasn't been explained why the didn't just put him in a squad car and take him away. What was the logic behind kneeling on his neck for 9 minutes? explain please..

Hmm....

Murder 3 doesn't require intent to kill, just recklessness and depraved indifference. So assisting the main player as he performs murder 3 probably makes you an accomplice.

OTOH other cops are probably arguing "we thought C knew what he was doing. He was a lot closer to the guy's vital signs than we were."

The logic behind kneeling on the guy's neck for 9 minutes - incl 3 minutes when the guy was unconscious w no vital signs??!!!" - FUCKED IT CAN FIGURE IT OUT!

 

[WyattEarp]

The prosecutor in court saying that the three officers on hand should have known Chauvin was killing Floyd doesn't survive application of "reasonable doubt". Oagre, aren't you involved with the law? Isn't there another charge that can be made other than accomplice to murder. I don't think extreme negligence has anything to do with a criminal trial. Perhaps that will come up in a civil trial, but I see the City of Minneapolis settling this with the family out of court for a big sum.

 

[canada-man]

A former club owner in south Minneapolis says the now-fired police officer and the black man who died in his custody this week both worked security for her club up to the end of last year.

https://kstp.com/news/george-floyd-...t-south-minneapolis-club-may-28-2020/5743990/

 

[mandrill]

The prosecutor in court saying that the three officers on hand should have known Chauvin was killing Floyd doesn't survive application of "reasonable doubt". Oagre, aren't you involved with the law? Isn't there another charge that can be made other than accomplice to murder. I don't think extreme negligence has anything to do with a criminal trial. Perhaps that will come up in a civil trial, but I see the City of Minneapolis settling this with the family out of court for a big sum.

Minne is fried toast in a civil negligence suit, but that involves a standard of simple carelessness which falls far short of any criminal standard of conduct.

I'll think it over. It doesn't help that MN law may be far different than Canadian law.

 

[black booty lover]

A former club owner in south Minneapolis says the now-fired police officer and the black man who died in his custody this week both worked security for her club up to the end of last year.

https://kstp.com/news/george-floyd-...t-south-minneapolis-club-may-28-2020/5743990/

Tool (that's your new name), wake the fuck up. This is old news and has been posted twice already in this thread.

 

[shack]

High integrity, morals, values, and law & order are hallmarks of conservatism.

Not any more they ain't. A person can't be so high and mighty when "grab 'em by the pussy" etc. is justifiable to the conservatives.

 

[nottyboi]

The prosecutor in court saying that the three officers on hand should have known Chauvin was killing Floyd doesn't survive application of "reasonable doubt". Oagre, aren't you involved with the law? Isn't there another charge that can be made other than accomplice to murder. I don't think extreme negligence has anything to do with a criminal trial. Perhaps that will come up in a civil trial, but I see the City of Minneapolis settling this with the family out of court for a big sum.

They saw his civil rights being violated, they heard his cries for help. They did nothing, they are guilty.

 

[WyattEarp]

They did nothing, they are guilty.

Guilty of what? Stupidity? Negligence? What is the actual criminal charge?

Accomplice to murder is an extremely strong and difficult charge to prove. How did they know that Chauvin would kill Floyd? Was there any direct encouragement? Administering justice is not about what feels good. oagre has a legal background and he is thinking about it. I am too.

As a postscript, I think there is a tremendous amount of pressure for policemen to not make waves with their fellow officers. It's not just the fraternity of the uniform, but the implicit attitude of the police unions. I think the police unions have to get with the program in weeding out bad cops.

 

[WyattEarp]

Not any more they ain't. A person can't be so high and mighty when "grab 'em by the pussy" etc. is justifiable to the conservatives.

Really? Trump's womanizing made it into this thread.

 

[Robert Mugabe]

Guilty of what? Stupidity? Negligence? What is the actual criminal charge?

Accomplice to murder is an extremely strong and difficult charge to prove. How did they know that Chauvin would kill Floyd? Was there any direct encouragement? Administering justice is not about what feels good. oagre has a legal background and he is thinking about it. I am too.

Failure to come to someone's aid is criminal. How did they know Chauvin would kill Floyd? Tough one. I guess you would have to be a detective to join the dots.

 

[derrick76]

https://www.xvideos.com/video25072653/sexy_petie_kimberly_brinks_fucked_bybig_floyd

Old news on the video, but did you make that image with the caption?

 

[nottyboi]

Guilty of what? Stupidity? Negligence? What is the actual criminal charge?

Accomplice to murder is an extremely strong and difficult charge to prove. How did they know that Chauvin would kill Floyd? Was there any direct encouragement? Administering justice is not about what feels good. oagre has a legal background and he is thinking about it. I am too.

As a postscript, I think there is a tremendous amount of pressure for policemen to not make waves with their fellow officers. It's not just the fraternity of the uniform, but the implicit attitude of the police unions. I think the police unions have to get with the program in weeding out bad cops.

Accomplices to an assault and violation of human rights. Yes the thin blue line must be broken.

 

[TeeJay]

Do you realize the bad shit the Canadian govt does?

Like fake Lockdown?

 

[mandrill]

They saw his civil rights being violated, they heard his cries for help. They did nothing, they are guilty.

Excessive Force

Excessive force claims receive the most publicity, perhaps because the results of excessive force seem the most outrageous, involving serious physical injury or death. Whether the officer's use of force was reasonable depends on the surrounding facts and circumstances. The officer's intentions or motivations are not controlling. If the amount of force was reasonable, it doesn't matter that the officer's intentions were bad. But the reverse is also true: if the officer had good intentions, but used unreasonable force, the excessive force claim will not be dismissed.

Failure to Intervene

Officers have a duty to protect individuals from constitutional violations by fellow officers. Therefore, an officer who witnesses a fellow officer violating an individual's constitutional rights may be liable to the victim for failing to intervene.

The Qualified Immunity Defense

Defense attorneys representing a police officer for any of these claims will raise a defense of qualified immunity. This defense exists to prevent the fear of legal prosecution from inhibiting a police officer from enforcing the law. The defense will defeat a claim against the officer if the officer's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. In other words, the specific acts the officer prevented the individual from engaging in must be legally protected, otherwise there is no civil rights violation.

In order to win a civil rights claim, an individual bringing a police misconduct claim must prove that the actions of the police exceeded reasonable bounds, infringed the victim's constitutional rights, and produced some injury or damages to the victim (such as wrongful death by police).

Claims against police departments can be expensive to bring because a lot of evidence must be secured, including records, statements of police, statements of witnesses, and various other documentation, to prove the misconduct. The evidence supporting your claim is the most important element in a police misconduct suit. Take photographs of any injuries or damage caused by the police, and set aside clothing or other objects that was torn or stained with blood from the incident. Try to get the names and addresses or telephone numbers of anyone who may have witnessed the incident. Also, write down exactly what happened as soon as you can, so that you don't forget important details.


https://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/police-misconduct-and-civil-rights.html

Notty, you're fucking brilliant!!!

 

[mandrill]

Excessive force refers to situations where government officials legally entitled to use force exceed the minimum amount necessary to diffuse an incident or to protect themselves or others from harm. This can come up in different contexts, such as when handling prisoners or even during military operations. When it involves law enforcement, especially during an arrest, it's also referred to as police brutality.

The constitutional right to be free from excessive force is found in the reasonable search and seizure requirement of the Fourth Amendment and the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment in the Eighth Amendment.

Unreasonable Force

One example resulting in a Supreme Court finding of excessive force was a case in which an unarmed, non-threatening teenager was shot in the head by police while fleeing a house he had burglarized. At the time, a state law authorized the use of "all the necessary means to effect the arrest" of fleeing suspects, regardless of the situation. In finding excessive force in that case, the Court also overturned the state law because it allowed for unreasonable uses of force. With that case, the court reiterated that deadly force can only be used during an arrest if:

Necessary to prevent the escape; and
The officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Excessive force and police brutality don't just apply to cases of deadly force, but can also be found where injuries are relatively minor but resulted from an unreasonable use of force.

The Use of Force Spectrum

The Supreme Court has recognized that "the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat." However, the degree of coercion or force used must be proportional to the threat and escalate only in response to the threat. So, for example, in an ideal situation, an officer should use the following graduated methods to diffuse a situation:

Physical presence: Using mere presence.
Verbalization: Using verbal statements, from non-threatening requests to direct orders.
Empty-Hand Control: Using physical bodily force through grabs, holds, punches or kicks.
Less Lethal Methods: Using weapons such as a baton, chemical sprays, Tasers, or police dogs.
Lethal Force: Using lethal weapons such as firearms.

In order to be considered reasonable and compliant with the U.S. Constitution, the use of physical force must stop when the need for the force ceases, such as when a suspect is successfully restrained or a situation has otherwise de-escalated. In other words, an officer isn't allowed to punish criminals who no longer pose a threat. That's for the courts to work out.

What Remedies Are Available?

Excessive force is a constitutional violation that can be remedied by filing a civil rights complaint for monetary or injunctive relief under Section 1983 of the United States Code. You can also file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice, which may decide to investigate your case.

When deciding whether a government official engaged in excessive force, courts look to the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the actions were "objectively reasonable." In making this determination, however, they use the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene lacking the benefit of hindsight. With this perspective, courts analyze factors such as:

The severity of the underlying crime or circumstances;
Whether an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others existed;
Whether the individual was actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee;
Whether other alternatives were available; or
Whether warnings were provided or could have been provided.

Along with deferring to a law enforcement reasonableness standard, courts can also grant officers qualified immunity. This protects public officials from civil liability for violations of rights so long as they were reasonably performing their duties and the rights involved were not "clearly established." In excessive force cases, qualified immunity can protect police officers in more ambiguous situations where there's a "hazy border between excessive and acceptable force." However, to benefit from this immunity, officials would need to show that a reasonable person in their position wouldn't have known that their actions violated clearly established law.

Specific Questions About Excessive Force and Police Brutality? Ask an Attorney

Victims of excessive force and police brutality, and their families, are often left in shock after an incident, especially where there isn't a serious investigation into the incident. There are times where recourse through the courts is the only viable option, but with hurdles like qualified immunity, the court system is no guarantee of success. If you have questions about what to do in your case, there are experienced civil rights attorneys in your area who can provide you with the help you need to make your case.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/excessive-force-and-police-brutality.html

 

[derrick76]

Really, old news? Guess a couple days is old now, things move way too fast.
I wish I was creative enough to make the caption.

Well, some knew about that but didn't feel it relevant. But anyway, not sure this would be a gotcha moment on an escort message board, so hopefully it's not viewed as such.

 

[The Oracle]

This is where protestors start to lose my sympathy

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1266929563046576128

Those who defend the protests need to comment on this.

 

[The Oracle]

Not any more they ain't. A person can't be so high and mighty when "grab 'em by the pussy" etc. is justifiable to the conservatives.

Really? Trump's womanizing made it into this thread.

He just can't control himself at this point.