Cop who killed George Floyd stabbed in prison

[Not getting younger]

Working on the assumption of a few things. It’s so bizarre, asinine and sad anyone has to preface a post with that…….But it is what it is here.

And working off memory.
Does Minneapolis have a 3rd party equivalent of the SIU? If so, I assume those involved were roasted…tarred and feathered, then hung.

Does or would Michigan also have a public coroners inquest. As we do and would have following any death. For what it’s worth I’ve been through the first and will be going through the second…( the process is slow) If so, and if it’s been held to date. Anyone want to guess it’s findings?

No matter how it’s sliced or diced, he and they first and foremost swear oaths, and have a duty of care.

Duty of Care | Shine Lawyers

Shine Lawyers' team of injury and compensation lawyers share expertise of Duty of Care claims. On a no win no fee basis. Find out more.

www.shine.com.au

.

Secondly, arguably, more importantly. Law enforcement is part of the establishment/institution…”The public trust”. <<<This being critical, paramount, the be all and end all, however you want to name or label it. Society in the whole has, is, will likely continue to lose the trust if things don’t change right fast.. What follows when they do? Anarchy. Read almost anything on that. Or simply see BLM, Antifa, storming the WH, the G20 here, some of Trumps base, songs about Richmond, etc and so on…over and over and over. There’s just a few dozens signs and manifestations.

As such, they ( Law enforcement) need to be and are, held to higher standards. See 3rd party special investigative units and coroners inquest…And penalties for transgressions of policy, training and in extreme cases when they cross the line. The hammer comes down hard, it’s supposed to and needs to.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Third-degree assault, if I remember correctly.



The prosecutors argued that Chauvin assaulted Floyd. The jury didn't have to make up or misapply anything.
You may not think that Chauvin assaulted Floyd, but the jury did.
Proving he did was part of the trial or they couldn't get second degree unintentional murder.
Of course, they also found him guilty of third degree murder and second degree manslaughter - so even with your argument he would still be in jail.




SCOTUS doesn't need to of course.
But also there doesn't seem to be much reason to.
I don't see why the jury finding for the assault would be questioned. It isn't like they had to guess what the assault was or made it up.

The reasoning it would take to characterize a lawful arrest and restraint as a separate felony that led to accidental death for the purpose of murder 2 would result in an analysis indistinguishable from manslaughter (in Minnesota) in my opinion. Manslaughter, of course, results in much lighter sentences. That's a problem that the appeal courts should have looked at. However, Chauvin's counsel chose to try and hit a home run on appeal and only advanced grounds that would result in acquittal or a mistrial, rather than advance arguments as to the correct charges.

The jury system was created as an attempt to avoid tyranny from the judiciary (who were viewed as the flunkies of the powerful). However it is proving to have just as many, and perhaps more, pitfalls of its own. Juries are too often composed of individuals who are not capable of applying fine legal distinctions, or distilling evidence in a disciplined way (especially if there are real world consequences for them if they reach a certain verdict). In fact, most often juries are composed of those who don't have much else going on in their lives and are excited to have the authority to decide something of importance, probably for the first time in their lives. There is nothing comforting about the findings having been made by jury.

Chauvin should be serving time, just not for murder, and the narrative around Floyd's death should simply be that Floyd was lawfully arrested and restrained, but had an unexpected medical vulnerability that Chauvin negligently failed to recognize which resulted in his death. And that is not a narrative that should have resulted in cities burning.

 

[Not getting younger]

Dutch I agree with a lot, except the notion it occurs when someone has a pre existing condition ( which can be hard to recognize). So whether that exist or not. Police are trained how to handle people they prone out, “what not to do, what to do”.The existence of medical conditions or the use of narcotics just increase the risk.

“prone restraint, in‐custody deaths, arrest‐related deaths (ARDs), police‐involved deaths, restraint asphyxia, positional asphyxia, excited delirium, sudden cardiac death, metabolic acidosis, George Floyd, forensic pathology, autopsy”

Prone restraint cardiac arrest in in‐custody and arrest‐related deaths

We postulate that most atraumatic deaths during police restraint of subjects in the prone position are due to prone restraint cardiac arrest (PRCA), rather than from restraint asphyxia or a stress‐induced cardiac condition, such as excited delirium. ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1730713311652553210

JUST IN: The inmate who stabbed Derek Chauvin 22 times in prison last week has been identified by The U.S. Attorney's Office 52-year-old John Turscak. Oddly enough, Turscak is a former FBI informant!! Coincidence? I don’t think so. Seems like a coordinated effort to kill Chauvin. “Turscak told investigators that he attacked Chauvin on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, as a symbolic connection to the Black Lives Matter movement and the "Black Hand" symbol associated with the Mexican Mafia gang, prosecutors said.”

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1730725973438455960

Former FBI Informant John Turscak “denied wanting to kill Derek Chauvin”. However, Turscak stated that he had been thinking about assaulting Derek Chauvin for approximately one month because Derek Chauvin is a high-profile inmate." John Turscak, 52, is charged with four crimes after stabbing Derek Chauvin 22 times, including attempted murder.

 

[mitchell76]

 

[Valcazar]

The reasoning it would take to characterize a lawful arrest and restraint as a separate felony that led to accidental death for the purpose of murder 2 would result in an analysis indistinguishable from manslaughter (in Minnesota) in my opinion.

Considering he was also convicted of manslaughter, you may have a point.
But if someone qualifies for two charges, you are allowed to convict them for both.

Manslaughter, of course, results in much lighter sentences. That's a problem that the appeal courts should have looked at.

What is a problem?
That he was convicted for manslaughter, which you agree he should have been convicted for?

However, Chauvin's counsel chose to try and hit a home run on appeal and only advanced grounds that would result in acquittal or a mistrial, rather than advance arguments as to the correct charges.

Can you even appeal that?
If you are convicted of something because they proved that charge beyond a reasonable doubt, I am dubious of your ability to appeal on the basis they had to charge you on something else.
After all, they proved what they had to prove.
I think it would probably be even harder to make that argument when the jury had the option to convict on manslaughter or murder and chose both.
The option for just the lower charge was there and they didn't take it. It wasn't like it wasn't offered.

The jury system was created as an attempt to avoid tyranny from the judiciary (who were viewed as the flunkies of the powerful). However it is proving to have just as many, and perhaps more, pitfalls of its own. Juries are too often composed of individuals who are not capable of applying fine legal distinctions, or distilling evidence in a disciplined way (especially if there are real world consequences for them if they reach a certain verdict). In fact, most often juries are composed of those who don't have much else going on in their lives and are excited to have the authority to decide something of importance, probably for the first time in their lives. There is nothing comforting about the findings having been made by jury.

That is a much larger discussion about whether or not jury trials are a good thing.
If you are opposed to all jury verdicts on principle, fine. That's a specific ideological/philosophical position and, of course, has nothing to do with what actually happened at the trial.

Chauvin should be serving time, just not for murder, and the narrative around Floyd's death should simply be that Floyd was lawfully arrested and restrained, but had an unexpected medical vulnerability that Chauvin negligently failed to recognize which resulted in his death. And that is not a narrative that should have resulted in cities burning.

Sure it would.
You are proposing that the narrative should have been "Cops are never really to blame, and we have covered up and minimized as much as possible another murder by a cop."
You may not think that is what you are arguing for, but that is what many people would have interpreted it as.
Given that most people thought the trial reached the right conclusion, your position is very likely to have resulted in far worse rioting, since it would have only reinforced even deeper distrust of the system.

 

[Leimonis]

Considering he was also convicted of manslaughter, you may have a point.
But if someone qualifies for two charges, you are allowed to convict them for both.



What is a problem?
That he was convicted for manslaughter, which you agree he should have been convicted for?



Can you even appeal that?
If you are convicted of something because they proved that charge beyond a reasonable doubt, I am dubious of your ability to appeal on the basis they had to charge you on something else.
After all, they proved what they had to prove.
I think it would probably be even harder to make that argument when the jury had the option to convict on manslaughter or murder and chose both.
The option for just the lower charge was there and they didn't take it. It wasn't like it wasn't offered.



That is a much larger discussion about whether or not jury trials are a good thing.
If you are opposed to all jury verdicts on principle, fine. That's a specific ideological/philosophical position and, of course, has nothing to do with what actually happened at the trial.



Sure it would.
You are proposing that the narrative should have been "Cops are never really to blame, and we have covered up and minimized as much as possible another murder by a cop."
You may not think that is what you are arguing for, but that is what many people would have interpreted it as.
Given that most people thought the trial reached the right conclusion, your position is very likely to have resulted in far worse rioting, since it would have only reinforced even deeper distrust of the system.

I think he also pleaded guilty to wrongful death or something? What more do you all need to figure out that he was guilty as fuck? And how would he appeal that?

Derek Chauvin Pleads Guilty to Violating George Floyd’s Rights (Published 2021)

A federal prosecutor said he would ask a judge to sentence Mr. Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer, to 25 years in prison, extending his state prison term by two and a half years.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Chauvin was stabbed by a Mexican mobster

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZM6Ryd83t/

 

[y2kmark]

Chauvin was stabbed by a Mexican mobster

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZM6Ryd83t/

Turscak is such a common Mexican name ...

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Turscak is such a common Mexican name ...

Thats what I thought too, but its being reported by credible news outlets.
Maybe he's half Mexican and half European??

Inmate who stabbed Derek Chauvin 22 times is charged with attempted murder, prosecutors say

Derek Chauvin was stabbed in prison 22 times by John Turscak who told investigators he targeted the ex-Minneapolis police officer.

apnews.com

Ex-gang member charged with stabbing Derek Chauvin 22 times

The prisoner allegedly said he attacked Chauvin on Black Friday as a symbolic link to Black Lives Matter.

www.bbc.com

Who is John Turscak, man accused of stabbing Derek Chauvin 22 times?

The inmate who allegedly stabbed Derek Chauvin in federal prison last week was identified as John Turscak, according to new charges filed on Friday.

www.cbsnews.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/12/01/derek-chauvin-stabbed-john-turscak-prison/

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Prison has him listed as a white guy

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1730718716805926955

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Last name Turscak is of Croatian origin

FamilySearch.org

Discover your family history. Explore the world’s largest collection of free family trees, genealogy records and resources.

www.familysearch.org

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1730789434151284901

 

[silentkisser]

So you are not arguing that neck restraints were contrary to the police use of force policy that Chauvin had been trained in at the time. The evidence at trial included that officers received training in the application of neck restraints. I have to assume that this was not the first time that Chauvin or other officers in his police force used this restraint. This was, however, the first time anyone died in connection with its use. As stated by me in any earlier post, ANY restraint CAN be deadly, depending on the medical condition of the suspect. Whether Chauvin is as "evil" as some try to paint him to be depends on whether he had any reasonable belief that what he was doing would lead to serious injury or death. In the end, he's certainly responsible for his error of judgement. He should have checked on Floyd when his pleading became persistent. Whether murder was the right charge is debatable to me. I believe his murder conviction appeal is still pending. The fact that no other officers intervened just tells me that NONE of the cops at the scene believed that Floyd was about to die. I don't believe that any of these cops were seeking Floyd's death. I think this was a case of bad judgement, possibly tainted by irritation at Floyd's poor behaviour, not a case of cops deciding to publicly execute a relatively low level criminal.


There are no stats that prove that in the US a higher percentage of black crime suspects who resist, threaten the police or others, or flee are killed than white crime suspects who resist, threaten the police or others, or flee. All the stats prove is that black Americans have more encounters per capita with police, are charged more often per capita, and are jailed more often per capita. All that means is that there is a problem with crime in black communities (mostly black on black crime). There will be no solution until the real problem is recognized, and that problem is NOT that the police are looking to shoot black suspects.

Time and time again there are sensational stories. And time and time again they prove to be something else entirely.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of bad policing. We ask some pretty dumb people to make some pretty difficult decisions. However, EVERYONE encounters this, not just black people.

Of course, the best way not to be shot and killed by police continues to be to ensure that you don't commit any crimes.

I guess the question to ask here is, was putting George Floyd in a neck restraint of any type appropriate for NINE FUCKING MINUTES? He was handcuffed. Do I think the cop wanted to kill him? No. But he did. And the evidence in court showed that. And his neglect (and the other three officers who just watched) should be punished. It could be argued that cops don't intervene because they don't want to piss off other cops. Like when a sergeant hit and threatened to pepper spray another officer who tried to intervene when the sergeant was abusing a suspect...(https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/25/us/florida-police-sergeant-charged-grabbed-female-officer/index.html). As I said, I don't think anyone expected Floyd to die. But it happened.

 

[Mrboobs]

Perhaps he was in some ways… But Chauvin’s such an idiot that he can annoy anyone…

Because you know personally

 

[Dutch Oven]

I guess the question to ask here is, was putting George Floyd in a neck restraint of any type appropriate for NINE FUCKING MINUTES? He was handcuffed. Do I think the cop wanted to kill him? No. But he did. And the evidence in court showed that. And his neglect (and the other three officers who just watched) should be punished. It could be argued that cops don't intervene because they don't want to piss off other cops. Like when a sergeant hit and threatened to pepper spray another officer who tried to intervene when the sergeant was abusing a suspect...(https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/25/us/florida-police-sergeant-charged-grabbed-female-officer/index.html). As I said, I don't think anyone expected Floyd to die. But it happened.

We're all evaluating this with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. However, MANY suspects have been held in restraint positions for MUCH longer than 9 minutes, and they did not die and weren't even seriously injured. I believe that had Floyd not been in such distress BEFORE he was ever restrained he might not have resisted arrest so strenuously and would not have continued to struggle with police once they restrained him. It's only common sense that the stronger a suspect is, the more they struggle, and the longer they struggle for, all dictate the type of restraint used and how long it is applied. And why did he resist so strenuously? Likely a combination of the fentanyl in his system and fear over the consequences of arrest, given his criminal record, in my opinion.

Chauvin made the wrong call. I'm comfortable calling it negligent (because he would have received training requiring him to be alert to the medical distress of suspects), and yes, he should be punished for that. The significant power we give police officers needs to be paired with significant accountability. However, in my opinion the right charge was manslaughter, and that means the right narrative was/is negligence - not that cops systemically look for opportunties to murder black suspects (and that is the narrative that drove the riots). You may think this is splitting hairs, but I don't. I think it would have made all the difference to what happened that summer (and following). Getting the narrative right always matters. It would certainly matter as to whether people would be trying to kill him in prison now.

 

[silentkisser]

We're all evaluating this with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. However, MANY suspects have been held in restraint positions for MUCH longer than 9 minutes, and they did not die and weren't even seriously injured. I believe that had Floyd not been in such distress BEFORE he was ever restrained he might not have resisted arrest so strenuously and would not have continued to struggle with police once they restrained him. It's only common sense that the stronger a suspect is, the more they struggle, and the longer they struggle for, all dictate the type of restraint used and how long it is applied. And why did he resist so strenuously? Likely a combination of the fentanyl in his system and fear over the consequences of arrest, given his criminal record, in my opinion.

Chauvin made the wrong call. I'm comfortable calling it negligent (because he would have received training requiring him to be alert to the medical distress of suspects), and yes, he should be punished for that. The significant power we give police officers needs to be paired with significant accountability. However, in my opinion the right charge was manslaughter, and that means the right narrative was/is negligence - not that cops systemically look for opportunties to murder black suspects (and that is the narrative that drove the riots). You may think this is splitting hairs, but I don't. I think it would have made all the difference to what happened that summer (and following). Getting the narrative right always matters. It would certainly matter as to whether people would be trying to kill him in prison now.

I, too, agree that the likely correct charge should have been manslaughter. As I said, I do not think he wanted to kill Floyd, but was negligent. I do not think cops are actively trying to murder POC, just that they tend to go the use of deadly force significantly faster than they do with other suspects. Now, is that all cops? Of course not. But I think we can probably agree that cops, especially in the US, do not get enough training. They are not trained adequately to deescalate situations, some are just on power trips, and then there are the bad ones that make up their own goon squads (including black officers who go and beat suspects or both colours).

As for why the people don't trust cops....its because you cannot trust cops. Read a police report following an incident, then see what is actually presented in court or shown on body cam footage. It's frequently different, where the cops either lied or exaggerated in order to make them look better/suspect look worse (or to give cover for whatever bad things the cop did). Again, not saying that all cops do this, but it tends to happen in situations where black suspects are hurt or killed.

Now, as for Chauvin being targeted in prison....do you think ANY cop has an easy time there? I won't say his murder conviction over Floyd wouldn't make him a bigger target, but I would say it isn't the only reason.

 

[Leimonis]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1730789434151284901

Yeah because fbi gives a fuck about chauvin.

 

[RZG]

I, too, agree that the likely correct charge should have been manslaughter. As I said, I do not think he wanted to kill Floyd, but was negligent. I do not think cops are actively trying to murder POC, just that they tend to go the use of deadly force significantly faster than they do with other suspects. Now, is that all cops? Of course not. But I think we can probably agree that cops, especially in the US, do not get enough training. They are not trained adequately to deescalate situations, some are just on power trips, and then there are the bad ones that make up their own goon squads (including black officers who go and beat suspects or both colours).

As for why the people don't trust cops....its because you cannot trust cops. Read a police report following an incident, then see what is actually presented in court or shown on body cam footage. It's frequently different, where the cops either lied or exaggerated in order to make them look better/suspect look worse (or to give cover for whatever bad things the cop did). Again, not saying that all cops do this, but it tends to happen in situations where black suspects are hurt or killed.

Now, as for Chauvin being targeted in prison....do you think ANY cop has an easy time there? I won't say his murder conviction over Floyd wouldn't make him a bigger target, but I would say it isn't the only reason.

Maybe Chauvin knows the Epstein client list