• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

All four former officers involved in George Floyd's killing now face charges, Sen. Klobuchar says

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
7,263
Reaction score
3,358
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Can anyone provide another Minnesota case where a felony murder conviction was achieved where the underlying felony was itself the act that led to the death of the victim? I'm unfamiliar with such a use of the felony murder statute. It's used to prosecute stuff like an accomplice dying in a car crash during the getaway chase after a bank robbery. I've never heard of the provision being used to prosecute someone whose underlying felony was the assault that caused the death in the first place.
Here you go: Minnesota v. Rosemary Charles (Mn. Ct. of Appeals, 2001) - "Because the state was required to prove that appellant committed the predicate felony, the district court should have instructed the jury on all essential elements of second-degree assault as found in 10 Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 13.10 (1999). Because the district court failed to fully instruct the jury, we find that the court committed plain error."

I had suspected that was the case, but I hadn't actually researched it before. It directly follows the statutory language.
 

Grizzly Adams

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
365
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
On this particular event, I remain uncertain as to the cause of death but it is equally plausible that his severe heart disease and drug usage contributed to or primarily caused his death, triggered what is usually non lethal stress and force employed in the arrest.
Even if we were to assume that Chauvin did not directly cause Floyd's death, he is still guilty of (at least) assault. Minneapolis use of force policy prohibits the use of a neck hold on someone who is less than actively resistant. When Floyd lost consciousness, it was no longer possible for him to actively resist Chauvin. Chauvin therefore clearly exceeded the authorized use of force and crossed the line into assault.
 

Grizzly Adams

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
365
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Here you go: Minnesota v. Rosemary Charles (Mn. Ct. of Appeals, 2001) - "Because the state was required to prove that appellant committed the predicate felony, the district court should have instructed the jury on all essential elements of second-degree assault as found in 10 Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 13.10 (1999). Because the district court failed to fully instruct the jury, we find that the court committed plain error."

I had suspected that was the case, but I hadn't actually researched it before. It directly follows the statutory language.
Then the text is nonsensical. I honestly couldn't tell you where Man 1 ends and felony murder 2 begins.
 

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
6,534
Reaction score
2,448
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Even if we were to assume that Chauvin did not directly cause Floyd's death, he is still guilty of (at least) assault. Minneapolis use of force policy prohibits the use of a neck hold on someone who is less than actively resistant. When Floyd lost consciousness, it was no longer possible for him to actively resist Chauvin. Chauvin therefore clearly exceeded the authorized use of force and crossed the line into assault.
Chauvin's particular "crime" wasn't probable murder or assault. From what I has been reported, the face down, knee on neck, restraint position is not prohibited in Minneapolis but it is taught that "stomach down" it can be dangerous and must be used judiciously. In the circumstances, even if we fully accept the prosecutions portrayal of events, this was a largely understandable misjudgment and, at worst, grossly negligent use of an approved method of restraint.

According to the charge summaries:

As the two arresting officers tried to put Floyd in their squad car he resisted, stiffening up and falling to the ground. He told officers he didn't want to get in the car because he was claustrophobic.

Chauvin and Thao then arrived.

Then three of the officers made several attempts to get floyd into the backseat, he repeatedly resisted, now saying he could not breath. After physically struggling, they tried to get him into the car and made one final attempt.

Chauvin gave up and pulled him out of his position in the passenger seat, and Floyd went to the ground face down. At that point Chauvin placed his knee on his head and neck area, and two officers held his back and legs.

Floyd protested loudly, claiming (again) that he couldn't breath imploring "I'm about to die."

One officer noted "you are talking just fine", as Floyd continued to move. Lane asked about rolling him on his side, Chavin said no ' (he is) staying put were we got him. Lane then said something about worrying over Floyd's excited delirium (hyper aggression and unusual strength from drugs), and Chauvin said "that's why we have him on his stomach".

At 8:24:24 Floyd stopped moving. At 8:25:31 Floyd ceased to breath or speak. Lane suggest rolling on his side, , another officer checked floyds right wrist and said that he couldnt find a pulse. For two more minutes Chauvin held him under his knee.

Conclusion:

Most likely the officers believed the foam mouthed individual battling to stay out of the back seat of the police car was in a state of drug induced agitated or excited delirium. Apparently Chauvin decided the only way to get him under control and too cooperate was to use a restraint method that took the fight out of him. In the process, due to Chauvin's heart condition (and other factors) he may well have perceived that he was short of breath PRIOR to being restrained, which apparently was not due to a lack of breath.

Chauvin mistake and negligence was in not immediately stopping his restraint when told that there was no pulse, and then in not immediately rendering first aid. Although it was likely too late, three minutes of neck (or back) restraint AFTER all movement ceased, and two minute after he ceased to breath, was arguably grossly negligent and chargeable under second degree manslaughter (3rd degree murder in Minn.).

Whether or not that would "stick" will depend on several factors.
 
Last edited:

Grizzly Adams

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
365
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Chauvin's particular "crime" wasn't probable murder or assault. From what I has been reported, the face down, knee on neck, restraint position is not prohibited in Minneapolis but it is taught that "stomach down" it can be dangerous and must be used judiciously. In the circumstances, even if we fully accept the prosecutions portrayal of events, this was a largely understandable misjudgment and, at worst, grossly negligent use of an approved method of restraint.
You're right. It is approved. But only on actively resisting persons. When Floyd lost consciousness, it became impossible for him to actively resist. At that point, Chauvin lost any rationale he may have had for using the restraint and he was then using excessive force.
 

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
7,263
Reaction score
3,358
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Chauvin's particular "crime" wasn't probable murder or assault. From what I has been reported, the face down, knee on neck, restraint position is not prohibited in Minneapolis but it is taught that "stomach down" it can be dangerous and must be used judiciously. In the circumstances, even if we fully accept the prosecutions portrayal of events, this was a largely understandable misjudgment and, at worst, grossly negligent use of an approved method of restraint.

According to the charge summaries:

As the two arresting officers tried to put Floyd in their squad car he resisted, stiffening up and falling to the ground. He told officers he didn't want to get in the car because he was claustrophobic.

Chauvin and Thao then arrived.

Then three of the officers made several attempts to get floyd into the backseat, he repeatedly resisted, now saying he could not breath. After physically struggling, they tried to get him into the car and made one final attempt.

Chauvin gave up and pulled him out of his position in the passenger seat, and Floyd went to the ground face down. At that point Chauvin placed his knee on his head and neck area, and two officers held his back and legs.

Floyd protested loudly, claiming (again) that he couldn't breath imploring "I'm about to die."

One officer noted "you are talking just fine", as Floyd continued to move. Lane asked about rolling him on his side, Chavin said no ' (he is) staying put were we got him. Lane then said something about worrying over Floyd's excited delirium (hyper aggression and unusual strength from drugs), and Chauvin said "that's why we have him on his stomach".

At 8:24:24 Floyd stopped moving. At 8:25:31 Floyd ceased to breath or speak. Lane suggest rolling on his side, , another officer checked floyds right wrist and said that he couldnt find a pulse. For two more minutes Chauvin held him under his knee.

Conclusion:

Most likely the officers believed the foam mouthed individual battling to stay out of the back seat of the police car was in a state of drug induced agitated or excited delirium. Apparently Chauvin decided the only way to get him under control and too cooperate was to use a restraint method that took the fight out of him. In the process, due to Chauvin's heart condition (and other factors) he may well have perceived that he was short of breath PRIOR to being restrained, which apparently was not due to a lack of breath.

Chauvin mistake and negligence was in not immediately stopping his restraint when told that there was no pulse, and then in not immediately rendering first aid. Although it was likely too late, three minutes of neck (or back) restraint AFTER all movement ceased, and two minute after he ceased to breath, was arguably grossly negligent and chargeable under second degree manslaughter (3rd degree murder in Minn.).

Whether or not that would "stick" will depend on several factors.
Your entire pontification lacks both consistency and any fidelity to the law. You're just making **** up to posture your agenda. Indeed, your description of the events, skewed as it is, undercuts your assertions. "Lane asked about rolling him on his side, Chavin said no ' (he is) staying put were we got him." At that point, it was not about necessary restraint, it was about inflicting punishment for having the temerity to resist. That does not appear anywhere in the training manual, except in the warning text: "keep your emotions out of your evaluations, or you may take actions that are contrary to procedures. Objective evaluation is paramount." (Or words to that effect). In any circumstance, officers are trained to use only that force necessary to secure the objective. Going beyond that risks discipline, or worse. See, e.g. What Kind Of Restraint Is Considered Legal During An Arrest? – WCCO | CBS Minnesota
What Kind Of Restraint Is Considered Legal During An Arrest? (cbs, local).

What was the potential charge against Floyd? Attempting to pass a bogus $20. That didn't even require his detention, much less the violence. (My son once used a $100 at a grocery store he just got from the bank that turned out to fail the chem test check. Even the bank didn't catch it.) It doesn't appear that issue was even followed up on. Why did the clerk think it was fake? Where did the $20 come from? What was their basis for detaining Floyd in the first place? There are a lot of questions that need resolution.

But the critical factor here was the reasonableness of the restraint. Once Floyd was under control, there was no need to continue the hold. When he said "I can't breathe" and "I think I'm gonna die" he was, objectively, telling the truth.
 
Last edited:

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
6,534
Reaction score
2,448
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Your entire pontification lacks both consistency and any fidelity to the law. You're just making **** up to posture your agenda. Indeed, your description of the events, skewed as it is, undercuts your assertions. "Lane asked about rolling him on his side, Chavin said no ' (he is) staying put were we got him." At that point, it was not about necessary restraint, it was about inflicting punishment for having the temerity to resist. That does not appear anywhere in the training manual, except in the warning text: "keep your emotions out of your evaluations, or you may take actions that are contrary to procedures. Objective evaluation is paramount." (Or words to that effect). In any circumstance, officers are trained to use only that force necessary to secure the objective. Going beyond that risks discipline, or worse. See, e.g. What Kind Of Restraint Is Considered Legal During An Arrest? – WCCO | CBS Minnesota
What Kind Of Restraint Is Considered Legal During An Arrest? (cbs, local).
My "pontification" is a paraphrase of the event as described in filings against the officers. If it is "one-sided" it is not on their behalf. Nor do I have an agenda, I'm simply reporting the facts and drawing circumstantial and legal conclusions. And exactly when the restraint was no longer necessary for the seemingly drug agitated delirium perp was a judgement call, i.e.; determining when was the perp going to cease resisting AFTER being released from the hold.

Obviously the officer either misjudged the point of release, and/or was indifferent to crossing the threshold to excessive force. Whether or not that unlawfully and actually contributed to the man's death "beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't clear; after all, the perp was complaining about not being able to breath during their attempts to get him in the police car PRIOR to Chauvin's arrival, according to the charges. Moreover, he was breathing just fine in all his yelling and imploring.

What was the potential charge against Floyd? Attempting to pass a bogus $20. That didn't even require his detention, much less the violence. (My son once used a $100 at a grocery store he just got from the bank that turned out to fail the chem test check. Even the bank didn't catch it.) It doesn't appear that issue was even followed up on. Why did the clerk think it was fake? Where did the $20 come from? What was their basis for detaining Floyd in the first place? There are a lot of questions that need resolution.
Not really. After questioning the person he most likely had multiple reasons (after all, the guy was on drugs driving a vehicle) and chose the one most convenient.

But the critical factor here was the reasonableness of the restraint. Once Floyd was under control, there was no need to continue the hold. When he said "I can't breathe" and "I think I'm gonna die" he was, objectively, telling the truth.
Seemingly true, but as it is common for drug affected perps to be hysterical and make things up to resist arrest going to jail, unless one wishes to dispatch a paddy wagon with a medical crew on every arrest it is understandable that he was not believed.

The reasonableness seems apparent, up to a point. And there isn't any doubt that the officer misjudged when resistance ended and it would seem he showed a callous indifference to human life when he didn't immediately cease upon being informed of there being no pulse. Still, the law requires that the perps death was, beyond a reasonable doubt, due to Chauvin's "unlawful' actions that were performed PRIOR to the perps death (a knee on a dead man is irrelevant as to "cause" of death).

Hence, second degree manslaughter is the only charge that might fit, and even that remains to be proven.
 
Last edited:

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
7,263
Reaction score
3,358
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I had a hard time stopping laughing at this one...
Nor do I have an agenda
There are even points we agree on (e.g., "Obviously the officer either misjudged the point of release, and/or was indifferent to crossing the threshold to excessive force."), but your credibility is.. well, shall we say, "lacking".
 
Last edited:

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
6,534
Reaction score
2,448
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I had a hard time stopping laughing at this one... There are even points we agree on (e.g., "Obviously the officer either misjudged the point of release, and/or was indifferent to crossing the threshold to excessive force."), but your credibility is.. well, shall we say, "lacking".
However, I do see that accusations and characterizations against the poster, while dodging the argument, doesn't require either relevancy or credibility.
 

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
53,038
Reaction score
21,132
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Remember, when in 2017, in the same Minneapolis, a black police officer, Mohammed Noor, shot and killed an australian woman, Justine Damon, what kind of horrible riots were organized by whites?
I don't remember either.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZmnqvxWoAcrPwR?format=jpg&name=small
Maybe, just maybe..

Shooting of Justine Damond - Wikipedia

On March 20, 2018, Noor was charged with second-degree manslaughter and third-degree murder. Prosecutors later upgraded the charges against Noor to second-degree intentional murder. In April 2019, Noor was convicted of third-degree murder and manslaughter, but acquitted of intentional second-degree murder.[7]*In June 2019, Noor was sentenced to 12.5 years in prison.[8]
Took 9 months from event happening to conviction.

Meanwhile..
Death of Eric Garner - Wikipedia. - no indictment
Death of Freddie Gray - Wikipedia - no charges
Shooting of Philando Castile - Wikipedia - acquittal

The list of possible outcomes when a cop kills a black guy.. goes on, and on... but it usually favors the cops.





Ja sam Baba Yaga
 

Ringo Stalin

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2019
Messages
1,816
Reaction score
248
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Took 9 months from event happening to conviction.
I'm not talking about sentences, I'm talking about white riots. You need to go back in history to see one.
 

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
53,038
Reaction score
21,132
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm not talking about sentences, I'm talking about white riots. You need to go back in history to see one.
And I'm explaining why white riots don't happen. People who kill white people in this country go to prison. People who kill black people in this country get suspended without pay.


Ja sam Baba Yaga
 

dixon01767

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
6,364
Reaction score
835
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Maybe, just maybe..

Shooting of Justine Damond - Wikipedia

Took 9 months from event happening to conviction.
July 15, 2017 she was shot

March 20, 2018 Noor was for the first time charged with a crime

April 2019 he was convicted

Took 21 months from event happening to conviction. Took 9 months to determine that Noor intended to kill the lady he shot in the center of the chest from a few feet away. Took one week to determine the guy with his knee on the back of Floyds neck intended to kill him. Even though it was probably the guy with his knee on Floyds back that kept him from breathing.
 

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
53,038
Reaction score
21,132
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
July 15, 2017 she was shot.
Imagine my surprise when I realized you missed the point that the difference isn't how long it took, but that in one case a conviction happened and in several others it didn't. And that's more than likely why in one case rioting didn't happen, and several riots have happened after other cases have ended up differently.

I'm in total shock, total.

Ja sam Baba Yaga
 

dixon01767

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
6,364
Reaction score
835
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And I'm explaining why white riots don't happen. People who kill white people in this country go to prison. People who kill black people in this country get suspended without pay.
Ja sam Baba Yaga
More white people killed by cops than black people. Who are these convictions of cops for killing white people?
 

dixon01767

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
6,364
Reaction score
835
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Imagine my surprise when I realized you missed the point that the difference isn't how long it took, but that in one case a conviction happened and in several others it didn't.
I was disputing the facts you were using to make your point. They were false. And most of those several others that did not were not black people. More whites killed by the police than blacks. So not sure if you are making that point.


And that's more than likely why in one case rioting didn't happen, and several riots have happened after other cases have ended up differently.
???? Clearly it is not. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more police convicted for killing a black person than convicted for killing a white person, even though the police kill more whites than blacks.
 

jpn

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
5,318
Reaction score
3,158
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I gotta say I'm a bit conflicted about one of the four officers, Thomas Lane.

He had just passed his probationary period and was on his fourth day as a rookie police officer.

And here’s the description on the charge sheet against Derek Chauvin, the officer who had his knee on Floyd’s neck:

The officers said, “You are talking fine” to Mr. Floyd as he continued to move back and forth. Lane asked, “should we roll him on his side?” and the defendant said, “No, staying put where we got him.” Officer Lane said, “I am worried about excited delirium or whatever.” The defendant said, “That’s why we have him on his stomach.” None of the three officers moved from their positions….At 8:25:31 the video appears to show Mr. Floyd ceasing to breathe or speak. Lane said, “want to roll him on his side.” Kueng checked Mr. Floyd’s right wrist for a pulse and said, “I couldn’t find one.” None of the officers moved from their positions.

Lane tried to intervene multiple times but was repeatedly dismissed by a senior officer who not only had 19 years on the force but was Lane’s training officer.

I think Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd. But I don't think Lane should face criminal charges.
 

Ringo Stalin

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2019
Messages
1,816
Reaction score
248
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
If you kneel, you repent.
If you repented, you admitted your personal responsibility.
If you recognized responsibility, then you must pay.
When can we expect trillions of reparations from the US and Britain to African countries?
 
Top Bottom