I very much appreciate your revisiting the documentary, your self-reflection, and mea culpa. It's understandable (and important) to question whether the agreed-upon story, in politically-explosive cases such as the George Floyd murder, is correct. I am thinking of the Michael Brown case, where there was so much misinformation, much of it never corrected. That was an eye-opener. However, the officials and legal system did get it right, and anyone who wanted to could read the Dept. of Justice report about the incident. Of course, how many people bothered to do that or had the time to do it. Unfortunately, once the story line is set, people tend to go with it and in this day and age, the story, right or wrong, lives forever. But, it is equally important, I think, to apply the same critical eye to counter-narratives. They too can live forever-- and people believe what they want to believe. This due diligence is especially important if you are a public figure or opinion leader. It is also crucial to retain a certain amount of skepticism (and humility) if you really don't know much about it, especially "technical" issues, such as, say, police procedures (or, not that you are guilty of this, how votes are counted or how vaccines work). I was wary of the documentary when you first discussed it, just because I was skeptical that the technique as used by Chauvin was actually recommended by the police manual. I didn't know really, but it didn't ring true to me, so I was not immediately convinced by the claims in the film. I wanted more info, it was too neat. Many people are furious about the post-Floyd civil disorder in Minneapolis, and rightly so. But that doesn't mean that Derek Chauvin was actually innocent. Thanks for the update, and please continue to update us.
I just rewatched the three episodes of TGS that examined the documentary The Fall of Minneapolis (TFOM). I have also read the Radley Balko response. I must admit to still being perplexed a bit perplexed about why Glenn and John about why they backed away from their initial conclusions after reading (I assume they read) the Balko attempted takedown of Coleman Hughes article on TFOM and its implications.
Balko is not a balanced nonpartisan observer of law enforcement but a strong police critic from the Left. He is a journalist for the Washington Post—not exactly a nonpartisan balanced media outlet. This doesn’t make his observations and conclusions invalid. However, it does provide some context for his responses. He has written books criticizing what he views as the militarization of the police and the warrior cop; as well as articles questioning the overuse of SWAT.
Balko’s basic critique of the TFOM is that the filmmaker’s intentionally left out that while the Maximum Restraint Technique (MRT) is an acceptable arrest technique but it was not properly applied by Chauvin and the other MPD police officers on the scene—specifically Chauvin and his colleagues held Floyd in the MRT too long. But it seems to me that if Balko accepts that MRT was an approved MPD arrest technique, then MPD police leadership at a minimum misled the court during the Floyd trail when they said what appeared to be the application of the MRT during the attempted Floyd arrest was not an approved arrest maneuver.
However, it is certainly appropriate to argue in the trial that while MRT was approved, Chauvin and his fellow officers applied it incorrectly and the incorrect application may or even did lead to Floyd’s death. The problem is this didn’t happen during the trial. Ellison and the prosecution were successful in getting the presiding judge to exclude any evidence that showed the MRT was an acceptable arrest technique. This meant the jury (and the public at large) were never made aware that Chauvin was applying an approved technique for arresting a non cooperative suspect and not some rogue maneuver.
Furthermore, Balko doesn’t really refute any of the other issues raised in the film. For example, the political pressure from local city, state and even national leaders to convict the police officers of murder—regardless of any evidence to the contrary and certainly not in accordance with finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The multiple and conflicting autopsy reports and findings that raise questions about whether Floyd’s death was a result of asphyxiation. The Floyd toxicology report which showed that he had taken what could have been a lethal dose of Meth and therefore could have been the cause of his death. The fact that MPD police leadership misled the court when they said that the MRT was not an approved arrest maneuver.
So again, what did Glenn and John find so robust in the Balko post that they now have done a complete 180 on TFOM film and its implications for understanding the entire George Floyd event—including the Chauvin jury trail? I have tremendous respect for Glenn and John but did not find the Balko critique compelling. What did I miss?
This is a useful counter to Radley Balko’s long takedown of Coleman Hughes defense of the validity of the questions raised about the George Floyd death and trail depicted in the documentary The Fall of Minneapolis.
One final point Gordon just read the account by Dr. Kory—not sure why you refer to him a s a celebrated MAGA doctor; and frankly not sure what has to do with anything. His report appears to get the facts wrong. First I’m more if actually examined the body? Second, I saw no footage of anyone but Chavin attempting to apply the MRT. Where Kory cane up with the conclusion that multiple officers were involved is anybody’s guess.
The Balko articles 1 and 2 are compelling. I am interested to see the response from the filmmakers and from Hughes. Looking up the definition of murder I see that murder requires intent and planning. Did Chauvin plan to kill anyone that day?
My guess is that in the end, the truth will remain unclear. It is complicated and the deification of Floyd was a thing and enormous violence and material damage did follow - before the trial of Chauven. I haven’t watched the documentary but I have watched the Steele documentary about Michael Brown and wonder if I missed a similar outcry against it by Brown’s supporters.
With all due respect, I have to disagree with Professor Loury: (1) I downloaded the Minneapolis Police handbook on arrest procedure. Page24-25 mention: (a)MRT placement of knee on shoulder while suspect is in prone position (face-down) or side-recovery position to facilitate breathing. My friend practiced procedure on me in prone position- where I wanted to remain and take a nap. (b) Use of hobble which is leash that secures hands and feet. Each technique was presented as either/or. I didn’t find wording that mandated officer must progress to technique B after employing technique A. Again- I read “either/or”. At any rate- the manual contradicts police chief statement the MRT is not used.
(2) On Chauvin as good or bad cop; apparently he wasn’t extremely “bad” because he was allowed to continue going out into the field. I cannot judge Chavin as good or bad cop without seeing his HR record.
Conservatives argued Joe Biden benefited from deals made by Hunter Biden, Now we have a whistleblower arrested for fabricating the story Prior to that, Comer Pyle said he lost a witness.
Guiliani said two Georgia election monitors were mishandling votes. That story was a lie.
Trump said his NY business deals were above reproach. He is now convicted of crimes.
Trump previously had to close a university and a charity.
Perhaps when a Conservative talks about crime, they should simply be ignored.
I’m not sure why John and Glenn have so quickly backtracked on their initial impressions and conclusions about the George Floyd incident after watching “The Fall of Minneapolis “. Rewatching the film and reading Coleman Huge’s analysis I still conclude the questions that the film makers raised about the reporting of the incident in the legacy media and ,what could only be considered a flawed, trial were reasonable.
The MRT was a legitimate police technique; and the police leadership misled the jury about it during the trial. The issue is did Chavin properly apply the technique correctly and particularly did he hold Floyd in the.MRT too long? If he incorrectly applied MRT was that a homicide or an accident? The film makers might possibly be criticized because they failed to point this out in the documentary.
But the other issues concerning the flaws in the autopsy report: Floyd’s use of drugs; and his physical health; still seem legitimate. All of these, as the documentary, lays out could have contributed if not directly have caused Floyd’s death. In addition, the film seems correct in pointing out that Floyd resisted arrest during the whole incident.
My conclusion is that most of the questions the filmmakers raised in “The Fall of Minneapolis “ are still valid even if they failed in the film to point out that Chavin might have applied the MRT correctly.
Oh I'm getting so confused again another person on here claimed that even though that hold was taught in the Minneapolis Police Department it clearly was not for that length of time and when you watch the part of the video where he's clearly incapacitated and there's still using that hold I just don't know which way to lean
The restraint technique is only part of the story, and even if Balco's argument is taken, arguendo, as true, it does not inevitable lead to the conclusion that Chauvin was causative of Floyd's death. As evidenced in the videos, Floyd was decidely dysarthric before the restraint, suggesting acute intoxication and/or chronic disabling illness. In addtion the evidence strongly suggests that Floyd ingested a number of tablets containing methylamphetamine and fentanyl at the time of his arrest. A 53 year old man with a history of severe hypertension and the presence significant coronary artery disease (found at post-mortem) is likely to experience severe toxicity and death after the ingestion of these drugs -- methylamphetamine can precipitate myocardial ischemia and fatal dysrhythmia, and fentanyl can cause respiratory failure, hypercarbia, and acute acidosis. These acute pathophysiologic processes may act synergistically and are very dangerous in this setting. The post-mortem fluid levels tend to confirm the hypothesis that acute intoxication was adquately severe enough to cause death. The restraint may well have contributed to Floyd's death, but there is no way to quantify these relative contributions. Even if one assumes, arguendo, that the restraint technique was improper, there is no way to establish that, but for the restraint, Floyd would likely have survived. The testimony of the prosecution's expert, so far as I can tell, was biased and unreliable, which is not, unfortunately, an uncommon finding among paid forensic experts. For this reason alone I would argue that the guilty verdict did not rise to the criminal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' as regards the culpability of Floyd himself and causation more generally.
OK. I read Balko’s hit pieces. I was going to wait for his third post, but decided to analyze the first post and second first. It has a lot of unsubstantiated commentaries and some definite substantive analysis. We can summarize Balko’s analysis as this:
1. Balko and his buddy willemedia claim that the Maximal Restraint Technique (MRT) was taught as a temporary hold to be used only long enough for police officers to administer a restraint device called a hobble. This is incorrect. The MRT is the use of the restraining device itself. A prior search of older versions of the policy manual will show they actually had two devices capable of being used for the MRT, the hobble and the Wrap. The Wrap was discontinued. It is for this reason that there is a variable that paraphrased, says, a. if a hobble is used… with no b. The reason for this is not because there is an option where the person is not hobbled in the MRT, but because option b. is the wrap. In that situation there were two options, the side recovery position or sitting the person up. But the Wrap was discontinued, and option b. was deleted. Balko follows the same error as the Fall of Minneapolis (TFOM) (and Chauvin’s attorney, if I recall) in claiming that prone restraint with the knee was MRT. Balko even makes this claim later, that they are different, but does not realize this actually invalidates his own arguments, not the majority of those made by the documentary he calls TFOM.
2. MPD policy manual’s discussion of MRT states that it “shall only be used in situations where handcuffed subjects are combative and still pose a threat to themselves, officers or others, or could cause significant damage to property if not properly restrained.” This is correct, but this does not apply to the prone restraint used by Chauvin. Nor is MRT mentioned on the slide that mentions the recovery position that many falsely claim is MRT. Handcuffs are not hobbles, nor MRT because the detainee is in a prone position. Key point, no hobble device is shown on the slide, and that is further evidence, that it is not MRT that is being discussed. MRT can be eventually performed from the prone restraining position, but the prone restraining position is not MRT. Nor does the recovery position show hobbles either.
3. Balko further points to the portion of the manual instructing police to roll suspects into a recovery position “as soon as reasonably possible” when they have been placed in the MRT technique. But as Balko well knows, and he would reference later, the prone restraint position is not MRT. They considered doing MRT but didn’t end up using the technique. so, this analysis fails. Even if MRT had been done, this analysis still fails, I will explain later.
4. Floyd was not visibly struggling against Chauvin once he was taken to the ground. This is provably false as he was still struggling while on the ground and kicked Officer Lane. It is one of the reasons they considered MRT. I also seem to recall them looking for the hobble, but not finding it.
5. Chauvin allegedly ignored all of Floyd’s pleas that he couldn’t breathe. Not true. If he had, he wouldn’t have called the EMT. His reaction may have been less urgent because most of those pleas started when he was not on the ground and trying to stop them from putting him in the squad car. Furthermore, it was Floyd who requested to be put on the ground. It is those either false cries, or possibly drug induced inability to breathe ones, which could have been why Chauvin did not take Floyd’s cries on the floor as critical evidence of breathing distress.
5. Chauvin’s response of “Then stop talking, stop yelling. It takes heck of a lot of oxygen to talk.” As proof of callousness, is then negated by Balko himself, when he states: “Chauvin’s comment echoes a common retort from officers when a suspect pleads that he is unable to breathe — “If you can talk, you can breathe.” This is incorrect.” Balko doesn’t realize that he just provided evidence that this is a common misconception among police and thus an honestly held belief that if you can talk you can breathe. Reasonableness of belief.
6. Balko mentions that Lane suggested putting Chauvin on his side. Again, we have determined that MRT did not occur. But Lane suggests the possibility of excited delirium, so further analysis is required. What is Chauvin’s response? That he has called the EMT. Key point, the fire station was only blocks away. In fact, one of the witnesses mentions this. The fire truck ends up going to the wrong address, and the ambulance ends up arriving first, even though the fire station was much closer. As far as Chauvin knew, the EMT would be arriving at any moment, so it was reasonable to stay put. Especially if they had not found the hobble to put Floyd in the MRT. Remember, the fear mentioned wasn’t positional asphyxia, but excited delirium, which is a risk to both the officers, and to the person being arrested.
5. Smith v Minneapolis. In 2010, a man named David Smith died under similar circumstances. Smith died while lying face-down with an MPD officer’s knee in his back. Like Chauvin, the officer continued to put his weight on Smith even after Smith became unresponsive. Smith’s family settled their lawsuit against the city for $3 million. Part of the settlement was a requirement that MPD provide better training on positional asphyxia and the importance of rolling suspects into a recovery position as soon as possible. While this is true, there is no actual evidence that any extensive training was given to all officers. In fact, an investigation by the Minneapolis Police Conduct Oversight Commission (MPCOC) found scant evidence that positional asphyxia was trained on at all, and that all the focus was on excited delirium. This does suggest a guilty party, the Minneapolis Police Department, but not Chauvin. In fact, the motive Chauvin and company were thrown under the bus by the upper echelon of the MPD may have been to avert focus on this fact.
6. Balko makes much ado about the slide photo where the prone restraint position using a knee is seen, not MRT where the officer is shifting his weight backward, and most of his weight is on his heel, and makes a comparison with the photo of Chauvin that was used at trial where he is more upright, and none of his weight is resting on his foot. A few problems with this analysis. One, this slide, as Balko himself has noted was new and was only seen by Lane. So what weight distribution was seen on an image would not apply to Chauvin. Furthermore, that is a frozen moment in time, and we do not know how this would look dynamically. All we know is that it clearly depicts a prone restraining position with a knee near the neck such as the one Chauvin used. Which is evidence that the technique was not an anomaly in the department. Another key point. Chauvin had used this technique before, and we know this because prior complaints had been filed and those cases were reviewed. More importantly, Chauvin was not reprimanded because his technique passed muster. For armchair hindsight people to claim he was supposed to know Floyd would be at risk of dying, when he used the same technique successfully and without health incident before, and which the department reviewed and green lighted, is asinine.
7. MPD officials testified at the trial that officers were taught that the MRT requires “light to moderate pressure.” This claim is repeated in the video that Balko touts. There are a few problems with this. One. As we said before Chauvin never applied MRT. Two, the manuals say nothing about applying light to moderate pressure while executing the MRT. What the manuals say is that when applying the neck restraint there are two techniques, the conscious restraint and the unconscious restraint. The conscious restraint requires light to moderate pressure when compressing the neck, and the unconscious neck restraint requires as much pressure as is adequate to render the person unconscious. Key points, reviewing, the prior manuals, we can easily determine that neck restraints specifically apply to blood chokes, where the officer wraps his arm around the detainee’s neck and pressures the carotid arteries on both sides of the neck. The leg was added in the last iteration, more than likely because officers were taught to triangle choke using their legs from the ground. What would be instructional is to see the combatives instructional manual used by police. No one has ever referenced this. What is clear though, is that it is not referencing a knee on shoulder and neck restraining technique that cannot focus on compressing the carotid arteries. No matter what the idiot claiming to do MMA claimed that it was a blood choke. You need to pressure both carotids for a blood choke, or as the police calls it, a neck restraint, for it to work. A slight or moderate squeeze will make you woozy, and if you squeeze harder, it will render you unconscious. Furthermore, in the fantastical scenario where a knee on shoulder and neck could qualify as a neck restraint (it doesn’t), the manual literally says that unconscious neck restraints are allowed when a subject is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject; and if lesser attempts at control have been or would likely be ineffective. Considering the long struggle the officers had with Floyd, such use would have been arguably reasonable. Enough for reasonable doubt in court.
I find Balko's second article just as unconvincing as his first article. For one thing, despite his claim to be knowledgeable about forensic pathology, he includes statements revealing some deep ignorance. For instance, in describing the second autopsy, he writes:
[Begin excerpt]
"Second opinions about a medical examiner’s conclusions are often and necessarily based on the original autopsy report. A thorough autopsy involves cutting up the body, removing and weighing organs, and disrupting the corpse in lots of other ways. You just can’t do many of these procedures more than once, and it can be difficult for a reviewing doctor to distinguish legitimate injuries from the damage done in the first autopsy. Sometimes, by the time there’s enough doubt to ask for a second autopsy, the body may have already been embalmed.
[End excerpt]
In the last case I worked on as an attorney (which I've mentioned: I represented the children of a 20-year-old Mexican American man murdered by a police officer), I arranged a second autopsy a year after the murder took place. The body was very well preserved because of embalming fluid, and embalming fluid caused no complications in performing the autopsy. The forensic pathologist can easily determine what damage to the body occurred prior to death in contrast to damage to the body that occurred shortly after death, not to mention damage that occurred recently to the corpse during an autopsy. I stood side-by-side with the forensic pathologist as he sawed the victim's head in half to identify damage within the cranium caused by the police officer's use of his own heavy, steel flashlight as a weapon to severely beat the young man before dragging him to a nearby river (which was in flood stage, and which was very cold in December), and pushing the young man into the water, where he drowned. Two forensic pathologists told me they could easily distinguish damage to the body that occurred prior to death from damage that occurred shortly after death, even a year after the body was buried and removed from the grave for the second autopsy.
Balko also wrote the following in his second piece:
I have an updated one here:
https://salsassin.wordpress.com/2024/02/15/re-the-retconning-of-george-floyd-by-radley-balko-a-rebuttal/
Here is the third installment of Radley Balko's response to "The Fall of Minneapolis": https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-retconning-of-george-floyd-part-382?utm_campaign=email-post&r=1yi3v&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
I very much appreciate your revisiting the documentary, your self-reflection, and mea culpa. It's understandable (and important) to question whether the agreed-upon story, in politically-explosive cases such as the George Floyd murder, is correct. I am thinking of the Michael Brown case, where there was so much misinformation, much of it never corrected. That was an eye-opener. However, the officials and legal system did get it right, and anyone who wanted to could read the Dept. of Justice report about the incident. Of course, how many people bothered to do that or had the time to do it. Unfortunately, once the story line is set, people tend to go with it and in this day and age, the story, right or wrong, lives forever. But, it is equally important, I think, to apply the same critical eye to counter-narratives. They too can live forever-- and people believe what they want to believe. This due diligence is especially important if you are a public figure or opinion leader. It is also crucial to retain a certain amount of skepticism (and humility) if you really don't know much about it, especially "technical" issues, such as, say, police procedures (or, not that you are guilty of this, how votes are counted or how vaccines work). I was wary of the documentary when you first discussed it, just because I was skeptical that the technique as used by Chauvin was actually recommended by the police manual. I didn't know really, but it didn't ring true to me, so I was not immediately convinced by the claims in the film. I wanted more info, it was too neat. Many people are furious about the post-Floyd civil disorder in Minneapolis, and rightly so. But that doesn't mean that Derek Chauvin was actually innocent. Thanks for the update, and please continue to update us.
I just rewatched the three episodes of TGS that examined the documentary The Fall of Minneapolis (TFOM). I have also read the Radley Balko response. I must admit to still being perplexed a bit perplexed about why Glenn and John about why they backed away from their initial conclusions after reading (I assume they read) the Balko attempted takedown of Coleman Hughes article on TFOM and its implications.
Balko is not a balanced nonpartisan observer of law enforcement but a strong police critic from the Left. He is a journalist for the Washington Post—not exactly a nonpartisan balanced media outlet. This doesn’t make his observations and conclusions invalid. However, it does provide some context for his responses. He has written books criticizing what he views as the militarization of the police and the warrior cop; as well as articles questioning the overuse of SWAT.
Balko’s basic critique of the TFOM is that the filmmaker’s intentionally left out that while the Maximum Restraint Technique (MRT) is an acceptable arrest technique but it was not properly applied by Chauvin and the other MPD police officers on the scene—specifically Chauvin and his colleagues held Floyd in the MRT too long. But it seems to me that if Balko accepts that MRT was an approved MPD arrest technique, then MPD police leadership at a minimum misled the court during the Floyd trail when they said what appeared to be the application of the MRT during the attempted Floyd arrest was not an approved arrest maneuver.
However, it is certainly appropriate to argue in the trial that while MRT was approved, Chauvin and his fellow officers applied it incorrectly and the incorrect application may or even did lead to Floyd’s death. The problem is this didn’t happen during the trial. Ellison and the prosecution were successful in getting the presiding judge to exclude any evidence that showed the MRT was an acceptable arrest technique. This meant the jury (and the public at large) were never made aware that Chauvin was applying an approved technique for arresting a non cooperative suspect and not some rogue maneuver.
Furthermore, Balko doesn’t really refute any of the other issues raised in the film. For example, the political pressure from local city, state and even national leaders to convict the police officers of murder—regardless of any evidence to the contrary and certainly not in accordance with finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The multiple and conflicting autopsy reports and findings that raise questions about whether Floyd’s death was a result of asphyxiation. The Floyd toxicology report which showed that he had taken what could have been a lethal dose of Meth and therefore could have been the cause of his death. The fact that MPD police leadership misled the court when they said that the MRT was not an approved arrest maneuver.
So again, what did Glenn and John find so robust in the Balko post that they now have done a complete 180 on TFOM film and its implications for understanding the entire George Floyd event—including the Chauvin jury trail? I have tremendous respect for Glenn and John but did not find the Balko critique compelling. What did I miss?
This is a useful counter to Radley Balko’s long takedown of Coleman Hughes defense of the validity of the questions raised about the George Floyd death and trail depicted in the documentary The Fall of Minneapolis.
One final point Gordon just read the account by Dr. Kory—not sure why you refer to him a s a celebrated MAGA doctor; and frankly not sure what has to do with anything. His report appears to get the facts wrong. First I’m more if actually examined the body? Second, I saw no footage of anyone but Chavin attempting to apply the MRT. Where Kory cane up with the conclusion that multiple officers were involved is anybody’s guess.
The Balko articles 1 and 2 are compelling. I am interested to see the response from the filmmakers and from Hughes. Looking up the definition of murder I see that murder requires intent and planning. Did Chauvin plan to kill anyone that day?
My guess is that in the end, the truth will remain unclear. It is complicated and the deification of Floyd was a thing and enormous violence and material damage did follow - before the trial of Chauven. I haven’t watched the documentary but I have watched the Steele documentary about Michael Brown and wonder if I missed a similar outcry against it by Brown’s supporters.
With all due respect, I have to disagree with Professor Loury: (1) I downloaded the Minneapolis Police handbook on arrest procedure. Page24-25 mention: (a)MRT placement of knee on shoulder while suspect is in prone position (face-down) or side-recovery position to facilitate breathing. My friend practiced procedure on me in prone position- where I wanted to remain and take a nap. (b) Use of hobble which is leash that secures hands and feet. Each technique was presented as either/or. I didn’t find wording that mandated officer must progress to technique B after employing technique A. Again- I read “either/or”. At any rate- the manual contradicts police chief statement the MRT is not used.
(2) On Chauvin as good or bad cop; apparently he wasn’t extremely “bad” because he was allowed to continue going out into the field. I cannot judge Chavin as good or bad cop without seeing his HR record.
Conservatives argued Joe Biden benefited from deals made by Hunter Biden, Now we have a whistleblower arrested for fabricating the story Prior to that, Comer Pyle said he lost a witness.
Guiliani said two Georgia election monitors were mishandling votes. That story was a lie.
Trump said his NY business deals were above reproach. He is now convicted of crimes.
Trump previously had to close a university and a charity.
Perhaps when a Conservative talks about crime, they should simply be ignored.
I’m not sure why John and Glenn have so quickly backtracked on their initial impressions and conclusions about the George Floyd incident after watching “The Fall of Minneapolis “. Rewatching the film and reading Coleman Huge’s analysis I still conclude the questions that the film makers raised about the reporting of the incident in the legacy media and ,what could only be considered a flawed, trial were reasonable.
The MRT was a legitimate police technique; and the police leadership misled the jury about it during the trial. The issue is did Chavin properly apply the technique correctly and particularly did he hold Floyd in the.MRT too long? If he incorrectly applied MRT was that a homicide or an accident? The film makers might possibly be criticized because they failed to point this out in the documentary.
But the other issues concerning the flaws in the autopsy report: Floyd’s use of drugs; and his physical health; still seem legitimate. All of these, as the documentary, lays out could have contributed if not directly have caused Floyd’s death. In addition, the film seems correct in pointing out that Floyd resisted arrest during the whole incident.
My conclusion is that most of the questions the filmmakers raised in “The Fall of Minneapolis “ are still valid even if they failed in the film to point out that Chavin might have applied the MRT correctly.
Oh I'm getting so confused again another person on here claimed that even though that hold was taught in the Minneapolis Police Department it clearly was not for that length of time and when you watch the part of the video where he's clearly incapacitated and there's still using that hold I just don't know which way to lean
Glenn, read this:
https://salsassin.wordpress.com/2024/02/15/re-the-retconning-of-george-floyd-by-bradley-balko/
The restraint technique is only part of the story, and even if Balco's argument is taken, arguendo, as true, it does not inevitable lead to the conclusion that Chauvin was causative of Floyd's death. As evidenced in the videos, Floyd was decidely dysarthric before the restraint, suggesting acute intoxication and/or chronic disabling illness. In addtion the evidence strongly suggests that Floyd ingested a number of tablets containing methylamphetamine and fentanyl at the time of his arrest. A 53 year old man with a history of severe hypertension and the presence significant coronary artery disease (found at post-mortem) is likely to experience severe toxicity and death after the ingestion of these drugs -- methylamphetamine can precipitate myocardial ischemia and fatal dysrhythmia, and fentanyl can cause respiratory failure, hypercarbia, and acute acidosis. These acute pathophysiologic processes may act synergistically and are very dangerous in this setting. The post-mortem fluid levels tend to confirm the hypothesis that acute intoxication was adquately severe enough to cause death. The restraint may well have contributed to Floyd's death, but there is no way to quantify these relative contributions. Even if one assumes, arguendo, that the restraint technique was improper, there is no way to establish that, but for the restraint, Floyd would likely have survived. The testimony of the prosecution's expert, so far as I can tell, was biased and unreliable, which is not, unfortunately, an uncommon finding among paid forensic experts. For this reason alone I would argue that the guilty verdict did not rise to the criminal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' as regards the culpability of Floyd himself and causation more generally.
https://salsassin.wordpress.com/2024/02/15/re-the-retconning-of-george-floyd-by-bradley-balko/
OK. I read Balko’s hit pieces. I was going to wait for his third post, but decided to analyze the first post and second first. It has a lot of unsubstantiated commentaries and some definite substantive analysis. We can summarize Balko’s analysis as this:
1. Balko and his buddy willemedia claim that the Maximal Restraint Technique (MRT) was taught as a temporary hold to be used only long enough for police officers to administer a restraint device called a hobble. This is incorrect. The MRT is the use of the restraining device itself. A prior search of older versions of the policy manual will show they actually had two devices capable of being used for the MRT, the hobble and the Wrap. The Wrap was discontinued. It is for this reason that there is a variable that paraphrased, says, a. if a hobble is used… with no b. The reason for this is not because there is an option where the person is not hobbled in the MRT, but because option b. is the wrap. In that situation there were two options, the side recovery position or sitting the person up. But the Wrap was discontinued, and option b. was deleted. Balko follows the same error as the Fall of Minneapolis (TFOM) (and Chauvin’s attorney, if I recall) in claiming that prone restraint with the knee was MRT. Balko even makes this claim later, that they are different, but does not realize this actually invalidates his own arguments, not the majority of those made by the documentary he calls TFOM.
2. MPD policy manual’s discussion of MRT states that it “shall only be used in situations where handcuffed subjects are combative and still pose a threat to themselves, officers or others, or could cause significant damage to property if not properly restrained.” This is correct, but this does not apply to the prone restraint used by Chauvin. Nor is MRT mentioned on the slide that mentions the recovery position that many falsely claim is MRT. Handcuffs are not hobbles, nor MRT because the detainee is in a prone position. Key point, no hobble device is shown on the slide, and that is further evidence, that it is not MRT that is being discussed. MRT can be eventually performed from the prone restraining position, but the prone restraining position is not MRT. Nor does the recovery position show hobbles either.
3. Balko further points to the portion of the manual instructing police to roll suspects into a recovery position “as soon as reasonably possible” when they have been placed in the MRT technique. But as Balko well knows, and he would reference later, the prone restraint position is not MRT. They considered doing MRT but didn’t end up using the technique. so, this analysis fails. Even if MRT had been done, this analysis still fails, I will explain later.
4. Floyd was not visibly struggling against Chauvin once he was taken to the ground. This is provably false as he was still struggling while on the ground and kicked Officer Lane. It is one of the reasons they considered MRT. I also seem to recall them looking for the hobble, but not finding it.
5. Chauvin allegedly ignored all of Floyd’s pleas that he couldn’t breathe. Not true. If he had, he wouldn’t have called the EMT. His reaction may have been less urgent because most of those pleas started when he was not on the ground and trying to stop them from putting him in the squad car. Furthermore, it was Floyd who requested to be put on the ground. It is those either false cries, or possibly drug induced inability to breathe ones, which could have been why Chauvin did not take Floyd’s cries on the floor as critical evidence of breathing distress.
5. Chauvin’s response of “Then stop talking, stop yelling. It takes heck of a lot of oxygen to talk.” As proof of callousness, is then negated by Balko himself, when he states: “Chauvin’s comment echoes a common retort from officers when a suspect pleads that he is unable to breathe — “If you can talk, you can breathe.” This is incorrect.” Balko doesn’t realize that he just provided evidence that this is a common misconception among police and thus an honestly held belief that if you can talk you can breathe. Reasonableness of belief.
6. Balko mentions that Lane suggested putting Chauvin on his side. Again, we have determined that MRT did not occur. But Lane suggests the possibility of excited delirium, so further analysis is required. What is Chauvin’s response? That he has called the EMT. Key point, the fire station was only blocks away. In fact, one of the witnesses mentions this. The fire truck ends up going to the wrong address, and the ambulance ends up arriving first, even though the fire station was much closer. As far as Chauvin knew, the EMT would be arriving at any moment, so it was reasonable to stay put. Especially if they had not found the hobble to put Floyd in the MRT. Remember, the fear mentioned wasn’t positional asphyxia, but excited delirium, which is a risk to both the officers, and to the person being arrested.
5. Smith v Minneapolis. In 2010, a man named David Smith died under similar circumstances. Smith died while lying face-down with an MPD officer’s knee in his back. Like Chauvin, the officer continued to put his weight on Smith even after Smith became unresponsive. Smith’s family settled their lawsuit against the city for $3 million. Part of the settlement was a requirement that MPD provide better training on positional asphyxia and the importance of rolling suspects into a recovery position as soon as possible. While this is true, there is no actual evidence that any extensive training was given to all officers. In fact, an investigation by the Minneapolis Police Conduct Oversight Commission (MPCOC) found scant evidence that positional asphyxia was trained on at all, and that all the focus was on excited delirium. This does suggest a guilty party, the Minneapolis Police Department, but not Chauvin. In fact, the motive Chauvin and company were thrown under the bus by the upper echelon of the MPD may have been to avert focus on this fact.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/07/28/mpd-records-suggest-scarce-training-on-dangers-of-improper-restraints
6. Balko makes much ado about the slide photo where the prone restraint position using a knee is seen, not MRT where the officer is shifting his weight backward, and most of his weight is on his heel, and makes a comparison with the photo of Chauvin that was used at trial where he is more upright, and none of his weight is resting on his foot. A few problems with this analysis. One, this slide, as Balko himself has noted was new and was only seen by Lane. So what weight distribution was seen on an image would not apply to Chauvin. Furthermore, that is a frozen moment in time, and we do not know how this would look dynamically. All we know is that it clearly depicts a prone restraining position with a knee near the neck such as the one Chauvin used. Which is evidence that the technique was not an anomaly in the department. Another key point. Chauvin had used this technique before, and we know this because prior complaints had been filed and those cases were reviewed. More importantly, Chauvin was not reprimanded because his technique passed muster. For armchair hindsight people to claim he was supposed to know Floyd would be at risk of dying, when he used the same technique successfully and without health incident before, and which the department reviewed and green lighted, is asinine.
7. MPD officials testified at the trial that officers were taught that the MRT requires “light to moderate pressure.” This claim is repeated in the video that Balko touts. There are a few problems with this. One. As we said before Chauvin never applied MRT. Two, the manuals say nothing about applying light to moderate pressure while executing the MRT. What the manuals say is that when applying the neck restraint there are two techniques, the conscious restraint and the unconscious restraint. The conscious restraint requires light to moderate pressure when compressing the neck, and the unconscious neck restraint requires as much pressure as is adequate to render the person unconscious. Key points, reviewing, the prior manuals, we can easily determine that neck restraints specifically apply to blood chokes, where the officer wraps his arm around the detainee’s neck and pressures the carotid arteries on both sides of the neck. The leg was added in the last iteration, more than likely because officers were taught to triangle choke using their legs from the ground. What would be instructional is to see the combatives instructional manual used by police. No one has ever referenced this. What is clear though, is that it is not referencing a knee on shoulder and neck restraining technique that cannot focus on compressing the carotid arteries. No matter what the idiot claiming to do MMA claimed that it was a blood choke. You need to pressure both carotids for a blood choke, or as the police calls it, a neck restraint, for it to work. A slight or moderate squeeze will make you woozy, and if you squeeze harder, it will render you unconscious. Furthermore, in the fantastical scenario where a knee on shoulder and neck could qualify as a neck restraint (it doesn’t), the manual literally says that unconscious neck restraints are allowed when a subject is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject; and if lesser attempts at control have been or would likely be ineffective. Considering the long struggle the officers had with Floyd, such use would have been arguably reasonable. Enough for reasonable doubt in court.
I find Balko's second article just as unconvincing as his first article. For one thing, despite his claim to be knowledgeable about forensic pathology, he includes statements revealing some deep ignorance. For instance, in describing the second autopsy, he writes:
[Begin excerpt]
"Second opinions about a medical examiner’s conclusions are often and necessarily based on the original autopsy report. A thorough autopsy involves cutting up the body, removing and weighing organs, and disrupting the corpse in lots of other ways. You just can’t do many of these procedures more than once, and it can be difficult for a reviewing doctor to distinguish legitimate injuries from the damage done in the first autopsy. Sometimes, by the time there’s enough doubt to ask for a second autopsy, the body may have already been embalmed.
[End excerpt]
In the last case I worked on as an attorney (which I've mentioned: I represented the children of a 20-year-old Mexican American man murdered by a police officer), I arranged a second autopsy a year after the murder took place. The body was very well preserved because of embalming fluid, and embalming fluid caused no complications in performing the autopsy. The forensic pathologist can easily determine what damage to the body occurred prior to death in contrast to damage to the body that occurred shortly after death, not to mention damage that occurred recently to the corpse during an autopsy. I stood side-by-side with the forensic pathologist as he sawed the victim's head in half to identify damage within the cranium caused by the police officer's use of his own heavy, steel flashlight as a weapon to severely beat the young man before dragging him to a nearby river (which was in flood stage, and which was very cold in December), and pushing the young man into the water, where he drowned. Two forensic pathologists told me they could easily distinguish damage to the body that occurred prior to death from damage that occurred shortly after death, even a year after the body was buried and removed from the grave for the second autopsy.
Balko also wrote the following in his second piece:
[Continued]