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.
As for why I refer to Kory as a celebrated MAGA doctor, it's because he is the leading physician advocating the use of ivermectin to treat COVID and he's been critical of the vaccines as well.
That, of course, has nothing to with George Floyd. But I bring it up because everyone I have ever encountered who believes Chauvin is innocent has been a Trump supporter (maybe you're an exception), and many Trump supporters are suspicious of physicians as being on the inside of conspiracies. So I think Kory's status as a physician who is actually celebrated by Trump supporters may give his report additional credibility to people who might otherwise be skeptical.
Gordon I fear you betray your own prejudices by saying Dr. Kory is a MAGA doctor because he advocated the use of ivermectin—what an absolutely ridiculous and irrational conclusion to draw. Like Belko anyone who questions the liberal consensus must be some sort of rightwing nut. I frankly don’t care whether he is or isn’t MAGA. By bringing up this point you intentionally or unintentionally indicate that you believe that truth should be assessed and valued only if it supports your tribe’s point of view. Kory presents a finding not supported by any evidence. In all the videos from bystanders as well as from the police body camera there was no footage of multiple police officers applying the MRT to Floyd at the same time.
Sorry. I shouldn't have just copied your phrase above. What I originally said was that Kory was "the most celebrated doctor in MAGA world" not that Kory himself is a MAGA supporter (I don't actually know who Kory votes for). And I've explained exactly why I thought was worth mentioning.
Meanwhile John, if you're saying that Chauvin was the only person with a knee on Floyd's neck, no one (including Kory) would disagree with you. When he's talking about three people applying MRT he's obviously including the two other officers who are helping hold Floyd down by kneeling on and holding his back and legs; just as in the image of MRT in the Minneapolis handbook illustrating MRT, there are three officers shown working together to apply the technique, even though there is only one with a knee on the suspect's neck.
This is all perfectly obvious. Did you really need someone to explain it to you?
Listen I’m not sure that this conversation is going anywhere productive. But Dr. Kory stated in the post you provided that multiple officers were using their knees on Floyd—that appears to be false. You might want to go back and read what wrote. What you are doing now seems to be a kind of bait and switch. I point out that Kory was wrong based on the visual evidence and you say he really didn’t mean that what he meant was that other officers were involved in applying the MRT. That is not the point that Kory made in his post. Moreover, you are focusing on an issue that is irrelevant to the understanding of what happened and the motivations of the police were during the entire affair.
I've (repeatedly) shared the bodycam video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjKjaCvXdf4&rco=1) from one of the officers, which clearly shows the other two officers kneeling on Floyd. Of course, since it's the bodycam of the third officer, it doesn't actually show him (although you can clearly tell he's kneeling).
Having said, if that's not enough, and you want a photo of three officers kneeling on Floyd, it's trivial to find one. Just search for "officers kneeling on George Floyd". Here is one of the first results:
I looked at the link. The pictures show two others kneeling either on Floyd’s legs or the ground. The picture makes it difficult to determine which is the case. What the picture does not show is three officers kneeling on Floyd’s neck and shoulders—the scenario Kory presented in his post.
I appreciate the give and take but I may not be doing a good job of explaining my point well. My question is not whether Chavin was innocent or guilty. My issue is whether given the racial climate and the political pressures associated with that climate—Did these four officers receive fair trails?
In my opinion the goal of the film was to raise questions about the conduct and fairness of the trail—in particular against Chavin. My take is, while one can argue that the documentarians failed to present the most accurate picture of the correct way of applying the MRT, the documentary did raise important questions about the conduct and fairness of the trail. Including whether the MRT was an acceptable technique in arresting an uncooperative suspect . The documentary showed that during the trail the judge did not allow the introduction of evidence that MRT was an acceptable MPD arrest technique—clearly it was. Because the judge would not allow the introduction of evidence on MRT, the jury never got to hear whether this was an acceptable arrest technique in MPD but was applied incorrectly. This might not have changed any jurors mind on whether this was manslaughter or murder or an unintentional homicide. This unfortunately seems consistent with our tendency to manage information because the powers that be don’t trust citizens to assess evidence and come to their own conclusions.
The film also raised concerns about the autopsy report. There were several reports which seemed to reconciled by ignoring certain findings. Was Floyd a healthy middle aged man who had no preexisting health conditions? To what extent did preexisting health maladies—such as cardiomyopathy—contribute to his death? What did the pharmacological report say about the types and levels of illegal drugs in Floyd’s system at the time the Chavin and the other three officers attempted to arrest Floyd? If Floyd had taken large doses of illegal substances did they in any way contribute to his death?
What about the riots and burning and destruction of the police station after Floyd’s death but before the trail verdict? Was the decision to allow rioters to take over and destroy the police station by city and state officials justified or reasonable? Or given what happened a poor political decision?
In short, for me the documentary raised multiple questions about how politics—and especially racial politics—led to a poorly conducted and as a result an unfair trail. My concern is that if George Floyd had been Travis DiCicco and white, with all the same circumstances surrounding his death the trail would have been conducted much differently and the verdict might also have been different. As a society we should be concerned that the application of justice is to the best of our ability colorblind. We can debate the broader issues raised by the documentary but the documentary succeeded in raising these questions.
I think my quibble with Glenn’s and John’s backing away from the film based on Mr. Belko’s lengthy post is that the way to look at any good documentary is whether it succeeds in raising new questions and new insights about events that everyone thinks they understand or have overlooked. Glenn and John backed away from their initial judgment because Belko told them, in his response to Coleman Hughes, that the documentary maker intentionally attempted to mislead viewers by not presenting the full picture of how the MRT should be applied.
But a fair review of the documentary would lead one to the conclusion that the filmmakers intent was to point out that MRT was at the time of Floyd’s fatal interaction with MPD officers an accepted arrest technique—and not some technique improvised by Chavin to abuse black suspects. I think Glenn and John drew the wrong conclusions from the documentary and when Belko, in his attempt to takedown Coleman, said that the filmmakers intentionally failed to include a full picture of MRT I think they got spooked and decided to reevaluate the film based on what was not included rather than what was there.
I’m pretty sure you will with nothing I said but I wanted you to at least hear my perspective.
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.
My guess is that post-trial controversy could have been avoided if the change of venue requested by the police officers had been granted. The charged atmosphere following Floyd’s death made a fair trial difficult - the conclusion that Floyd had been murdered was reached by many before the trial.
Everyone, including Loury and McWhorter should wait for the response from the film makers and Hughes before concluding they were wrong.
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.
John: I'm not sure if you haven't read Balko's analysis (https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-retconning-of-george-floyd) or didn't understand it, but his entire point is that the "Fall of Minneapolis" filmmakers were deliberately deceptive in the way they edited their film to imply that Chauvin was following the training given Minneapolis police officers when he clearly wasn't. If you think Balko gets it wrong I'd be interested to hear why, but I think the case he makes is devastating to both the filmmakers and Coleman's arguments. Glenn and John clearly agree.
Here's an analogy I made below that I would ask you to consider as well. The UFC obviously allows chokeholds, but of course a wrestler applying one is obligated to release the hold once the opponent taps out or the referee intervenes. But let's say in a match, the wrestler doesn't tap before passing out and simultaneously the referee is knocked unconscious. How long do you think it would be appropriate for the wrestler to continue to apply the chokehold to an unresponsive opponent before they would be considered criminally responsible if their opponent dies? What if they were surrounded by people outside the ring screaming that their opponent was unconscious and to release them before it was too late?
I'd suggest that if an UFC fighter continued a chokehold for more than ten seconds after their opponent was clearly unconscious they would be at risk of being held legally responsible; 30 seconds they would absolutely be held responsible; and at a minute they would be considered guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
But Chauvin continues to kneel on George Floyd's back and neck for much. much longer. If you haven't done so, watch the four and a half minutes of video that begins here (https://youtu.be/NjKjaCvXdf4?si=xZkByvn5ftq4Lakg&t=2831), the last time George Floyd made any significant movement. I'll be honest that I don't understand how anyone can watch that video and not conclude that Chauvin acted criminally.
As for the drug overdose point, Balko has a second whole piece (https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-retconning-of-george-floyd-part) explaining why Coleman gets its wrong. But if you've had enough Balko, you can find the most detailed explanation of how we know Floyd did not die of a drug overdose from Pierre Kory, perhaps the most celebrated doctor in MAGA world:
Gordon thank you very much for sharing your comments and linking to Mr. Balko’s response to Coleman! My first observation was the repeated use of a kind of straw man argument by Balko. I noticed that he spent quite a few paragraphs debunking any critic that failed to agree with the agreed upon consensus as rightwing or conservative. Reading between the lines he seemed to imply that critics of the Floyd trail and verdict might even be racist. In fact in dealing with discrepancies in the conflicting autopsy reports—one report was done by investigators hired by the family and this seems to be the one used in the trial—Balko draws on the boogie man of Jim Crow Mississippi because one of those interviewed in the film, a coroner wondered why the FBI was immediately involved in the autopsy.
I was actually insulted that rather than address the shortcomings in the documentary as he saw it, Balko spent so much of his response trying to build legitimacy among those who he believes counts, liberals, by undermining the credibility of those who raised questions about the trail and verdict and who—heaven forbid—might have arrived at a different conclusion than the consensus. By the way, this tactic is particularly pernicious when used against those who do not fit the stereotype but simply dissent form the approved orthodoxy—case in point Coleman Hughes is not a Republican conservative nor is Bari Weis. These tactics fit more closely with McCarthism—are you or have ever been a member of the communist party?
Second, your analogy makes no sense. It is comparing controlled violence—a UFC fight to an uncontrolled attempt to make an arrest with an uncooperative suspect on the streets. By the way, fighters are taught to keep fighting until the referee intercedes. You seem to suggest that if the referee fails to do his job and all the ring official fail the fighter should be held accountable. A fight by its very nature is a brutal life threatening activity. The fighters depend on the referee. Police officers have no referee and must primarily depend on their judgment about the situation. This brings me to my next point.
Third, Balko—after his gratuitous comments attempting to denigrate dissenters from his “consensus “ conclusions about the trail—spent most of the remainder of the response identifying his assessment that the MRT was applied not only incorrectly but in a manner that could only be considered criminal. The fact that in the heat of an arrest an officer might have applied the MRT incorrectly is valid. The conclusion that the incorrect application of MRT indicates the intent to commit murder or a disregard for another’s life does not seem to me in isolation to be a valid assertion. I will accept that Balko did document that Chavin most likely applied the MRT incorrectly but he did not show that it was done intentionally knowing that it could result in the death of the suspect—Mr. Floyd. In fact, if the trail was aimed at showing that MRT was too dangerous to be used by MPD officers that would have be totally justified. While Balko only references one other case where the suspect died, I would bet that the MRT was probably incorrectly applied in many other occasions—the difference is the subject did not die. I also found it curious that the judge would not allow the MRT to be debated in open court. I suspect two things: 1- it would have forced the jury to debate whether MRT was incorrectly applied which might have led to a conclusion of a tragic accident not murder. 2- It would have opened the MPD leadership to criticism. If an approved technique could be so easily misused than the city would have to take responsibility. Wouldn’t it be important to know how often MRT was used by MPD officers and how often was it applied incorrectly. Interestingly, after the trail it appears the city decided to withdraw the teaching and use of the MRT.
Fifth, BALKO from what I read never really addressed the discrepancies in the different autopsy reports—these report discrepancies might have led to different conclusions about Mr. Floyd’s death. In the coroner’s report Mr. Floyd had clearly taken a good deal of dangerous drugs and it indicated that he was not a healthy man but was suffering from several potentially life threatening illnesses. It also indicated that he was not asphyxiated.
Sixth, why wasn’t the officer body cam video introduced as evidence. Instead the jury was asked to rely—and Balko seemed to accept as valid—an eyewitness smartphone video. If the officer body cam is not the official record and we accept random bystanders videos then why have a body cam at all?
Finally, I would note that Mr. Floyd was uncooperative the entire time the police attempted to arrest him for passing counterfeit bills. He also attempted to mislead the arresting officers by stating a number of questionable if not false statements—my mother just died for instance. He starting complaining about not being able to breath and resisting arrest well before he was subdued by Chavin. What I saw was police officers attempting to arrest and detain an uncooperative suspect who had the strength and presence of mind to not allow the officers to place him in the back of their squad car—not a frightened high individual ready to surrender. He only stopped resisting when Chavin applied, an arguably imperfect, MRT restraint. The officers also called for an ambulance because they were concerned that Mr. Floyd might be suffering from some form of physical distress that might lead to his death.
1. I'm sorry you were offended. But I'll confess that I too wonder why so many folks are working so hard to come up with reasons to acquit Chauvin, when he was as obviously guilty of murder as any police officer is ever likely to be.
2. Yes. Fighters are expected to fight until the referee intervenes. That's why the analogy is so powerful. Though they are expected to fight until the ref intervenes, EVEN a UFC fighter would be expected to release a hold in a reasonable amount of time if for some reason the referee was incapacitated and unable to tell the fighter to let go. That is why it is so shocking that Chauvin and the other officers waited so long to release their hold, even though they knew that THEY were supposed to play the role of referee.
3. You're missing Balko's main point. Whether or not Chauvin misapplied MRT by mistakenly using too much pressure with his knee is ultimately irrelevant. As the Minneapolis manual clearly explains, even the correct application of MRT requires quickly moving the detainee to the recovery position because of the risk of positional asphyxiation even when the restraint is properly applied. In other words, it should never, ever be applied, even correctly, for an extended period of time. Even so, had Chauvin and the other officers released the hold once Floyd stopped moving, I still don't think there is any chance that they get convicted of anything beyond manslaughter. What is so infuriating , and why the verdict is so clearly correct, is that Chauvin and the other officers continue to maintain the hold for a full four and half minutes after Floyd became unresponsive.
4. I think you skipped "fourth", but I'll use it as an opportunity to push back on this sentence. You wrote " I will accept that Balko did document that Chavin most likely applied the MRT incorrectly but he did not show that it was done intentionally knowing that it could result in the death of the suspect."
No one, including Balko, suggests that Chauvin intentionally killed Floyd. Look up the charge. He was literally convicted of "unintentional murder" not "murder".
5. Balko does address the questions raised about the autopsy report. The coroner's report includes the information about the drugs in Floyd's system and it does not say that Floyd was not asphyxiated. In fact, it says Floyd's death was a "homicide due to “cardiopulmonary arrest” from “law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.”"
Meanwhile, if you want a detailed explanation for how we know the drugs aren't what killed Floyd, please refer to the two Pierre Kory articles I shared. He explains why in detail.
6. I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about with body cam video. Personally, I think all videos should be used so that the most completely picture of what happens emerges. The video I keep linking to (https://youtu.be/NjKjaCvXdf4?si=xZkByvn5ftq4Lakg&t=2831) is a body cam video from one of the detectives. It clearly shows what happened was a murder.
Finally, you're right that Floyd was uncooperative, tried to mislead the officers, and resisted getting into the squad car. If that had simply lead him to receive some injuries while being arrested and/or a longer sentence I wouldn't have any issues with it. But in no way should it have lead to three officers kneeling on his back, neck, and legs for more than nine minutes, almost half of which taking place after he had become completely unresponsive. There is a word for that. And it's murder.
Listen Gordon I actually resent implications that some of us are working hard to show Floyd’s death was not murder. This is more of the rightwing smearing straw man arguments that Balko used in his attempted takedown of Coleman.
However, putting these types of arguments aside given the death of Floyd and the severity of the punishment levied against the officers, some of us are questioning whether the rush to judgment actually led to a just verdict. I suspect though I can’t be sure that you might have some questions about the trail that led to the acquittal of OJ Simpson for double homicide. Should I suggest that your motives for questioning the verdict are suspect and might betray a touch racial bias—black man kills white woman?
Your UFC analogy still does not work the police officers were not there as referees but were active participants in trying to subdue and arrest Mr. Floyd. A better analogy would be if the fighters sparring partners and ring men got into the ring to help the fighter subdue his opponent.
We disagree about what the autopsy reports show—-this is probably because there are at least two different reports. At least one was conducted by family hired experts who never apparently viewed or handled Floyd’s body.
Again your comments on the MRT just underscore my point that the issue was the correct application of the restraint. My observation is that the trail should have hinged on whether Chavin applied the MRT correctly and whether his incorrect application led to Floyd’s death?
I have to say I’m not a lawyer but the charge of unintentional murder seems curious. A charge such as this could lead to people being charged with murder when they are involved in self defense.
In any case, I still have lots of questions about the conduct of the trail and the jury’s verdict. Again I would think that a fair minded citizen would want to know that the system worked correctly and was not simply a hostage political pressures and the need to virtue signal about race.
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
There are a number of high profile cases of police "brutality" in recent years where I think the police have been unfairly criticized or judged. And while it didn't involve the police, in perhaps the most similar recent situation analogous to Chauvin and Floyd, I'm a strong defender of Daniel Penny who I believe should be found not guilty in the death of Jordan Neely for the reasons I describe here (https://rosselliotbarkan.com/p/the-tragedy-of-jordan-neely/comments).
Having said, it is shocking to me that anyone can watch the four and half minutes of video beginning here (https://youtu.be/NjKjaCvXdf4?si=xZkByvn5ftq4Lakg&t=2831), the last time George Floyd made any significant movement, and not be convinced that Chauvin (with the assistance of fellow officers) murdered George Floyd.
I'm not a mind reader so I have no idea if Chauvin wanted Floyd to die or not, but there is no doubt that he acted with utter disregard for Floyd's life in a situation where there was not a scintilla of risk to him or anyone else if he had gotten off Floyd's back and neck minutes earlier, which would have saved Floyd's life. If that isn't police abuse, then nothing is.
The only possible argument for finding Chauvin not guilty was to believe that Chauvin was literally trained to restrain suspects in this way until medical personnel arrive or to believe that drug killed Floyd. Balko absolutely shreds this first argument (which, even had it been true, would have been a concentration camp official type of defense); and while Balko also shreds the "drugs killed Floyd", I suspect that those searching for some way to exculpate Floyd will find the arguments of Pierre Kory (who, given his anti-vax credentials, probably has more credibility to Salassin and the other folks defending Chauvin) more compelling:
Not at all. I can easily see how someone who is waiting for an EMT that should already be there and who is seeing a crowd get rowdier and rowdier as he performs a position he has done multiple times before would think to stay put and wait. In hinsight, sure it was foolish and you could even say negligent, but not criminally so.
How long do you think it is reasonable for multiple officers to kneel on the back of a clearly unconscious man until an EMT arrives. When, in your mind, would have it crossed over into criminal negligence? Clearly, you don't believe that five minutes was enough time. How about ten minutes? 20 minutes? Where is the line?
Here's a related analogy: the UFC obviously allows chokeholds, but of course a wrestler applying one is obligated to release the hold once the opponent taps out or the referee intervenes. But let's say in a match, the wrestler doesn't tap before passing out and simultaneously the referee is knocked unconscious. How long do you think it would be appropriate for the wrestler to continue to apply the chokehold before they would be considered criminally negligent? What if they were surrounded by people outside the ring screaming that their opponent was unconscious and to release them before they died?
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.
James: Floyd was clearly not dysarthric before the restraint. He wasn't even dysarthric AFTER the restraint. His cries for help are still clear and easily understandable for minutes after being on the ground with Chauvin and the other officers on his back: https://youtu.be/NjKjaCvXdf4?si=3YC8PxrAhD18R5bN&t=2664
He doesn't become dysarthric for four or five minutes. But the officers continues to hold the position even after this point, including for minutes after Floyd has become completely unresponsive and passersby are pleading with the officers to check his pulse because they (correctly) believe that Floyd is clearly dying. It's just horrific indifference to human life by the officers.
Gordon, perhaps I should clarify. My use of the term dysarthria refers to Floyd's stiff and shuffling gate, which appears on CCTV inside and just outside the convenience store even before the police encounter, and continuing into the encounter. It is impossible to evaluate this dysarthria after restraint is imposed. The ability to vocalize does not negate this observation. This dysarthria can be acutely induced by various drugs, including opiates. In the absence of a history of a neurologic disorder, I am assuming that fentanyl is the causative agent here. The point is that Floyd had high levels of amphetamine and fentanyl on board. In a man over 50 with a history of severe hypertension and demonstrable coronary artery disease, these levels were sufficient to cause not only severe acute intoxication (including muscle stiffness and restriction of chest wall excursions) but sudden death as the final outcome.
I would agree with you that Floyd's complaints of dyspnea should have been taken at face value and immediately evaluated. That is what I would have done in the ER, but I am not knowledgeable as to the experience and standards of police officers, so that is tough for me to evaluate. Floyd complained loudly about a number of things, starting immediately upon being approached by police -- there really are some people who 'cry wolf,' and I have encountered them from time to time. They present a quandry in trying to evaluate their condition. It's hard for me to know how that squares with police experience in the course of a difficult arrest.
I would agree that the three point restraint should have been discontinued, at least from a medical perspective. It is quite possible that the continued restraint hastened death, but I know of no way to quantify that. I agree that Floyd appeared to be in serious distress and that it was unpleasant to watch. I would not agree that, but for the restraint, Floyd would likely have survived this overdose. In other words, Floyd probably would have suffered a fatal overdose no matter what. I don't agree with the imposition of the continuing restraint in Floyd's circumstance, but neither do I agree that the manner of restraint altered that eventual outcome.
It's also difficult for me to assess the mens rea of the officers. The officer that was not engaged in restraint told one bystander that Floyd could breathe if Floyd could talk. This is in fact a basic rule of thumb in assessing an acute obstructive respiratory disorder, and this may be part of police training. In a medical setting it is a qualified rule, and further and continuing evaluation is necessary, as some people can talk even when on the cusp of respiratory failure. I have no way of knowing what police training says about this, so I have no way of evaluating whether the officer's statement would be reflective of a state of mind which is reasonable, negligent, reckless, or even malicious. To simply label it "horrific indifference" with no consideration of the training and experience of police officers in these situations strikes me as unreasonable and even irresponsible.
James: While married to a physician, I'm certainly not one, so I personally can't speak with any expertise to the role that drugs played in his death. But I'll be interested to hear what you think Pierre Kory get wrong in his extensive posts on the question where he makes crystal clear that he disagrees with your perspective:
I'd just add that while I'm certainly willing to believe that drugs and a lifestyle like Floyd's can lead to cardiac arrest, the idea that those chickens came home to roost five minutes after three officers began kneeling on his back, neck, and legs and those officers' actions didn't contribute significantly to the death strikes me as ludicrous.
As for the officers, I think it's fair not to blame them too harshly for failing to immediately take Floyd's pleas of distress too seriously when he had been making those pleas well before they got on his back. Some "boy who cried wolf" disregard would have seemed reasonable to me.
But once Floyd becomes clearly unresponsive they should have done reacted. Maybe a further 30 second delay would have been reasonable. A minute strikes me as too long, but even then I would have hesitated to convict for anything more than manslaughter. But for these officers, under Chauvin's direction, to maintain the position for another four minutes, and this despite the please of bystanders who could clearly see he was unresponsive and in danger, was unconscionable. The jury got it right. Given the Lucifer/Zimbardo effect, I can see convicting the other officers of lesser crimes, but Chauvin was clearly guilty of unintentional murder.
Gordon, thank you for your response. I skimmed the document at the first link that you reference. To be honest I am skeptical of an allegedly objective opinion from Kory which starts with his making certain that we are aware that he suffered "trauma," and that the "trauma" has curtailed his ability to be a paid witness (I'm guessing $500/hr or more) in litigation. In addition I don't have any further time to devote to researching this particular subject, so I will have to pass on further careful reading of Kory's throughts.
One of the problems with litigation and trial, be it civil or criminal, is that the experts, attorneys, and finders of fact have the luxury of leisurely review of the facts of a case. They typically engage in a close parsing of facts that is not remotely possible in real life in real time. One of the realities of an emergency situation is that it is frequently emotionally charged. There are from time to time loudly vocal bystanders who wish to offer opinions and directions -- and even though the bystanders may be sincere and of good faith, they are seldom helpful. It's hard to keep track of time in these circumstances, even in a relatively controlled setting, and the minutes have a habit of slipping away.
As I indicated to you, the restraint (in my opinion particularly the pressure on the back, more so than at the shoulder/base of the neck) may well have contributed to death. There are no good data available in the interaction of the various putative causative factors, so causation winds up being an educated guess. I think Kory is wrong. I also think Kory is biased. If he were to read my note, Kory would likely think that I am wrong, and he might well think that I am biased.
As regards application of law, the standard for criminal conviction, as I'm certain you know, requires a finding beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a much more stringent standard than a simple preponderance of the evidence. There is also a presumption for the criminal defendant as regards the elements of a crime, so uncertainty should be resolved in favor of the defendant. The state always has the burden of proof that the elements of the alleged crime, includuing intent and causation, are in fact present. I did not sit through the trial, so I do not have all the information available to the jurors. Nor do I have impressions of the demeanor and 'feel' of the various witnesses. As a result, while I am skeptical of the causation element in the various guilty verdicts, I am agnostic for the most part as regards the intent element.
A murder conviction requires a finding of intentional homicide. I am skeptical that any of the officers intended to kill Floyd. Unintentional homicide absent the positive intention to do harm would support no greater a charge than unintentional manslaughter, not murder. I continue to wonder whether there was really a criminal mens rea in any of the officers. Are humans subject to group psychosis and antisocial conduct? Absolutely. Did that happen with the police officers, and account for uncharacteristic criminal conduct? Maybe so. Did groupthink infect the politicians, press, prosecutors, experts, judge, jury, and/or rioters and their related actions? I don't know.
I appreciate your thinking, and I have enjoyed exchanging ideas with you, notwithstanding that we arrive at different value judgments. James
Thanks James. Kory goes into great detail and certainly no one is obligated to take the time to read him. But since it sounds like you may be unfamiliar with who he is, Kory became famous/infamous over the last 18 months as the leading physician advocating the use ivermectin to treat COVID and as a critic of the vaccines. The "trauma" he is referring to is the loss of his reputation (and potentially his license) in the mainstream medical community because of this advocacy. However, he is one of the most celebrated doctors in the MAGA community; and since I've found virtually all defenders of Chauvin happen to be Trump supporters, I confess that I enjoy the irony that the most public debunker of the "Floyd died of an overdose" hypothesis is the physician that Trump supporters most celebrate for his courage and his willingness to stand by his convictions.
Anyway, you're obviously entitled to believe whatever you choose to believe. But given the fact that as far as I know all the physicians who examined Floyd in the autopsy or were given access to his medical records have concluded that Floyd died of cardiopulmonary failure caused by the actions of the police (https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-george-floyd-autopsy-new-892530421961) and that the restraint technique the police were using is supposed to be only used for a short amount of time because of the risk of serious injury or death in exactly the way that Floyd died, I think any reasonable observer would conclude as the jury did that the reasonable doubt bar was easily cleared.
As for a murder conviction requiring a finding of intentional homicide, Chauvin was literally convicted of the charge of "unintentional second degree homicide", which (not surprisingly given the name of the charge) does not require a finding of an intent to commit murder.
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.
8. According to the autopsy report, Floyd had bruises and abrasions on his left shoulder and the left side of his forehead, cheek, and mouth. This is the side of his body that Floyd placed himself on the pavement when he asked to be taken to the ground. Floyd also had abrasions on his nose. Yes, people who are resisting arrest while in the prone position usually will have bruising and scrapes.
9. Balko claims that the 2014 MPD manual called for officers to roll suspects over as soon as reasonably possible. And that it did so because four years earlier, Smith died because police officers failed to do so. A few problems with this claim as well. One, that instruction is for the MRT. We have already determined that Chauvin wasn’t applying the MRT. We also established that Chauvin had a reasonable reason to wait. He was waiting for the imminent EMT that went to the wrong address. What about the slide? The slide that Balko correctly determined that only Lane saw, lists, first, that after a violent struggle, sudden cardiac arrest can occur, and then secondly, that to avoid positional asphyxia, the person should be placed in the recovery position. Again, no mention of MRT. This slide could easily be read in two ways. Especially by officers, who are not doctors. And the problem is that both ways are plausible. That once you have a sudden cardiac arrest you should put the person in a recovery position so as to avoid positional asphyxia, or what is more likely, but does not overcome that fact that it could be read the other way, that to avoid sudden cardiac arrest due to positional asphyxia, you should put the person in the recovery position. But officers don’t have the hindsight of Balko to do research on positional asphyxia such that they could overcome years of training, so what they understood and what was actually taught by the trainers is key. And again, this was taught to Lane. No evidence this was taught to Chauvin. Another fun point. We know the slides are not referring to MRT because neither the prone restrain nor the recovery position slides mention it, nor do we see any hobbles in place which are what MRT is.
10. Next, Balko shows a 2003 training video, also from the NYPD, that diagrams how positional asphyxia works. A video that was not from the Minneapolis police, and therefore irrelevant. But pretty sad, considering Eric Garner also died of positional asphyxia and Pantaleo and company got off because the focus incorrectly, just like in the Floyd case, was made on a supposed choke, instead of the much more relevant compression asphyxia they experienced. Obesity and drugs are known to exacerbate positional or compression asphyxia.
11. Balko and Willemedia claim that TFOM did deceptive editing to falsely claim that Blackwell and Arredondo lied on the stand. This is provably false. The prosecutor asked Blackwell — who previously oversaw MPD’s training — if the technique depicted in “Exhibit 17” is an approved MPD technique. Not if it was MRT. It was. And we know it because of the slide about when to put someone in the recovery position that Lane was trained with. It clearly shows the person in the picture using the same technique. More importantly, Chauvin’s technique had been reviewed when internal affairs reviewed prior complaints of use of force where he clearly used the same technique. Chief Arradondo also lies by claiming that the technique was not taught, which is provably false, based on the slide, which is not about MRT. And when he retorts that MRT is only trained for use with a hobble, when discussing what Chauvin was doing. Which was not MRT. This is a strawman. By claiming that MRT is only used to apply a hobble, he is claiming that Chauvin was trying to do the MRT. We know that is not the case. That Lane suggested it, but that they did not do it. And the instructions for doing the MRT would not apply to the restraining position Chauvin was carrying out. Why did they lie? We can speculate: Smith required them to have training to avoid positional asphyxia, and the latest investigation by the MPCOC suggest they didn’t have proper training. By making it about improper use of the MRT, they moved the focus away from positional asphyxia. And their failure to properly train Chauvin and Thao, at the very least.
12. “We also know that of all the officers on the scene when Floyd died, only one probably saw the slide during his training: Thomas Lane. He’s the only officer who would have been a cadet when that slide was part of the MPD’s academy training.” . I quote: “That training “was originally created in 2018 for the MPD Academy” and was shown to “Cadets and Recruits . . . while they are participating in the MPD Academy.” Officer Mackenzie indicated, however, that “this presentation” has never “been included in the in-service training” provided “for the purpose of continuing education” for existing officers. As a result, Chauvin would never have seen or been trained using this slide or photograph prior to Floyd’s death.” so the slide could only show that the technique was not an anomaly, not that Chauvin was aware of the specific wording and instruction on the slide. What else do we know about Thomas Lane? Well, we know that he was the one officer on the scene who seemed to understand how important it is to roll a suspect into the recovery position. If anything, an argument could be made that Lane failed with his more recent training, but considering that the recent investigation by the MPCOC found there was scant evidence of proper training on positional asphyxia, I think he was innocent as well. In fact, he stated that the reason he believed it might be good to roll Floyd over was excited delirium, not positional asphyxia.
13. I quote: “The claim that “Chauvin’s knee blocked Floyd’s airway” is not the “entire narrative.” It isn’t the narrative at all. It never was. Blocking the airways isn’t the only way to asphyxiate someone. And it isn’t what killed George Floyd.” Balko is partially right here. Positional asphyxia was a factor and the knee to the neck was not what killed Floyd. So, Balko even admits what people charged Chauvin with was not what killed Floyd. But what he fails to prove is that Chauvin and the others were properly trained in Positional Asphyxia. More importantly, while a factor, it was not the only factor.
14. Balko argues that under Minnesota law, the state only needed to show that if not for Chauvin’s actions, George Floyd would not have died that day. It doesn’t matter if Floyd was more fragile or susceptible to a heart attack than most men his age. There’s a legal concept sometimes called “eggshell theory,” which states that perpetrators take their victims as they find them. It’s commonly used in tort law, but it applies to criminal law as well. If the prosecution can demonstrate that Chauvin’s use of force against Floyd was illegal, than he can be convicted. But, as Balko himself points out, they have to prove that Chauvin was doing something illegal, and as we have analyzed, there is no evidence he was. Moreover, the eggshell rule applies to innate fragilities, not self-induced fragility. Balko claims Floyd showed no signs of someone in the midst of an overdose. That an opioid overdose makes you lethargic and sluggish. That Floyd was erratic and energetic. He was standing, walking, and talking. But we know Floyd was ingesting drugs that day. He even fell asleep in the car. We also have a pretty good idea that he swallowed more pills to hide evidence. He did once before and ended in the hospital. We know Those pills would take time to take effect, more than likely around 20 minutes when orally ingested, and considering he was already on drugs, when they took effect, they would kick in with a higher level of strength. Furthermore, we know Floyd ingested two drugs, not one. Fentanyl and methamphetamine. Fentanyl and methamphetamine can affect behavior in different and sometimes opposite ways. Fentanyl can cause confusion, drowsiness, and reduced alertness, while methamphetamine can cause euphoria, hyperactivity, and increased alertness. We do not know which he put in his mouth when being arrested. Moreover, both drugs can also cause hallucinations, paranoia, and anxiety in high doses or with chronic use. The interaction of these two drugs can be unpredictable and potentially dangerous, as they may counteract or enhance each other’s effects. For example, methamphetamine may mask the respiratory depression caused by fentanyl, or fentanyl may intensify the serotonin syndrome caused by methamphetamine, leading to seizures. As Balko likes to speculate, on why Floyd claimed he couldn’t breathe, claiming it was induced by his claim of claustrophobia, which makes no sense, as Floyd was acting erratic even before there was an attempt to place him in the car, and who had been in cars and prior arrests without claustrophobia, a man who had a prior MO of acting erratic and making false claims, in the same way he did with Chauvin and company, to try to get out of arrest. If we are to assume some type of fear crisis, there is one reason readily available. Floyd knew he had ingested a bunch of drugs, and he knew he had ended in the hospital before for doing the same thing. He could plausibly have a credible fear that if he was arrested, he could die in confinement from his hasty drug consumption, unless he admitted he had just ingested more drugs to hide evidence. Maybe that is why he blurted, ‘I’m dead.’ Because the drugs might kill him.
15. Balko claims that Chauvin’s defenders want it both ways. They want him to benefit from an interpretation of Floyd’s initial complaint that assumes it was the sign of a dangerous health crisis, but then exempt him from culpability for not treating it like one. That doesn’t hold up to water, except when you are an armchair analyzer looking at the events in hindsight. There is no evidence Chauvin would have known of his drug ingestion, only that he seemed to be erratic and showing signs of excited delirium and needed to be restrained. And that is what he was doing while waiting for an EMT, that, as far as he knew, was just around the corner.
16. Balko then goes into a long diatribe about the coroner’s report, the autopsy, etc., and how they ‘proved’ he did not die of an overdose. As we have discussed before, that has actually not been proven. The claim that he was a habitual drug addict and that the amount of drugs would not affect him, is unproven. Furthermore, we know he did end up in the hospital before. Add to this, that level of drugs in a resting state is a very different thing than those same drugs while in an agitated state and in a physical struggle. Nor do we know what interactions were going on between the Fentanyl and the methamphetamine, so while either drug may not have been fatal to him, we do not know that the combination couldn’t be lethal. Finally, we have Floyd with comorbidities, arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease, and an enlarged heart that needed more oxygen to function, that also contributed to his risk of a sudden cardiopulmonary arrest. So, we have pre-existing comorbidities, excessive and hasty use of a combination of two dangerous drugs, and a physical struggle, all which could alone lead to cardiopulmonary arrest, but occurring together exponentially increased this risk, and then you have positional asphyxia added to this perfect storm. There is no way to know which of these, alone, or in combination, caused his death. Enough to create reasonable doubt. Finally, a forensic analyst recreated the scenario carefully measuring the positions and time and found that in his recreation no such risk of death occurred. Further accentuating, that except for those other factors, and as Chauvin himself experienced in prior use of the technique, there was no automatic risk of death. No matter how you look at it, based on the evidence, Chauvin’s use of force on Floyd leading to a death was very much an unpredictable occurrence. It was not a “departure from policy.” And Balko’s prevarications do not change that.
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:
When I was researching all of this last year, two medical examiners told me about the term “burking.” It originates with William Burke, who carried out a series of brazen murders in Edinburgh, Scotland, in the late 1820s.
At the time, medical schools were in dire need of cadavers to use as teaching aides. Some were desperate enough to buy cadavers from shady characters, no questions asked. Burke and an accomplice first started gathering cadavers to sell by robbing graves. But they eventually figured out a less labor-intensive approach — killing people. After the pubs closed, they’d scout for inebriated victims. Burke and his accomplice would then jump a stumbling drunk and take him to the ground, after which one would then cover the victim’s mouth while the other sat on him. This combination not only resulted in a quick death from asphyxiation, it had the advantage of not leaving any signs of choking or strangulation. The two men killed more than 20 people this way before they were eventually caught after one target was less drunk than they had thought and successfully fought them off.
What these murders showed is that if you can’t properly expand your diaphragm to take deep breaths, you can die fairly quickly from asphyxiation. This is now more commonly called positional or mechanical asphyxia.
This is precisely what medical experts believe happened to Floyd. At various points over nine-and-a-half minutes, Chauvin and the other officers had multiple knees and elbows pushing down on Floyd’s back, wedged into his ribs, and jammed into the back of his neck. All of that pressure coming from multiple directions was collapsing Floyd’s diaphragm into the hard pavement. The handcuffs then further restricted his ability to move into a position that would allow him to expand his chest and ribs. All of this restricted Floyd to short, shallow breaths.
[End excerpt]
Note that Balko inadvertently undermines his own speculative explanation for the cause of death. He writes, "AT VARIOUS POINTS over nine-and-a-half minutes, Chauvin and the other officers had multiple knees and elbows pushing down on Floyd’s back, wedged into his ribs, and jammed into the back of his neck." [Emphasis added]. The last claim about the neck is outright false. You don't exert significant pressure on someone's neck with your knee without causing any bruising. And the same is true if wedging knees and elbows into someone's back point that that it causes death because the decedent couldn't breathe. Using knees and elbows to do that would leave bruising, unlike sitting on someone. And you can't kill someone in the manner Balko claims via positional asphyxia by occasionally exerting pressure on someone's ribs or back "at various points" over a period of time.
Claiming that covering someone's mouth to prevent breathing and sitting on that person long enough to cause death by asphyxiation is "is precisely what medical experts believe happened to Floyd" sounds like the raving of a lunatic, or repeating the claims of lunatics or simply liars.
Balko simply dismisses fentanyl as if it were a non-issue. I supposed it didn't affect Floyd much as Balko implies, and that Floyd always had the same amount of difficulty breathing as he did after stuffing as much fentanyl as he could into his mouth before getting out of the vehicle. Per Balko, an occasional knee and elbow in Floyd's back is a far more convincing explanation as the cause of death.
Balko also falsely claims that the so-called "eggshell" plaintiff theory was used to convict a man of second-degree murder in Minnesota. I stated in a prior posting that the eggshell plaintiff theory is rejected in tort law. That was a mistake. It is accepted in some jurisdictions and rejected in others in civil actions for compensatory damage. But the theory is irrelevant to criminal law. And in the case that Balko mentions but does not describe, the defendant punched someone in the side of the head from behind. He committed assault and battery that resulted in a brain hemorrhage. That has no relevance to Floyd's death.
Although this is not directly pertinent to the cause of death, it illustrates how misinformed Balko is about the FBI. In his first piece, Balko falsely claimed that in the documentary, there was an allegation that the FBI was involved in a conspiracy. The documentary makes no such allegation. It merely questions why the FBI was involved in the first place. In the second piece, Balko sarcastically writes: "Because if there’s one thing the FBI is known for, it’s falsely accusing law enforcement of racism!"
In fact, the FBI routinely makes false allegations of racism against police departments. The New Jersey State Patrol was falsely accused by the civil rights division within the FBI of racially profiling drivers and causing disparate rates of traffic stops of black compared to white drivers. The civil rights division at the FBI made the same false accusations against the North Carolina State Patrol. Both agencies were pressured into consent decrees to be monitored and were labeled racists. Studies using video cameras and involving tens of thousands of drivers in both states proved that a significantly higher percentage of black than white drivers were speeding more than 15 mph over the speed limit. The reason for the disparity is that a much higher percentage of black than white drivers were between the ages of 18 and 23 (if I recall the age range accurately; in any case, it was close to that age range, and drivers within that age range speed recklessly far more often than other drivers). The studies in New Jersey and North Carolina actually found that state troopers were pulling over a lower percentage of black drivers who were speeding excessively than white drivers who were speeding excessively. Yet the FBI had accused those state troopers of racism for years. There are so many other examples of such false allegations by the civil rights division of the FBI that it's mind-boggling that Balko believes the FBI doesn't falsely accuse police of racism. He is either lying or deeply ignorant.
Balko's critique of the documentary is not at all objective or reasonable. If sufficient pressure had been exerted by knees and elbows in Floyd's back for a sufficient period of time to cause him to stop breathing, it's unquestionable that bruising would have been found on Floyd's back. The scenario of Floyd's death was nothing at all like covering someone's mouth to prevent him from breathing while sitting on him with all your weight to make breathing even more difficult. Yet Balko is peddling this kind of nonsense.
Balko also just tries to ignore or minimize the extent of Floyd's heart disease, and has no understanding of forensic pathology findings. When a forensic pathologist states that the cause of death was cardiac arrest, it means the decedent suffered a heart attack. Balko writes that everyone's heart stops beating when they die. As if cardiac arrest would be considered the cause of death when someone is run over by a truck. Floyd had a 90% obstruction to one coronary artery, a 75% obstruction to a second coronary artery, and a 20% obstruction to a third coronary artery.
Balko also writes:
[Begin excerpt]
Under Minnesota law, the state only needed to show that if not for Chauvin’s actions, George Floyd would not have died that day. It doesn’t matter if Floyd was more fragile or susceptible to a heart attack than most men his age. If the prosecution can demonstrate that Chauvin’s use of force against Floyd was illegal, Chauvin’s only real defense would have been to argue that Floyd coincidentally died of a heart attack or drug overdose at the precise time he was under Chauvin’s knee — and that Chauvin’s knee had nothing to do with it.
[End excerpt]
Chauvin's use of force was not excessive or illegal. His trial was no different than a show trial of the sort that were held in the Soviet Union.
Floyd didn't "coincidentally" die of a heart attack. He died of a heart attack because he ingested an enormous amount of fentanyl. Claiming that a knee or elbow intermittently (not continuously) in the back putting pressure on Floyd's diaphragm was the reason Floyd died is outright bizarre.
I'm not a physician, but Pierre Kory (now best known for being one of the most prominent anti-vax physicians) is and here was his best testimony where he conclusively concludes that Floyd was killed by asphyxiation:
And here is what Kory specifically says about your contention that the lack of neck injuries proves that Floyd did not die in this way:
"d. Although complete compression of the airway, by definition, was not present while Mr. Floyd was able to speak, there were prolonged periods in the video where no speech was heard and thus I cannot rule out the possibility that with subtle changes in neck position or weight directed by Officer Chauvin’s knee over Mr. Floyd’s neck that complete compression and lack of airflow occurred for transient or prolonged periods. Further, it is my opinion that, despite the fact that the autopsy reported no fracture or injury to the cartilaginous structures of the trachea (“windpipe”), the absence of such an injury does not in any way exclude the possibility that the airway was completely compressed at some point. The reason for this possibility is that only half the circumference of the windpipe is made of cartilage, i.e. the anterior trachea. The posterior trachea is “membranous” and is composed of soft tissue/mucosa and can easily be displaced/compressed such that it can oppose the anterior trachea thus leading to complete occlusion of the windpipe, either transiently through benign forces such as a vigorous cough or from sustained life threatening forces such as external body weight pressure applied over a knee to the cervical vertebrae which would then cause the vertebrae to compress the windpipe just anterior to it. In conclusion, the windpipe can be completely occluded without causing permanent damage to the tracheal rings."
One more comment about the following claim by Balko:
[Begin quote]
Under Minnesota law, the state only needed to show that if not for Chauvin’s actions, George Floyd would not have died that day. It doesn’t matter if Floyd was more fragile or susceptible to a heart attack than most men his age. If the prosecution can demonstrate that Chauvin’s use of force against Floyd was illegal, Chauvin’s only real defense would have been to argue that Floyd coincidentally died of a heart attack or drug overdose at the precise time he was under Chauvin’s knee — and that Chauvin’s knee had nothing to do with it.
[End quote]
This is an inaccurate characterization of the law. To find a party liable in a civil case or guilty in a criminal case, the plaintiff or prosecution must establish both proximate cause and legal cause ("but for" cause). Balko only mentions legal cause here. If his characterization were accurate, then if a police officer pulled someone over without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and that person died because stress caused a heart attack, the officer would be guilty of murder under Balko's miscomprehension of the law.
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.
https://www.americanpeaceofficer.com/p/coleman-hughes-and-bari-weiss-free?r=1pk12p&open=false
Sorry I forgot to link the article.
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.
John: Watch the videos (e.g . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjKjaCvXdf4&rco=1). How can you not know that three officers were on top of Floyd, not just Chauvin?
As for why I refer to Kory as a celebrated MAGA doctor, it's because he is the leading physician advocating the use of ivermectin to treat COVID and he's been critical of the vaccines as well.
That, of course, has nothing to with George Floyd. But I bring it up because everyone I have ever encountered who believes Chauvin is innocent has been a Trump supporter (maybe you're an exception), and many Trump supporters are suspicious of physicians as being on the inside of conspiracies. So I think Kory's status as a physician who is actually celebrated by Trump supporters may give his report additional credibility to people who might otherwise be skeptical.
Gordon I fear you betray your own prejudices by saying Dr. Kory is a MAGA doctor because he advocated the use of ivermectin—what an absolutely ridiculous and irrational conclusion to draw. Like Belko anyone who questions the liberal consensus must be some sort of rightwing nut. I frankly don’t care whether he is or isn’t MAGA. By bringing up this point you intentionally or unintentionally indicate that you believe that truth should be assessed and valued only if it supports your tribe’s point of view. Kory presents a finding not supported by any evidence. In all the videos from bystanders as well as from the police body camera there was no footage of multiple police officers applying the MRT to Floyd at the same time.
Sorry. I shouldn't have just copied your phrase above. What I originally said was that Kory was "the most celebrated doctor in MAGA world" not that Kory himself is a MAGA supporter (I don't actually know who Kory votes for). And I've explained exactly why I thought was worth mentioning.
Meanwhile John, if you're saying that Chauvin was the only person with a knee on Floyd's neck, no one (including Kory) would disagree with you. When he's talking about three people applying MRT he's obviously including the two other officers who are helping hold Floyd down by kneeling on and holding his back and legs; just as in the image of MRT in the Minneapolis handbook illustrating MRT, there are three officers shown working together to apply the technique, even though there is only one with a knee on the suspect's neck.
This is all perfectly obvious. Did you really need someone to explain it to you?
Listen I’m not sure that this conversation is going anywhere productive. But Dr. Kory stated in the post you provided that multiple officers were using their knees on Floyd—that appears to be false. You might want to go back and read what wrote. What you are doing now seems to be a kind of bait and switch. I point out that Kory was wrong based on the visual evidence and you say he really didn’t mean that what he meant was that other officers were involved in applying the MRT. That is not the point that Kory made in his post. Moreover, you are focusing on an issue that is irrelevant to the understanding of what happened and the motivations of the police were during the entire affair.
I've (repeatedly) shared the bodycam video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjKjaCvXdf4&rco=1) from one of the officers, which clearly shows the other two officers kneeling on Floyd. Of course, since it's the bodycam of the third officer, it doesn't actually show him (although you can clearly tell he's kneeling).
Having said, if that's not enough, and you want a photo of three officers kneeling on Floyd, it's trivial to find one. Just search for "officers kneeling on George Floyd". Here is one of the first results:
https://images.app.goo.gl/RsNSKYxX11rkE3dW9
I looked at the link. The pictures show two others kneeling either on Floyd’s legs or the ground. The picture makes it difficult to determine which is the case. What the picture does not show is three officers kneeling on Floyd’s neck and shoulders—the scenario Kory presented in his post.
I appreciate the give and take but I may not be doing a good job of explaining my point well. My question is not whether Chavin was innocent or guilty. My issue is whether given the racial climate and the political pressures associated with that climate—Did these four officers receive fair trails?
In my opinion the goal of the film was to raise questions about the conduct and fairness of the trail—in particular against Chavin. My take is, while one can argue that the documentarians failed to present the most accurate picture of the correct way of applying the MRT, the documentary did raise important questions about the conduct and fairness of the trail. Including whether the MRT was an acceptable technique in arresting an uncooperative suspect . The documentary showed that during the trail the judge did not allow the introduction of evidence that MRT was an acceptable MPD arrest technique—clearly it was. Because the judge would not allow the introduction of evidence on MRT, the jury never got to hear whether this was an acceptable arrest technique in MPD but was applied incorrectly. This might not have changed any jurors mind on whether this was manslaughter or murder or an unintentional homicide. This unfortunately seems consistent with our tendency to manage information because the powers that be don’t trust citizens to assess evidence and come to their own conclusions.
The film also raised concerns about the autopsy report. There were several reports which seemed to reconciled by ignoring certain findings. Was Floyd a healthy middle aged man who had no preexisting health conditions? To what extent did preexisting health maladies—such as cardiomyopathy—contribute to his death? What did the pharmacological report say about the types and levels of illegal drugs in Floyd’s system at the time the Chavin and the other three officers attempted to arrest Floyd? If Floyd had taken large doses of illegal substances did they in any way contribute to his death?
What about the riots and burning and destruction of the police station after Floyd’s death but before the trail verdict? Was the decision to allow rioters to take over and destroy the police station by city and state officials justified or reasonable? Or given what happened a poor political decision?
In short, for me the documentary raised multiple questions about how politics—and especially racial politics—led to a poorly conducted and as a result an unfair trail. My concern is that if George Floyd had been Travis DiCicco and white, with all the same circumstances surrounding his death the trail would have been conducted much differently and the verdict might also have been different. As a society we should be concerned that the application of justice is to the best of our ability colorblind. We can debate the broader issues raised by the documentary but the documentary succeeded in raising these questions.
I think my quibble with Glenn’s and John’s backing away from the film based on Mr. Belko’s lengthy post is that the way to look at any good documentary is whether it succeeds in raising new questions and new insights about events that everyone thinks they understand or have overlooked. Glenn and John backed away from their initial judgment because Belko told them, in his response to Coleman Hughes, that the documentary maker intentionally attempted to mislead viewers by not presenting the full picture of how the MRT should be applied.
But a fair review of the documentary would lead one to the conclusion that the filmmakers intent was to point out that MRT was at the time of Floyd’s fatal interaction with MPD officers an accepted arrest technique—and not some technique improvised by Chavin to abuse black suspects. I think Glenn and John drew the wrong conclusions from the documentary and when Belko, in his attempt to takedown Coleman, said that the filmmakers intentionally failed to include a full picture of MRT I think they got spooked and decided to reevaluate the film based on what was not included rather than what was there.
I’m pretty sure you will with nothing I said but I wanted you to at least hear my perspective.
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.
"Looking up the definition of murder I see that murder requires intent and planning. Did Chauvin plan to kill anyone that day?"
Lhfry: Chauvin was convicted of "unintentional murder", which does not require the intent to kill anyone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_Minnesota_law#Second-degree_murder
Appears to be Minnesota specific.
My guess is that post-trial controversy could have been avoided if the change of venue requested by the police officers had been granted. The charged atmosphere following Floyd’s death made a fair trial difficult - the conclusion that Floyd had been murdered was reached by many before the trial.
Everyone, including Loury and McWhorter should wait for the response from the film makers and Hughes before concluding they were wrong.
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.
John: I'm not sure if you haven't read Balko's analysis (https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-retconning-of-george-floyd) or didn't understand it, but his entire point is that the "Fall of Minneapolis" filmmakers were deliberately deceptive in the way they edited their film to imply that Chauvin was following the training given Minneapolis police officers when he clearly wasn't. If you think Balko gets it wrong I'd be interested to hear why, but I think the case he makes is devastating to both the filmmakers and Coleman's arguments. Glenn and John clearly agree.
Here's an analogy I made below that I would ask you to consider as well. The UFC obviously allows chokeholds, but of course a wrestler applying one is obligated to release the hold once the opponent taps out or the referee intervenes. But let's say in a match, the wrestler doesn't tap before passing out and simultaneously the referee is knocked unconscious. How long do you think it would be appropriate for the wrestler to continue to apply the chokehold to an unresponsive opponent before they would be considered criminally responsible if their opponent dies? What if they were surrounded by people outside the ring screaming that their opponent was unconscious and to release them before it was too late?
I'd suggest that if an UFC fighter continued a chokehold for more than ten seconds after their opponent was clearly unconscious they would be at risk of being held legally responsible; 30 seconds they would absolutely be held responsible; and at a minute they would be considered guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
But Chauvin continues to kneel on George Floyd's back and neck for much. much longer. If you haven't done so, watch the four and a half minutes of video that begins here (https://youtu.be/NjKjaCvXdf4?si=xZkByvn5ftq4Lakg&t=2831), the last time George Floyd made any significant movement. I'll be honest that I don't understand how anyone can watch that video and not conclude that Chauvin acted criminally.
As for the drug overdose point, Balko has a second whole piece (https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-retconning-of-george-floyd-part) explaining why Coleman gets its wrong. But if you've had enough Balko, you can find the most detailed explanation of how we know Floyd did not die of a drug overdose from Pierre Kory, perhaps the most celebrated doctor in MAGA world:
https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/expert-witness-testimony-of-the-george
https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/george-floyd-did-not-die-of-a-fentanyl
Gordon thank you very much for sharing your comments and linking to Mr. Balko’s response to Coleman! My first observation was the repeated use of a kind of straw man argument by Balko. I noticed that he spent quite a few paragraphs debunking any critic that failed to agree with the agreed upon consensus as rightwing or conservative. Reading between the lines he seemed to imply that critics of the Floyd trail and verdict might even be racist. In fact in dealing with discrepancies in the conflicting autopsy reports—one report was done by investigators hired by the family and this seems to be the one used in the trial—Balko draws on the boogie man of Jim Crow Mississippi because one of those interviewed in the film, a coroner wondered why the FBI was immediately involved in the autopsy.
I was actually insulted that rather than address the shortcomings in the documentary as he saw it, Balko spent so much of his response trying to build legitimacy among those who he believes counts, liberals, by undermining the credibility of those who raised questions about the trail and verdict and who—heaven forbid—might have arrived at a different conclusion than the consensus. By the way, this tactic is particularly pernicious when used against those who do not fit the stereotype but simply dissent form the approved orthodoxy—case in point Coleman Hughes is not a Republican conservative nor is Bari Weis. These tactics fit more closely with McCarthism—are you or have ever been a member of the communist party?
Second, your analogy makes no sense. It is comparing controlled violence—a UFC fight to an uncontrolled attempt to make an arrest with an uncooperative suspect on the streets. By the way, fighters are taught to keep fighting until the referee intercedes. You seem to suggest that if the referee fails to do his job and all the ring official fail the fighter should be held accountable. A fight by its very nature is a brutal life threatening activity. The fighters depend on the referee. Police officers have no referee and must primarily depend on their judgment about the situation. This brings me to my next point.
Third, Balko—after his gratuitous comments attempting to denigrate dissenters from his “consensus “ conclusions about the trail—spent most of the remainder of the response identifying his assessment that the MRT was applied not only incorrectly but in a manner that could only be considered criminal. The fact that in the heat of an arrest an officer might have applied the MRT incorrectly is valid. The conclusion that the incorrect application of MRT indicates the intent to commit murder or a disregard for another’s life does not seem to me in isolation to be a valid assertion. I will accept that Balko did document that Chavin most likely applied the MRT incorrectly but he did not show that it was done intentionally knowing that it could result in the death of the suspect—Mr. Floyd. In fact, if the trail was aimed at showing that MRT was too dangerous to be used by MPD officers that would have be totally justified. While Balko only references one other case where the suspect died, I would bet that the MRT was probably incorrectly applied in many other occasions—the difference is the subject did not die. I also found it curious that the judge would not allow the MRT to be debated in open court. I suspect two things: 1- it would have forced the jury to debate whether MRT was incorrectly applied which might have led to a conclusion of a tragic accident not murder. 2- It would have opened the MPD leadership to criticism. If an approved technique could be so easily misused than the city would have to take responsibility. Wouldn’t it be important to know how often MRT was used by MPD officers and how often was it applied incorrectly. Interestingly, after the trail it appears the city decided to withdraw the teaching and use of the MRT.
Fifth, BALKO from what I read never really addressed the discrepancies in the different autopsy reports—these report discrepancies might have led to different conclusions about Mr. Floyd’s death. In the coroner’s report Mr. Floyd had clearly taken a good deal of dangerous drugs and it indicated that he was not a healthy man but was suffering from several potentially life threatening illnesses. It also indicated that he was not asphyxiated.
Sixth, why wasn’t the officer body cam video introduced as evidence. Instead the jury was asked to rely—and Balko seemed to accept as valid—an eyewitness smartphone video. If the officer body cam is not the official record and we accept random bystanders videos then why have a body cam at all?
Finally, I would note that Mr. Floyd was uncooperative the entire time the police attempted to arrest him for passing counterfeit bills. He also attempted to mislead the arresting officers by stating a number of questionable if not false statements—my mother just died for instance. He starting complaining about not being able to breath and resisting arrest well before he was subdued by Chavin. What I saw was police officers attempting to arrest and detain an uncooperative suspect who had the strength and presence of mind to not allow the officers to place him in the back of their squad car—not a frightened high individual ready to surrender. He only stopped resisting when Chavin applied, an arguably imperfect, MRT restraint. The officers also called for an ambulance because they were concerned that Mr. Floyd might be suffering from some form of physical distress that might lead to his death.
Quick responses:
1. I'm sorry you were offended. But I'll confess that I too wonder why so many folks are working so hard to come up with reasons to acquit Chauvin, when he was as obviously guilty of murder as any police officer is ever likely to be.
2. Yes. Fighters are expected to fight until the referee intervenes. That's why the analogy is so powerful. Though they are expected to fight until the ref intervenes, EVEN a UFC fighter would be expected to release a hold in a reasonable amount of time if for some reason the referee was incapacitated and unable to tell the fighter to let go. That is why it is so shocking that Chauvin and the other officers waited so long to release their hold, even though they knew that THEY were supposed to play the role of referee.
3. You're missing Balko's main point. Whether or not Chauvin misapplied MRT by mistakenly using too much pressure with his knee is ultimately irrelevant. As the Minneapolis manual clearly explains, even the correct application of MRT requires quickly moving the detainee to the recovery position because of the risk of positional asphyxiation even when the restraint is properly applied. In other words, it should never, ever be applied, even correctly, for an extended period of time. Even so, had Chauvin and the other officers released the hold once Floyd stopped moving, I still don't think there is any chance that they get convicted of anything beyond manslaughter. What is so infuriating , and why the verdict is so clearly correct, is that Chauvin and the other officers continue to maintain the hold for a full four and half minutes after Floyd became unresponsive.
4. I think you skipped "fourth", but I'll use it as an opportunity to push back on this sentence. You wrote " I will accept that Balko did document that Chavin most likely applied the MRT incorrectly but he did not show that it was done intentionally knowing that it could result in the death of the suspect."
No one, including Balko, suggests that Chauvin intentionally killed Floyd. Look up the charge. He was literally convicted of "unintentional murder" not "murder".
5. Balko does address the questions raised about the autopsy report. The coroner's report includes the information about the drugs in Floyd's system and it does not say that Floyd was not asphyxiated. In fact, it says Floyd's death was a "homicide due to “cardiopulmonary arrest” from “law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.”"
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-george-floyd-autopsy-new-892530421961e
Meanwhile, if you want a detailed explanation for how we know the drugs aren't what killed Floyd, please refer to the two Pierre Kory articles I shared. He explains why in detail.
6. I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about with body cam video. Personally, I think all videos should be used so that the most completely picture of what happens emerges. The video I keep linking to (https://youtu.be/NjKjaCvXdf4?si=xZkByvn5ftq4Lakg&t=2831) is a body cam video from one of the detectives. It clearly shows what happened was a murder.
Finally, you're right that Floyd was uncooperative, tried to mislead the officers, and resisted getting into the squad car. If that had simply lead him to receive some injuries while being arrested and/or a longer sentence I wouldn't have any issues with it. But in no way should it have lead to three officers kneeling on his back, neck, and legs for more than nine minutes, almost half of which taking place after he had become completely unresponsive. There is a word for that. And it's murder.
Listen Gordon I actually resent implications that some of us are working hard to show Floyd’s death was not murder. This is more of the rightwing smearing straw man arguments that Balko used in his attempted takedown of Coleman.
However, putting these types of arguments aside given the death of Floyd and the severity of the punishment levied against the officers, some of us are questioning whether the rush to judgment actually led to a just verdict. I suspect though I can’t be sure that you might have some questions about the trail that led to the acquittal of OJ Simpson for double homicide. Should I suggest that your motives for questioning the verdict are suspect and might betray a touch racial bias—black man kills white woman?
Your UFC analogy still does not work the police officers were not there as referees but were active participants in trying to subdue and arrest Mr. Floyd. A better analogy would be if the fighters sparring partners and ring men got into the ring to help the fighter subdue his opponent.
We disagree about what the autopsy reports show—-this is probably because there are at least two different reports. At least one was conducted by family hired experts who never apparently viewed or handled Floyd’s body.
Again your comments on the MRT just underscore my point that the issue was the correct application of the restraint. My observation is that the trail should have hinged on whether Chavin applied the MRT correctly and whether his incorrect application led to Floyd’s death?
I have to say I’m not a lawyer but the charge of unintentional murder seems curious. A charge such as this could lead to people being charged with murder when they are involved in self defense.
In any case, I still have lots of questions about the conduct of the trail and the jury’s verdict. Again I would think that a fair minded citizen would want to know that the system worked correctly and was not simply a hostage political pressures and the need to virtue signal about race.
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/
There are a number of high profile cases of police "brutality" in recent years where I think the police have been unfairly criticized or judged. And while it didn't involve the police, in perhaps the most similar recent situation analogous to Chauvin and Floyd, I'm a strong defender of Daniel Penny who I believe should be found not guilty in the death of Jordan Neely for the reasons I describe here (https://rosselliotbarkan.com/p/the-tragedy-of-jordan-neely/comments).
Having said, it is shocking to me that anyone can watch the four and half minutes of video beginning here (https://youtu.be/NjKjaCvXdf4?si=xZkByvn5ftq4Lakg&t=2831), the last time George Floyd made any significant movement, and not be convinced that Chauvin (with the assistance of fellow officers) murdered George Floyd.
I'm not a mind reader so I have no idea if Chauvin wanted Floyd to die or not, but there is no doubt that he acted with utter disregard for Floyd's life in a situation where there was not a scintilla of risk to him or anyone else if he had gotten off Floyd's back and neck minutes earlier, which would have saved Floyd's life. If that isn't police abuse, then nothing is.
The only possible argument for finding Chauvin not guilty was to believe that Chauvin was literally trained to restrain suspects in this way until medical personnel arrive or to believe that drug killed Floyd. Balko absolutely shreds this first argument (which, even had it been true, would have been a concentration camp official type of defense); and while Balko also shreds the "drugs killed Floyd", I suspect that those searching for some way to exculpate Floyd will find the arguments of Pierre Kory (who, given his anti-vax credentials, probably has more credibility to Salassin and the other folks defending Chauvin) more compelling:
https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/expert-witness-testimony-of-the-george
https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/george-floyd-did-not-die-of-a-fentanyl
Not at all. I can easily see how someone who is waiting for an EMT that should already be there and who is seeing a crowd get rowdier and rowdier as he performs a position he has done multiple times before would think to stay put and wait. In hinsight, sure it was foolish and you could even say negligent, but not criminally so.
How long do you think it is reasonable for multiple officers to kneel on the back of a clearly unconscious man until an EMT arrives. When, in your mind, would have it crossed over into criminal negligence? Clearly, you don't believe that five minutes was enough time. How about ten minutes? 20 minutes? Where is the line?
Here's a related analogy: the UFC obviously allows chokeholds, but of course a wrestler applying one is obligated to release the hold once the opponent taps out or the referee intervenes. But let's say in a match, the wrestler doesn't tap before passing out and simultaneously the referee is knocked unconscious. How long do you think it would be appropriate for the wrestler to continue to apply the chokehold before they would be considered criminally negligent? What if they were surrounded by people outside the ring screaming that their opponent was unconscious and to release them before they died?
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.
James: Floyd was clearly not dysarthric before the restraint. He wasn't even dysarthric AFTER the restraint. His cries for help are still clear and easily understandable for minutes after being on the ground with Chauvin and the other officers on his back: https://youtu.be/NjKjaCvXdf4?si=3YC8PxrAhD18R5bN&t=2664
He doesn't become dysarthric for four or five minutes. But the officers continues to hold the position even after this point, including for minutes after Floyd has become completely unresponsive and passersby are pleading with the officers to check his pulse because they (correctly) believe that Floyd is clearly dying. It's just horrific indifference to human life by the officers.
Gordon, perhaps I should clarify. My use of the term dysarthria refers to Floyd's stiff and shuffling gate, which appears on CCTV inside and just outside the convenience store even before the police encounter, and continuing into the encounter. It is impossible to evaluate this dysarthria after restraint is imposed. The ability to vocalize does not negate this observation. This dysarthria can be acutely induced by various drugs, including opiates. In the absence of a history of a neurologic disorder, I am assuming that fentanyl is the causative agent here. The point is that Floyd had high levels of amphetamine and fentanyl on board. In a man over 50 with a history of severe hypertension and demonstrable coronary artery disease, these levels were sufficient to cause not only severe acute intoxication (including muscle stiffness and restriction of chest wall excursions) but sudden death as the final outcome.
I would agree with you that Floyd's complaints of dyspnea should have been taken at face value and immediately evaluated. That is what I would have done in the ER, but I am not knowledgeable as to the experience and standards of police officers, so that is tough for me to evaluate. Floyd complained loudly about a number of things, starting immediately upon being approached by police -- there really are some people who 'cry wolf,' and I have encountered them from time to time. They present a quandry in trying to evaluate their condition. It's hard for me to know how that squares with police experience in the course of a difficult arrest.
I would agree that the three point restraint should have been discontinued, at least from a medical perspective. It is quite possible that the continued restraint hastened death, but I know of no way to quantify that. I agree that Floyd appeared to be in serious distress and that it was unpleasant to watch. I would not agree that, but for the restraint, Floyd would likely have survived this overdose. In other words, Floyd probably would have suffered a fatal overdose no matter what. I don't agree with the imposition of the continuing restraint in Floyd's circumstance, but neither do I agree that the manner of restraint altered that eventual outcome.
It's also difficult for me to assess the mens rea of the officers. The officer that was not engaged in restraint told one bystander that Floyd could breathe if Floyd could talk. This is in fact a basic rule of thumb in assessing an acute obstructive respiratory disorder, and this may be part of police training. In a medical setting it is a qualified rule, and further and continuing evaluation is necessary, as some people can talk even when on the cusp of respiratory failure. I have no way of knowing what police training says about this, so I have no way of evaluating whether the officer's statement would be reflective of a state of mind which is reasonable, negligent, reckless, or even malicious. To simply label it "horrific indifference" with no consideration of the training and experience of police officers in these situations strikes me as unreasonable and even irresponsible.
James: While married to a physician, I'm certainly not one, so I personally can't speak with any expertise to the role that drugs played in his death. But I'll be interested to hear what you think Pierre Kory get wrong in his extensive posts on the question where he makes crystal clear that he disagrees with your perspective:
https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/expert-witness-testimony-of-the-george
https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/george-floyd-did-not-die-of-a-fentanyl
I'd just add that while I'm certainly willing to believe that drugs and a lifestyle like Floyd's can lead to cardiac arrest, the idea that those chickens came home to roost five minutes after three officers began kneeling on his back, neck, and legs and those officers' actions didn't contribute significantly to the death strikes me as ludicrous.
As for the officers, I think it's fair not to blame them too harshly for failing to immediately take Floyd's pleas of distress too seriously when he had been making those pleas well before they got on his back. Some "boy who cried wolf" disregard would have seemed reasonable to me.
But once Floyd becomes clearly unresponsive they should have done reacted. Maybe a further 30 second delay would have been reasonable. A minute strikes me as too long, but even then I would have hesitated to convict for anything more than manslaughter. But for these officers, under Chauvin's direction, to maintain the position for another four minutes, and this despite the please of bystanders who could clearly see he was unresponsive and in danger, was unconscionable. The jury got it right. Given the Lucifer/Zimbardo effect, I can see convicting the other officers of lesser crimes, but Chauvin was clearly guilty of unintentional murder.
Gordon, thank you for your response. I skimmed the document at the first link that you reference. To be honest I am skeptical of an allegedly objective opinion from Kory which starts with his making certain that we are aware that he suffered "trauma," and that the "trauma" has curtailed his ability to be a paid witness (I'm guessing $500/hr or more) in litigation. In addition I don't have any further time to devote to researching this particular subject, so I will have to pass on further careful reading of Kory's throughts.
One of the problems with litigation and trial, be it civil or criminal, is that the experts, attorneys, and finders of fact have the luxury of leisurely review of the facts of a case. They typically engage in a close parsing of facts that is not remotely possible in real life in real time. One of the realities of an emergency situation is that it is frequently emotionally charged. There are from time to time loudly vocal bystanders who wish to offer opinions and directions -- and even though the bystanders may be sincere and of good faith, they are seldom helpful. It's hard to keep track of time in these circumstances, even in a relatively controlled setting, and the minutes have a habit of slipping away.
As I indicated to you, the restraint (in my opinion particularly the pressure on the back, more so than at the shoulder/base of the neck) may well have contributed to death. There are no good data available in the interaction of the various putative causative factors, so causation winds up being an educated guess. I think Kory is wrong. I also think Kory is biased. If he were to read my note, Kory would likely think that I am wrong, and he might well think that I am biased.
As regards application of law, the standard for criminal conviction, as I'm certain you know, requires a finding beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a much more stringent standard than a simple preponderance of the evidence. There is also a presumption for the criminal defendant as regards the elements of a crime, so uncertainty should be resolved in favor of the defendant. The state always has the burden of proof that the elements of the alleged crime, includuing intent and causation, are in fact present. I did not sit through the trial, so I do not have all the information available to the jurors. Nor do I have impressions of the demeanor and 'feel' of the various witnesses. As a result, while I am skeptical of the causation element in the various guilty verdicts, I am agnostic for the most part as regards the intent element.
A murder conviction requires a finding of intentional homicide. I am skeptical that any of the officers intended to kill Floyd. Unintentional homicide absent the positive intention to do harm would support no greater a charge than unintentional manslaughter, not murder. I continue to wonder whether there was really a criminal mens rea in any of the officers. Are humans subject to group psychosis and antisocial conduct? Absolutely. Did that happen with the police officers, and account for uncharacteristic criminal conduct? Maybe so. Did groupthink infect the politicians, press, prosecutors, experts, judge, jury, and/or rioters and their related actions? I don't know.
I appreciate your thinking, and I have enjoyed exchanging ideas with you, notwithstanding that we arrive at different value judgments. James
Thanks James. Kory goes into great detail and certainly no one is obligated to take the time to read him. But since it sounds like you may be unfamiliar with who he is, Kory became famous/infamous over the last 18 months as the leading physician advocating the use ivermectin to treat COVID and as a critic of the vaccines. The "trauma" he is referring to is the loss of his reputation (and potentially his license) in the mainstream medical community because of this advocacy. However, he is one of the most celebrated doctors in the MAGA community; and since I've found virtually all defenders of Chauvin happen to be Trump supporters, I confess that I enjoy the irony that the most public debunker of the "Floyd died of an overdose" hypothesis is the physician that Trump supporters most celebrate for his courage and his willingness to stand by his convictions.
Anyway, you're obviously entitled to believe whatever you choose to believe. But given the fact that as far as I know all the physicians who examined Floyd in the autopsy or were given access to his medical records have concluded that Floyd died of cardiopulmonary failure caused by the actions of the police (https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-george-floyd-autopsy-new-892530421961) and that the restraint technique the police were using is supposed to be only used for a short amount of time because of the risk of serious injury or death in exactly the way that Floyd died, I think any reasonable observer would conclude as the jury did that the reasonable doubt bar was easily cleared.
As for a murder conviction requiring a finding of intentional homicide, Chauvin was literally convicted of the charge of "unintentional second degree homicide", which (not surprisingly given the name of the charge) does not require a finding of an intent to commit murder.
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.
8. According to the autopsy report, Floyd had bruises and abrasions on his left shoulder and the left side of his forehead, cheek, and mouth. This is the side of his body that Floyd placed himself on the pavement when he asked to be taken to the ground. Floyd also had abrasions on his nose. Yes, people who are resisting arrest while in the prone position usually will have bruising and scrapes.
9. Balko claims that the 2014 MPD manual called for officers to roll suspects over as soon as reasonably possible. And that it did so because four years earlier, Smith died because police officers failed to do so. A few problems with this claim as well. One, that instruction is for the MRT. We have already determined that Chauvin wasn’t applying the MRT. We also established that Chauvin had a reasonable reason to wait. He was waiting for the imminent EMT that went to the wrong address. What about the slide? The slide that Balko correctly determined that only Lane saw, lists, first, that after a violent struggle, sudden cardiac arrest can occur, and then secondly, that to avoid positional asphyxia, the person should be placed in the recovery position. Again, no mention of MRT. This slide could easily be read in two ways. Especially by officers, who are not doctors. And the problem is that both ways are plausible. That once you have a sudden cardiac arrest you should put the person in a recovery position so as to avoid positional asphyxia, or what is more likely, but does not overcome that fact that it could be read the other way, that to avoid sudden cardiac arrest due to positional asphyxia, you should put the person in the recovery position. But officers don’t have the hindsight of Balko to do research on positional asphyxia such that they could overcome years of training, so what they understood and what was actually taught by the trainers is key. And again, this was taught to Lane. No evidence this was taught to Chauvin. Another fun point. We know the slides are not referring to MRT because neither the prone restrain nor the recovery position slides mention it, nor do we see any hobbles in place which are what MRT is.
10. Next, Balko shows a 2003 training video, also from the NYPD, that diagrams how positional asphyxia works. A video that was not from the Minneapolis police, and therefore irrelevant. But pretty sad, considering Eric Garner also died of positional asphyxia and Pantaleo and company got off because the focus incorrectly, just like in the Floyd case, was made on a supposed choke, instead of the much more relevant compression asphyxia they experienced. Obesity and drugs are known to exacerbate positional or compression asphyxia.
https://x.com/JaimePretellEsq/status/1157280930786099200?s=20
https://x.com/JaimePretellEsq/status/1376874948497653765?s=20
11. Balko and Willemedia claim that TFOM did deceptive editing to falsely claim that Blackwell and Arredondo lied on the stand. This is provably false. The prosecutor asked Blackwell — who previously oversaw MPD’s training — if the technique depicted in “Exhibit 17” is an approved MPD technique. Not if it was MRT. It was. And we know it because of the slide about when to put someone in the recovery position that Lane was trained with. It clearly shows the person in the picture using the same technique. More importantly, Chauvin’s technique had been reviewed when internal affairs reviewed prior complaints of use of force where he clearly used the same technique. Chief Arradondo also lies by claiming that the technique was not taught, which is provably false, based on the slide, which is not about MRT. And when he retorts that MRT is only trained for use with a hobble, when discussing what Chauvin was doing. Which was not MRT. This is a strawman. By claiming that MRT is only used to apply a hobble, he is claiming that Chauvin was trying to do the MRT. We know that is not the case. That Lane suggested it, but that they did not do it. And the instructions for doing the MRT would not apply to the restraining position Chauvin was carrying out. Why did they lie? We can speculate: Smith required them to have training to avoid positional asphyxia, and the latest investigation by the MPCOC suggest they didn’t have proper training. By making it about improper use of the MRT, they moved the focus away from positional asphyxia. And their failure to properly train Chauvin and Thao, at the very least.
12. “We also know that of all the officers on the scene when Floyd died, only one probably saw the slide during his training: Thomas Lane. He’s the only officer who would have been a cadet when that slide was part of the MPD’s academy training.” . I quote: “That training “was originally created in 2018 for the MPD Academy” and was shown to “Cadets and Recruits . . . while they are participating in the MPD Academy.” Officer Mackenzie indicated, however, that “this presentation” has never “been included in the in-service training” provided “for the purpose of continuing education” for existing officers. As a result, Chauvin would never have seen or been trained using this slide or photograph prior to Floyd’s death.” so the slide could only show that the technique was not an anomaly, not that Chauvin was aware of the specific wording and instruction on the slide. What else do we know about Thomas Lane? Well, we know that he was the one officer on the scene who seemed to understand how important it is to roll a suspect into the recovery position. If anything, an argument could be made that Lane failed with his more recent training, but considering that the recent investigation by the MPCOC found there was scant evidence of proper training on positional asphyxia, I think he was innocent as well. In fact, he stated that the reason he believed it might be good to roll Floyd over was excited delirium, not positional asphyxia.
13. I quote: “The claim that “Chauvin’s knee blocked Floyd’s airway” is not the “entire narrative.” It isn’t the narrative at all. It never was. Blocking the airways isn’t the only way to asphyxiate someone. And it isn’t what killed George Floyd.” Balko is partially right here. Positional asphyxia was a factor and the knee to the neck was not what killed Floyd. So, Balko even admits what people charged Chauvin with was not what killed Floyd. But what he fails to prove is that Chauvin and the others were properly trained in Positional Asphyxia. More importantly, while a factor, it was not the only factor.
14. Balko argues that under Minnesota law, the state only needed to show that if not for Chauvin’s actions, George Floyd would not have died that day. It doesn’t matter if Floyd was more fragile or susceptible to a heart attack than most men his age. There’s a legal concept sometimes called “eggshell theory,” which states that perpetrators take their victims as they find them. It’s commonly used in tort law, but it applies to criminal law as well. If the prosecution can demonstrate that Chauvin’s use of force against Floyd was illegal, than he can be convicted. But, as Balko himself points out, they have to prove that Chauvin was doing something illegal, and as we have analyzed, there is no evidence he was. Moreover, the eggshell rule applies to innate fragilities, not self-induced fragility. Balko claims Floyd showed no signs of someone in the midst of an overdose. That an opioid overdose makes you lethargic and sluggish. That Floyd was erratic and energetic. He was standing, walking, and talking. But we know Floyd was ingesting drugs that day. He even fell asleep in the car. We also have a pretty good idea that he swallowed more pills to hide evidence. He did once before and ended in the hospital. We know Those pills would take time to take effect, more than likely around 20 minutes when orally ingested, and considering he was already on drugs, when they took effect, they would kick in with a higher level of strength. Furthermore, we know Floyd ingested two drugs, not one. Fentanyl and methamphetamine. Fentanyl and methamphetamine can affect behavior in different and sometimes opposite ways. Fentanyl can cause confusion, drowsiness, and reduced alertness, while methamphetamine can cause euphoria, hyperactivity, and increased alertness. We do not know which he put in his mouth when being arrested. Moreover, both drugs can also cause hallucinations, paranoia, and anxiety in high doses or with chronic use. The interaction of these two drugs can be unpredictable and potentially dangerous, as they may counteract or enhance each other’s effects. For example, methamphetamine may mask the respiratory depression caused by fentanyl, or fentanyl may intensify the serotonin syndrome caused by methamphetamine, leading to seizures. As Balko likes to speculate, on why Floyd claimed he couldn’t breathe, claiming it was induced by his claim of claustrophobia, which makes no sense, as Floyd was acting erratic even before there was an attempt to place him in the car, and who had been in cars and prior arrests without claustrophobia, a man who had a prior MO of acting erratic and making false claims, in the same way he did with Chauvin and company, to try to get out of arrest. If we are to assume some type of fear crisis, there is one reason readily available. Floyd knew he had ingested a bunch of drugs, and he knew he had ended in the hospital before for doing the same thing. He could plausibly have a credible fear that if he was arrested, he could die in confinement from his hasty drug consumption, unless he admitted he had just ingested more drugs to hide evidence. Maybe that is why he blurted, ‘I’m dead.’ Because the drugs might kill him.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6992-george-floyd-full-autopsy/4c5bdf52fbbd775ce156/optimized/full.pdf
15. Balko claims that Chauvin’s defenders want it both ways. They want him to benefit from an interpretation of Floyd’s initial complaint that assumes it was the sign of a dangerous health crisis, but then exempt him from culpability for not treating it like one. That doesn’t hold up to water, except when you are an armchair analyzer looking at the events in hindsight. There is no evidence Chauvin would have known of his drug ingestion, only that he seemed to be erratic and showing signs of excited delirium and needed to be restrained. And that is what he was doing while waiting for an EMT, that, as far as he knew, was just around the corner.
16. Balko then goes into a long diatribe about the coroner’s report, the autopsy, etc., and how they ‘proved’ he did not die of an overdose. As we have discussed before, that has actually not been proven. The claim that he was a habitual drug addict and that the amount of drugs would not affect him, is unproven. Furthermore, we know he did end up in the hospital before. Add to this, that level of drugs in a resting state is a very different thing than those same drugs while in an agitated state and in a physical struggle. Nor do we know what interactions were going on between the Fentanyl and the methamphetamine, so while either drug may not have been fatal to him, we do not know that the combination couldn’t be lethal. Finally, we have Floyd with comorbidities, arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease, and an enlarged heart that needed more oxygen to function, that also contributed to his risk of a sudden cardiopulmonary arrest. So, we have pre-existing comorbidities, excessive and hasty use of a combination of two dangerous drugs, and a physical struggle, all which could alone lead to cardiopulmonary arrest, but occurring together exponentially increased this risk, and then you have positional asphyxia added to this perfect storm. There is no way to know which of these, alone, or in combination, caused his death. Enough to create reasonable doubt. Finally, a forensic analyst recreated the scenario carefully measuring the positions and time and found that in his recreation no such risk of death occurred. Further accentuating, that except for those other factors, and as Chauvin himself experienced in prior use of the technique, there was no automatic risk of death. No matter how you look at it, based on the evidence, Chauvin’s use of force on Floyd leading to a death was very much an unpredictable occurrence. It was not a “departure from policy.” And Balko’s prevarications do not change that.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6992-george-floyd-full-autopsy/4c5bdf52fbbd775ce156/optimized/full.pdf
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]
2 of 2
[Begin excerpt
When I was researching all of this last year, two medical examiners told me about the term “burking.” It originates with William Burke, who carried out a series of brazen murders in Edinburgh, Scotland, in the late 1820s.
At the time, medical schools were in dire need of cadavers to use as teaching aides. Some were desperate enough to buy cadavers from shady characters, no questions asked. Burke and an accomplice first started gathering cadavers to sell by robbing graves. But they eventually figured out a less labor-intensive approach — killing people. After the pubs closed, they’d scout for inebriated victims. Burke and his accomplice would then jump a stumbling drunk and take him to the ground, after which one would then cover the victim’s mouth while the other sat on him. This combination not only resulted in a quick death from asphyxiation, it had the advantage of not leaving any signs of choking or strangulation. The two men killed more than 20 people this way before they were eventually caught after one target was less drunk than they had thought and successfully fought them off.
What these murders showed is that if you can’t properly expand your diaphragm to take deep breaths, you can die fairly quickly from asphyxiation. This is now more commonly called positional or mechanical asphyxia.
This is precisely what medical experts believe happened to Floyd. At various points over nine-and-a-half minutes, Chauvin and the other officers had multiple knees and elbows pushing down on Floyd’s back, wedged into his ribs, and jammed into the back of his neck. All of that pressure coming from multiple directions was collapsing Floyd’s diaphragm into the hard pavement. The handcuffs then further restricted his ability to move into a position that would allow him to expand his chest and ribs. All of this restricted Floyd to short, shallow breaths.
[End excerpt]
Note that Balko inadvertently undermines his own speculative explanation for the cause of death. He writes, "AT VARIOUS POINTS over nine-and-a-half minutes, Chauvin and the other officers had multiple knees and elbows pushing down on Floyd’s back, wedged into his ribs, and jammed into the back of his neck." [Emphasis added]. The last claim about the neck is outright false. You don't exert significant pressure on someone's neck with your knee without causing any bruising. And the same is true if wedging knees and elbows into someone's back point that that it causes death because the decedent couldn't breathe. Using knees and elbows to do that would leave bruising, unlike sitting on someone. And you can't kill someone in the manner Balko claims via positional asphyxia by occasionally exerting pressure on someone's ribs or back "at various points" over a period of time.
Claiming that covering someone's mouth to prevent breathing and sitting on that person long enough to cause death by asphyxiation is "is precisely what medical experts believe happened to Floyd" sounds like the raving of a lunatic, or repeating the claims of lunatics or simply liars.
Balko simply dismisses fentanyl as if it were a non-issue. I supposed it didn't affect Floyd much as Balko implies, and that Floyd always had the same amount of difficulty breathing as he did after stuffing as much fentanyl as he could into his mouth before getting out of the vehicle. Per Balko, an occasional knee and elbow in Floyd's back is a far more convincing explanation as the cause of death.
Balko also falsely claims that the so-called "eggshell" plaintiff theory was used to convict a man of second-degree murder in Minnesota. I stated in a prior posting that the eggshell plaintiff theory is rejected in tort law. That was a mistake. It is accepted in some jurisdictions and rejected in others in civil actions for compensatory damage. But the theory is irrelevant to criminal law. And in the case that Balko mentions but does not describe, the defendant punched someone in the side of the head from behind. He committed assault and battery that resulted in a brain hemorrhage. That has no relevance to Floyd's death.
Although this is not directly pertinent to the cause of death, it illustrates how misinformed Balko is about the FBI. In his first piece, Balko falsely claimed that in the documentary, there was an allegation that the FBI was involved in a conspiracy. The documentary makes no such allegation. It merely questions why the FBI was involved in the first place. In the second piece, Balko sarcastically writes: "Because if there’s one thing the FBI is known for, it’s falsely accusing law enforcement of racism!"
In fact, the FBI routinely makes false allegations of racism against police departments. The New Jersey State Patrol was falsely accused by the civil rights division within the FBI of racially profiling drivers and causing disparate rates of traffic stops of black compared to white drivers. The civil rights division at the FBI made the same false accusations against the North Carolina State Patrol. Both agencies were pressured into consent decrees to be monitored and were labeled racists. Studies using video cameras and involving tens of thousands of drivers in both states proved that a significantly higher percentage of black than white drivers were speeding more than 15 mph over the speed limit. The reason for the disparity is that a much higher percentage of black than white drivers were between the ages of 18 and 23 (if I recall the age range accurately; in any case, it was close to that age range, and drivers within that age range speed recklessly far more often than other drivers). The studies in New Jersey and North Carolina actually found that state troopers were pulling over a lower percentage of black drivers who were speeding excessively than white drivers who were speeding excessively. Yet the FBI had accused those state troopers of racism for years. There are so many other examples of such false allegations by the civil rights division of the FBI that it's mind-boggling that Balko believes the FBI doesn't falsely accuse police of racism. He is either lying or deeply ignorant.
Balko's critique of the documentary is not at all objective or reasonable. If sufficient pressure had been exerted by knees and elbows in Floyd's back for a sufficient period of time to cause him to stop breathing, it's unquestionable that bruising would have been found on Floyd's back. The scenario of Floyd's death was nothing at all like covering someone's mouth to prevent him from breathing while sitting on him with all your weight to make breathing even more difficult. Yet Balko is peddling this kind of nonsense.
Balko also just tries to ignore or minimize the extent of Floyd's heart disease, and has no understanding of forensic pathology findings. When a forensic pathologist states that the cause of death was cardiac arrest, it means the decedent suffered a heart attack. Balko writes that everyone's heart stops beating when they die. As if cardiac arrest would be considered the cause of death when someone is run over by a truck. Floyd had a 90% obstruction to one coronary artery, a 75% obstruction to a second coronary artery, and a 20% obstruction to a third coronary artery.
Balko also writes:
[Begin excerpt]
Under Minnesota law, the state only needed to show that if not for Chauvin’s actions, George Floyd would not have died that day. It doesn’t matter if Floyd was more fragile or susceptible to a heart attack than most men his age. If the prosecution can demonstrate that Chauvin’s use of force against Floyd was illegal, Chauvin’s only real defense would have been to argue that Floyd coincidentally died of a heart attack or drug overdose at the precise time he was under Chauvin’s knee — and that Chauvin’s knee had nothing to do with it.
[End excerpt]
Chauvin's use of force was not excessive or illegal. His trial was no different than a show trial of the sort that were held in the Soviet Union.
Floyd didn't "coincidentally" die of a heart attack. He died of a heart attack because he ingested an enormous amount of fentanyl. Claiming that a knee or elbow intermittently (not continuously) in the back putting pressure on Floyd's diaphragm was the reason Floyd died is outright bizarre.
I'm not a physician, but Pierre Kory (now best known for being one of the most prominent anti-vax physicians) is and here was his best testimony where he conclusively concludes that Floyd was killed by asphyxiation:
https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/expert-witness-testimony-of-the-george
https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/george-floyd-did-not-die-of-a-fentanyl
And here is what Kory specifically says about your contention that the lack of neck injuries proves that Floyd did not die in this way:
"d. Although complete compression of the airway, by definition, was not present while Mr. Floyd was able to speak, there were prolonged periods in the video where no speech was heard and thus I cannot rule out the possibility that with subtle changes in neck position or weight directed by Officer Chauvin’s knee over Mr. Floyd’s neck that complete compression and lack of airflow occurred for transient or prolonged periods. Further, it is my opinion that, despite the fact that the autopsy reported no fracture or injury to the cartilaginous structures of the trachea (“windpipe”), the absence of such an injury does not in any way exclude the possibility that the airway was completely compressed at some point. The reason for this possibility is that only half the circumference of the windpipe is made of cartilage, i.e. the anterior trachea. The posterior trachea is “membranous” and is composed of soft tissue/mucosa and can easily be displaced/compressed such that it can oppose the anterior trachea thus leading to complete occlusion of the windpipe, either transiently through benign forces such as a vigorous cough or from sustained life threatening forces such as external body weight pressure applied over a knee to the cervical vertebrae which would then cause the vertebrae to compress the windpipe just anterior to it. In conclusion, the windpipe can be completely occluded without causing permanent damage to the tracheal rings."
One more comment about the following claim by Balko:
[Begin quote]
Under Minnesota law, the state only needed to show that if not for Chauvin’s actions, George Floyd would not have died that day. It doesn’t matter if Floyd was more fragile or susceptible to a heart attack than most men his age. If the prosecution can demonstrate that Chauvin’s use of force against Floyd was illegal, Chauvin’s only real defense would have been to argue that Floyd coincidentally died of a heart attack or drug overdose at the precise time he was under Chauvin’s knee — and that Chauvin’s knee had nothing to do with it.
[End quote]
This is an inaccurate characterization of the law. To find a party liable in a civil case or guilty in a criminal case, the plaintiff or prosecution must establish both proximate cause and legal cause ("but for" cause). Balko only mentions legal cause here. If his characterization were accurate, then if a police officer pulled someone over without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and that person died because stress caused a heart attack, the officer would be guilty of murder under Balko's miscomprehension of the law.