Here's what I want to know: If MRT was not a policy in the police manual training, why was it removed this year? (1st link) Also, the manual actually said, "The maximal restraint technique 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 property if not properly restrained." Did Chauvin implement MRT in this manner? Was Floyd still combative and posing a danger? Not to my eyes. I would like to know what the training says about WHEN TO STOP MRT? Because from everything I learned while watching the documentary and listening to this conversation, it seems likely that many things contributed to Floyd's death, including being in a prone position (2nd link) and airway restriction as testified to by Dr. Tobin, and that's exactly what the original autopsy report stated. It reminds me of arguments about when to report Covid as the cause of death. If the person hadn't had pre-existing conditions, would they still have died from Covid? We'll never know. If Floyd were perfectly healthy and not on drugs, would he have died from MRT? We'll never know. Should Floyd have been honest and not resisted from the beginning? Of course, but that's not what addicts do, and they shouldn't have to die because of it unless they are threatening the life of others, which he did not appear to do, although I understand why officers get nervous when they don't put their hands where they're directed to. But Floyd was a human being, not a saint, but just the usual sinner, and not "excrement" as you referred to him previously, Glenn. Where is your Christian compassion? In the fight over who is "right" and who is "wrong," we should never lose sight of the humanity of both Floyd and the police, who have an incredibly difficult job with apparently inadequate training. We need to figure out MUCH better ways of handling resisting arrest, and unless we can expose the mistakes on ALL sides, that won't happen.
@sobshrink This is balanced. What is needed is the trial transcripts. IIRC, the judge wouldn't allow the photo from the training manual to be shown which looks almost identical to what Chauvin was doing. Balko's explanation that he did it too long, unweighted his toes, didn't follow advice to roll the patient that is part of the training may all be true; but, if the image of chauvin's knee on the 'neck', is where the trial turns it seems unavoidably prejudicial that this training image was excluded. Of course it can be contextualized by testimony of just the points Balko is making. And, as John points out, Balko wouldn't even bother to make those points if John, Glenn and Coleman had not taken this up.
I think we were lied to in testimony by minneapolis police adminsitrator at trial that this was no technique they recognized. I haven't read the rest of the transcript or seen how crossexamination may have impeached that representation; so, as to fair trial, I can't say, but I feel like that bordered on perjury.
i've now skimmed balko's autopsy stuff and there is no smoking gun there for either side on a "preponderance of the evidence" basis although it is pretty clear that the medical examiner changed his view along the way. Balko tries to explain that its common to just take the pathological evidence without context and that his earliest impressions were not informed by situational evidence. When adding knowledge of the incident that culinated in death, this explains the change. But I don't see that the context merits testifying beyond a reasonable doubt that Chavin was the "cause" amongst contributing factors. Maybe it is a close question, maybe the jury could reasonably decide as they did even outside the public pressure for conviction. But this public discourse needs input of prosecutors and/or defense attorney used to the "reasonable doubt" standard. Andrew McCarthy from National Review comes to mind or Orin Kerr or Randy Barnett from the Volokh conpspriacy. I would like to know how a trial attorney reacts to the charging decisions. Should Chauvin have been tried for murder? And outside the politicized context, was there reasonable doubt as to that charge?
I think Katyal, the state's lawyer on the appeals, says it all about the weakness of the case when he argued to the court that errors at trial were minor and irrelevant given that: "The evidence of Chauvin’s guilt was captured on video for the world to see."
That is precisely not the case. If Katyal had said that the video depicted Chauvin applying police procedure but it was followed so poorly as to give rise to purposeful negligence that signaled intent, well you could hold that opinion, but it is hardly the res ipsa locatur Katyal makes it out to be, cf. Akhil Amar's discussion of the Supreme Court arguments regarding Trump's exclusion from the ballot in Colorado.
Amar believes Section 3 was properly applied by Colorado but he credits the argument of Trump's attorney who admits the weaknesses and nuance of argument rather than baldly maintaining some rhetorical point like "democracy is at stake". (Amar is a bit whiney about his amicus arguments having hit the cutting room floor, but my point is his respect at least for the candor of opposing counsel on weak points of their arguments rather than pretending there aren't any).
Glenn doth protest himself too much. I admire his skepticism that leads him to keep questioning. Perhaps his exteme pullback from first impressions is itself a similar overreaction. I say again, without glenn and john's reactions of the first instance, the overton window would be slammed shut on debating whether Chauvin got a fair trial, regardless of the fair conclusion of that debate. The narrative would have continued that Chauvin's knee on the neck was as far from accepted police procedure as you could get. Balko only responds because the documentary has now got traction. The points he makes are important but he thought more important to keep quiet about this, perhaps because his own priors don't want there to be any public doubt about the verdict so even true criticisms of the trial should not be acknowledged if possible. You made it impossible for him not to acknowledge this qeustions. John is Right! I wondered from the outset if the documentary had weaknesses and sobeit, let them be exposed as well as its merits.
I would no more make Chauvin a hero or victim than Floyd. The denouement is surely not just. Nobody, including Glenn, said Floyd deserved to die–but that can't be undone. (I put down Glenn's less generous characterizations of Floyd to a distaste not so much for floyd personally but for the beatifying of someone who is the caricature of black failure to thrive). Given the multiplicity of plausible contributory factors to Floyd's death I'm glad to see the murder verdict as to Chauvin reconsidered–whether or not reversed in the end in my own mind or the public's.
Life is messy, and so is death sometimes. We humans don't like it when the answers are not black and white (pun intended). When Chauvin's lawyer appealed, he claimed numerous errors by the judge, but none of them were based on evidence allowed or disallowed, but simply a biased jury. (link #1) Chauvin himself is filing an appeal of his federal charge, without the help of an attorney, based on "new evidence" that Floyd's death was caused by an undiagnosed medical condition. (link #2) It remains to be seen whether he uses that argument to appeal the state murder charge, and whether or not he gets a new trial based on it. But Chauvin himself does not appear to be making any appeals based on inaccurate representations of his actions, or witnesses lying, or the judge refusing to allow the picture from the manual. So I don't know how much weight to give any of that. I just hope we learn from the experience, because there are far better ways to handle such situations. As for Glenn referring to Floyd as "excrement," sorry, but whether it was personal or not, I don't think it can be excused, especially for one who claims to be a Christian. Glenn should understand from personal history that overcoming addiction isn't easy. Perhaps he thinks that because he did it, everybody should be able to do it. But Glenn had the resources and support to help him do so. Did Floyd? I'm going to go out on a limb and say I wonder if Glenn "doth protesting too much" is a manifestation of an unconscious recognition of "There but for the grace of God go I."
i hate laws, but it should be illegal to write stories about legal cases without links to the organic documents. if the grounds stated in these and similar articles are the sole grounds of appeals, I feel like something was left on the cutting room floor ( the federal appeal on some new medical theory seems pretty tenuous). OTOH I would like to see the actual filings because I have read news reports on cases that I followed and read filings and those news reports are often inaccurate or incomplete.
Transcripts are really hard to come by (I don't know why, you'd think if the trial were fair it would be in the public interest to have transcripts readily available.) I have found rudimentary transcripts for the trial itself–copy this and paste it in the google search bar : allinurl: "derek-chauvin-trial-death-george-floyd" site:https://www.c-span.org/ – although not the jury selection (which might shed some light on the question of whether the trial should have been held elsewhere) from the closed captioning at C-Span. These don't come up in order and are not well organized or annotated so you have to guess and click to find who testfied on what days and often the identity of the speaker is not listed and you have to infer it by who was sworn in and the nature of the speech as to whether it is question from the prosecutor, defense attorney or the witness.
Little wonder that John and Glenn are at the mercy of those who have spent time reviewing the trial and offer selective portions, whether that be Keith Elison or the documentary filmmakers. (I've seen this happen to Glenn before and he concedes for the sake of argument much that could be quibbled when he does not have direct knowledge. I have no problem with his sympathy for the plight of palestine and share a portion of it; but he let a jewish sympathizer with the palestinian cause completely mischaracterize the judicial reform issue. Even american jews more sympathetic to israel and zionism in the wake of October 7th are uninformed about the relative political theory of israeli governance and the American constitutional system. To call the proposed judicial reform in Israel a threat to democracy is the exact opposite of the truth but, as with trump, people simply cannot take up the issue without a full measure of Bibi Derangement Syndrome. I just want to wind the tape back and have Glenn ask that smug man how folks in America would feel if Clarence Thomas and other Supreme Court Justices got to choose their own replacements and how that comports with "democracy". But Glenn can't know everything. And like Rogan, he is a bit imprintable in these areas where he lacks knowledge although he does try to revisit when it comes to his attention. There is noone on the planet I respect more than Glenn Loury which doesn't mean he ain't got clay feet like the rest of us.
That said, I wasn't trying to dislodge your distaste for that portion of glenn's rhetoric that employed a highminded word for shit. The criticism is fairly offered. just reflecting on my own take since I respect Glenn wondering if these rhetorical flourishes are indeed excesses, or simply honesty if distasteful. Should they undermine even in some small way my belief in Glenn's good character and good will?
i think Glenn still identifies as Christian if not as reborn and that certainly invokes the whole cast the first stone thing. . . OK. But Glenn doesn't cast the first stone really in these remarks. He reveals a visceral tendency to react negatively to the remedial canonization of bad behavior to the extent that successful blacks who ask for personal responsibility to enter the equation for lifting other blacks are nothing more than house slaves for white supremacy, i.e., in context, those who say maybe George Floyd was high on fentynal and had health complications exacerbated by his lifestyle but if Chauvin hadn't restrained him he wouldn't have died do not explain why similar logic cannot be used to say: even if addicted an pathologically unable to foreswear drug use, if he hadn't passed a $20 counterfeit bill he wouldn't have died, if he hadn't resisted he wouldn't have died. They simply say, you can't say that. That's blaming the victim. But, as out of step as it sounds, was George Floyd really a victim and if so of what.
That doesn't mean Chauvin shouldn't bear responsibilty for his contribution, but comparative negligence as in tort I think is at work here. That is where prosecutorial discretion and charging decisions should enter in and it sure seems to me like the more high profile a case the more political those decisions become and that leads me to be skeptical of the fairness of the trial. That does not lead me to conclude, as of yet, that it was unfair. But as with covid vaccines, it is time for trials (sorry) to see if they actually work, if they actually are vaccines, and not to given them emergency approval and insulation from liablity. Ditto with Chauvin's trial and kudos to anyone who asks for the transcripts and filings to be made publicly available in a sensible format.
These documents aren't necessarily being hidden, but I can onlly conclude they are deliberately obfuscated, not only by the government but by the press who claim the sole right to interpret them for us. Sorry, I'll make my own assessment if its all the same to them.
I'm put in memory of my good friend Philip Eil, a Columbia Journalism grad of a predictably progressive outlook who worked on our painting crew in Providence a block from Glenn's offices while he was in school. He spent a year following the trial of a purported 'pill mill' doctor who had been at medical school with his father. Not an advertisement although a reminder to myself to buy the book and read it:
The government was so concerned about anyone reporting seriously on their prosecution that they named him as a witness (because he had interviewed the defendant) to get him barred from the courtroom and then spent years blocking him from getting transcripts and exhibits from the trial. In the end, I don't think he was particularly hostile to the notion of the opioid epidemic as an american tragedy and that this central figure was amongst the many culpable–albeit this raises the question if throwing the book at one player to deter others is what criminal justice is supposed to be about. But displaying any human interest in how we arrived at that juncture worries the crap out of the government. As Mel Brooks said: we've got to protect our phoney baloney jobs
with apologies for, dare I say, gallows humor. In the end I'm more like Glenn. I say what comes to mind, not without thinking about it but without censoring myself based on the reigning zeitgeist.
Brian, I must admit your first and last sentences made me chuckle out loud (in a good way). "I hate laws, but it should be illegal...." And then, after an extremely lengthy post, "I say what comes to mind...." Yes, you certainly do! Since you always seem respectful, I have no problem with that, although at times, I must admit I had a little trouble tracking your racing thoughts. But nevertheless, interesting! I only have a couple things to say, as I'm not the prolific writer you are! I want to clarify that I do respect Glenn, even if I don't always agree with him. He's obviously brilliant, and he's a little bit like the "Thinking Man's Joe Rogan." Meaning, he covers topics outside his area of expertise, and not surprisingly, that's when he's at his weakest as far as challenging guest's assertions. But nobody can be an expert on everything, and when he has sufficient background knowledge on a topic, he asks really good questions. One might argue he should do a little more homework, especially on topics he knows will be controversial, but I don't really fault him on that. He does seem the type of personality that can get quite excitable and maybe say things that are hyperbolic. My feedback was more for him than anybody, in the hopes he will treat all humans humanely. We all err when we're upset, so all he would need to do is say "sorry." He has never done that, so I suspect he still has negative feelings about Floyd. I just hope he recognizes the man's humanity, that's all. On a more practical note, I'm less interested in getting at the "truth" of the case, partly because I'm not sure if that's even possible, and if it is, I think that's the job of Chauvin's lawyers. My particular interest as a psychologist who is especially interested in violence prevention is to get all police officers trained in de-escalation techniques which have demonstrated efficacy in reducing the need for physical restraints.
My father was a judge and my sister is a lawyer, so I guess that's why I went the opposite route! (The legal system is by design an adversarial system, and my nature is the opposite). But since you seem very interested in getting your hands on a trial transcript, I included a couple of links below that might be helpful. The first link contains lots of links to trial documents, but it does not appear to include the trial transcripts. The second link is to the form you can fill out to request trial transcripts, but it's not free, so that's probably why they are not available online. The third link is to an article about accessing court transcripts. Since you were not a party to the case, I don't know if you'll be able to get them or not. I know from my experience attempting to access case law documents applying to special education law that legal documents are NOT CHEAP. You can do the homework and report back to us! :)
thanks for your comments on my humor. it is indeed funny that i write paragraphs and then need to observe that I say what I feel. Of course I was referring to my particular language regarding the gallows in the context of an incident that is imbued with racial perplexity. but your reflection on my larger subconscious self awareness and oxymoronic habit is much appreciated.
your background is interesting. de-escalation is a skill whether in policing or social interaction :-). As context, would you say over the course of the video that there were attempts to de-esecalate or at least that the police were not quick to escalate or . . . ?
That was the impression I was left with from the bodycam. Although perhaps they ignored cues or opportunities that are glaring to you but I completely miss.
I included the wrong link below about what some use-of-force experts said about the situation. Not everybody agrees, but given how dangerous it is, I agree with what these folks are saying. In hospital wards with agitated and aggressive patients, use of restraints is still sadly common, but there are ways of working with such folks that helps them to calm down and the use of restraints can be greatly reduced. I posted a link about that before, so not including it again. I have to run now and I probably won't have time to respond soon and have probably said all I have to say on this topic, unless you have a question that is psychological in nature, and then I'll do my best! :)
First, I think you should consider volunteering as Chauvin's attorney! You seem to be doing more than they are at the moment, from what I can gather. Since SCOTUS refused to hear the case when the only argument was jury bias, I don't know if that means he can no longer appeal on other grounds or not, but you could try! As for de-escalation and this case, It's been a couple months or so since I saw the film, and I'd have to go back to know for sure, but I don't think I witnessed any time in which Floyd was combative, nor a danger to himself or others, so I don't think the use of restraints was warranted. He did resist getting in the back of the vehicle because he said he was claustrophobic, but did eventually get in but was still highly agitated. During this time period, I don't believe the police used de-escalation in an effort to convince him to get in the back seat. Actually, in this case, I don't think de-escalation is the exact correct word, as Floyd was not being truly combative. His resistance was based on what appeared to be genuine fear. He might have been lying about being claustrophobic, but his distress at the thought of going to jail seemed genuine and he appeared to be crying. A well trained person could have used active listening to acknowledge his fears and help him be less fearful. Would it have worked? I can't say for sure. We'll never know since they went pretty much straight to restraints to get him to comply. But there was no reason to hurry the situation, and one tactic in de-escalation is to slow things down. The first link below suggests this situation was not appropriate for use of force, and the second link makes the important point that use of force should never be continued after the person is no longer resisting, and certainly not after he passes out, but Chauvin did both. So is that enough for 2nd degree murder? I'm no legal expert but I would say I would be more inclined to say negligent homicide. You're welcome for my comments on your humor, and thanks for making me chuckle! Now go help Mr. Chauvin if you can and want to! :)
I'm merely a reactionary against white racism. Is the victim responsible for the behavior of the rapist?
Racism is a wealth and power-base competitive relationship between Blacks and non-Blacks. The sole purpose of racism is to support and ensure that the White majority and it's ethnic subgroups continue to dominate and use Blacks as a means to produce wealth and power. Centuries of Black enslavement and Jim Crow semi-slavery resulted in the majority of society becoming 99-foot giants and Blacks one-foot midgets. This massive inequality in wealth and resources made Blacks non-competitive and totally dependent upon Whites for the necessities of life. True racism exists only when one group holds a disproportionate share of the wealth and power over another group then uses those resources to marginalize, exploit, and subordinate the weaker group. In America, it is Whites who use wealth and power to marginalize, exploit, and subordinate Blacks. Whites can deny Blacks employment, educational opportunities, business resources, a place to live or the right to vote. Therefore, according to this definition, Black people cannot be racist. No group of Blacks has the power or exclusive control of resources to the degree that they can educationally, politically, economically and socially exploit and marginalize the White race. Blacks can only react to racism and try to alter the conditions that racism creates. Despite the realities, there are numerous conservative Blacks who act as apologists for White racism and confuse the issue. A conservative Black radio talk show host in Los Angeles, for example, charges that Blacks are racist as Whites. His desire for white approval as well as his ignorance of history impedes him from understanding that White racism and Black prejudice are not the same thing. Blacks have a reason for their feelings about Whites based on how they have been treated by Whites. The White race, on the other hand, has never been marginalized by the Black race. Racism reinforces the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow semi-slavery. Blacks have been unable to escape from those legacies because the majority society acknowledges the operation of racism in the distant past, but minimizes its present significance.
Hey asshole (aka: retard), I worked in a very Machvellian environment for 34 years. Guys like you weren't too much of a challenge; very dorky & boring as shit. Lol!
Let's be honest. The only time you are referred to as Mr. monty, is when someone is encouraging you to take your meds, or when the guys in the white suits with butterfly nets are chasing you.
Meantime, your stupid ass assumed I was a guard ("baby sitter"). I have three white maids, a white gardener, and a one white handyman. They call me bossman, but I'm trying to retrain them to address me as Mr. MONTY. You're such a clown! I used to work with clowns like you. I miss sending clowns like you to administrative disciplinary hearings for corrective action. Lol!!!!
Being Ad hominem, racist? I used to evaluate, interview, and recommend probation or prison for convicted felons, including dirty cops, following referral by a variety of county jurisdictions in California for diagnostic evaluations. I have also given court testimony in death penalty phase cases based on reports I wrote. What's your expertise? Shuck 'n' jive white racism?
Glenn Loury and John McWhorter going out of their way of being super black apologists is funny to me. The psychology behind it is very intriguing--- the negro meritorious manumission. Lol!
Rob Smith is a Black Gay Republican who was surrounded by Republican white supremacists who used racial and homophobic slurs to attack him. He still smiles and calls himself a proud Republican.
I think some activity is simply to “own the “Libs”. If you are a Conservative and have no effective policies, you practice diversion. Smith can offer no policies, so he offers himself up as a proud Black man who stands proudly for (nonexistent) principle's.
It diverts attention from a group that has a man who wants to be a dictator and references Hitler as their Presidential candidate. No need to pay attention to charging a woman who suffered a miscarriage with a crime and putting the life of a woman carrying a nonviable fetus at risk.
It really is entertaining to watch them lecture about the superior morals of Conservatives. It is also amusing that movies like 2000 Mules feed Conservative delusions. Expect more PT Barnum nonsense to come.
One day, they will put forth a health care plan. (Just kidding)
2) Wikipedia: Second-degree murder in Minnesota is split into two types: intentional and unintentional. Intentional second-degree murder constitutes the intentional murder of a person without premeditation. Unintentional second-degree murder is defined as a murder in which the prosecution is not required to prove intent,[a] but only that the defendant committed a felony causing another person's death.[7] Unintentional second-degree murder is Minnesota's felony murder rule; unlike most other states that have the felony murder rule, Minnesota punishes felony murder as second-degree murder rather than first-degree. Minnesota's rule is unique in the sense that it does not require an independent felony from the elements of murder, so a felony such as assault causing someone's death can result in a defendant being charged with second-degree murder.
2The maximum sentence for second-degree murder is 40 years in prison, and the recommended sentencing guidelines suggest 12+1⁄2 years for a first-time offender. There is no mandatory minimum, so hypothetically someone could serve no prison time for second-degree murder.[8]
Murderer Derek Chauvin, a white former police officer that murdered George Floyd, an unarmed black man, was convicted of second-degree murder under the state's felony murder rule in a highly publicized trial in 2021, with the underlying felony being assault. Chauvin received a sentence of 22+1⁄2 years in prison.[9]
Wikipedia: Chauvin appealed his conviction to the Minnesota Court of Appeals in mid 2022, asserting that errors in the trial court denied him a fair trial. The case was argued to a three-judge panel on January 18, 2023. Chauvin's attorneys sought a new trial outside the Hennepin County Government Center, which had been surrounded by security fencing and National Guard troops in preparation for potential civil unrest. His attorneys argued that the pre-trial publicity made a fair trial impossible and that the only remedy would be to hold new trial at a different venue.[171][172] These arguments were rejected by a three-judge panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals in an opinion released on April 17, 2023.[173][174] In affirming the conviction the judges said that Chauvin's use of force on Floyd was excessive and unlawful, and that the criminal trial was conducted fairly.[175] Chauvin then sought review by the Minnesota Supreme Court. In an order issued on July 19, 2023, the court denied Chauvin's petition for further review—which means that the Court of Appeals' ruling is final.[176][177] After exhausting his appeals in state court, Chauvin's attorneys filed a petition asking the Supreme Court of the United States to review the case,[176][178] but the petition to review the case was rejected on November 20, 2023.[179]
From all that I have learned throughout my life, the word 'murder' has a specific meaning, and intent must be proven in order to convict of this charge. I stated in previous comments that I have followed this case extensively, because, just as Drs. Loury & McWhorter, I want to know what the truth is. I cannot see any evidence that this was a murder. There is no proof of intent on the part of anyone involved to bring about the death of this tragic man, George Floyd. I have gotten into the habit of downloading documents and videos that I fear will be 'disappeared' when inconvenient facts start to come out. One such document is the autopsy report of Dr. Baker, which I just re-read to make sure that I was not misremembering anything. On page nine, under the heading 'Respiratory System', I read this: "The right and left lungs weigh 1085 and 1015 g, respectively. The external surfaces are pink only on the most anterior aspects, and deep red-purple in all other areas. The pulmonary parenchyma is diffusely congested and edematous."
Two things stand out. 1) the difference in weight of the two lungs and 2) the description of the lungs being 'diffusely congested and edematous'. This indicates a lot of fluid in the lungs. Could be the residual effects of Covid-19, but is also, from what I read on the CDC website a common result of fentanyl use. I looked for information about whether constriction of the lungs, such as being place on the pavement as was George Floyd can cause fluid to build up but could not find anything that indicated such. Mr. Floyd was telling officers that he could not breathe almost from the very beginning of this encounter, even by the convenience store, and the 911 recording of the clerk who made the call, plus video surveillance footage from inside the store indicate a man already very intoxicated, though the source of the intoxication could not be proven just from that. At any rate, this information leads me to believe that George Floyd was in serious medical trouble from the get-go, and again, I see no reason to believe that any of the officers involved intended for this man to die while in their custody. The convictions of murder, I believe is a gross miscarriage of justice.
The offense Derek Chauvin was specifically convicted of was this: "second-degree unintentional felony murder"
A person can be convicted of murder without having intended to commit murder in most if not all states, though how states define homicide crimes varies a lot from one state to the next.
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder, ormurder one ), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder, ormurder two ).
We could go round and round on this. You’re correct that neither my opinion nor yours matters. I see nothing in the instructions that would lead ME to vote for conviction, but since I was not a member of that jury, that is a moot point. What is sad, however, is that nothing has been solved by incarcerating Derek Chauvin, and the questions surrounding this case has only inflamed tensions.
What matters is not how dictionary.com describes murder, but rather how the offense Chauvin was charged with and convicted of was defined in the Minnesota code.
If I correctly understand the Minnesota Criminal Code’s description of “second-degree unintentional murder” found at this link, this charge and conviction is unwarranted.
OK, thanks for all the links. I think Victoria is right and all the folks talking about the lack of an intentionality requirement for second degree murder are glossing over such a requirement as underlying the charge catalogued in the jury instructions. to find him guilty of 2nd degree murder, they have to find Chauvin guilty of assault and per the court instructions to the jury:
"“Assault” is the INTENTIONAL infliction of bodily harm upon another or the attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another. The intentional infliction of bodily harm requires proof that the Defendant intentionally applied unlawful force to another person without that person’s consent and that this act resulted in bodily harm." (emphasis added)
It sure seems to me, even from the pro-floyd narrative, that there was not evidence that chauvin intended to harm him. he may not have intended not to harm him but allowed perception of risk to other officers and crowd control to override training and advice at the time to desist, and there seems little doubt to me that adrenalin from the struggles to that point could have contributed, but regardless of my skills or lack thereof as armchair endocrinologist, I can see negligence, I can see disregard (but that in a way is the opposite of intent), I can't see intent. If someone has reference to the evidence presented and trial transcripts focusing on evidence that chauvin did intend to harm him and did intend to act unlawfully in restraining the suspect, i await it (and we can only speculate what intelluctual process or outside influence made it seem otherwise to the jury or whether they really considered that aspect. I would have focused an appeal on that as a matter of law unless there is convincing evidence and precedent that "intent" can somehow have been inferred. We're into the world of monday morning quarterbacking here. If someone has some reason I should change my mind on tuesday, let me know.
Only because people don’t understand what ‘murder’ is. Murder by definition (or at least the definition I grew up with) is the intentional killing of another. Another case of language manipulation. Unintentional killing is typically termed manslaughter, and a conviction would rarely entail the type of sentence Chauvin received.
Right about manslaughter. Although each state's wording might differ slightly, nolo.com defines it as "...an unlawful killing that doesn't involve malice aforethought," and it can be voluntary (provoked "heat of passion") or involuntary (unprovoked but nevertheless involves negligent/reckless behavior). The question for a jury to decide would be whether Chauvin was acting in a reckless and negligent manner. As I listed in my comment above, it appears that the original autopsy was correct in that multiple factors contributed to Floyd's death, INCLUDING prone position and airway restriction. Would he have died if he hadn't been subject to MRT, or if the MRT had not lasted for so long? We will never know for sure. But the original policy in the police manual (now removed) was stated this way: ""The maximal restraint technique 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." Was it implemented this way? Even if he was trying to kick them once in handcuffs on the ground, all they needed to do was step away from him to avoid harm. The fact he said "I can't breathe" even when not touched would suggest to an experienced officer that the guy might be on drugs, all the more reason why MRT would pose a danger if applied too long. Chauvin appeared to continue MRT for quite some time after Floyd was quiet and still. So WHEN SHOULD MRT BE STOPPED? If I were Queen for a Day, all officers would be trained in effective deescalation techniques (below), or at least, trained to handcuff and if necessary anklecuff a resisting person in a non-prone position and stay away until a trained mental health person gets there. They did not do any of that, but rather they made his anxiety even worse which increased resistance. Does that make them negligent? Probably not if they didn't have the training, but it's still difficult for me to believe with all their experience with people on drugs, they didn't recognize how risky their actions were, and/or when to stop the MRT. I just hope we learn from this experience but I fear we won't.
I have a couple of comments. For the most part I agree with your assessment, but I do think that there are some aspects of this arrest that contributed to the amount of time the restraint was ongoing. The first and most crucial is the length of time it took EMT's to arrive. The initial call for medical assistance was made as Floyd was being led away from the convenience store to the squad car, and the second as the situation was escalating. So what took so dang long? could it have been the growing crowd? I understand that the emergency vehicle initially went to the wrong location as well (I believe the responded to Cup Foods, where the first call was made, but I can't verify that). As to training, I was amazed to read that Officers Lane and Keung were riding as partners that day, despite the fact that neither man had been on the job for even one week. I always that that new guys rode with veterans for while, so what was up with that? At any rate, I still believe that there was a confluence of extenuating circumstances that led to this fatal outcome, none deserving of a murder conviction for anyone, because I believe and always will that murder require premeditation.
I agree with you and McWhorter that this did not appear to be intentional. (I assume that's what you meant, since it wouldn't need to be premeditated to be murder, as second degree murder does not require premeditation). I think Chauvin should get a new trial with the evidence of MRT in the MPD manual that the judge excluded, but Chauvin may still need to explain why he thought it was necessary and also what took him so long to stop. I also agree that there was a confluence of mistakes made and unless there's a truly objective report of all of them, on both sides, very little will be learned from this, which is a shame. As to why EMT's took so long to arrive, that doesn't seem to be explained very well, other than going to the wrong place. That happened to my husband's uncle who had a heart attack, and he died. In real life, as we all know, sometimes sh*t happens. That's why it's important to adapt to the situation. The point I was trying to make was that, if they are going to use MRT, given the known risks involved, there should be very explicit rules about when to start (which there were), and ALSO when to stop doing it, as well as cautions about doing it with people who appear to be on drugs. Better yet, get trained in deescalation to use with agitated, noncompliant folks who are not armed. Then again, what do I know? I'm just a psychologist who has worked with people with emotional and behavioral disabilities and adolescent offenders. Yikes! I just realized you responded on Christmas! I'm not the only one crazy enough to do this on Christmas!! 🤣 Merry Christmas! 🎄
@sobshrink "I agree with you and McWhorter that this did not appear to be intentional."
I guess without my logorrhea, this is my problem with the prosecution/persecution of chauvin. In theory it is his lawyers' problem as you've said, but I think to have honest public discourse about the justice done in the trial I personally need to turn over the stones his defense and appeals may not have.
as you point out, different states have different statutory articulations of "murder". i've pointed out elsewhere, but it is appropos of this thread with victoria that minnesota does provide for 2nd degree murder charges where the killing is NOT intentional. But those crowing about how well they know Minnesota law ignore that the underlying felony has intentionality requirment (as this unintentional second degree murder charge is simliar to felony murder in other states the killing had to result from another felony).
in chauvin's case the underlying charged crime is assault in which chauvin either had to intend bodily harm, or intend to use unlawful force. For the life of me I don't see how you get that. Negligence, easy to see. Use of unlawful force, closer but not out of the question. Intention to act unlawfully, I don't see it.
That is why I think second degree murder is an overcharge and the the appeal should have been that the elements of the crime could not be proved from evidence presented, even if the jury accepted or elided that showing. I could quite well be wrong; but if I were, I would think folks would be quoting the attorney for the state answering just this objection and not pontificating about how the picture of chauvin with his knee on floyds 'neck' is all the evidence the appeals court needs to uphold the convictions.
I agree with all of what you have said. This entire situation seems to be tragedy heaped on tragedy. I hope you and yours had a very Merry Christmas as well. I was up early getting ready for the meal prep and had a little time to read and respond. I thank you for your insights. I find it encouraging when people who see things from a different angle than I can explain in a calm and reasoned fashion. It's always easy to be an armchair QB. Your comments have made me really think.
Double standards. Hamas gets to play victim after Oct 7 invasion/massacre/kidnap/rape. But, Israel is expected to use surgical precision to not harm a Palestinian civilian. Even though “four” is the total number of unarmed Black Americans killed by police in 2020, (including Floyd) in the planet’s 3rd largest country; not good enough- police are expected to take 20/20 hindsight and jump into a Time Machine to achieve a perfect outcome during an emergency fight.
Because Floyd refused to get into the police car, cops were trying to keep him in place outside the car. Unfortunate that Floyd died, but cops doing their job- are not to blame. Lesson is supposed to be “Civilian must cooperate to minimize injury.”
I have identified 7 steps, where Minneapolis City-Gov acted with anti-cop hostility.
Step 1: Police Chief and Mayor failed to set example of expecting civilian cooperation. Floyd’s idea of negotiating a non-arrest option should be characterized as delusional thinking- a mental health condition.
Step 2: Minneapolis officials and SF and elsewhere allowed reckless use of term “murder” before the trial had begun.
Step 3: Minneapolis city-Gov gives police station to protesters. (Portland and Seattle copy-cat.)
Step 4: Minneapolis instructs police to stand-down while civilians loot and burn random private property for hours, days, weeks. (Other cities copy-cat).
Step 5: Trial excludes information and evidence that would allow jurors to understand more about what actually happened.
Step 6: Per AG, “Homicide is death caused by another.” Independent of Floyd’s medical status and whether he would have also died if no cops present; police need assurance that use of assigned work tools will not place them in “homicide” category if incidental death during an emergency arrest-fight whereas a hypothetical by-stander civilian (untrained) who jumps in vigilante-style to detain Floyd could end up in “homicide” category. Also, a MD doesn’t go to prison if patient dies in hospital OR.
Step 7: The court claimed that Officer Chauvin intended to murder Floyd.
Anti-Police City/Gov in Many Cities:
After June 01, 2020; SF Police Chief placed a very large hanging vertical BLM banner with anti-police wording in lobby at headquarters.
In 2023; LA Police Chief told newspapers that “Back The Blue” FB group is “right-wing extremism”, untrue. Although many Americans have never been to Minneapolis, we can relate to steps 1-7, because a similar trajectory occurred in many cities.
This has been a great conversation. One question: Why didn't you have it when it mattered?
There was a virtual media black-out on anything favoring Chauvin. I know a witch-hunt when I see one. After all, there's been a helluva lot of them lately. Speak up when it matters!!!!
You don't know the difference between your ass and mouth. 2nd Degree Murder can be intentional or unintentional-- it varies from state to state. Study the Minnesota penal codes. Issue, rule, application, and conclusion. IRAC your argument!
Even if “I can’t breathe” may have become a trope after the Eric Garner death, it’s certainly the case that a) Garner couldn’t breathe and b) George Floyd couldn’t breathe. In other words, wariness of possible manipulation in this respect may theoretically have conditioned the cops disregard here, but neither Garner nor Floyd were lying or being in sincere on this (as it were terminal) point.
Yes. Given Mr. Floyd’s multiple underlying conditions, and recent Covid bout, the most logical piece in the case was - he was having trouble breathing.
Bs, he didn’t die of Covid or underlying conditions, but from a Fetanyl overdose/strangulation. It was an illogical segment in the discussion—whether it’s a trope or not, he in fact couldn’t breathe and it killed him.
I include drugs in “underlying conditions.” I work in the cardiopulmonary space, thus, cardiopulmonary distress did not surprise me. Like a domino effect.
Well you’re being illogical: an immediate cause of death (here an OD combined with blunt force trauma) is not an underlying or background condition (though poor health may have made him more susceptible). If anything I would assume that regular drug use (which you might describe as a background or baseline condition) should have actually increased his tolerance and made him *less* susceptible to an OD, though I admit I know very little about fetanyl beyond its extraordinary toxicity.
He didn’t die of a heart attack or lung cancer, but of an overdose and blunt force trauma. Long term factors, while not wholly irrelevant, are entirely inadequate in accounting for the known causes (plural) of death.
With all due respect, the conclusions of Mr. McWorter, a linguist, and Mr. Loury, an economist, are lay opinions and the discussion of the cause of death and manner of death in George Floyd's case reflect their lack of training in medicine and physiology, and specifically in forensic pathology. As a late career forensic pathologist I have seen, investigated, and certified several deaths similar to that of Mr. Floyd's. As Sea Sentry mentions, these deaths are multifactorial, i.e., there is not a single, clear cut, diagnosis that explains the death. It is a combination of factors including acute drug intoxication, the underlying health problems Mr. Floyd had (chronic heart disease) *and* the actions of the police officers.
In this type of case it is useful to apply the "if not for" test. If not for the actions of the police officer's would George Floyd have died that day? Almost certainly not. George Floyd had gotten high many times and he had heart disease that was present many years. What was different on the day he died? His encounter with the police and the actions they took when they put him in custody.
Now, I am analysing this case with respect to the cause and manner of death. I am not making a judgement about what the legal ramifications of the police actions should be. I am not a lawyer. But to say that Chauvin and the other officers had no culpability in George Floyd's death is absolutely wishful thinking.
I have just one little issue with your comment. And that's the last sentence: "But to say that Chauvin and the other officers had no culpability in George Floyd's death is absolutely wishful thinking." If I'm driving my car and a person runs out in front of me and I kill him because I did not have time to stop, that is a homicide. But am I culpable? No. If a person attacks me with a knife and I defend myself by shooting him, am I subject to arrest and trial for murder? When you get down to it, that depends on the city where it happened, the prosecutors, and the race of me and the other person. None of that is supposed to matter, but all of it does.
We are speculating about whether Floyd would have lived if he had not been arrested. But he WAS arrested. The police were called to the scene because of Floyd's actions. Floyd resisted arrest and had to be physically restrained. In the end, even as medical professionals and the rest of us debate whether the knee on the neck made any difference, Chauvin is held accountable for not being enough of a medical professional to know that the knee on the neck might be fatal.
Justice is supposed to be blind. But justice knew that Floyd was black and Chauvin was white, and that made the difference. If it had been the other way around, there would have been no trial and no riots.
I think I should clarify. I used the term culpable to indicate that their actions did in fact contribute to Floyd's death. That is not to say that they are "liable" (legally responsible for the death). That was and is a matter for courts to decide.
If it was a black man as the defendant, you wouldn't give a fuck. Keep it real! 💯 I was part of the white man's criminal justice system game for 34 years. I witnessed a lot of fucked up shit perpetuated by whites against blacks.
Am I a racist because I like Rocky Road ice cream more than than vanilla or chocolate? Different flavors have been under my expensive silk sheets until they go back on code. Lol!!!!
The FBI interviewed Dr. Andrew Baker, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy, and asked questions to get at something similar to the "if not for" test you mentioned:
Page 2 of the document says Dr. Baker did not know if George Floyd would have lived "but for" the actions of the officers. Dr. Baker said that George Floyd's underlying heart disease, intoxicants, and the stress of his encounter with the officers were more than he could tolerate. He also said that if George Floyd had been found dead in his bed with the same level of fentanyl in his system his death would have been ruled a fentanyl fatality (See bottom of page 6).
Here an excerpt from notes taken by a prosecutor during a conversation with Dr. Baker (AB) about the autopsy:
AB walked us down the list of substances for which NMS labs tested. Those values he
highlighted were:
4ANPP - a precursor and metabolite of fentanyl present in Mr. Floyd’s blood.
Methamphetamine — 19 ng/ML which he described as “very near the low end” and “a
stimulant hard on the heart.”
Fentanyl — 11. He said, “that’s pretty high.” This level of fentanyl can cause pulmonary
edema. Mr. Floyd’s lungs were 2-3x their normal weight at autopsy. That is a fatal level
of fentanyl under normal circumstances.
Norfentanyl — 5.6 a metabolite of fentanyl.
Mr. Floyd’s urine was tested for 4 things and are redundant, given the blood analysis. AB said,
“the only thing that matters is what’s in his blood.”
AB said that if Mr. Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no
other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death.
The last sentence is similar to what Dr. Baker said to the FBI. To be fair, others who didn't examine George Floyd's body said the level of fentanyl in his blood wasn't high enough to kill him:
All the above suggests to a layman like me that there's no way to know with certainty who or what killed George Floyd. I'd love to know what you conclude from these documents given your background as a forensic pathologist.
I know Andy Baker and he is a damn good forensic pathologist.
I've read the autopsy report and it is solid.
Of course I can't speak to why he answered the way he did. But in the end he certified the death as a combination of drugs (in part II, contributory causes of death), heart disease (also in part II), and, "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression."
He certified the manner of death (the circumstances surrounding the death) as Homicide.
So in the end he is basically saying the same thing as I suggest above. Again, I can't speak to the exact reasoning Andy used (and I have not spoken to him about this case), but if he did not think that the police actions were a significant factor in George Floyd's death he would not have invoked the "subdual, restraint and neck compression" in the cause of death and he certainly would not have certified the manner as homicide.
And, by the way, saying that the death is a combination of factors is not saying that we do not know what caused his death. Of course it is impossible to say that it was 20% drugs, 35% heart disease, and 45% the police struggle. But, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty (which is the standard used in criminal cases), we can say it was a combination of these three factors.
Thanks for your response! I'm still stuck at the "if not for" test you mentioned in your original post. How culpable are the officers if Dr. Baker couldn't say that George Floyd would have lived "but for" their actions and the interaction turned physical because George Floyd resisted their attempts to get him into the cruiser?
There have been instances where officers clearly misbehaved (e.g., Laquan McDonald's death in Chicago, Walter Scott's death in North Charleston, SC, Tyre Nichols death in Memphis, etc.) and deserved to be severely punished. There seems to be a lot of nuance in this case, especially when it comes to how closely the officers followed their training.
There are many 'what ifs' to entertain. What if, for example, the convenience store clerk never called 911 and the very intoxicate George Floyd drove off and cause a fatal accident? What if he simply continued to ingest the drugs provided him by his dealer, who was a passenger in the vehicle, and died elsewhere of overdose. Those questions really don't matter. The main gist of this entire argument is not to lay blame on George Floyd, though I do believe his is also culpable in his demise. The crux of this discussion is to get to the truth of whether or not the three officers who have been convicted of murder for his death were rightly convicted. My belief is that a murder conviction must include proof that there was 'malice aforethought'. Whether their actions played a role, no matter how small or large, the big question that must be answered is this: were their actions motivated by an intent to kill this man simply because he was black? Or were there actions simply motivated by a desire to restrain a clearly intoxicated and agitated man? I believe that the the truth to be the latter.
My focus has been to gain as much of an understanding of the truth as possible.
Dr. Baker told the FBI that he couldn't say George Floyd would have lived "but for" the actions of the officers.
Keith Ellison said in a 60 Minutes interview that he and his team found no evidence that race played a role in Derek Chauvin's actions. Here's a link to an article about the interview and a quote:
When interviewer Scott Pelley asked Ellison whether the murder was a hate crime, the prosecutor replied: "I wouldn't call it that because hate crimes are crimes where there's an explicit motive and of bias. We don't have any evidence that Derek Chauvin factored in George Floyd's race as he did what he did."
Both points are important.
The fact that Dr. Baker couldn't say if George Floyd would have lived "but for" the actions of the officers speaks for itself. It's not clear how much they contributed to George Floyd's death. Chris Happy confirmed this in his reply to me. The law's the law, so I'll leave it to lawyers to argue whether the officers' actions were criminal.
Keith Ellison's comments about the lack of evidence that race factored into Derek Chauvin's actions obliterates the false narrative that a racist white cop killed George Floyd.
There have been too many instances of rioting spurred by false narratives of racist cops killing or injuring innocent black people in cities around the country (e.g. Ferguson, MO after Micheal Brown died, Baltimore after Freddie Gray died, Minneapolis after George Floyd died, Kenosha, WI after Jacob Blake was shot, Atlanta after Rayshard Brooks died).
Three separate prosecutors, two of whom were black (Eric Holder, Wesley Bell), investigated Michael Brown's death and decided not to pursue charges. Marilyn Mosby and her team lost all the court cases they pursued against the officers who were charged after Freddie Gray died. The officer who shot Jacob Blake was cleared and is back on the job. A special prosecutor decided not to pursue charges against the officers involved in the Rayshard Brooks case.
The economic and social costs associated with these false narratives are real and will have long-lasting consequences. Many leaders and many institutions performed badly during these incidents.
Thanks for your always great comments Clifton Roscoe.
I think it can be helpful (or maybe frustrating) to look at recent developments in comparable cases involving death by restraint from police and/or drugs:
The Elijah McClain case was much, much worse than George Floyd. The kid was walking home, when he was wrestled to the ground and pumped with ketamine. No crazy background, no good reason to stop him. Fines and jail time of much lesser proportions are currently being handed out in this case.
Then there is the Tony Timpa case, nearly identical to George Floyd (except white), and mentioned dozens of times on TGS, due to the lack of coverage. 7 years after his death, the family was seeking hundreds of millions of dollars, but jurors recently awarded his son 1 million, because most jurors were worried that the officers would have to pay out of pocket. In that case, no one lost their job or is going to jail.
The price to pay for an unintended death on an incredibly stressful & dangerous job is debatable. Unfortunately those ramifications seem to be driven by the locale, media & mobs.
I can't see why your expertise makes your brand of wishful thinking any better than anyone else's. You make no point, except to suggest there were multiple causes of death, and a single responsibility. How does that even make ordinary sense?
The idea being you take your victim as you find him, and if you are reckless, then the consequences are on you.
So the question is whether Chauvin was reckless under the facts and circumstances.
Unfortunately, a person with longer trial experience than Keith Ellison might have done a better job of establishing a better record not only for the trial, but for history.
I once asked a coroner about a relative’s definitive cause of death. The coroner’s response was that, while some cases have a clearly definable cause of death, in many cases, like that of my relative, there are multiple factors that contribute to death, and it’s often impossible to assign the specific contribution of each factor in death, all the while knowing that several factors were involved.
In the case of Mr. Floyd, he certainly was under stress, knowing the risk of jail time after several priors. He also mentioned his mother dying recently if I recall correctly. Stress is a real mortality risk, and the video cams indicate many minutes of stressful behavior and comments. Apparently Mr. Floyd already had a heart condition, certainly a risk factor for someone under stress. Mr. Floyd also had meth in his system and ingested 11mg of fentanyl. Maybe not enough to kill a big guy like that who is habituated to the drug (3 mg would kill a lot of people), but certainly another compounding risk factor. Now you add Mr. Chauvin & Co., who may have mis-executed an MPT restraint technique. Mr. Baker’s initial autopsy was inconclusive. I can’t speak to Ellison’s asphyxiation without a trace, but I would like to hear more about that.
Add it all up and you maybe get to negligent homicide or murder II. It’s not unknown in history for the mob outside to determine a courtroom verdict, and I can’t help but think it played a role in Chauvin’s conviction, and that there were, in all likelihood, a multiplicity of factors that contributed to Mr. Floyd’s death, many of which the deceased himself was responsible for.
Here's what I want to know: If MRT was not a policy in the police manual training, why was it removed this year? (1st link) Also, the manual actually said, "The maximal restraint technique 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 property if not properly restrained." Did Chauvin implement MRT in this manner? Was Floyd still combative and posing a danger? Not to my eyes. I would like to know what the training says about WHEN TO STOP MRT? Because from everything I learned while watching the documentary and listening to this conversation, it seems likely that many things contributed to Floyd's death, including being in a prone position (2nd link) and airway restriction as testified to by Dr. Tobin, and that's exactly what the original autopsy report stated. It reminds me of arguments about when to report Covid as the cause of death. If the person hadn't had pre-existing conditions, would they still have died from Covid? We'll never know. If Floyd were perfectly healthy and not on drugs, would he have died from MRT? We'll never know. Should Floyd have been honest and not resisted from the beginning? Of course, but that's not what addicts do, and they shouldn't have to die because of it unless they are threatening the life of others, which he did not appear to do, although I understand why officers get nervous when they don't put their hands where they're directed to. But Floyd was a human being, not a saint, but just the usual sinner, and not "excrement" as you referred to him previously, Glenn. Where is your Christian compassion? In the fight over who is "right" and who is "wrong," we should never lose sight of the humanity of both Floyd and the police, who have an incredibly difficult job with apparently inadequate training. We need to figure out MUCH better ways of handling resisting arrest, and unless we can expose the mistakes on ALL sides, that won't happen.
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/minneapolis-police-ban-controversial-restraint-tactics/89-5643f3a7-4302-4d7a-afb5-80bbc252fe4a
https://meridian.allenpress.com/international-surgery/article/100/2/292/175367/The-Prone-Position-During-Surgery-and-its
@sobshrink This is balanced. What is needed is the trial transcripts. IIRC, the judge wouldn't allow the photo from the training manual to be shown which looks almost identical to what Chauvin was doing. Balko's explanation that he did it too long, unweighted his toes, didn't follow advice to roll the patient that is part of the training may all be true; but, if the image of chauvin's knee on the 'neck', is where the trial turns it seems unavoidably prejudicial that this training image was excluded. Of course it can be contextualized by testimony of just the points Balko is making. And, as John points out, Balko wouldn't even bother to make those points if John, Glenn and Coleman had not taken this up.
I think we were lied to in testimony by minneapolis police adminsitrator at trial that this was no technique they recognized. I haven't read the rest of the transcript or seen how crossexamination may have impeached that representation; so, as to fair trial, I can't say, but I feel like that bordered on perjury.
i've now skimmed balko's autopsy stuff and there is no smoking gun there for either side on a "preponderance of the evidence" basis although it is pretty clear that the medical examiner changed his view along the way. Balko tries to explain that its common to just take the pathological evidence without context and that his earliest impressions were not informed by situational evidence. When adding knowledge of the incident that culinated in death, this explains the change. But I don't see that the context merits testifying beyond a reasonable doubt that Chavin was the "cause" amongst contributing factors. Maybe it is a close question, maybe the jury could reasonably decide as they did even outside the public pressure for conviction. But this public discourse needs input of prosecutors and/or defense attorney used to the "reasonable doubt" standard. Andrew McCarthy from National Review comes to mind or Orin Kerr or Randy Barnett from the Volokh conpspriacy. I would like to know how a trial attorney reacts to the charging decisions. Should Chauvin have been tried for murder? And outside the politicized context, was there reasonable doubt as to that charge?
I think Katyal, the state's lawyer on the appeals, says it all about the weakness of the case when he argued to the court that errors at trial were minor and irrelevant given that: "The evidence of Chauvin’s guilt was captured on video for the world to see."
https://apnews.com/article/chauvin-murder-appeals-court-6941a6074dcc310c85e4f3eab2be97eb
That is precisely not the case. If Katyal had said that the video depicted Chauvin applying police procedure but it was followed so poorly as to give rise to purposeful negligence that signaled intent, well you could hold that opinion, but it is hardly the res ipsa locatur Katyal makes it out to be, cf. Akhil Amar's discussion of the Supreme Court arguments regarding Trump's exclusion from the ballot in Colorado.
https://amaricasconstitution.podbean.com/e/what-the-oral-argument-should-have-said/
Amar believes Section 3 was properly applied by Colorado but he credits the argument of Trump's attorney who admits the weaknesses and nuance of argument rather than baldly maintaining some rhetorical point like "democracy is at stake". (Amar is a bit whiney about his amicus arguments having hit the cutting room floor, but my point is his respect at least for the candor of opposing counsel on weak points of their arguments rather than pretending there aren't any).
Glenn doth protest himself too much. I admire his skepticism that leads him to keep questioning. Perhaps his exteme pullback from first impressions is itself a similar overreaction. I say again, without glenn and john's reactions of the first instance, the overton window would be slammed shut on debating whether Chauvin got a fair trial, regardless of the fair conclusion of that debate. The narrative would have continued that Chauvin's knee on the neck was as far from accepted police procedure as you could get. Balko only responds because the documentary has now got traction. The points he makes are important but he thought more important to keep quiet about this, perhaps because his own priors don't want there to be any public doubt about the verdict so even true criticisms of the trial should not be acknowledged if possible. You made it impossible for him not to acknowledge this qeustions. John is Right! I wondered from the outset if the documentary had weaknesses and sobeit, let them be exposed as well as its merits.
I would no more make Chauvin a hero or victim than Floyd. The denouement is surely not just. Nobody, including Glenn, said Floyd deserved to die–but that can't be undone. (I put down Glenn's less generous characterizations of Floyd to a distaste not so much for floyd personally but for the beatifying of someone who is the caricature of black failure to thrive). Given the multiplicity of plausible contributory factors to Floyd's death I'm glad to see the murder verdict as to Chauvin reconsidered–whether or not reversed in the end in my own mind or the public's.
Life is messy, and so is death sometimes. We humans don't like it when the answers are not black and white (pun intended). When Chauvin's lawyer appealed, he claimed numerous errors by the judge, but none of them were based on evidence allowed or disallowed, but simply a biased jury. (link #1) Chauvin himself is filing an appeal of his federal charge, without the help of an attorney, based on "new evidence" that Floyd's death was caused by an undiagnosed medical condition. (link #2) It remains to be seen whether he uses that argument to appeal the state murder charge, and whether or not he gets a new trial based on it. But Chauvin himself does not appear to be making any appeals based on inaccurate representations of his actions, or witnesses lying, or the judge refusing to allow the picture from the manual. So I don't know how much weight to give any of that. I just hope we learn from the experience, because there are far better ways to handle such situations. As for Glenn referring to Floyd as "excrement," sorry, but whether it was personal or not, I don't think it can be excused, especially for one who claims to be a Christian. Glenn should understand from personal history that overcoming addiction isn't easy. Perhaps he thinks that because he did it, everybody should be able to do it. But Glenn had the resources and support to help him do so. Did Floyd? I'm going to go out on a limb and say I wonder if Glenn "doth protesting too much" is a manifestation of an unconscious recognition of "There but for the grace of God go I."
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rejects-ex-cop-chauvins-appeal-george-floyd-murder-2023-11-20/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/derek-chauvin-makes-another-bid-to-overturn-federal-conviction-in-murder-of-george-floyd
i hate laws, but it should be illegal to write stories about legal cases without links to the organic documents. if the grounds stated in these and similar articles are the sole grounds of appeals, I feel like something was left on the cutting room floor ( the federal appeal on some new medical theory seems pretty tenuous). OTOH I would like to see the actual filings because I have read news reports on cases that I followed and read filings and those news reports are often inaccurate or incomplete.
Transcripts are really hard to come by (I don't know why, you'd think if the trial were fair it would be in the public interest to have transcripts readily available.) I have found rudimentary transcripts for the trial itself–copy this and paste it in the google search bar : allinurl: "derek-chauvin-trial-death-george-floyd" site:https://www.c-span.org/ – although not the jury selection (which might shed some light on the question of whether the trial should have been held elsewhere) from the closed captioning at C-Span. These don't come up in order and are not well organized or annotated so you have to guess and click to find who testfied on what days and often the identity of the speaker is not listed and you have to infer it by who was sworn in and the nature of the speech as to whether it is question from the prosecutor, defense attorney or the witness.
Little wonder that John and Glenn are at the mercy of those who have spent time reviewing the trial and offer selective portions, whether that be Keith Elison or the documentary filmmakers. (I've seen this happen to Glenn before and he concedes for the sake of argument much that could be quibbled when he does not have direct knowledge. I have no problem with his sympathy for the plight of palestine and share a portion of it; but he let a jewish sympathizer with the palestinian cause completely mischaracterize the judicial reform issue. Even american jews more sympathetic to israel and zionism in the wake of October 7th are uninformed about the relative political theory of israeli governance and the American constitutional system. To call the proposed judicial reform in Israel a threat to democracy is the exact opposite of the truth but, as with trump, people simply cannot take up the issue without a full measure of Bibi Derangement Syndrome. I just want to wind the tape back and have Glenn ask that smug man how folks in America would feel if Clarence Thomas and other Supreme Court Justices got to choose their own replacements and how that comports with "democracy". But Glenn can't know everything. And like Rogan, he is a bit imprintable in these areas where he lacks knowledge although he does try to revisit when it comes to his attention. There is noone on the planet I respect more than Glenn Loury which doesn't mean he ain't got clay feet like the rest of us.
That said, I wasn't trying to dislodge your distaste for that portion of glenn's rhetoric that employed a highminded word for shit. The criticism is fairly offered. just reflecting on my own take since I respect Glenn wondering if these rhetorical flourishes are indeed excesses, or simply honesty if distasteful. Should they undermine even in some small way my belief in Glenn's good character and good will?
i think Glenn still identifies as Christian if not as reborn and that certainly invokes the whole cast the first stone thing. . . OK. But Glenn doesn't cast the first stone really in these remarks. He reveals a visceral tendency to react negatively to the remedial canonization of bad behavior to the extent that successful blacks who ask for personal responsibility to enter the equation for lifting other blacks are nothing more than house slaves for white supremacy, i.e., in context, those who say maybe George Floyd was high on fentynal and had health complications exacerbated by his lifestyle but if Chauvin hadn't restrained him he wouldn't have died do not explain why similar logic cannot be used to say: even if addicted an pathologically unable to foreswear drug use, if he hadn't passed a $20 counterfeit bill he wouldn't have died, if he hadn't resisted he wouldn't have died. They simply say, you can't say that. That's blaming the victim. But, as out of step as it sounds, was George Floyd really a victim and if so of what.
That doesn't mean Chauvin shouldn't bear responsibilty for his contribution, but comparative negligence as in tort I think is at work here. That is where prosecutorial discretion and charging decisions should enter in and it sure seems to me like the more high profile a case the more political those decisions become and that leads me to be skeptical of the fairness of the trial. That does not lead me to conclude, as of yet, that it was unfair. But as with covid vaccines, it is time for trials (sorry) to see if they actually work, if they actually are vaccines, and not to given them emergency approval and insulation from liablity. Ditto with Chauvin's trial and kudos to anyone who asks for the transcripts and filings to be made publicly available in a sensible format.
These documents aren't necessarily being hidden, but I can onlly conclude they are deliberately obfuscated, not only by the government but by the press who claim the sole right to interpret them for us. Sorry, I'll make my own assessment if its all the same to them.
I'm put in memory of my good friend Philip Eil, a Columbia Journalism grad of a predictably progressive outlook who worked on our painting crew in Providence a block from Glenn's offices while he was in school. He spent a year following the trial of a purported 'pill mill' doctor who had been at medical school with his father. Not an advertisement although a reminder to myself to buy the book and read it:
https://www.amazon.com/Prescription-Pain-Once-Promising-Doctor-Became/dp/1586423827/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=philip+eil&qid=1708183758&sr=8-1
The government was so concerned about anyone reporting seriously on their prosecution that they named him as a witness (because he had interviewed the defendant) to get him barred from the courtroom and then spent years blocking him from getting transcripts and exhibits from the trial. In the end, I don't think he was particularly hostile to the notion of the opioid epidemic as an american tragedy and that this central figure was amongst the many culpable–albeit this raises the question if throwing the book at one player to deter others is what criminal justice is supposed to be about. But displaying any human interest in how we arrived at that juncture worries the crap out of the government. As Mel Brooks said: we've got to protect our phoney baloney jobs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTmfwklFM-M
with apologies for, dare I say, gallows humor. In the end I'm more like Glenn. I say what comes to mind, not without thinking about it but without censoring myself based on the reigning zeitgeist.
Brian, I must admit your first and last sentences made me chuckle out loud (in a good way). "I hate laws, but it should be illegal...." And then, after an extremely lengthy post, "I say what comes to mind...." Yes, you certainly do! Since you always seem respectful, I have no problem with that, although at times, I must admit I had a little trouble tracking your racing thoughts. But nevertheless, interesting! I only have a couple things to say, as I'm not the prolific writer you are! I want to clarify that I do respect Glenn, even if I don't always agree with him. He's obviously brilliant, and he's a little bit like the "Thinking Man's Joe Rogan." Meaning, he covers topics outside his area of expertise, and not surprisingly, that's when he's at his weakest as far as challenging guest's assertions. But nobody can be an expert on everything, and when he has sufficient background knowledge on a topic, he asks really good questions. One might argue he should do a little more homework, especially on topics he knows will be controversial, but I don't really fault him on that. He does seem the type of personality that can get quite excitable and maybe say things that are hyperbolic. My feedback was more for him than anybody, in the hopes he will treat all humans humanely. We all err when we're upset, so all he would need to do is say "sorry." He has never done that, so I suspect he still has negative feelings about Floyd. I just hope he recognizes the man's humanity, that's all. On a more practical note, I'm less interested in getting at the "truth" of the case, partly because I'm not sure if that's even possible, and if it is, I think that's the job of Chauvin's lawyers. My particular interest as a psychologist who is especially interested in violence prevention is to get all police officers trained in de-escalation techniques which have demonstrated efficacy in reducing the need for physical restraints.
My father was a judge and my sister is a lawyer, so I guess that's why I went the opposite route! (The legal system is by design an adversarial system, and my nature is the opposite). But since you seem very interested in getting your hands on a trial transcript, I included a couple of links below that might be helpful. The first link contains lots of links to trial documents, but it does not appear to include the trial transcripts. The second link is to the form you can fill out to request trial transcripts, but it's not free, so that's probably why they are not available online. The third link is to an article about accessing court transcripts. Since you were not a party to the case, I don't know if you'll be able to get them or not. I know from my experience attempting to access case law documents applying to special education law that legal documents are NOT CHEAP. You can do the homework and report back to us! :)
https://mncourts.gov/StateofMinnesotavDerekChauvin
https://www.mncourts.gov/Find-Courts/Tenth-Judicial-District/Transcript-Requests.aspx
https://www.notta.ai/en/blog/how-to-get-court-transcripts-for-free
thanks for your comments on my humor. it is indeed funny that i write paragraphs and then need to observe that I say what I feel. Of course I was referring to my particular language regarding the gallows in the context of an incident that is imbued with racial perplexity. but your reflection on my larger subconscious self awareness and oxymoronic habit is much appreciated.
your background is interesting. de-escalation is a skill whether in policing or social interaction :-). As context, would you say over the course of the video that there were attempts to de-esecalate or at least that the police were not quick to escalate or . . . ?
That was the impression I was left with from the bodycam. Although perhaps they ignored cues or opportunities that are glaring to you but I completely miss.
I included the wrong link below about what some use-of-force experts said about the situation. Not everybody agrees, but given how dangerous it is, I agree with what these folks are saying. In hospital wards with agitated and aggressive patients, use of restraints is still sadly common, but there are ways of working with such folks that helps them to calm down and the use of restraints can be greatly reduced. I posted a link about that before, so not including it again. I have to run now and I probably won't have time to respond soon and have probably said all I have to say on this topic, unless you have a question that is psychological in nature, and then I'll do my best! :)
https://apnews.com/article/arrests-minneapolis-death-of-george-floyd-racial-injustice-da5e8060b2c023558e91564b0d82c75d
First, I think you should consider volunteering as Chauvin's attorney! You seem to be doing more than they are at the moment, from what I can gather. Since SCOTUS refused to hear the case when the only argument was jury bias, I don't know if that means he can no longer appeal on other grounds or not, but you could try! As for de-escalation and this case, It's been a couple months or so since I saw the film, and I'd have to go back to know for sure, but I don't think I witnessed any time in which Floyd was combative, nor a danger to himself or others, so I don't think the use of restraints was warranted. He did resist getting in the back of the vehicle because he said he was claustrophobic, but did eventually get in but was still highly agitated. During this time period, I don't believe the police used de-escalation in an effort to convince him to get in the back seat. Actually, in this case, I don't think de-escalation is the exact correct word, as Floyd was not being truly combative. His resistance was based on what appeared to be genuine fear. He might have been lying about being claustrophobic, but his distress at the thought of going to jail seemed genuine and he appeared to be crying. A well trained person could have used active listening to acknowledge his fears and help him be less fearful. Would it have worked? I can't say for sure. We'll never know since they went pretty much straight to restraints to get him to comply. But there was no reason to hurry the situation, and one tactic in de-escalation is to slow things down. The first link below suggests this situation was not appropriate for use of force, and the second link makes the important point that use of force should never be continued after the person is no longer resisting, and certainly not after he passes out, but Chauvin did both. So is that enough for 2nd degree murder? I'm no legal expert but I would say I would be more inclined to say negligent homicide. You're welcome for my comments on your humor, and thanks for making me chuckle! Now go help Mr. Chauvin if you can and want to! :)
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/05/us/george-floyd-video-angle/index.html
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/04/01/chauvin-trial-george-floyd
This seems to be grounds for appeal.
Long term drug use would degrade cardio respiratory function.
I think spiral is a closet transvestite. Lol!!!!
I'm merely a reactionary against white racism. Is the victim responsible for the behavior of the rapist?
Racism is a wealth and power-base competitive relationship between Blacks and non-Blacks. The sole purpose of racism is to support and ensure that the White majority and it's ethnic subgroups continue to dominate and use Blacks as a means to produce wealth and power. Centuries of Black enslavement and Jim Crow semi-slavery resulted in the majority of society becoming 99-foot giants and Blacks one-foot midgets. This massive inequality in wealth and resources made Blacks non-competitive and totally dependent upon Whites for the necessities of life. True racism exists only when one group holds a disproportionate share of the wealth and power over another group then uses those resources to marginalize, exploit, and subordinate the weaker group. In America, it is Whites who use wealth and power to marginalize, exploit, and subordinate Blacks. Whites can deny Blacks employment, educational opportunities, business resources, a place to live or the right to vote. Therefore, according to this definition, Black people cannot be racist. No group of Blacks has the power or exclusive control of resources to the degree that they can educationally, politically, economically and socially exploit and marginalize the White race. Blacks can only react to racism and try to alter the conditions that racism creates. Despite the realities, there are numerous conservative Blacks who act as apologists for White racism and confuse the issue. A conservative Black radio talk show host in Los Angeles, for example, charges that Blacks are racist as Whites. His desire for white approval as well as his ignorance of history impedes him from understanding that White racism and Black prejudice are not the same thing. Blacks have a reason for their feelings about Whites based on how they have been treated by Whites. The White race, on the other hand, has never been marginalized by the Black race. Racism reinforces the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow semi-slavery. Blacks have been unable to escape from those legacies because the majority society acknowledges the operation of racism in the distant past, but minimizes its present significance.
Dr. Claude Anderson
"Powernomics"
They needed a sacrifice for the savages, and Chauvin was it.
File this under black privilege.
Hey asshole (aka: retard), I worked in a very Machvellian environment for 34 years. Guys like you weren't too much of a challenge; very dorky & boring as shit. Lol!
Let's be honest. The only time you are referred to as Mr. monty, is when someone is encouraging you to take your meds, or when the guys in the white suits with butterfly nets are chasing you.
A good old fashion ass whooping would be the best therapy for you in order to retify your chronic anti-social behavior of white racism. Lol!!!!
Meantime, your stupid ass assumed I was a guard ("baby sitter"). I have three white maids, a white gardener, and a one white handyman. They call me bossman, but I'm trying to retrain them to address me as Mr. MONTY. You're such a clown! I used to work with clowns like you. I miss sending clowns like you to administrative disciplinary hearings for corrective action. Lol!!!!
Being Ad hominem, racist? I used to evaluate, interview, and recommend probation or prison for convicted felons, including dirty cops, following referral by a variety of county jurisdictions in California for diagnostic evaluations. I have also given court testimony in death penalty phase cases based on reports I wrote. What's your expertise? Shuck 'n' jive white racism?
It’s commentary is humorous and confirms the stereotype of the modern Conservative.
Glenn Loury and John McWhorter going out of their way of being super black apologists is funny to me. The psychology behind it is very intriguing--- the negro meritorious manumission. Lol!
Rob Smith is a Black Gay Republican who was surrounded by Republican white supremacists who used racial and homophobic slurs to attack him. He still smiles and calls himself a proud Republican.
https://www.newsweek.com/black-gay-republican-heckled-slurs-maga-event-1853595
I think some activity is simply to “own the “Libs”. If you are a Conservative and have no effective policies, you practice diversion. Smith can offer no policies, so he offers himself up as a proud Black man who stands proudly for (nonexistent) principle's.
It diverts attention from a group that has a man who wants to be a dictator and references Hitler as their Presidential candidate. No need to pay attention to charging a woman who suffered a miscarriage with a crime and putting the life of a woman carrying a nonviable fetus at risk.
It really is entertaining to watch them lecture about the superior morals of Conservatives. It is also amusing that movies like 2000 Mules feed Conservative delusions. Expect more PT Barnum nonsense to come.
One day, they will put forth a health care plan. (Just kidding)
3) Elements of 2nd Degree Murder varies state by state. Refer to Minnesota's Penal Codes.
Issue
Rule
Application
Conclusion
2) Wikipedia: Second-degree murder in Minnesota is split into two types: intentional and unintentional. Intentional second-degree murder constitutes the intentional murder of a person without premeditation. Unintentional second-degree murder is defined as a murder in which the prosecution is not required to prove intent,[a] but only that the defendant committed a felony causing another person's death.[7] Unintentional second-degree murder is Minnesota's felony murder rule; unlike most other states that have the felony murder rule, Minnesota punishes felony murder as second-degree murder rather than first-degree. Minnesota's rule is unique in the sense that it does not require an independent felony from the elements of murder, so a felony such as assault causing someone's death can result in a defendant being charged with second-degree murder.
2The maximum sentence for second-degree murder is 40 years in prison, and the recommended sentencing guidelines suggest 12+1⁄2 years for a first-time offender. There is no mandatory minimum, so hypothetically someone could serve no prison time for second-degree murder.[8]
Murderer Derek Chauvin, a white former police officer that murdered George Floyd, an unarmed black man, was convicted of second-degree murder under the state's felony murder rule in a highly publicized trial in 2021, with the underlying felony being assault. Chauvin received a sentence of 22+1⁄2 years in prison.[9]
1) It's a done deal!!!!
Wikipedia: Chauvin appealed his conviction to the Minnesota Court of Appeals in mid 2022, asserting that errors in the trial court denied him a fair trial. The case was argued to a three-judge panel on January 18, 2023. Chauvin's attorneys sought a new trial outside the Hennepin County Government Center, which had been surrounded by security fencing and National Guard troops in preparation for potential civil unrest. His attorneys argued that the pre-trial publicity made a fair trial impossible and that the only remedy would be to hold new trial at a different venue.[171][172] These arguments were rejected by a three-judge panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals in an opinion released on April 17, 2023.[173][174] In affirming the conviction the judges said that Chauvin's use of force on Floyd was excessive and unlawful, and that the criminal trial was conducted fairly.[175] Chauvin then sought review by the Minnesota Supreme Court. In an order issued on July 19, 2023, the court denied Chauvin's petition for further review—which means that the Court of Appeals' ruling is final.[176][177] After exhausting his appeals in state court, Chauvin's attorneys filed a petition asking the Supreme Court of the United States to review the case,[176][178] but the petition to review the case was rejected on November 20, 2023.[179]
From all that I have learned throughout my life, the word 'murder' has a specific meaning, and intent must be proven in order to convict of this charge. I stated in previous comments that I have followed this case extensively, because, just as Drs. Loury & McWhorter, I want to know what the truth is. I cannot see any evidence that this was a murder. There is no proof of intent on the part of anyone involved to bring about the death of this tragic man, George Floyd. I have gotten into the habit of downloading documents and videos that I fear will be 'disappeared' when inconvenient facts start to come out. One such document is the autopsy report of Dr. Baker, which I just re-read to make sure that I was not misremembering anything. On page nine, under the heading 'Respiratory System', I read this: "The right and left lungs weigh 1085 and 1015 g, respectively. The external surfaces are pink only on the most anterior aspects, and deep red-purple in all other areas. The pulmonary parenchyma is diffusely congested and edematous."
Two things stand out. 1) the difference in weight of the two lungs and 2) the description of the lungs being 'diffusely congested and edematous'. This indicates a lot of fluid in the lungs. Could be the residual effects of Covid-19, but is also, from what I read on the CDC website a common result of fentanyl use. I looked for information about whether constriction of the lungs, such as being place on the pavement as was George Floyd can cause fluid to build up but could not find anything that indicated such. Mr. Floyd was telling officers that he could not breathe almost from the very beginning of this encounter, even by the convenience store, and the 911 recording of the clerk who made the call, plus video surveillance footage from inside the store indicate a man already very intoxicated, though the source of the intoxication could not be proven just from that. At any rate, this information leads me to believe that George Floyd was in serious medical trouble from the get-go, and again, I see no reason to believe that any of the officers involved intended for this man to die while in their custody. The convictions of murder, I believe is a gross miscarriage of justice.
The offense Derek Chauvin was specifically convicted of was this: "second-degree unintentional felony murder"
A person can be convicted of murder without having intended to commit murder in most if not all states, though how states define homicide crimes varies a lot from one state to the next.
This is how murder is defined by dictionary.com:
noun
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder, ormurder one ), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder, ormurder two ).
We could go round and round on this. You’re correct that neither my opinion nor yours matters. I see nothing in the instructions that would lead ME to vote for conviction, but since I was not a member of that jury, that is a moot point. What is sad, however, is that nothing has been solved by incarcerating Derek Chauvin, and the questions surrounding this case has only inflamed tensions.
What matters is not how dictionary.com describes murder, but rather how the offense Chauvin was charged with and convicted of was defined in the Minnesota code.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19
If I correctly understand the Minnesota Criminal Code’s description of “second-degree unintentional murder” found at this link, this charge and conviction is unwarranted.
Here is how the jury was instructed as to the charge.
https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/JuryInstructions04192021.pdf
Obviously, the jury who heard the case disagreed.
OK, thanks for all the links. I think Victoria is right and all the folks talking about the lack of an intentionality requirement for second degree murder are glossing over such a requirement as underlying the charge catalogued in the jury instructions. to find him guilty of 2nd degree murder, they have to find Chauvin guilty of assault and per the court instructions to the jury:
"“Assault” is the INTENTIONAL infliction of bodily harm upon another or the attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another. The intentional infliction of bodily harm requires proof that the Defendant intentionally applied unlawful force to another person without that person’s consent and that this act resulted in bodily harm." (emphasis added)
It sure seems to me, even from the pro-floyd narrative, that there was not evidence that chauvin intended to harm him. he may not have intended not to harm him but allowed perception of risk to other officers and crowd control to override training and advice at the time to desist, and there seems little doubt to me that adrenalin from the struggles to that point could have contributed, but regardless of my skills or lack thereof as armchair endocrinologist, I can see negligence, I can see disregard (but that in a way is the opposite of intent), I can't see intent. If someone has reference to the evidence presented and trial transcripts focusing on evidence that chauvin did intend to harm him and did intend to act unlawfully in restraining the suspect, i await it (and we can only speculate what intelluctual process or outside influence made it seem otherwise to the jury or whether they really considered that aspect. I would have focused an appeal on that as a matter of law unless there is convincing evidence and precedent that "intent" can somehow have been inferred. We're into the world of monday morning quarterbacking here. If someone has some reason I should change my mind on tuesday, let me know.
Only because people don’t understand what ‘murder’ is. Murder by definition (or at least the definition I grew up with) is the intentional killing of another. Another case of language manipulation. Unintentional killing is typically termed manslaughter, and a conviction would rarely entail the type of sentence Chauvin received.
Right about manslaughter. Although each state's wording might differ slightly, nolo.com defines it as "...an unlawful killing that doesn't involve malice aforethought," and it can be voluntary (provoked "heat of passion") or involuntary (unprovoked but nevertheless involves negligent/reckless behavior). The question for a jury to decide would be whether Chauvin was acting in a reckless and negligent manner. As I listed in my comment above, it appears that the original autopsy was correct in that multiple factors contributed to Floyd's death, INCLUDING prone position and airway restriction. Would he have died if he hadn't been subject to MRT, or if the MRT had not lasted for so long? We will never know for sure. But the original policy in the police manual (now removed) was stated this way: ""The maximal restraint technique 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." Was it implemented this way? Even if he was trying to kick them once in handcuffs on the ground, all they needed to do was step away from him to avoid harm. The fact he said "I can't breathe" even when not touched would suggest to an experienced officer that the guy might be on drugs, all the more reason why MRT would pose a danger if applied too long. Chauvin appeared to continue MRT for quite some time after Floyd was quiet and still. So WHEN SHOULD MRT BE STOPPED? If I were Queen for a Day, all officers would be trained in effective deescalation techniques (below), or at least, trained to handcuff and if necessary anklecuff a resisting person in a non-prone position and stay away until a trained mental health person gets there. They did not do any of that, but rather they made his anxiety even worse which increased resistance. Does that make them negligent? Probably not if they didn't have the training, but it's still difficult for me to believe with all their experience with people on drugs, they didn't recognize how risky their actions were, and/or when to stop the MRT. I just hope we learn from this experience but I fear we won't.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3298202/
I have a couple of comments. For the most part I agree with your assessment, but I do think that there are some aspects of this arrest that contributed to the amount of time the restraint was ongoing. The first and most crucial is the length of time it took EMT's to arrive. The initial call for medical assistance was made as Floyd was being led away from the convenience store to the squad car, and the second as the situation was escalating. So what took so dang long? could it have been the growing crowd? I understand that the emergency vehicle initially went to the wrong location as well (I believe the responded to Cup Foods, where the first call was made, but I can't verify that). As to training, I was amazed to read that Officers Lane and Keung were riding as partners that day, despite the fact that neither man had been on the job for even one week. I always that that new guys rode with veterans for while, so what was up with that? At any rate, I still believe that there was a confluence of extenuating circumstances that led to this fatal outcome, none deserving of a murder conviction for anyone, because I believe and always will that murder require premeditation.
I agree with you and McWhorter that this did not appear to be intentional. (I assume that's what you meant, since it wouldn't need to be premeditated to be murder, as second degree murder does not require premeditation). I think Chauvin should get a new trial with the evidence of MRT in the MPD manual that the judge excluded, but Chauvin may still need to explain why he thought it was necessary and also what took him so long to stop. I also agree that there was a confluence of mistakes made and unless there's a truly objective report of all of them, on both sides, very little will be learned from this, which is a shame. As to why EMT's took so long to arrive, that doesn't seem to be explained very well, other than going to the wrong place. That happened to my husband's uncle who had a heart attack, and he died. In real life, as we all know, sometimes sh*t happens. That's why it's important to adapt to the situation. The point I was trying to make was that, if they are going to use MRT, given the known risks involved, there should be very explicit rules about when to start (which there were), and ALSO when to stop doing it, as well as cautions about doing it with people who appear to be on drugs. Better yet, get trained in deescalation to use with agitated, noncompliant folks who are not armed. Then again, what do I know? I'm just a psychologist who has worked with people with emotional and behavioral disabilities and adolescent offenders. Yikes! I just realized you responded on Christmas! I'm not the only one crazy enough to do this on Christmas!! 🤣 Merry Christmas! 🎄
@sobshrink "I agree with you and McWhorter that this did not appear to be intentional."
I guess without my logorrhea, this is my problem with the prosecution/persecution of chauvin. In theory it is his lawyers' problem as you've said, but I think to have honest public discourse about the justice done in the trial I personally need to turn over the stones his defense and appeals may not have.
as you point out, different states have different statutory articulations of "murder". i've pointed out elsewhere, but it is appropos of this thread with victoria that minnesota does provide for 2nd degree murder charges where the killing is NOT intentional. But those crowing about how well they know Minnesota law ignore that the underlying felony has intentionality requirment (as this unintentional second degree murder charge is simliar to felony murder in other states the killing had to result from another felony).
in chauvin's case the underlying charged crime is assault in which chauvin either had to intend bodily harm, or intend to use unlawful force. For the life of me I don't see how you get that. Negligence, easy to see. Use of unlawful force, closer but not out of the question. Intention to act unlawfully, I don't see it.
That is why I think second degree murder is an overcharge and the the appeal should have been that the elements of the crime could not be proved from evidence presented, even if the jury accepted or elided that showing. I could quite well be wrong; but if I were, I would think folks would be quoting the attorney for the state answering just this objection and not pontificating about how the picture of chauvin with his knee on floyds 'neck' is all the evidence the appeals court needs to uphold the convictions.
I agree with all of what you have said. This entire situation seems to be tragedy heaped on tragedy. I hope you and yours had a very Merry Christmas as well. I was up early getting ready for the meal prep and had a little time to read and respond. I thank you for your insights. I find it encouraging when people who see things from a different angle than I can explain in a calm and reasoned fashion. It's always easy to be an armchair QB. Your comments have made me really think.
Double standards. Hamas gets to play victim after Oct 7 invasion/massacre/kidnap/rape. But, Israel is expected to use surgical precision to not harm a Palestinian civilian. Even though “four” is the total number of unarmed Black Americans killed by police in 2020, (including Floyd) in the planet’s 3rd largest country; not good enough- police are expected to take 20/20 hindsight and jump into a Time Machine to achieve a perfect outcome during an emergency fight.
Because Floyd refused to get into the police car, cops were trying to keep him in place outside the car. Unfortunate that Floyd died, but cops doing their job- are not to blame. Lesson is supposed to be “Civilian must cooperate to minimize injury.”
I have identified 7 steps, where Minneapolis City-Gov acted with anti-cop hostility.
Step 1: Police Chief and Mayor failed to set example of expecting civilian cooperation. Floyd’s idea of negotiating a non-arrest option should be characterized as delusional thinking- a mental health condition.
Step 2: Minneapolis officials and SF and elsewhere allowed reckless use of term “murder” before the trial had begun.
Step 3: Minneapolis city-Gov gives police station to protesters. (Portland and Seattle copy-cat.)
Step 4: Minneapolis instructs police to stand-down while civilians loot and burn random private property for hours, days, weeks. (Other cities copy-cat).
Step 5: Trial excludes information and evidence that would allow jurors to understand more about what actually happened.
Step 6: Per AG, “Homicide is death caused by another.” Independent of Floyd’s medical status and whether he would have also died if no cops present; police need assurance that use of assigned work tools will not place them in “homicide” category if incidental death during an emergency arrest-fight whereas a hypothetical by-stander civilian (untrained) who jumps in vigilante-style to detain Floyd could end up in “homicide” category. Also, a MD doesn’t go to prison if patient dies in hospital OR.
Step 7: The court claimed that Officer Chauvin intended to murder Floyd.
Anti-Police City/Gov in Many Cities:
After June 01, 2020; SF Police Chief placed a very large hanging vertical BLM banner with anti-police wording in lobby at headquarters.
In 2023; LA Police Chief told newspapers that “Back The Blue” FB group is “right-wing extremism”, untrue. Although many Americans have never been to Minneapolis, we can relate to steps 1-7, because a similar trajectory occurred in many cities.
Are you smoking 'crack cocaine' or severely suffering from the meritorious manumission syndrome? Lol!
This has been a great conversation. One question: Why didn't you have it when it mattered?
There was a virtual media black-out on anything favoring Chauvin. I know a witch-hunt when I see one. After all, there's been a helluva lot of them lately. Speak up when it matters!!!!
You don't know the difference between your ass and mouth. 2nd Degree Murder can be intentional or unintentional-- it varies from state to state. Study the Minnesota penal codes. Issue, rule, application, and conclusion. IRAC your argument!
OK, and how does that relate to anything I said? It doesn't. Of anything I said, what have you disproved? That's right, nothing.
Please go back to Twitter or FB or wherever it is you came from, where dumbass comments are more accepted.
Even if “I can’t breathe” may have become a trope after the Eric Garner death, it’s certainly the case that a) Garner couldn’t breathe and b) George Floyd couldn’t breathe. In other words, wariness of possible manipulation in this respect may theoretically have conditioned the cops disregard here, but neither Garner nor Floyd were lying or being in sincere on this (as it were terminal) point.
Yes. Given Mr. Floyd’s multiple underlying conditions, and recent Covid bout, the most logical piece in the case was - he was having trouble breathing.
Bs, he didn’t die of Covid or underlying conditions, but from a Fetanyl overdose/strangulation. It was an illogical segment in the discussion—whether it’s a trope or not, he in fact couldn’t breathe and it killed him.
I include drugs in “underlying conditions.” I work in the cardiopulmonary space, thus, cardiopulmonary distress did not surprise me. Like a domino effect.
Well you’re being illogical: an immediate cause of death (here an OD combined with blunt force trauma) is not an underlying or background condition (though poor health may have made him more susceptible). If anything I would assume that regular drug use (which you might describe as a background or baseline condition) should have actually increased his tolerance and made him *less* susceptible to an OD, though I admit I know very little about fetanyl beyond its extraordinary toxicity.
Long term drug use degrades cardio respiratory function.
He didn’t die of a heart attack or lung cancer, but of an overdose and blunt force trauma. Long term factors, while not wholly irrelevant, are entirely inadequate in accounting for the known causes (plural) of death.
With all due respect, the conclusions of Mr. McWorter, a linguist, and Mr. Loury, an economist, are lay opinions and the discussion of the cause of death and manner of death in George Floyd's case reflect their lack of training in medicine and physiology, and specifically in forensic pathology. As a late career forensic pathologist I have seen, investigated, and certified several deaths similar to that of Mr. Floyd's. As Sea Sentry mentions, these deaths are multifactorial, i.e., there is not a single, clear cut, diagnosis that explains the death. It is a combination of factors including acute drug intoxication, the underlying health problems Mr. Floyd had (chronic heart disease) *and* the actions of the police officers.
In this type of case it is useful to apply the "if not for" test. If not for the actions of the police officer's would George Floyd have died that day? Almost certainly not. George Floyd had gotten high many times and he had heart disease that was present many years. What was different on the day he died? His encounter with the police and the actions they took when they put him in custody.
Now, I am analysing this case with respect to the cause and manner of death. I am not making a judgement about what the legal ramifications of the police actions should be. I am not a lawyer. But to say that Chauvin and the other officers had no culpability in George Floyd's death is absolutely wishful thinking.
I have just one little issue with your comment. And that's the last sentence: "But to say that Chauvin and the other officers had no culpability in George Floyd's death is absolutely wishful thinking." If I'm driving my car and a person runs out in front of me and I kill him because I did not have time to stop, that is a homicide. But am I culpable? No. If a person attacks me with a knife and I defend myself by shooting him, am I subject to arrest and trial for murder? When you get down to it, that depends on the city where it happened, the prosecutors, and the race of me and the other person. None of that is supposed to matter, but all of it does.
We are speculating about whether Floyd would have lived if he had not been arrested. But he WAS arrested. The police were called to the scene because of Floyd's actions. Floyd resisted arrest and had to be physically restrained. In the end, even as medical professionals and the rest of us debate whether the knee on the neck made any difference, Chauvin is held accountable for not being enough of a medical professional to know that the knee on the neck might be fatal.
Justice is supposed to be blind. But justice knew that Floyd was black and Chauvin was white, and that made the difference. If it had been the other way around, there would have been no trial and no riots.
I think I should clarify. I used the term culpable to indicate that their actions did in fact contribute to Floyd's death. That is not to say that they are "liable" (legally responsible for the death). That was and is a matter for courts to decide.
I get the distinction. But I do not trust the courts.
If it was a black man as the defendant, you wouldn't give a fuck. Keep it real! 💯 I was part of the white man's criminal justice system game for 34 years. I witnessed a lot of fucked up shit perpetuated by whites against blacks.
OK, got it. You're a racist, and proud of it.
Am I a racist because I like Rocky Road ice cream more than than vanilla or chocolate? Different flavors have been under my expensive silk sheets until they go back on code. Lol!!!!
The FBI interviewed Dr. Andrew Baker, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy, and asked questions to get at something similar to the "if not for" test you mentioned:
https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12949-TT/Exhibit112112020.pdf
Page 2 of the document says Dr. Baker did not know if George Floyd would have lived "but for" the actions of the officers. Dr. Baker said that George Floyd's underlying heart disease, intoxicants, and the stress of his encounter with the officers were more than he could tolerate. He also said that if George Floyd had been found dead in his bed with the same level of fentanyl in his system his death would have been ruled a fentanyl fatality (See bottom of page 6).
Here an excerpt from notes taken by a prosecutor during a conversation with Dr. Baker (AB) about the autopsy:
https://www.mncourts.gov/getattachment/Media/StateofMinnesotavTouThao/Container-Documents/Content-Documents/Exhibit-4.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US
AB walked us down the list of substances for which NMS labs tested. Those values he
highlighted were:
4ANPP - a precursor and metabolite of fentanyl present in Mr. Floyd’s blood.
Methamphetamine — 19 ng/ML which he described as “very near the low end” and “a
stimulant hard on the heart.”
Fentanyl — 11. He said, “that’s pretty high.” This level of fentanyl can cause pulmonary
edema. Mr. Floyd’s lungs were 2-3x their normal weight at autopsy. That is a fatal level
of fentanyl under normal circumstances.
Norfentanyl — 5.6 a metabolite of fentanyl.
Mr. Floyd’s urine was tested for 4 things and are redundant, given the blood analysis. AB said,
“the only thing that matters is what’s in his blood.”
AB said that if Mr. Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no
other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death.
The last sentence is similar to what Dr. Baker said to the FBI. To be fair, others who didn't examine George Floyd's body said the level of fentanyl in his blood wasn't high enough to kill him:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/16/fact-check-fentanyl-george-floyd-not-enough-to-cause-death/7239448002/
Honest question: Is it normal for prosecutors to bring in outside experts if the opinion of the medical examiner doesn't support their case?
Here's a link to the full autopsy:
https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/medical-examiner/floyd-autopsy-6-3-20.pdf
All the above suggests to a layman like me that there's no way to know with certainty who or what killed George Floyd. I'd love to know what you conclude from these documents given your background as a forensic pathologist.
I know Andy Baker and he is a damn good forensic pathologist.
I've read the autopsy report and it is solid.
Of course I can't speak to why he answered the way he did. But in the end he certified the death as a combination of drugs (in part II, contributory causes of death), heart disease (also in part II), and, "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression."
He certified the manner of death (the circumstances surrounding the death) as Homicide.
So in the end he is basically saying the same thing as I suggest above. Again, I can't speak to the exact reasoning Andy used (and I have not spoken to him about this case), but if he did not think that the police actions were a significant factor in George Floyd's death he would not have invoked the "subdual, restraint and neck compression" in the cause of death and he certainly would not have certified the manner as homicide.
And, by the way, saying that the death is a combination of factors is not saying that we do not know what caused his death. Of course it is impossible to say that it was 20% drugs, 35% heart disease, and 45% the police struggle. But, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty (which is the standard used in criminal cases), we can say it was a combination of these three factors.
Thanks for your response! I'm still stuck at the "if not for" test you mentioned in your original post. How culpable are the officers if Dr. Baker couldn't say that George Floyd would have lived "but for" their actions and the interaction turned physical because George Floyd resisted their attempts to get him into the cruiser?
There have been instances where officers clearly misbehaved (e.g., Laquan McDonald's death in Chicago, Walter Scott's death in North Charleston, SC, Tyre Nichols death in Memphis, etc.) and deserved to be severely punished. There seems to be a lot of nuance in this case, especially when it comes to how closely the officers followed their training.
There are many 'what ifs' to entertain. What if, for example, the convenience store clerk never called 911 and the very intoxicate George Floyd drove off and cause a fatal accident? What if he simply continued to ingest the drugs provided him by his dealer, who was a passenger in the vehicle, and died elsewhere of overdose. Those questions really don't matter. The main gist of this entire argument is not to lay blame on George Floyd, though I do believe his is also culpable in his demise. The crux of this discussion is to get to the truth of whether or not the three officers who have been convicted of murder for his death were rightly convicted. My belief is that a murder conviction must include proof that there was 'malice aforethought'. Whether their actions played a role, no matter how small or large, the big question that must be answered is this: were their actions motivated by an intent to kill this man simply because he was black? Or were there actions simply motivated by a desire to restrain a clearly intoxicated and agitated man? I believe that the the truth to be the latter.
My focus has been to gain as much of an understanding of the truth as possible.
Dr. Baker told the FBI that he couldn't say George Floyd would have lived "but for" the actions of the officers.
Keith Ellison said in a 60 Minutes interview that he and his team found no evidence that race played a role in Derek Chauvin's actions. Here's a link to an article about the interview and a quote:
https://www.insider.com/no-evidence-to-charge-derek-chauvin-with-hate-crime-prosecutor-2021-4
When interviewer Scott Pelley asked Ellison whether the murder was a hate crime, the prosecutor replied: "I wouldn't call it that because hate crimes are crimes where there's an explicit motive and of bias. We don't have any evidence that Derek Chauvin factored in George Floyd's race as he did what he did."
Both points are important.
The fact that Dr. Baker couldn't say if George Floyd would have lived "but for" the actions of the officers speaks for itself. It's not clear how much they contributed to George Floyd's death. Chris Happy confirmed this in his reply to me. The law's the law, so I'll leave it to lawyers to argue whether the officers' actions were criminal.
Keith Ellison's comments about the lack of evidence that race factored into Derek Chauvin's actions obliterates the false narrative that a racist white cop killed George Floyd.
There have been too many instances of rioting spurred by false narratives of racist cops killing or injuring innocent black people in cities around the country (e.g. Ferguson, MO after Micheal Brown died, Baltimore after Freddie Gray died, Minneapolis after George Floyd died, Kenosha, WI after Jacob Blake was shot, Atlanta after Rayshard Brooks died).
Three separate prosecutors, two of whom were black (Eric Holder, Wesley Bell), investigated Michael Brown's death and decided not to pursue charges. Marilyn Mosby and her team lost all the court cases they pursued against the officers who were charged after Freddie Gray died. The officer who shot Jacob Blake was cleared and is back on the job. A special prosecutor decided not to pursue charges against the officers involved in the Rayshard Brooks case.
The economic and social costs associated with these false narratives are real and will have long-lasting consequences. Many leaders and many institutions performed badly during these incidents.
Thanks for your always great comments Clifton Roscoe.
I think it can be helpful (or maybe frustrating) to look at recent developments in comparable cases involving death by restraint from police and/or drugs:
The Elijah McClain case was much, much worse than George Floyd. The kid was walking home, when he was wrestled to the ground and pumped with ketamine. No crazy background, no good reason to stop him. Fines and jail time of much lesser proportions are currently being handed out in this case.
Then there is the Tony Timpa case, nearly identical to George Floyd (except white), and mentioned dozens of times on TGS, due to the lack of coverage. 7 years after his death, the family was seeking hundreds of millions of dollars, but jurors recently awarded his son 1 million, because most jurors were worried that the officers would have to pay out of pocket. In that case, no one lost their job or is going to jail.
https://reason.com/2023/09/27/tony-timpa-wrongful-death-trial-ends-with-2-out-of-3-cops-getting-qualified-immunity
The price to pay for an unintended death on an incredibly stressful & dangerous job is debatable. Unfortunately those ramifications seem to be driven by the locale, media & mobs.
I can't see why your expertise makes your brand of wishful thinking any better than anyone else's. You make no point, except to suggest there were multiple causes of death, and a single responsibility. How does that even make ordinary sense?
Does the “thin-skull” doctrine operate here?
The idea being you take your victim as you find him, and if you are reckless, then the consequences are on you.
So the question is whether Chauvin was reckless under the facts and circumstances.
Unfortunately, a person with longer trial experience than Keith Ellison might have done a better job of establishing a better record not only for the trial, but for history.
I once asked a coroner about a relative’s definitive cause of death. The coroner’s response was that, while some cases have a clearly definable cause of death, in many cases, like that of my relative, there are multiple factors that contribute to death, and it’s often impossible to assign the specific contribution of each factor in death, all the while knowing that several factors were involved.
In the case of Mr. Floyd, he certainly was under stress, knowing the risk of jail time after several priors. He also mentioned his mother dying recently if I recall correctly. Stress is a real mortality risk, and the video cams indicate many minutes of stressful behavior and comments. Apparently Mr. Floyd already had a heart condition, certainly a risk factor for someone under stress. Mr. Floyd also had meth in his system and ingested 11mg of fentanyl. Maybe not enough to kill a big guy like that who is habituated to the drug (3 mg would kill a lot of people), but certainly another compounding risk factor. Now you add Mr. Chauvin & Co., who may have mis-executed an MPT restraint technique. Mr. Baker’s initial autopsy was inconclusive. I can’t speak to Ellison’s asphyxiation without a trace, but I would like to hear more about that.
Add it all up and you maybe get to negligent homicide or murder II. It’s not unknown in history for the mob outside to determine a courtroom verdict, and I can’t help but think it played a role in Chauvin’s conviction, and that there were, in all likelihood, a multiplicity of factors that contributed to Mr. Floyd’s death, many of which the deceased himself was responsible for.