I predict justified riots…regardless of the process or outcome.
1 Like
You’re saying this person was killed by cops on purpose to get a settlement out of the city? What a terrible thing to say.
Good thing he didn’t say that. What a terrible way to think. Pitiable really.
1 Like
Here’s the quote. It’s indefensible, but you knew that so go ahead and try and explain it away.
“It’s all part of the BLM plan:
More Riots looting arson robbery—> higher settlement”
From that report:
Below is the autopsy report on George Floyd, performed the morning after he died May 25 in the custody of Minneapolis police.
Floyd’s family commissioned a private autopsy
Both autopsies called Floyd’s death a homicide. That performed by the Hennepin County medical examiner cites “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.” The private autopsy states the cause of death was “mechanical asphyxia.”
Yes, but in legal terms that is a very broad statement.
Homicide is a legal term for any killing of a human being by another human being. Homicide itself is not necessarily a crime—for instance, a justifiable killing of a suspect by the police or a killing in self-defense. Murder and manslaughter fall under the category of unlawful homicides.
2 Likes
Manslaughter would require causation…that would seem very difficult to prove in a fair hearing, unless some new evidence is introduced.
I’m not a lawyer, or a doctor, but it seems to me kneeling on someone’s neck for so long might cause significant strain on the body. It might even cause someone to have difficulty breathing, which I recall fits both the video and the autopsy. Also, the other cops could have helped subdue the suspect instead of keeping back the crowd that was watching a man die; that is, because they didn’t assist in subduing the suspect, seems the argument for accessory could be made.
What was the cause for this incompetence? Probably some combination of factors including poor selection of officers and low quality training, but the city has nipped that one in the bud by throwing money at the family (and, hopefully, that root cause).
I agree with the posters who said this is going to be a quite a trial. I’m looking forward to hearing more from people who are lawyers and doctors.
I’m a lawyer. Most of the Minnesota homicide statutes require intent, and all require causation. Intent can be imputed here (and isn’t necessary for Murder 3), but the causation is what is going to be the hold up here. It seems unlikely that the criminal standard of proof will be met when there is an obvious alternative reasonable explanation for the cause of death…one might even say a more plausible one.
4 Likes
Just perusing the wikipedia for this, lots of interesting tidbits:
So, I can’t help but wonder if the prosecution doesn’t dig up some prior relationship. That would be very interesting new evidence. Maybe they won’t, remains to be seen.
Otherwise, still seems pretty clear to me: if you kneel on someone’s neck until they die, the kneeling on the neck plausibly has something to do with the death. The only way to remove that from the equation, is to not kneel on someone’s neck while they say they can’t breathe and ask for their mother. Despite this back and forth, which I said I wouldn’t do, you really haven’t changed my mind at all.
Personally, I hope he goes to jail; perhaps the rookie cops deserve only a slap on the wrist (I didn’t know they were so green until skimming wikipedia just now).
1 Like
This probably all needs to be split from the original thread.
However, there was a clear failure of duty of care by the police officers, regardless of the quantity of Fentanyl Floyd had ingested. Having said that, if the police officer training was to place their knee on a suspect’s head/neck then the trial is going to be really complicated.
What I saw happen was horrific and I’d like to see Chauvin punished, but that’s emotional and meaningless in a court of law.
2 Likes
That’s pretty much it in a nutshell.
I agree. And if you take enough fentanyl to kill a horse, the taking of the fentanyl plausibly has something to do with the death.
The problem here is that the prosecution has to demonstrate their cause beyond a reasonable doubt, and I don’t see how that is possible for murder or homicide with the evidence I’ve seen because there is an alternative explanation which is not only reasonable, but arguably likely.
3 Likes
I said that here
and here
It might be the deal breaker, though.
Nate Broady is always interesting.
That is one issue, but that goes to intent and/or negligence. For the murder and homicide charges, I think causation is where the real trial will be; and for that it doesn’t matter whether the restraint was taught or allowed.
Can you give us an example of what causation means in a case like this?
From Justia.com: “Proximate cause means “legal cause,” or one that the law recognizes as the primary cause of the injury. It may not be the first event that set in motion a sequence of events that led to an injury, and it may not be the very last event before the injury occurs. Instead, it is an action that produced foreseeable consequences without intervention from anyone else. In other words, the plaintiff will have to show that the injuries were the natural and direct consequence of the proximate cause, without which the injuries would not have occurred.”
The above is talking about a civil trial. In a criminal trial, the principle is the same, but you need to demonstrate it beyond a reasonable doubt, which typically means that there is no other reasonable explanation. Here there are a couple of other reasonable explanations.
In a civil trial, the evidence would need to just be more likely than not true. That is still a difficult bar to reach in this case as there are other factors which were very likely to have caused the death, especially when you aggregate them. But an unsympathetic defendant and a shockingly horrifying video would mean a much higher chance of success than normal.
Oof…90 minutes. I don’t suppose you remember where the discussion around causation is? You’ve shared this guy before and I’ve found him interesting, but I probably won’t be investing 90 minutes for the next two days. I listened to the first couple of minutes and the last few, and tried some random spots, but the focus was usually on the reasonableness of the restraint, which I don’t think will be the defense’s focus (they will certainly argue it vigorously, but if it comes to that argument to win, they’ve failed to do their jobs and Chauvin will likely be guilty.).
1 Like
I’m about halfway through on 1.25 speed 
It’s mostly focusing on general principles of police use of force cases and MPD policies including manuals so far and now on video of the arrest. Still a ways to go. I’ll finish it later or tomorrow and say more.