No... the police officer can not be ASSUMED to be a doctor, just because YOU think the officer is guilty. From what I've read... these officers were trained to hold the perps down with a knee. So, they can't find the officer guilty of "unlawful brutality", if they were trained to do this. It isn't unlawful in this officers case. Maybe the trainers... sure.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jun 4 2020 11:58pm

Completely irrelevant. 3 officers restraining the suspect, with 1 officer kneeling on the suspect's neck can be proven, by the DEPARTMENT POLICIES to be a violation of department procedure, and by DOCTORS, to be enough to set off a panic attack severe enough to cause death.

Just because YOU think there's no case to be made is meaningless. There's no "lynching" of Chauvin here. There's evidence enough of wrongdoing. The only question is, which specific wrongdoing is going to be charged, and how well will both the defense and prosecution be prepared to put on a convincing show for the jury.

Same as any other case. This isn't special. Half the world burning over it? That's kind of different. Like, why are there riots in Africa over this, with black people burning the homes of black people in nations that have less than 00.01% white populations? I mean, I see some serious issues here, but it's not with my ability to reason.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Jun 4 2020 11:58pm

There's also the detail of WHO should be charged. The officer, the dept., the trainers.
Again, I'm not implying innocence or guilt by the officer. I'm just attempting to explain that BOTH sides will have a case in this trial... IF they can find a fair and impartial jury ofc.


/e Btw, G. Floyd was also a convicted criminal... numerable times. Again... I'm just trying to point out that this will not be an open and shut case.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jun 5 2020 12:03am

ghot has less of a chance of finding somebody that agrees with no wrongdoing by the cops, than catching the corona from his basement.

At least Ghot reads what others type before responding. :/


/e For the 3rd time now. I'm NOT claiming the cops were innocent, or guilty... I'm just saying that this won't be an open and shut case. Despite the desires of the mob.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jun 5 2020 12:06am

No, that's not the standard. They have to prove causation not contribution, be it from criminal negligence / recklessness or a direct criminal misdemeanor (as thor could point out, if its from a felony it would be felony murder). While murder has the elements of mens reas / actus reas / causation / harm and their concurrence, manslaughter only has the elements of actus reas / causation / harm and their concurrence.

You have to prove the chain of causation in a manslaughter trial just the same as murder trial, there's no reduced threshold. Per R v White/Smith/Kimsey the standard is a "would it occur at that time but for the action", that it must be an "operating and substantial cause" and that it "cannot be a slight or trifling cause."

In this case, the prosecution cannot really show any of the three prongs. Would George Floyd have died that night from a heart attack but for officer Chauvin restraining him? I'd say that's not just possible, but probable or likely. Given the lethal dose of fentanyl, extreme end-stage heart disease and the fact he was already showing symptoms of a heart attack prior to being restrained, not only would the prosecution have a hard time showing Floyd would not have died otherwise, but the defense could make a strong argument in the affirmative. it would jump past "force of god" and into "foreseeable and expected". On the second prong, "operating and substantial" is a test that explicitly rejects the standard of just "contributing", and demands that the causation be substantially significant. Its not enough to say that his neck being compressed could theoretically contribute to the death, you have to say it was a large part of the cause. And the autopsy report makes that a hard case because there's zero physical life threatening injuries, no markings or blood under the skin or tissue damage that is expected in any kind of asphyxia or strangulation. And yet there's overwhelming evidence of fentanyl and blocked arteries causing the heart attack. The third and final prong (actually 2.5 since its an extension of R v Smith), 'not slight or trifling', is the bare minimum and easiest test and would only rule out very minor injuries or force. Well, if that knee wasn't applying any significant force and left no markings whatsoever, there's a good argument that it constituted a slight or trifling link. Redundant with calling it not substantial, of course.



http://www.minneapolismn.gov/police/policy/mpdpolicy_5-300_5-300



The closest thing to saying the neck restraint wasn't authorized would be to quibble over whether Floyd was actively resisting or passively resisting, since it explicitly authorizes it in the former and prohibits it in the latter.
If you want to get into that;



I'd need to see bodycam footage and hear them

This post was edited by Goomshill on Jun 5 2020 12:27am

slut is the right word

BOTH coroners ruled it murder.

I agree with everything you've stated here 100%.

I do not agree with the implication that a jury will be biased in any meaningful way. 90% of the case is always the reminder "beyond any shadow of a doubt". Instill doubt, get an acquittal. The same exact evidence we already have will make any reasonable juror, no matter what rock they've hidden under, sympathetic to the prosecution. That doesn't mean they'll win the case.

I'm not rooting for Chauvin to burn, or to walk. I'm rooting for the system to get a chance before rioters burn it down. I think arguments made along the lines of, "Arresting a person who has clearly appeared to commit a crime because they happen to be a cop is a bad thing" is bullshit. Police brutality (remove racial questions for my post) is abhorrent, and needs to be treated the same as any other crime. Until it is, there will continue to be issues.

You forget I watched the video. Chauvin used neck restraint while commanding Floyd to enter the police vehicle.

You can't argue your way out of the use of neck restraint violating department policy, because you can't deny the evidence of the video.