Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 5 2020 04:52pm)

So any time bystanders start screaming at police that they want to assist someone in custody and the police refuse to let them, they take on criminal liability?
Surmounting immunity is a high hurdle to that. They were conducting a lawful arrest with probable cause. Saying that they are now personally responsible for the whims of random passerbys based on their word alone is not a case a reasonable prosecutor would want to make. What kind of deference to anarchy is required for cops to be held liable for securing a crime scene instead of intentionally letting the public interference?

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Jun 5 2020 02:53am)

May 26th was not 3 days ago. I'll assume you're a Ben Shapiro fan, and utilizing his "LITERALLY 5 seconds ago!" version of so-called comedy.

Your edit is meaningless. You've attempted to cast doubt regarding the actions of the officers. There's no doubt. We know what they did. We don't, to the best of my knowledge, have a complete picture, as I haven't seen shoulder cam footage. But the footage doesn't matter.

The problem in this case is that a person was tasked to enter a police vehicle, and restrained by the neck from doing so. They were restrained until they lost consciousness and ultimately died. This is inexcusable. Period. It doesn't go beyond that. There's clear wrongdoing.

I don't defend dirty cops because riots are bad also. Two things can be true. Riots are fucking terrible, and rioters are criminal who deserve the book every bit as much as dirty cops. Be consistent, or stop pretending. Pick one. What are your principles?

Quote (Plaguefear @ Jun 5 2020 02:54am)

HE WENT UNCONSCIOUS, this is not "random passers by saying he needed help" this is ANY IMBECILE could tell he needed help.

Quote (balrog66 @ Jun 4 2020 11:58pm)

https://i.imgur.com/WknEZ7m.mp4

Looks like it'd be better if the National Guard just took over crowd control in general.

They're the only ones coming into action to help the man here.

Quote (Handcuffs @ Jun 5 2020 09:07am)

The videos that are coming out from protests around the country are really traumatic. I saw another one today where an officer intentionally what appeared to be a tear gas canister INTO THE FACE OF A PROTESTER who appeared to be about 10 feet away.

Quote (Ghot @ Jun 5 2020 12:05am)

Was he tasked to enter the vehicle by the officer with the knee on his neck? That's the question.

Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 5 2020 01:22am)

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.

Quote (Ghot @ Jun 5 2020 05:05pm)

Was he tasked to enter the vehicle by the officer with the knee on his neck? That's the question.





ME, I couldn't tell "beyond the shadow of a doubt" when he went from being unconscious to being dead. You must have special "banks of medical equipment" eyes.



Again, for the late arrivals... I'm not saying the cop was guilty or innocent. I'm saying we only KNOW four facts. Maybe we should let the court decide. Hmm?

Quote (balrog66 @ Jun 5 2020 12:08am)

These cops are so stuck in a us vs them mentality it's insane.

Quote (Handcuffs @ Jun 5 2020 05:10pm)

It's truly maddening. Like literally what the fuck?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acsSE5AZXsQ