# Case against Minneapolis officers appears to be unraveling



## daftandbarmy

Case against Minneapolis officers appears to be unraveling before it gets to trial since facts matter

'This is a game changer,' says legal analyst when viewing Minneapolis Police training manual

Attorneys for former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin are requesting the dismissal of murder and manslaughter charges against him for the death of George Floyd. They’re using the police training manual as justification, Townhall reported.

According to the Minneapolis Police Department training manual, officers are shown how to subdue violent or resisting suspects by placing their knee on the neck, something Law Officer previously reported.

Minneapolis leaders as well as the state attorney general were also aware of a plethora of additional exonerating details discussed in the video as well as listed toward the end of this article. It will be a legal battle royale watching it play out in the courtroom.

Analysts and attorneys at Court TV explain, according to Townhall. It’s worth a full watch:

“From coast-to-coast everyone, absolutely outraged, especially by that fact, the knee on the neck. Well, guess what folks, take a look at what you’re looking at right here. That is from the police training manual,” attorney and host Vinnie Politan said. “Where this all comes from is from a motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss that was filed by Derek Chauvin’s attorneys saying that the knee on the neck is part of his training as a Minneapolis police officer. And there we see it in the manual on the left and on the right is what we all have seen in the video of Officer Chauvin. So, is this a game-changer?”

https://www.lawofficer.com/case-against-minneapolis-officers-appears-to-be-unraveling-before-it-gets-to-trial-since-facts-matter/


----------



## Haggis

Bullcrap.

The use of force is authorized when executed in accordance with training and in a manner which is deemed reasonable given the totality of the situation. The real question is if this was an approved technique, was it applied correctly and only for the period of time required to gain and maintain control of the subject?


----------



## Kirkhill

Haggis said:
			
		

> Bullcrap.
> 
> The use of force is authorized when executed in accordance with training and in a manner which is deemed reasonable given the totality of the situation. The real question is if this was an approved technique, was it applied correctly and only for the period of time required to gain and maintain control of the subject?



Haggis, I am going to appeal to your expertise on this.  "the period of time required to gain* and maintain* control of the subject?"  Defining what is necessary to maintain control might seem to me to be the debatable point here. I am aware of patients in hospitals, under sedation and unconscious being restrained by being shackled to their beds with handcuffs.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Haggis, I am going to appeal to your expertise on this.  "the period of time required to gain* and maintain* control of the subject?"  Defining what is necessary to maintain control might seem to me to be the debatable point here. I am aware of patients in hospitals, under sedation and unconscious being restrained by being shackled to their beds with handcuffs.



Yeah, I think what Haggis might be getting at is it all depends on how it stands up in court. 

And it might be a short stand...


----------



## Donald H

Would Derek Chauvin be eligible for a presidential pardon?

Even if not it's most likely that the outcome of the election for president will be the deciding factor.


----------



## Haggis

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Haggis, I am going to appeal to your expertise on this.  "the period of time required to gain* and maintain* control of the subject?"  Defining what is necessary to maintain control might seem to me to be the debatable point here. I am aware of patients in hospitals, under sedation and unconscious being restrained by being shackled to their beds with handcuffs.



In most cases it takes more force to gain control of a subject than it does to maintain control.

It's been a while since I watched the videos of this incident but I recall Mr. Floyd was already in cuffs and face down while Chauvin maintained pressure on his neck.  The videos also show Chauvin with his hands in his pockets which would indicate that Floyd was not being actively resistant because it took Chauvin no effort to maintain his balance, something not easy to do for a single officer on a large struggling subject.

Ultimately a grand jury will decide if the force used, even if authorized was excessive by being too forceful or too prolonged.



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> Would Derek Chauvin be eligible for a presidential pardon?



You are seriously jumping the gun! He has not even been tried yet.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Donald H said:
			
		

> Would Derek Chauvin be eligible for a presidential pardon?



No, Chauvin has been charged with violating Minnesota statutes.  Presidential pardon power is limited to federal offenses.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Personally, I think it's pretty poor lawyering on the part of the police officer's lawyer.

The technique may be in the training manual, but (1) it is not in the section about lethal force, is it? And, (2) The manual doesn't override the law on homicide, does it?

Here there has been a death and no judge will throw out the charges just because the so called technique is in the police training manual. The judge will say: We'll let the jury decide if the conduct of this officer, in light of all the facts that will come out at trial, including his training, meet the criteria of homicide or not.

But the lawyer has now given the prosecutor a reason to check potential members of the jury for knowledge of the training manual paired with a capacity to decide in an unbiased way on the basis of the facts that will be presented at trial - or just about - instead of pulling it out as evidence and surprise the hell out of everyone at trial with a sort of "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" type of point.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The technique may be in the training manual, but (1) it is not in the section about lethal force, is it? And, (2) The manual doesn't override the law on homicide, does it?



No, but it's also well taught that even things that are "less then lethal' can have lethal consequences.  We call those "unintended consequences'.
I'm sure almost no bar fighters ever meant to kill the other guy, but.....


----------



## Donald H

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> No, Chauvin has been charged with violating Minnesota statutes.  Presidential pardon power is limited to federal offenses.



Thanks blackadder! That's what I thought was true. So he'll have to be saved by some other political ploy. I always look at incidences like this in the US as being a motivator for Canada's cops who are a little overzealous of using lethal force. So far the Dziekański case is the one that stands out the most to me. Having said that, I have a very high opinioin of our mounties as compared to other police forces, even those in Canada.


----------



## Haggis

Donald H said:
			
		

> I always look at incidences like this in the US as being a motivator for Canada's cops who are a little overzealous of using lethal force.



How many Canadian cops are overzealous in the use of force in your opinion?  You seem to infer that Canadian cops are on par with our American counterparts both in their use of force and the method in which those incidents are dealt with by the governments.
What do you base that on?  

Before you reply, here's a few websites I suggest you visit for a closer look at how use of force incidents are investigated across Canada:

Ontario Special Investigation Unit
Independent Investigations Office of British Columbia
Alberta Serious Incident Response Team
Nova Scotia Serios Incident Response Team
and if you want to practice your French
Québec Bureau des Enquetes Independant




			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> So far the Dziekański case is the one that stands out the most to me. Having said that, *I have a very high opinion of our Mounties *as compared to other police forces, even those in Canada.



I would suggest, based on the highlighted part of your quote, that you actually know very little about this incident and, more importantly, it's aftermath and how the RCMP treated their own members.  A little research may shake your faith in the Queen's Cowboys.


----------



## Donald H

Haggis said:
			
		

> You seem to infer that Canadian cops are on par with our American counterparts both in their use of force and the method in which those incidents are dealt with by the governments.



No, I'm inferring that Canada's mounties have a much better record. 



> What do you base that on?



Several things but let's just deal with the American cops' record of killing black people. The  Dziekański case stood out at the time because it wasn't the norm.

Before you reply, here's a few websites I suggest you visit for a closer look at how use of force incidents are investigated across Canada:



> I would suggest, based on the highlighted part of your quote, that you actually know very little about this incident and, more importantly, it's aftermath and how the RCMP treated their own members.  A little research may shake your faith in the Queen's Cowboys.



You're welcome to suggest whatever you like but the method of investigating isn't nearly as important as seeing incidents such as the killing of George Floyd and some of the others. Do you know of some comparible incidents perped by our Mounties?

 :cheers:


----------



## Good2Golf

Donald H said:
			
		

> I always look at incidences like this in the US as being a motivator for Canada's cops who are a little overzealous of using lethal force. So far the Dziekański case is the one that stands out the most to me. Having said that, I have a very high opinioin of our mounties as compared to other police forces, even those in Canada.



Do you proofread before you post?

The highlighted portion of your earlier statement is precisely why Haggis and others took issue with you saying that Canadian cops are a little overzealous using lethal force.  

Your follow on qualification of Mounties implies that it is provincial and municipal police forces in Canada that are overzealous using lethal force.


----------



## Donald H

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Do you proofread before you post?
> 
> The highlighted portion of your earlier statement is precisely why Haggis and others took issue with you saying that Canadian cops are a little overzealous using lethal force.
> 
> Your follow on qualification of Mounties implies that it is provincial and municipal police forces in Canada that are overzealous using lethal force.



With all due respects, you didn't highlight that quote properly to indicate what it means.

So it means that those incidents in the US serve as a motivator for some overzealous Canadian cops.

It's not saying that Canada's cops are a little overzealous. I'm saying that the US practice could serve as a motivation for Canada's cops to be a little overzealous. But I can see how the misunderstanding occurred. I greatly fear that the poisoned police relationship with their citizens in the US could lead Canadian cops to copy that mess. I also fear that the US penal system, the most flawed  system in all the world's first world countries, could become a model for Canada under a Conservative government in which punishment is preferred over rehabilitation. 

 :cheers:


----------



## Kat Stevens

Donald H said:
			
		

> With all due respects, you didn't highlight that quote properly to indicate what it means.
> 
> So it means that those incidents in the US serve as a motivator for some overzealous Canadian cops.
> 
> It's not saying that Canada's cops are a little overzealous. I'm saying that the US practice could serve as a motivation for Canada's cops to be a little overzealous. But I can see how the misunderstanding occurred. I greatly fear that the poisoned police relationship with their citizens in the US could lead Canadian cops to copy that mess. I also fear that the US penal system, the most flawed  system in all the world's first world countries, could become a model for Canada under a Conservative government in which punishment is preferred over rehabilitation.
> 
> :cheers:



You really have a low opinion of Canadians, don't you?


----------



## Good2Golf

Donald H said:
			
		

> With all due respects, you didn't highlight that quote properly to indicate what it means.
> 
> So it means that those incidents in the US serve as a motivator for some overzealous Canadian cops.
> 
> It's not saying that Canada's cops are a little overzealous. I'm saying that the US practice could serve as a motivation for Canada's cops to be a little overzealous. But I can see how the misunderstanding occurred. I greatly fear that the poisoned police relationship with their citizens in the US could lead Canadian cops to copy that mess. I also fear that the US penal system, the most flawed  system in all the world's first world countries, could become a model for Canada under a Conservative government in which punishment is preferred over rehabilitation.
> 
> :cheers:



With all due respects in return, you precisely said Canadian cops who are a little overzealous...here:



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> I always look at incidences like this in the US as being a motivator for Canada's cops *who are a little overzealous* of using lethal force.



This is not the same as you attempted to correct immediately above...”could serve as a motivation for Canada's cops to be a little overzealous...”

The onus is on the communicator to ensure their message is clear, not the communicatee to not misunderstand what they said.  If you had used the potentiality phrasing the first time, many of us would likely not have taken issue with a grammatical statement that some Canadian cops were overzealous with the use of force. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Haggis

Donald H said:
			
		

> *So it means that those incidents in the US serve as a motivator for some overzealous Canadian cops.
> *
> It's not saying that Canada's cops are a little overzealous.* I'm saying that the US practice could serve as a motivation for Canada's cops to be a little overzealous*.



Again, twice, you infer that police misconduct in the US has led/will lead to Canadian cops behaving in a similar manner.  Do you have any idea what type of use of force training Canadian police undergo?  It's designed with officer and public safety at the forefront and de-escalation as the goal.



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> I greatly fear that the poisoned police relationship with their citizens in the US could lead Canadian cops to copy that mess.



The only way I can see that happening is if our "woke" Liberal leaders continue to allow the discussion to be led, influenced and dominated by those who want to stoke the fires of police mistrust for their own social agendas.

Our law enforcement agencies are very professional, well led and very well trained.  Could they be better trained?  Of course....everyone could.  Police, firefighters, paramedics, social workers etc..  But where will that law enforcement training money come from in the climate of "defund the police"?

.


----------



## brihard

Donald H said:
			
		

> Thanks blackadder! That's what I thought was true. So he'll have to be saved by some other political ploy. I always look at incidences like this in the US as being a motivator for Canada's cops who are a little overzealous of using lethal force. So far the Dziekański case is the one that stands out the most to me. Having said that, I have a very high opinioin of our mounties as compared to other police forces, even those in Canada.



IT's worth noting that the Dziekanski incident caused a pretty immediate and widespread change in how tasers are employed. The threshold for their use increased, and the precautions to be taken after any multiple or high-risk deployment increased. Note that the members did not face any criminal liability for use of force. The resulting criminal proceedings  came about on grounds of perjury. It's worth noting that there's an ongoing OPP criminal increstigation into potential obstruction of justice by senior RCMP in this. They may have obstructed proper disclosure of evidence that would have been relevant to the defense of those officers.

I'm not suggesting the situation on the ground was well handled, but I am putting it out there that there were very serious problems with what happened to the officers afterwards. Also note that it resulted in immediate and substantial reforms to police use of force nation wide. It's weird that you cite Dziekanski in the same breath as lethal force. He died due to medical complications, absolutely, but the taser is not a lethal device. Any deaths contemporary with taser use pretty invariably come back as being linked to serious underlying medical events happening in the subject.

You described situations in the US as "being a motivator for Canada's cops who are a little overzealous of using lethal force". I'm going to be blunt; you're out to lunch on that. The ituation is very different up here, and Canadian police tend to face considerably more regulation and oversight than most US cops. It's rare for instances touted as 'excessive force' up here to stand up to scrutiny once the facts are actually known. I'm not saying it never happens, but it's rare. Even more so if your criteria is deadly force. I think you have some confirmation bias at play here. You should either back your claims with examples, or perhaps step back from them.


----------



## Donald H

Brihard said:
			
		

> You described situations in the US as "being a motivator for Canada's cops who are a little overzealous of using lethal force".



Yes, for some cops who are a little overzealous. And not saying that all cops or the majority of cops are such.



> The ituation is very different up here, and Canadian police tend to face considerably more regulation and oversight than most US cops.



I couldn't agree more!



> It's rare for instances touted as 'excessive force' up here to stand up to scrutiny once the facts are actually known. I'm not saying it never happens, but it's rare. Even more so if your criteria is deadly force.



Absolutely! Our Mounties are very highly rated against all other police forces that come to mind. 



> I think you have some confirmation bias at play here. You should either back your claims with examples, or perhaps step back from them.



I'll stand behind any claim I've made but I can't allow people to misquote  me. Please do challenge my claims but don't do so on the basis of your political convictions as opposed to mine.


----------



## brihard

Donald H said:
			
		

> I'll stand behind any claim I've made but I can't allow people to misquote  me. Please do challenge my claims but don't do so on the basis of your political convictions as opposed to mine.



I quoted you directly. You claim that Canadian police are being 'motivated' to act in an overzealous manner in deadly force incidents because of things happening in the US. I can only be so tactful in asking what the hell you're going on about. How are the actions of American police motivating some proportion of Canadian police to be 'overzealous', or to use deadly force when it's not appropriate? You made the claim, the onus is on you to back it. A claim like that ought to be backed. You cited only Dziekanski, which was a long time ago and a very questionable example at best.

On a separate note, making assumptions about my political beliefs isn't likely to carry you very far in this.


----------



## Haggis

Donald H said:
			
		

> Yes, for some cops who are a little overzealous. And not saying that all cops or the majority of cops are such.



Given what I pointed out earlier about the aims of use of force training, when a subject's behavior escalates and the officer responds, how and when would you perceive the response to be  disproportionate? Who is at fault? Who decides that?


----------



## Donald H

Haggis said:
			
		

> Given what I pointed out earlier about the aims of use of force training, when a subject's behavior escalates and the officer responds, how and when would you perceive the response to be  disproportionate? Who is at fault? Who decides that?



In actual fact Haggis, we all decide. But we citizens of Canada may decide differently from how Americans decide. For instance, for the unarmed black man who was shot in the back 7 times, I'm deciding that was excessive use of lethal force. And I'm not unaware of the fact that my opinion holds no more water than anybody's opinion.

So I'm saying, the official opinion that will inevitably find that cop not guilty of any crime, is wrong. Their justice system is all fuddle duddled up.

You see Haggis, that's the political fight we fight. One side believes that America has been slaughtering black people for many years, based on the whims of cops. While the other side believes that all the black people had it coming.


----------



## brihard

Donald H said:
			
		

> In actual fact Haggis, we all decide. But we citizens of Canada may decide differently from how Americans decide. For instance, for the unarmed black man who was shot in the back 7 times, I'm deciding that was excessive use of lethal force. And I'm not unaware of the fact that my opinion holds no more water than anybody's opinion.
> 
> So I'm saying, the official opinion that will inevitably find that cop not guilty of any crime, is wrong. Their justice system is all fuddle duddled up.
> 
> You see Haggis, that's the political fight we fight. One side believes that America has been slaughtering black people for many years, based on the whims of cops. While the other side believes that all the black people had it coming.



In identical circumstances it's highly likely that our justice system would also not convict police officers who did the same thing. A suspect who is wanted for sexual assault and breach of conditions, has already been subjected to arrest, has physically fought police, has been tasered without success, who is armed with a knife, and who goes to and reaches into a car can very easily hit the threshold for an officer perceiving a threat of death or grievous bodily harm. Police aren't expected to allow someone to access a weapon before stopping them, and a suspect's prior actions can absolutely inform their assessment of risk. You might be interested to read R v. Pompeo. http://canlii.ca/t/grs3x In this case, a police officer was acquitted (after appeal) of aggravated assault after shooting a suspect who did not have a weapon evident, but kept reaching as if to access one. The suspect's history as known the officer absolutely informed the reasonableness of his decision. Unless you're ready to talk about Section 25 of the Criminal Code (or S. 34 for that matter) from at least a modestly informed perspective, I'm going to suggest you're out of your depth on this one.

One big difference between the Canadian and American systems is that the route to suspend/fire and charge police is typically a bit longer and involves more legal rigour up here. There's less reflexive, politically-motivated charging of police because the law does not lend itself as easily to doing so.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

And anyone who thinks that man should have been allowed to get into a car containing 3 young innocent children, with his only intent on escaping somehow, isn't worth the time to debate anyways.  IMO of course....


----------



## Haggis

Donald H said:
			
		

> In actual fact Haggis, we all decide.


  A trial in the court of public opinion?




			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> But we citizens of Canada may decide differently from how Americans decide.


As we should, given our different laws and expectations of our respective police.  But it's still an uninformed opinion coloured by what the media shows us what "acceptable conduct" is in their eyes.  I really enjoy watching news media personalities participating in police use of force scenario training to get a better understanding of the dynamics an officer faces when making the decision to respond.



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> For instance, for the *unarmed* black man who was shot in the back 7 times, I'm deciding that was excessive use of lethal force.


  Multiple media outlets and investigators have reported that Blake was armed with a knife and that a knife was recovered at the scene.  Video footage shows Blake carrying an object in his hand prior to being shot.



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> So I'm saying, the official opinion that will inevitably find that cop not guilty of any crime, is wrong.


  Again, you are presupposing that he did everything right, as postulated by his lawyer.  That he used an authorized technique to control Mr. Floyd and that he applied that technique only for the amount of time required to gain and maintain control of Mr. Floyd.  In my opinion, given the video evidence out there, that will be a tough sell.


----------



## Donald H

Haggis said:
			
		

> Multiple media outlets and investigators have reported that Blake was armed with a knife and that a knife was recovered at the scene.  Video footage shows Blake carrying an object in his hand prior to being shot.



All of the information I've received from the media is saying that he had a knife hidden under a floor mat. Do you have a link for the story that he had something in his hand.

I'm interested in pursuing the question with you in a polite manner.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Donald H said:
			
		

> All of the information I've received from the media is saying that he had a knife hidden under a floor mat. Do you have a link for the story that he had something in his hand.
> 
> I'm interested in pursuing the question with you in a polite manner.



This is why cops don't let you get back in your vehicle without permission. The price has already been paid in the blood of police officers. Whether or not there is even a knife is irrelevant. Cars are a weapon, guns are a weapon, knives are a weapon. You don't know what they have and what they are going to do, and it isn't up to them to die to find out. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mssNOhv1UMc


----------



## Donald H

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> This is why cops don't let you get back in your vehicle without permission. The price has already been paid in the blood of police officers. Whether or not there is even a knife is irrelevant. Cars are a weapon, guns are a weapon, knives are a weapon. You don't know what they have and what they are going to do, and it isn't up to them to die to find out.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mssNOhv1UMc



I watched your video and the one that followed it. off topic: I'm opposed to capital punishment.

back on topic: He was a white man and so the protracted reluctance to use deadly force. Not to minimize the danger to police officers or to fail to understand your point.


----------



## brihard

Donald H said:
			
		

> I watched your video and the one that followed it. off topic: I'm opposed to capital punishment.
> 
> back on topic: He was a white man and so the protracted reluctance to use deadly force. Not to minimize the danger to police officers or to fail to understand your point.



Capital punishment? What are you talking about?

Police are not required to let the other guy take the first shot or even have an opportunity to. There is no legal or moral obligation on a police officer to accept the risk of bodily harm in order to let a suspect safety resist arrest.

You’ve ignored several of my replies now. Why is that?


----------



## Donald H

Brihard said:
			
		

> Capital punishment? What are you talking about?



Check out the video that follows the first one. If it doesn't come up and deal with capital punishment related to the first video then let me know. Utube videos often play to their audience. 



> Police are not required to let the other guy take the first shot or even have an opportunity to. There is no legal or moral obligation on a police officer to accept the risk of bodily harm in order to let a suspect safety resist arrest.



Agreed.



> You’ve ignored several of my replies now. Why is that?



 The traffic is hard to keep up with but I find that there are usually two or three members that are replying the same and so I'll attempt to answer just one. Sorry if I've missed something important to you.

 :cheers:


----------



## Jarnhamar

Brihard said:
			
		

> Capital punishment? What are you talking about?



Seems like part of a game doesn't it? 

The best interrogators I've seen aren't the mean phone book to your face types. They're the polite amiable, slightly awkward ones who draw you into a conversation by making mistakes and drawing on your natural inclination to correct said obvious mistakes. Playing the fool so to speak. Throw in some random questions, comments or topics so their intentions don't seem obvious.


----------



## brihard

Donald H said:
			
		

> Check out the video that follows the first one. If it doesn't come up and deal with capital punishment related to the first video then let me know. Utube videos often play to their audience.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> The traffic is hard to keep up with but I find that there are usually two or three members that are replying the same and so I'll attempt to answer just one. Sorry if I've missed something important to you.
> 
> :cheers:



No, the conversation’s on police use of force, not randomly queued videos in YouTube. I’ll pass, thanks.

You’re all over the place here, but what’s consistent is that your understanding of the law underpinning police use of force on both sides of the border is lacking. I laid out my objections with a fair bit of detail a few posts up and referred to one court case in Canada that’s quite informative.


----------



## Donald H

Brihard said:
			
		

> No, the conversation’s on police use of force, not randomly queued videos in YouTube. I’ll pass, thanks.
> 
> You’re all over the place here, but what’s consistent is that your understanding of the law underpinning police use of force on both sides of the border is lacking. I laid out my objections with a fair bit of detail a few posts up and referred to one court case in Canada that’s quite informative.



Just two points to make with you Brihard.
1. Police use of deadly force in the US is far out of proportion to that in Canada.
2. The contrast between the use of deadly force on black people in America to white people has been amply illustrated here.

 :cheers:


----------



## Good2Golf

Donald H said:
			
		

> Just two points to make with you Brihard.
> 1. Police use of deadly force in the US is far out of proportion to that in Canada.
> 2. The contrast between the use of deadly force on black people in America to white people has been amply illustrated here.
> 
> :cheers:



1.  Is that one of your opinions Donald, or are the reference figures to support your statement?

2.  Amply?  In any detail?  Proportional? Absolute?  Just what it appears media covers?

:cheers:


----------



## brihard

Donald H said:
			
		

> Just two points to make with you Brihard.
> 1. Police use of deadly force in the US is far out of proportion to that in Canada.
> 2. The contrast between the use of deadly force on black people in America to white people has been amply illustrated here.
> 
> :cheers:



You shifted several times to talking about Canada. That’s what I replied to.


----------



## Haggis

Donald H said:
			
		

> 1. Police use of deadly force in the US is far out of proportion to that in Canada.



The use of deadly force against police is out of proportion in the US as well.  Thanks to their Second Amendment, a police officer has to assume that every US citizen they encounter may be armed as of right.



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> 2. The contrast between the use of deadly force on black people in America to white people has been amply illustrated here.



Actually,  statistics paint a different picture with more Whites being killed by police than Blacks over the past three years.


----------



## brihard

Haggis said:
			
		

> Actually, r statistics paint a different picture with more Whites being killed by police than Blacks over the past three years.
> 
> :cheers:



That stat is overall, not per capita. As whites vastly outnumber blacks in the States, when you look at that on a per capita basis, blacks are far more likely to be shot by police than Whites.

I’m not opining as to why that’s the case, nor on whether there’s disproportionality on _justified_ shoots, merely pointing out that in terms of who as an individual is more likely to be shot by police, that’s skews heavily against the black population.


----------



## Haggis

Brihard said:
			
		

> That stat is overall, not per capita. As whites vastly outnumber blacks in the States, when you look at that on a per capita basis, blacks are far more likely to be shot by police than Whites.



A good point, Brihard, which adds context that I should have included.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> I’m not opining as to why that’s the case, nor on whether there’s disproportionality on _justified_ shoots, merely pointing out that in terms of who as an individual is more likely to be shot by police, that’s skews heavily against the black population.



The problem being faced now is that so many officer involved shootings with a Black victim are deemed unjustified by the press, public and politicians that it may lead to more LEO deaths as LEOs become even more reluctant to use lethal force for fear of losing their livelihoods and/or freedom.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Brihard said:
			
		

> That stat is overall, not per capita. As whites vastly outnumber blacks in the States, when you look at that on a per capita basis, blacks are far more likely to be shot by police than Whites.
> 
> I’m not opining as to why that’s the case, nor on whether there’s disproportionality on _justified_ shoots, merely pointing out that in terms of who as an individual is more likely to be shot by police, that’s skews heavily against the black population.



Do you happen to know what race is responsible for the most shootings of cops in the US? I wasn't able to find any stats on it.


----------



## GAP

Brihard said:
			
		

> That stat is overall, not per capita. As whites vastly outnumber blacks in the States, when you look at that on a per capita basis, blacks are far more likely to be shot by police than Whites.
> 
> I’m not opining as to why that’s the case, nor on whether there’s disproportionality on _justified_ shoots, merely pointing out that in terms of who as an individual is more likely to be shot by police, that’s skews heavily against the black population.



Maybe proportionaly they are up to no good more so than the whites.......


----------



## SupersonicMax

GAP said:
			
		

> Maybe proportionaly they are up to no good more so than the whites.......



That is a really hard one to prove.  If you use evidence from police arrests, one could easily argue that the difference in arrests between black/white is due to a systemic race bias.


----------



## brihard

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do you happen to know what race is responsible for the most shootings of cops in the US? I wasn't able to find any stats on it.



Washington Post has it as black offenders slightly more frequently than white. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/09/are-black-or-white-offenders-more-likely-to-kill-police/ What I don't have at hand as a denominator is how frequently police interact with any given race, which would be necessary statistical context on that one.


----------



## Jarnhamar

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> That is a really hard one to prove.  If you use evidence from police arrests, one could easily argue that the difference in arrests between black/white is due to a systemic race bias.



That's true. 

I believe Hispanics have larger numbers in the US than African Americans. 52 million compared to 37 million so. 

It looks like Hispanics are shot by police about half as much as African Americans.  In 2019 it looks like it was 158 to 235.

Would that suggest the systemic racism in the US is more anti-black than anti-nonwhite?


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Brihard] What I don't have at hand as a denominator is how frequently police interact with any given race, which would be necessary statistical context on that one.
[/quote]

Thanks, good point.


----------



## daftandbarmy

FWIW, one thing I recall from my Criminology courses was that crime rates are generally falling, because the population is aging was one main reasons, and that public perceptions of crime are often at odds with the statistics. I assume that social- and other - media can fan those flames at will:

5 facts about crime in the U.S.

Public perceptions about crime in the U.S. often don’t align with the data. Opinion surveys regularly find that Americans believe crime is up nationally, even when the data shows it is down. In 18 of 22 Gallup surveys conducted between 1993 and 2018, at least six-in-ten Americans said there was more crime in the U.S. compared with the year before, despite the generally downward trend in national violent and property crime rates during most of that period.

Pew Research Center surveys have found a similar pattern. In a survey in late 2016, for instance, 57% of registered voters said crime in the U.S. had gotten worse since 2008, even though FBI and BJS data shows that violent and property crime rates declined by double-digit percentages during that span.

While perceptions of rising crime at the national level are common, fewer Americans tend to say crime is up when asked about the local level. In all 21 Gallup surveys that have included the question since 1996, no more than about half of Americans have said crime is up in their area compared with the year before.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/17/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/


----------



## Eaglelord17

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> That is a really hard one to prove.  If you use evidence from police arrests, one could easily argue that the difference in arrests between black/white is due to a systemic race bias.



The difference in violent crime wouldn't be due to race bias...


----------



## Donald H

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> 2.  Amply?  In any detail?  Proportional? Absolute?  Just what it appears media covers?
> 
> :cheers:



No Good3Golf, I was referring to the video that was offered up by Eagleford in comment #26 which shows the protracted reluctance by the officer to use deadly force, and that cost him his life. The stark contrast is in how black people aren't given the opportunity to do any bargaining with a police officer. This is to explain my comment of 'Amply'.

One factor that hasn't been discussed here on this thread yet is: America has created a situation in which inequitable treatment of black people has created a deep and apparently unsolvable problem. (this is a proposal from me to invite rational discussion)

If I may, I will equate that problem to Canada's perceived problem with our First Nations people. Many choose to blame them, as opposed to accepting our blame for government historically creating the problem.

Please keep in mind that is my opinion and it's likely a more leftist opinion than is usually voiced. As with so many people who are under the opinion that America's black people are to blame, the parallel is drawn with Canada's First Nations people.

 :cheers:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Everyone is given a chance to bargain....some chose to and some dont


----------



## Blackadder1916

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> The difference in violent crime wouldn't be due to race bias...



But the difference in police contact (frequency, intensity) may be due to race bias.  

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793


> Risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States by age, race–ethnicity, and sex
> 
> Abstract
> We use data on police-involved deaths to estimate how the risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States varies across social groups. We estimate the lifetime and age-specific risks of being killed by police by race and sex. We also provide estimates of the proportion of all deaths accounted for by police use of force. We find that African American men and women, American Indian/Alaska Native men and women, and Latino men face higher lifetime risk of being killed by police than do their white peers. We find that Latina women and Asian/Pacific Islander men and women face lower risk of being killed by police than do their white peers. Risk is highest for black men, who (at current levels of risk) face about a 1 in 1,000 chance of being killed by police over the life course. The average lifetime odds of being killed by police are about 1 in 2,000 for men and about 1 in 33,000 for women. Risk peaks between the ages of 20 y and 35 y for all groups. For young men of color, police use of force is among the leading causes of death.
> 
> . . .


----------



## Good2Golf

Donald H said:
			
		

> If I may, I will equate that problem to Canada's perceived problem with our First Nations people. Many choose to blame them, as opposed to accepting our blame for government historically creating the problem.



This is a good point, DonaldH, but then the follow-up needs to be addressed as well, ie.  'so what do we (society) do about it, to resolve the issue?'

Regards


----------



## Donald H

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Everyone is given a chance to bargain....some chose to and some dont



I hear your opinion Bruce but I have to disagree. Not true for black people who are murdered on the streets of America and not true for Canada's First Nations people who were dealt with unfairly. And I must add, Canada's problem is less severe than America's problem.

Both of course in my opinion. 

 :cheers:


----------



## Donald H

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> But the difference in police contact (frequency, intensity) may be due to race bias.
> 
> https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793



Can I assume that the 'abstract' you posted was to demonstrate that you are in agreement with my opinion re. the historical bad treatment of black people in America? 

That is a sincere and honest question blackadder. See G2G's comment that followed.


----------



## Donald H

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> This is a good point, DonaldH, but then the follow-up needs to be addressed as well, ie.  'so what do we (society) do about it, to resolve the issue?'
> 
> Regards



Yes of course G2G. It can't be left hanging, and so:

The exact opposite of the correct approach is Trump's approach, which I see as fascism under the cover of appealing to the American people that are suffering due to huge income inequality. But let's not go there and instead focus on the positive.

America must come to accept the black population as equals in every way. Affirmative action has been tried and may have helped in some instances. Perhaps a new and more focused emphasis on affirmative action to rectify the income inequality between blacks and whites. 

You ask an enormously big question and it's not one I can answer fully in the limited time I have available. Considering that I've been rightfully accused of ignoring some people's comments. I'm going to attempt to fix that.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Donald H said:
			
		

> Can I assume that the 'abstract' you posted was to demonstrate that you are in agreement with my opinion re. the historical bad treatment of black people in America?
> 
> That is a sincere and honest question blackadder. See G2G's comment that followed.



Why?  Are you feeling lonely?  Do you need a hug?  Well, call your mommy.  I don't do validation.  Quite frankly, since you initiated this, I don't follow your posts and barely read them, partly due to disinterest and partly due to the often poor quality of your arguments.  Half a century ago, when I was in the debate club (not for the nerd points, but for the sake of spirited argument), the best advice I received was "don't present opinions, present evidence and when your opponent gives his opinion, pounce on him and tear him to shreds with facts - make the little bastard cry".  We took debate seriously.

The only thing that you can assume is that, for some reason, I took exception to the comment in the post I quoted and referred to one particular study as a means to suggest that there were other elements to the question.


----------



## Haggis

Donald H said:
			
		

> I hear your opinion Bruce but I have to disagree.



The degree of bargaining a subject can expect with the police is most often dependent on the nature of the interaction (proactive, reactive, cordial or confrontational) subject's behaviour and the seriousness of their offence. 



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> Not true for black people who are murdered on the streets of America...



Your frequent inferences that every Black person who dies in an officer involved shooting has been murdered is becoming tiresome.


----------



## Kirkhill

Haggis said:
			
		

> The degree of bargaining a subject can expect with the police is most often dependent on the nature of the interaction (proactive, reactive, cordial or confrontational) subject's behaviour and the seriousness of their offence.
> 
> Your frequent inferences that every Black person who dies in an officer involved shooting has been murdered is becoming tiresome.



Chicago - Year to date

2882 people shot
2391 of the people shot wounded
491 of the people shot killed

13 of the people shot shot by police
8 of the people shot by police wounded
5 of the people shot by police killed

10 of the people shot were police officers

https://heyjackass.com/

And for the record - 45 people killed by means other than firearms.


----------



## ballz

The lawyer's claim that the technique is shown in their training is some kind of silver bullet is just hilarious stupid. Shooting someone is also part of their training, I don't think that means they can go around shooting people with impunity.

I've never seen the problem with this "knee on the neck" technique and it'll be a god damn shame if yet another non-lethal technique is taken away from the officers due to the politicization of this.

Where I had a problem was when Chauvin clearly went well-beyond it's intended use given that his handcuffed suspect was unconscious, and it seemed to be purely out of malice and being high on authority.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vksEJR9EPQ8&bpctr=1599440319

Interesting footage. It shows Floyd may have been in medical distress very early on (which may actually impact "reasonable doubt"), it also shows that Floyd was fairly compliant, but did resist getting into the car (allegedly due to claustraphobia) and was complaining about not being able to breathe early on, before Chauvin was even on the scene.

Perhaps what's most damning is that they actually got him into the back of the car, with cuffs on, and Chauvin pulled him out through the other side..... pretty ******* hard to make a case that you needed to use that technique when you personally pulled him out of the car instead of shutting the door.

EDIT: Also, that he was in medical distress early on, if it (or any other reason) ends up getting Chauvin acquitted... the campaign of riots afterward will be something to watch.


----------



## Donald H

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Why?  Are you feeling lonely?  Do you need a hug?  Well, call your mommy.  I don't do validation.  Quite frankly, since you initiated this, I don't follow your posts and barely read them, partly due to disinterest and partly due to the often poor quality of your arguments.  Half a century ago, when I was in the debate club (not for the nerd points, but for the sake of spirited argument), the best advice I received was "don't present opinions, present evidence and when your opponent gives his opinion, pounce on him and tear him to shreds with facts - make the little ******* cry".  We took debate seriously.
> 
> The only thing that you can assume is that, for some reason, I took exception to the comment in the post I quoted and referred to one particular study as a means to suggest that there were other elements to the question.



I have a lot of trouble believing you every debated. Your fuse is too short for that.

Presenting an opinion is a proper debating technique in this modern world and especially on an internet debate forum. Any idiot can supply proof with a dozen links and then go and find another dozen that refutes the first dozen.

Likewise, I'll be ignoring you most of the time. Your problem is that you have a different opinion than mine on many issues and you are unable to accept differing opinions. 

Work up a case to have me eliminated from the forum or sue me. I'm not going to be intimidated into agreeing with you.


----------



## Haggis

ballz said:
			
		

> The lawyer's claim that the technique is shown in their training is some kind of silver bullet is just hilarious stupid. Shooting someone is also part of their training, I don't think that means they can go around shooting people with impunity.



My agency teaches a lot of techniques with the expectation that we will execute them as correctly as the situation allows and in accordance with our training.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I've never seen the problem with this "knee on the neck" technique and it'll be a god damn shame if yet another non-lethal technique is taken away from the officers due to the politicization of this.


There is no such thing as a "non-lethal" technique except for, maybe, verbal judo (aka Officer Communication).  Any use of force has the potential to cause death through unintentional consequences.  You OC a subject and they go into respiratory distress and die.  You strike a subject with a baton and that causes internal bleeding which kills them.  You TASER a subject and they fall over and fracture their skull.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Where I had a problem was when Chauvin clearly went well-beyond it's intended use given that his handcuffed suspect was unconscious, and it seemed to be purely out of malice and being high on authority.


  As I stated several posts ago, near the beginning of this thread, the defense will have to prove that the technique was applied as correctly as the situation allowed, for the appropriate amount of time to gain and maintain control of Mr. Floyd.  That, IMO, will be a big order to fill.


----------



## ballz

Haggis said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as a "non-lethal" technique except for, maybe, verbal judo (aka Officer Communication).  Any use of force has the potential to cause death through unintentional consequences.



Kinda picking pepper from fly crap here aren't we? Maybe I miss the point on why this nuance is even worth debating. You can yell at someone in the right away and give them a heart attack. On a use-of-force continuum, there are certain things that are explicitly considered "lethal/deadly force," so that would imply it's appropriate to call everything else non-lethal.


----------



## ballz

Haggis said:
			
		

> As I stated several posts ago, near the beginning of this thread, the defense will have to prove that the technique was applied as correctly as the situation allowed, for the appropriate amount of time to gain and maintain control of Mr. Floyd.  That, IMO, will be a big order to fill.



The defense doesn't have to prove anything. If a guy is having a heart attack before you've even arrived on scene, and eventually dies of a heart attack (which I believe Floyd did), there's zero chance you're getting a murder conviction. The prosecution has to prove that Chauvin's knee was what caused his death before we can even get into whether his knee was applied correctly for the situation. If I were a lawyer I'd be more interested in that, it's not dissimilar to Rob Semrau where the alleged victim was so close to dead that the defence literally didn't even make a case.


----------



## Haggis

ballz said:
			
		

> Kinda picking pepper from fly crap here aren't we? Maybe I miss the point on why this nuance is even worth debating. You can yell at someone in the right away and give them a heart attack. On a use-of-force continuum, there are certain things that are explicitly considered "lethal/deadly force," so that would imply it's appropriate to call everything else non-lethal.



"Less"-lethal  implies that although the intervention option is not intended to cause death, that is a possible outcome in a very limited set of circumstances. (i.e the perfect storm)

[/quote]





			
				ballz said:
			
		

> If a guy is having a heart attack before you've even arrived on scene, and eventually dies of a heart attack (which I believe Floyd did), there's zero chance you're getting a murder conviction. If I were a lawyer I'd be more interested in that, it's not dissimilar to Rob Semrau where the alleged victim was so close to dead that they couldn't pin it on Semrau.



The difference here is that Semrau intentionally hastened that death.


----------



## ballz

Haggis said:
			
		

> The difference here is that Semrau intentionally hastened that death.



I'm not sure what your argument here is.

Semrau was found not guilty, because they couldn't prove that the dude wasn't already dead.

In Chauvin's case, the prosecution is going to have to prove that Chauvin's knee was what caused his death before we can even get into whether his knee was applied correctly for the situation. Hard to prove it was Chauvin's knee if the guy was in the midst of a heart attack before Chauvin even got there, and eventually died of a heart attack.


----------



## Haggis

ballz said:
			
		

> Semrau was found not guilty, because they couldn't prove that the dude wasn't already dead.


Notwithstanding, Semrau believed the insurgent was still alive and intentionally acted to hasten his death. Why shoot a desd body? To make it more dead?

[quote author=ballzlink=topic=132937/post-1627326#msg1627326 date=1599452627]In Chauvin's case, the prosecution is going to have to prove that Chauvin's knee was what caused his death before we can even get into whether his knee was applied correctly for the situation. Hard to prove it was Chauvin's knee if the guy was in the midst of a heart attack before Chauvin even got there, and eventually died of a heart attack.[/quote]

Agreed. Chauvin is not a medical professional and would have no way of knowing, aside from Mr. Floyd's verbalizations, that he was in medical distress.  Despite that, once he became aware of Mr. Floyd's distress, was the technique still required and appropriate?  His lawyer infers it is.


----------



## ballz

Haggis said:
			
		

> Notwithstanding, Semrau believed the insurgent was still alive and intentionally acted to hasten his death. Why shoot a desd body? To make it more dead?



All great questions but we're not dealing with the balance of probabilities and I'm not arguing that he didn't kill the guy. I'm arguing they couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Semrau killed the guy, because you can't kill a dead body, and the fact that the guy was already dying put enough doubt in the jury's mind because it's not unreasonable doubt that the guy was dead before the gun shot.

Similarly, if a guy is having a heart attack and dies of a heart attack, it's hard to argue that Chauvin's knee is *definitely* what caused his death which is pretty important when trying to prove murder... had he been left alone he may have died anyway.... so who can definitively conclude that Chauvin's knee did it?



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> Agreed. Chauvin is not a medical professional and would have no way of knowing, aside from Mr. Floyd's verbalizilations, that he was in medical distress.  Despite that, once he became aware of Mr. Floyd's distress, was the trchnique still required and appropriate?  His lawyer infers it is.



It definitely wasn't. Make no mistake, I think Chauvin is the scum of the earth and hope he goes to jail for murder. The video makes me think there is an "out" for the defence to pursue.


----------



## Cloud Cover

ballz said:
			
		

> It definitely wasn't. Make no mistake, I think Chauvin is the scum of the earth and hope he goes to jail for murder. The video makes me think there is an "out" for the defence to pursue.



He’s likely going down on Murder 3 on the grounds of deprived mind aka deprived indifference) per Minnesota 609.195(a), and his lawyer is hastening things in that direction. 

Minnesota Statutes
609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

A good US case to flesh out this line of reasoning is People v Suarez, 6 NY3d 202 (2005) and in particular these holdings of the courts:



“when the defendant intends neither to seriously injure, nor to kill, but nevertheless abandons a helpless and vulnerable victim in circumstances where the victim is highly likely to die, the defendant’s utter callousness to the victim’s moral plight –arising from a situation created by the defendant–  properly establishes depraved indifference murder”(Suarez, 6 NY3d at 212)“. .... the crime is nevertheless established when a defendant– acting with a conscious objective not to kill but to harm–  engages in torture or a brutal, prolonged and ultimately fatal course of conduct against a particularly vulnerable victim” (Suarez, 6 NY3d also at 212).

At a minimum this was Murder 3 but he will not receive the full 25 yrs. 

You can see from the above that if Chauvin claims he did not intend to kill but nevertheless engaged in prolonged and fatal course of conduct against a vulnerable victim ( a man in his custody having a heart attack or unable to breathe) then his goose is pretty much cooked. 


“


----------



## Haggis

*Note to Self:* stop posting when you're really tired.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> The defense doesn't have to prove anything.



You are absolutely right, and I know better.  What I meant (and very poorly phrased) was that the defense has asserted that the technique is an approved one and was applied correctly and Mr. Floyd's death was unrelated to that.  It's now up to the prosecution  to prove that the technique was applied incorrectly in any way (method, duration) and that either caused or contributed to Mr. Floyd's death.


----------



## PuckChaser

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Minnesota Statutes
> 609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
> (a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.
> 
> A good US case to flesh out this line of reasoning is People v Suarez, 6 NY3d 202 (2005) and in particular these holdings of the courts:
> 
> “when the defendant intends neither to seriously injure, nor to kill, but nevertheless abandons a helpless and vulnerable victim in circumstances where the victim is highly likely to die, the defendant’s utter callousness to the victim’s moral plight –arising from a situation created by the defendant–  properly establishes depraved indifference murder”(Suarez, 6 NY3d at 212)“. .... the crime is nevertheless established when a defendant– acting with a conscious objective not to kill but to harm–  engages in torture or a brutal, prolonged and ultimately fatal course of conduct against a particularly vulnerable victim” (Suarez, 6 NY3d also at 212).
> 
> At a minimum this was Murder 3 but he will not receive the full 25 yrs.
> 
> You can see from the above that if Chauvin claims he did not intend to kill but nevertheless engaged in prolonged and fatal course of conduct against a vulnerable victim ( a man in his custody having a heart attack or unable to breathe) then his goose is pretty much cooked.



I don't think its as cut and dry as you think. The training is going to become important, as is the level of fentanyl in Floyd's system. The prosecution is going to have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Chauvin did something eminently dangerous (training and use of force guidelines could tip the scales) without regard for human life as well as prove Chauvin had a depraved mind. That's a lot of subjective things to have to prove in court.

I really think the prosecutors bowed to political pressure and aimed really high with the charges, and thats going to put the jury in an uncomfortable place. 2nd Degree Manslaughter seems more likely of a conviction (Minnesota allows a jury to find guilty for lessor offenses) for Chauvin unless he's got really good defense lawyers and gets off completely.


----------



## Donald H

A lot of good information being aired here to learn from. But maybe the most pertinent factor is being ignored on the fate of Chauvin. If I placed a bet on the outcome I would base it mostly on which candidate becomes president. The policing in America is either going to change or this BLM effort is going to be successful this time. 

However, having said that, I have little confidence in Biden moving very far away from the establishment status quo. A wristslap of the order of Lieutenant Calley is my prediction. Complete with a long drawn out appeals process.  And as to his guilt? I would suggest that Ballz has it about right.


----------



## brihard

Donald H said:
			
		

> A lot of good information being aired here to learn from. But maybe the most pertinent factor is being ignored on the fate of Chauvin. If I placed a bet on the outcome I would base it mostly on which candidate becomes president. The policing in America is either going to change or this BLM effort is going to be successful this time.
> 
> However, having said that, I have little confidence in Biden moving very far away from the establishment status quo. A wristslap of the order of Lieutenant Calley is my prediction. Complete with a long drawn out appeals process.  And as to his guilt? I would suggest that Ballz has it about right.



The president who gets elected would only come into play if it got to the point of there being a pardon, or a commutation of sentence considered later down the road. The legal trial of Chauvin will proceed on the strength of the actual evidence, and under the laws of that state.  The feds really don't have anything to do with this, as no federal charges were preferred.

To defeat the charges, his defense need only introduce sufficient reasonable doubt against the allegations. 

Chauvin faces three charges:
- Second Degree Murder, Unintentional, While committing a felony
- Third Degree Murder, perpetrating eminently dangerous act and evincing depraved mind
- Second degree manslaughter - Culpable negligence creating unreasonable risk

I'm not equipped to do a legal analysis of this, but my slightly-better-than-layman's knowledge lets me see tis on pretty clearly. Basically they aren't arguing that he acted with the intent of killing Floyd. They're essentially arguing that he was negligent, that he was wilfully unconcerned about Floyd's safety or life ('depraved mind'), and that Floyd died as a result of Chauvin committing a felony. Things that we would simply call 'manslaughter' - illegal act of violence results in unintentional death - they have more legally nuanced versions of. In particualrly, we have nothing akin to the 'depraved mind' statute.

Breaking all this down further, a police officer has a duty of care to anyone in their custody. A police officer has a duty to use force reasonably, and in accordance with law. Use of force has to be continuously reevaluate as the situation and subject's behaviour changes. Pretty hard to justify keeping your knee on a handcuffed suspect's neck for eight minutes plus. The county medical examiner's report ruled that police actions formed part of the cause of Floyd's death. The argument will be made that keeping his knee on Floyd's neck that long was negligent, that doing so and failing to check vitals and rendering medical aid shows the 'depraved mind' and, I'm inferring, that doing such things constitutes the felony during which unintentional second degree murder was committed.

With intent to kill removed from the equation, defense has to successfully argue that there is a reasonable doubt that Chauvin was negligent. That's going to be hard to prove.

I also wonder why they pulled him out of the back of the cruiser after they successfully got him in there. There could well be reasons for this- maybe he hadn't been searched to their satisfaction - but I've not yet seen an actual articulation of this. I haven't gone looking for it either, mind you.


----------



## PuckChaser

Brihard said:
			
		

> I also wonder why they pulled him out of the back of the cruiser after they successfully got him in there. There could well be reasons for this- maybe he hadn't been searched to their satisfaction - but I've not yet seen an actual articulation of this. I haven't gone looking for it either, mind you.



Here's the raw body cam footage from Thomas Lane: https://youtu.be/NjKjaCvXdf4?t=407, I've time stamp linked it to where they started to try to get Floyd into the car. If you watch, he's never actually secured into the vehicle. He goes it head first from the driver side, with the passenger door open (I think that's Chauvin?) on the passenger side to try to drag him in. Once Lane closes the driver door, he moves over to the passenger side and Floyd is now got his legs completely outside the car on that side so he's flipped himself 180 degrees and tried to get out the other way. Once he's on the ground, he appears to kick towards an officer trying to hold his legs down. I'd argue he was never successfully in the vehicle as he resisted the whole time. Success to me is both doors closed.


----------



## Donald H

Brihard said:
			
		

> The president who gets elected would only come into play if it got to the point of there being a pardon, or a commutation of sentence considered later down the road. The legal trial of Chauvin will proceed on the strength of the actual evidence, and under the laws of that state.  The feds really don't have anything to do with this, as no federal charges were preferred.



That completely misses my point Brihard. I'm trying to say that the entire country's future concerning reform from racism depends on which candidate is elected. 

Trump, if elected will attempt to maintain the status quo and he will have the vindication he needs to do so.

Biden, if elected, shows some indications that he and the Democrats will challenge the status quo as it pertains to the police's treatment of black people on the streets.

And so I also understand:



> The feds really don't have anything to do with this, as no federal charges were preferred.



I'm saying that Biden campaigns on the basis of bringing about big social change as is relevant here on this discussion. And I'm also saying that I have doubts on him being able to make any really big significant changes. But still, politics will decide the fate of Chauvin. (IN MY OPINION)

Is there any possibility that everybody who climbs on board this discussion could just voice their opinions in a polite and respectable manner? 

Perhaps the admins and the mods could use this one as a trial balloon?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

8 years as VP and he didn't make any change, in fact Black Lives Matters formed under his watch, so....


----------



## Donald H

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> 8 years as VP and he didn't make any change, in fact Black Lives Matters formed under his watch, so....



He was only VP.
The resentment of Obama as pres had to be a motivation for the formation of BLM.
And I have to agree with you about half way because as I said, I have little confidence on America moving away from the establishment status quo. 
But he 'does' at least talk a good case.

All of this still directly pertains to my suggestion that Chauvin's future depends more on who wins the presidency.
If I was allowed to award you 300 I wouldn't be making it just 150.

This is civil and decent debate in my opinion.


----------



## brihard

Donald H said:
			
		

> Is there any possibility that everybody who climbs on board this discussion could just voice their opinions in a polite and respectable manner?
> 
> Perhaps the admins and the mods could use this one as a trial balloon?



Everyone has. You lack subject mater knowledge on law enforcement use of force, whereas several people here know the subject quite well. The points you're trying to make have been all over the place and difficult, at best, to follow. That doesn't mean the tone here has been at all inappropriate.


----------



## PuckChaser

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> 8 years as VP and he didn't make any change, in fact Black Lives Matters formed under his watch, so....



50 years in office as well... no US political party has done well to treat all Americans equally. They're just treated as ethnic voting blocks to use every 4 years.


----------



## OldSolduer

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 50 years in office as well... no US political party has done well to treat all Americans equally. They're just treated as ethnic voting blocks to use every 4 years.



Therein lies the problem. Not matter how "equally" they are treated there will always be some who perceive themselves as being more "equal" than the rest.


----------



## Donald H

Brihard said:
			
		

> You lack subject mater knowledge on law enforcement use of force, whereas several people here know the subject quite well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O.k. then, allow me to try something different. Chauvin has been charged with murder and so if he's convicted will I be able to say that I know more about the law on the use of force than anybody saying he'll be found not guilty.
> 
> And in return, if he's found not guilty then I will have to say that I was wrong.
> 
> Wouldn't that be fair?
> 
> And now, would you like me to quote the particular law that I'm suggesting makes Chauvin guilty of murder? Last word I have is that he's charged with second degree murder.
> 
> Well, here's a judge that seems to agree with me!
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/media/judge-napolitano-george-floyd-chauvin-murder-case
> 
> If you want more then Google is your friend. There are thousands who agree with me, and in all fairness, thousands who agree with you.
> So how about you stop piling on with telling me I know nothinig about police use of force until all the charges are dropped?
Click to expand...


----------



## brihard

Donald H said:
			
		

> O.k. then, allow me to try something different. Chauvin has been charged with murder and so if he's convicted will I be able to say that I know more about the law on the use of force than anybody saying he'll be found not guilty.
> 
> And in return, if he's found not guilty then I will have to say that I was wrong.
> 
> Wouldn't that be fair?
> 
> And now, would you like me to quote the particular law that I'm suggesting makes Chauvin guilty of murder? Last word I have is that he's charged with second degree murder.
> 
> Well, here's a judge that seems to agree with me!
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/media/judge-napolitano-george-floyd-chauvin-murder-case
> 
> If you want more then Google is your friend. There are thousands who agree with me, and in all fairness, thousands who agree with you.
> So how about you stop piling on with telling me I know nothinig about police use of force until all the charges are dropped?



Where is it that you believe I’ve said Chauvin will be acquitted? You haven’t actually asked my opinion on that, nor do you seem to have actually read what I’ve said. On the contrary I think it’s quite likely he’ll be acquitted of something. I definitely think he’s a terrible police officer and unfit for the profession. My comments link back to your earlier replies on the George Floyd shooting, where among other things you asserted that up here in Canada police would likely be convicted of offences in that set of circumstances. That officer will almost certainly be acquitted based on the totality of the circumstances.

Again, you seem to have difficulty sticking to one point or topic. You’ll say something about one thing, I or others will reply, you jump to something else and then send to think our earlier replies are actually to the new tack you’ve decided to take.


----------



## Donald H

Brihard said:
			
		

> Where is it that you believe I’ve said Chauvin will be acquitted? You haven’t actually asked my opinion on that, nor do you seem to have actually read what I’ve said. On the contrary I think it’s quite likely he’ll be acquitted of something. I definitely think he’s a terrible police officer and unfit for the profession. My comments link back to your earlier replies on the George Floyd shooting, where among other things you asserted that up here in Canada police would likely be convicted of offences in that set of circumstances. That officer will almost certainly be acquitted based on the totality of the circumstances.
> 
> Again, you seem to have difficulty sticking to one point or topic. You’ll say something about one thing, I or others will reply, you jump to something else and then send to think our earlier replies are actually to the new tack you’ve decided to take.



Now reallly Brihard, do you honestly believe that I've suggested that you said Chauvin would be aquitted. The issue is Brihard, you and a few more are piling on and telling me I know nothing about police use of force. Can it be any clearer that thousands are convinced that Chavin is guilty? And they provide the reasons why?

As are thousands convinced that he's not guilty.



> I definitely think he’s a terrible police officer and unfit for the profession.



Me too, but that makes it our opinions. Now I'm taking it to the next level and quoting judges that say he's guilty. That's the picture so bleed me another 300-900 points if you must.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

If only those judges opinions mattered even one iota.


----------



## RangerRay

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

- Daniel Patrick Moynihan


----------



## LittleBlackDevil

ballz said:
			
		

> In Chauvin's case, the prosecution is going to have to prove that Chauvin's knee was what caused his death before we can even get into whether his knee was applied correctly for the situation. Hard to prove it was Chauvin's knee if the guy was in the midst of a heart attack before Chauvin even got there, and eventually died of a heart attack.



I don't know U.S./Minnesota law and how it differs from Canadian law, but in Canada, the prosecution would not have to prove that the knee caused the death, they would only have to show that it "contributed" to his death to an extent beyond the "_de minimus_" range. To give an idea of how this is applied here's a quote from Smith and Hogan, in Criminal Law, (6th ed., 1988), p.316:



> It is sometimes said that the act must be a "substantial" cause but this seems to mean only that D's contribution must not be so minute that it will be ignored under the "de minimis" principle. It may therefore be misleading to direct a jury that D is not liable unless his conduct was a "substantial" cause. Killing is merely an acceleration of death and factors which produce a very trivial acceleration will be ignored....



The Supreme Court of Canada in Nette (2001), 158 C.C.C.(3d) 486, 46 C.R.(5th) 197 recommended that a trial judge should avoid the Latin phrase “de minimis” in describing the test for the jury and said:



> In order to explain the standard as clearly as possible to the jury, it may be preferable to phrase the standard of causation in positive terms using a phrase such as “significant contributing cause” rather than using expressions phrased in the negative such as “not a trivial cause” or “not insignificant”. Latin terms such as “de minimis” are rarely helpful.



Again, I don't know how or if this applies in the law Officer Chauvin will be tried under. But assuming they have similar law, the outcome of this case will be very heavily dependent on the medical evidence and whether Chauvin's actions played any "significant" contributing factor in causing or hastening the victim's death. From what I am hearing/seeing it is certainly conceivable that a jury might have a reasonable doubt on that point and acquit.


----------



## Donald H

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> I don't know U.S./Minnesota law and how it differs from Canadian law, but in Canada, the prosecution would not have to prove that the knee caused the death, they would only have to show that it "contributed" to his death to an extent beyond the "_de minimus_" range. To give an idea of how this is applied here's a quote from Smith and Hogan, in Criminal Law, (6th ed., 1988), p.316:
> 
> Again, I don't know how or if this applies in the law Officer Chauvin will be tried under. But assuming they have similar law, the outcome of this case will be very heavily dependent on the medical evidence and whether Chauvin's actions played any "significant" contributing factor in causing or hastening the victim's death. From what I am hearing/seeing it is certainly conceivable that a jury might have a reasonable doubt on that point and acquit.



A pretty thorough and somewhat unbiased analysis! But here's a very significant answer to the question:

https://heavy.com/news/2020/06/george-floyd-heart-attack-fentanyl/



> The ME gave the manner of death as Homicide, saying Decedent experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s).



Significant in the fact that it came from the ME. 

The fair assumption would be that George Floyd would still be alive with his medical condition if not for Chauvin's knee.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then it's always fair to add my unvarnished personal opinion that the direction of US politics after the election will determine Chauvin's fate.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Donald H said:
			
		

> A pretty thorough and somewhat unbiased analysis! But here's a very significant answer to the question:
> 
> https://heavy.com/news/2020/06/george-floyd-heart-attack-fentanyl/
> 
> Significant in the fact that it came from the ME.
> 
> The fair assumption would be that George Floyd would still be alive with his medical condition if not for Chauvin's knee _and if he didn't commit some kind of criminal act that warranted the attention of the police, and then resist arrest, in the first place_.



There, FTFY


----------



## Donald H

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> There, FTFY



Yes, I agree with what you've added to what I've said. And then my point will be that the punishment didn't fit the crime. That's a point that I would suggest could already be assumed by the court.  I don't know what FTFY means yet but I'll try to find it in a search.

Cheers, Donald.

edit: yup, got the FTFY.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil

Donald H said:
			
		

> Well, here's a judge that seems to agree with me!
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/media/judge-napolitano-george-floyd-chauvin-murder-case
> 
> If you want more then Google is your friend. There are thousands who agree with me, and in all fairness, thousands who agree with you.
> So how about you stop piling on with telling me I know nothinig about police use of force until all the charges are dropped?



I think it's fair game to cite a judge's opinion, although I don't actually know Judge Napolitano's professional/judicial background I'll assume he knows a fair bit about use of force, and what's required to prove murder in the U.S.A.

Based on the evidence available through the media, I could see the case going either way -- there are arguments to be made both in favour of a conviction and an acquittal. I suspect that, as usual, it will be evidence that we don't see in the media -- and how it is presented in an actual trial -- that rules the day. Trial by media disclosure is just too uncertain for me to say that I have any idea how this actually plays out in court.

I do think that the article you cited makes another good point that it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to have a fair trial with all the media attention this matter has received.


----------



## Donald H

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> I think it's fair game to cite a judge's opinion, although I don't actually know Judge Napolitano's professional/judicial background I'll assume he knows a fair bit about use of force, and what's required to prove murder in the U.S.A.
> 
> Based on the evidence available through the media, I could see the case going either way -- there are arguments to be made both in favour of a conviction and an acquittal. I suspect that, as usual, it will be evidence that we don't see in the media -- and how it is presented in an actual trial -- that rules the day. Trial by media disclosure is just too uncertain for me to say that I have any idea how this actually plays out in court.



So I would only disagree in that the media is vocal enough to get all the possibilities out there eventually. Is there any new theory or opinion that hasn't already been aired? The task is to just pick the correct one.



> I do think that the article you cited makes another good point that it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to have a fair trial with all the media attention this matter has received.



That's definitely a point but it's not the point I'm trying to make. My point is that I'm suggesting that politics will either win or lose the day for Chauvin. Or in other words, if Barr continues to be their A-G, my opinion is that Chauvin will walk. And if Biden's new A-G then Chauvin will serve some time. 

But I appreciate your comments because you make it clear that it's not about 'what we want to be true' but about deciphering what 'will' be true.

Cheers, Donald.


----------



## Haggis

Donald H said:
			
		

> That's definitely a point but it's not the point I'm trying to make. My point is that I'm suggesting that politics will either win or lose the day for Chauvin. Or in other words, if Barr continues to be their A-G, my Opinion is that Chauvin will walk. And if Biden's new A-G then Chauvin will serve some time.



Your frequent assertions that there will be political interference in the judicial process makes me believe that you think this trial will occur in Canada.  ;D


----------



## quadrapiper

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> There, FTFY


Point noted, though isn't the expectation that the police be able to arrest medically fragile criminals without killing them?

Going out on a limb, but VPD (either one, but mostly mainland) presumably deal with any number of fentanyl'd restrainees, and apparently without killing large numbers of same.


----------



## QV

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Point noted, though isn't the expectation that the police be able to arrest medically fragile criminals without killing them?
> 
> Going out on a limb, but VPD (either one, but mostly mainland) presumably deal with any number of fentanyl'd restrainees, and apparently without killing large numbers of same.



When I consider the very high number of police/violator interactions every day across North America, I'm comfortable in the belief police are not killing large numbers of anyone.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I can assure you they bring lots into my work area still breathing and healthy...


----------



## OldSolduer

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I can assure you they bring lots into my work area still breathing and healthy...



Over 600 in my place. None dead.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil

Donald H said:
			
		

> So I would only disagree in that the media is vocal enough to get all the possibilities out there eventually. Is there any new theory or opinion that hasn't already been aired? The task is to just pick the correct one.



Oh, I'm sure you'll be able to find multiple possibilities SOMEWHERE but the mainstream will have a main narrative that they will push as they have been.



			
				Donald H said:
			
		

> That's definitely a point but it's not the point I'm trying to make. My point is that I'm suggesting that politics will either win or lose the day for Chauvin. Or in other words, if Barr continues to be their A-G, my opinion is that Chauvin will walk. And if Biden's new A-G then Chauvin will serve some time.



I would question whether the Attorney General actually has that much influence over a trial in Minneapolis, especially a GOP A-G.

I also doubt that who the A-G is will influence the jury that much and I am assuming this will go the distance to a jury trial. I think the jury will be the jury regardless of who is Attorney General and I doubt they will be much influenced by who holds that position, they will be much more influenced by their own beliefs/biases, preconceived notions, and (hopefully) the evidence led in court.


----------



## Donald H

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> Oh, I'm sure you'll be able to find multiple possibilities SOMEWHERE but the mainstream will have a main narrative that they will push as they have been.
> 
> I would question whether the Attorney General actually has that much influence over a trial in Minneapolis, especially a GOP A-G.
> 
> I also doubt that who the A-G is will influence the jury that much and I am assuming this will go the distance to a jury trial. I think the jury will be the jury regardless of who is Attorney General and I doubt they will be much influenced by who holds that position, they will be much more influenced by their own beliefs/biases, preconceived notions, and (hopefully) the evidence led in court.
> 
> But I appreciate your comments because you make it clear that it's not about 'what we want to be true' but about deciphering what 'will' be true.
> 
> Cheers, Donald.



I'm envisioninig very bad things happening in the US soon and this is just a bit part of it. Trump has created a situation in which hate and corruption are rampant and I can't imagine any way to defuse it


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Donald H said:
			
		

> I'm envisioninig very bad things happening in the US soon and this is just a bit part of it. Trump has created a situation in which hate and corruption are rampant and I can't imagine any way to defuse it



Amazing how one man apparently made the entire country bad in mere 4 years.....


----------



## Donald H

Colin P said:
			
		

> Amazing how one man apparently made the entire country bad in mere 4 years.....



He took a festering sore and picked at it to make it bleed. Racism was always alive and well in the American south and was moldering away in their closets, along with the bedsheets and pointy hats. 

I'm just wondering about your use of the word, 'apparently'. Does that indicate sarcasm? If not then you've raised a very good talking point.

And so how does this tie in with the topic here? Trump has emboldened police officers to act out with violence against black people to make the point that 'you black people 'WILL' behave. 

 :cheers:


----------



## LittleBlackDevil

Donald H said:
			
		

> And so how does this tie in with the topic here? Trump has emboldened police officers to act out with violence against black people to make the point that 'you black people 'WILL' behave.



I doubt that officers on the ground in the moment think like that, or that the POTUS' views impact them much.

They're likely more concerned about what their own superiors will do say, and it would fall much more on the chief and other senior people in a given police department.

At least in the past few months, the very opposite of "you black people will behave". It's more like "defend yourself against an armed black man and you're going down for murder". So I just can't see police officers getting into their cruisers at the beginning of their shifts saying to their partners "let's go hunt us some black guys because the Donald says we can" but rather are saying "Man, I really hope we don't encounter any black guys who are armed and violent because then we either have to let ourselves die or go to jail and ruin our families".


----------



## Donald H

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> I doubt that officers on the ground in the moment think like that, or that the POTUS' views impact them much.
> 
> They're likely more concerned about what their own superiors will do say, and it would fall much more on the chief and other senior people in a given police department.
> 
> At least in the past few months, the very opposite of "you black people will behave". It's more like "defend yourself against an armed black man and you're going down for murder". So I just can't see police officers getting into their cruisers at the beginning of their shifts saying to their partners "let's go hunt us some black guys because the Donald says we can" but rather are saying "Man, I really hope we don't encounter any black guys who are armed and violent because then we either have to let ourselves die or go to jail and ruin our families".



I would agree that faction of police officers exists, and likely even the large majority. So you make a good point. But it only takes a few and so wouldn't you agree that there are bad apples in the barrel. Now an entire country is enraged and on fire because Of Chauvin's demonstration of deliberate murder on camera. (not literally on fire as in Cal)


----------



## LittleBlackDevil

Donald H said:
			
		

> I would agree that faction of police officers exists, and likely even the large majority. So you make a good point. But it only takes a few and so wouldn't you agree that there are bad apples in the barrel. Now an entire country is enraged and on fire because Of Chauvin's demonstration of deliberate murder on camera. (not literally on fire as in Cal)



I agree that there are good and bad in every profession. Law enforcement is certainly no exception and there are definitely "bad apples" out there.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Donald H said:
			
		

> He took a festering sore and picked at it to make it bleed. Racism was always alive and well in the American south and was moldering away in their closets, along with the bedsheets and pointy hats.
> 
> I'm just wondering about your use of the word, 'apparently'. Does that indicate sarcasm? If not then you've raised a very good talking point.
> 
> And so how does this tie in with the topic here? Trump has emboldened police officers to act out with violence against black people to make the point that 'you black people 'WILL' behave.
> 
> :cheers:



I was being polite while pointing out the unlikely event of one person changing a whole democratic country in just 4 years.


----------



## Donald H

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> I agree that there are good and bad in every profession. Law enforcement is certainly no exception and there are definitely "bad apples" out there.



It's not like there's a lack of evidence LBD.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21975



> US racism on the rise, UN experts warn in wake of Charlottesville violence
> 
> GENEVA (16 August 2017) %u2013 Racism and xenophobia are on the rise across the USA, a group of United Nations human rights experts* has warned in the wake of the far-right demonstrations and violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.
> 
> %u201CWe are outraged by the violence in Charlottesville and the racial hatred displayed by right-wing extremists, white supremacists and neo-Nazi groups,%u201D said the experts in a joint statement.
> 
> %u201CWe view these events as the latest examples of increasing racism, racial discrimination, Afrophobia, racist violence and xenophobia observed in demonstrations across the USA.
> 
> %u201CWe are deeply concerned at the proliferation and increasing prominence of organized hate and racist groups. Acts of hatred and racist hate speech must be unequivocally condemned. Hate crimes must be investigated and the perpetrators prosecuted.%u201D
> 
> The human rights experts made an urgent renewed call to the US authorities to step up its work to tackle the issue.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Donald H said:
			
		

> It's not like there's a lack of evidence LBD.
> 
> https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21975



Considering the USA went from basically a apartheid state 55 years ago to where they are today, the amount of racism in the USA has dropped significantly. Yes there are still racists, but the USA is now less racist at the moment than it ever has been in its history. It is also one of the least racist states in the world, the vast majority of the world is significantly more racist/discriminatory than the USA is.

I would take anything the UN says with more than a grain of salt. It is one of the most corrupt organizations in modern history, very opaque, and has a habit of electing people to positions they shouldn't even be close to holding. Such as Russia, China, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc. to the human rights council. A absolutely disgusting organization which needs to be destroyed and restarted from the ground up as I don't think it is possible to redeem it as it stands.


----------



## FJAG

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Considering the USA went from basically a apartheid state 55 years ago to where they are today, the amount of racism in the USA has dropped significantly. Yes there are still racists, but the USA is now less racist at the moment than it ever has been in its history. It is also one of the least racist states in the world, the vast majority of the world is significantly more racist/discriminatory than the USA is.
> 
> I would take anything the UN says with more than a grain of salt. It is one of the most corrupt organizations in modern history, very opaque, and has a habit of electing people to positions they shouldn't even be close to holding. Such as Russia, China, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc. to the human rights council. A absolutely disgusting organization which needs to be destroyed and restarted from the ground up as I don't think it is possible to redeem it as it stands.



I agree as to the first para. It's easy to be a non-racist country when you have only one ethnic group and one official religion. Blasphemy laws are a good way to keep the population in line. It's not so easy when you consider yourself the "melting pot" of the world and accept people in large numbers from everywhere.  I agree that the US has come a long way and would go further and say that notwithstanding some of the furor in the streets, it hasn't been backsliding in general. Yes, there are more issues grabbing our attention right now but in some ways that's in part because some people are trying to move the goal posts; some forward, some backwards. That tends to get more press--both the fact press and the opinion press--which tends to obscure the slow steady progress actually being made.

As to the UN; like many things, it's not so much the organization per se but it's constituent parts that are the problem.

If you took the UN apart and rebuilt it "from the ground up" how would you go about making it all inclusive and equitable and yet keep out or minimize the voice of the dozens and dozens of corrupt or self-interest aligned countries. Unfortunately, we are a diverse and quarrelsome world. Many simply do not subscribe to our view of things. Do we just cut them out? And what if they rebuild their version of a UN and keep us out?

 :cheers:


----------



## mariomike

Whatever happens in the criminal courts, Minneapolis taxpayers could be on the hook for "a big cheque" to George Floyd's family.

Last year, the City of Minneapolis paid $20 million to the family of Justine Ruszczyk.

Today the City of Louisville, KY agreed to pay $12 million to Breonna's family.

No criminal charges have been filed.

The criminal cases get the publicity. But, it's the civil suits that hit taxpayers in the wallet. 

Like this yesterday,

"Uncooperative and belligerent" man arrested by police. He is struggling with police. Paramedics arrive and give him ketamine. What happened next? ...a $3 million dollar wrongful death settlement.
https://abcnews4.com/news/local/report-3m-settlement-reached-following-death-of-man-in-mount-pleasant-police-custody


----------



## Donald H

FJAG said:
			
		

> It's not so easy when you consider yourself the "melting pot" of the world and accept people in large numbers from everywhere.



This is quite true, except that the racism problem in the US is nearly exclusively whites against blacks and the blacks got there by a different means, then multiplied and tried to fit in and flourish. The racism against Hispanics is a relatively new thing in most states and has to be considered differently.  



> And what if they rebuild their version of a UN and keep us out?



That's certainly something that Trump had to be brought up to speed on when he so cavalierly suggested pulling out of the UN. He was in a way reminded that the world isn't America's sandbox and all the toys aren't his.

 :cheers:


----------



## OldSolduer

Donald H said:
			
		

> This is quite true, except that the *racism problem in the US is nearly exclusively whites against blacks *and the blacks got there by a different means, then multiplied and tried to fit in and flourish.



OK the highlighted area needs explanation. Racism isn't exclusive to white people. You just smeared about 250 million Americans with the "racist brush".


----------



## Donald H

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> OK the highlighted area needs explanation. Racism isn't exclusive to white people. You just smeared about 250 million Americans with the "racist brush".



O.k. I was being hasty because it was a reply to specific remarks, so I'll amend that to say that it's vice versa too.

America's racism problem that's in the news almost exclusively isn't an issue with immigrants, it's the issue with black/white racism. And I left out Islam because the American whites who hate Islamics do so for religious purposes and not for the various skin colours of Muslims. (and assorted other reasons)

I didn't smear 250 million Americans with the racist brush. The 250 million is your estimate for racists or something, not mine. I won't pick a number right now but if I did I think it could be based in part on the opinions being voiced by 'many' of Trump's supporters.

Trump's an Obama birther. Anybody who supports Trump is at the very least suspect of the same feelings.
Just try to keep in mind that my remarks were more of a rebuttal of FJAG's comments on America's racism problem being contributable to immigrants and the issues raised by accepting many thousands of immigrants. 

My opinion is largely based on our Canadian experience in which we don't have a racism issue with most immigrants. Ours would be more likely some people's issues with our First Nations people. Not to say it's my issue, just to suggest it is Canada's largest racist issue.

 :cheers:


----------



## shawn5o

Donald H said:
			
		

> It's not like there's a lack of evidence LBD.
> 
> https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21975



I wouldn't trust the UN, especially the HR department.




> SEVENTY-FOURTH SESSION, 17TH MEETING (AM)
> General Assembly Elects 14 Member States to Human Rights Council, Appoints New Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services
> https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12204.doc.htm
> 
> By secret ballot, the Assembly elected Armenia, Brazil, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Libya, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Namibia, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sudan and Venezuela.  All 14 members will serve three-year terms beginning on 1 January 2020.
> 
> The newly elected States are replacing the following outgoing members:  China, Croatia, Cuba, Egypt, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Japan, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Tunisia and the United Kingdom.  In accordance with Assembly resolution 60/251, those Member States were eligible for immediate re-election except delegations which had already served two consecutive terms — China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and the United Kingdom.
> 
> Newly elected to the Geneva-based Human Rights Council were Armenia, Germany, Indonesia, Libya, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Namibia, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sudan and Venezuela.



Great bunch of countries to criticize the US. Oh yeah, didn't the UNHR critcize Canada in the past?

so many member states are dictatorships that engage in human rights violations -- and they support each other. The worst countries are far more united in protecting human rights abuses than the democracies which protect human rights.

 :2c:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Donald H said:
			
		

> This is quite true, except that the racism problem in the US is nearly exclusively whites against blacks and the blacks got there by a different means, then multiplied and tried to fit in and flourish. The racism against Hispanics is a relatively new thing in most states and has to be considered differently.
> 
> That's certainly something that Trump had to be brought up to speed on when he so cavalierly suggested pulling out of the UN. He was in a way reminded that the world isn't America's sandbox and all the toys aren't his.
> 
> :cheers:



The UN of course could vote to leave the US and setup shop elsewhere, but then it might be harder to spend their countries money on toys for their enjoyment and I suspect the delegates don't want to live in a developing country where they might not get access to their fancy foods.


----------



## daftandbarmy

shawn5o said:
			
		

> I wouldn't trust the UN, especially the HR department.
> 
> 
> Great bunch of countries to criticize the US. Oh yeah, didn't the UNHR critcize Canada in the past?
> 
> so many member states are dictatorships that engage in human rights violations -- and they support each other. The worst countries are far more united in protecting human rights abuses than the democracies which protect human rights.
> 
> :2c:



Now, now, public executions based on no evidence apart from tribal affiliations, mass rape, genital mutilation and cannibalism are important pieces of cultural heritage that must be celebrated and preserved, not condemned, by you privileged first world white dudes...  :


----------



## Haggis

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Now, now, public executions based on no evidence apart from tribal affiliations, mass raper, genital mutilation and cannibalism are important pieces of cultural heritage that must be celebrated and preserved, not condemned, by you privileged first world *white dudes*...  :



Are you assuming my_* gender*_??  #triggered


----------



## Eaglelord17

FJAG said:
			
		

> I agree as to the first para. It's easy to be a non-racist country when you have only one ethnic group and one official religion. Blasphemy laws are a good way to keep the population in line. It's not so easy when you consider yourself the "melting pot" of the world and accept people in large numbers from everywhere.  I agree that the US has come a long way and would go further and say that notwithstanding some of the furor in the streets, it hasn't been backsliding in general. Yes, there are more issues grabbing our attention right now but in some ways that's in part because some people are trying to move the goal posts; some forward, some backwards. That tends to get more press--both the fact press and the opinion press--which tends to obscure the slow steady progress actually being made.
> 
> As to the UN; like many things, it's not so much the organization per se but it's constituent parts that are the problem.
> 
> If you took the UN apart and rebuilt it "from the ground up" how would you go about making it all inclusive and equitable and yet keep out or minimize the voice of the dozens and dozens of corrupt or self-interest aligned countries. Unfortunately, we are a diverse and quarrelsome world. Many simply do not subscribe to our view of things. Do we just cut them out? And what if they rebuild their version of a UN and keep us out?
> 
> :cheers:



Well for starters I would do the following:
-Remove Veto powers, they shouldn't exist
-Make all spending transparent, the amount of money that goes into that organization and how opaque it currently is disgusts me.
-Make it so only true democracies can be full members, other countries can join but only as associate members who lack the power to vote
-Set up human rights standards which shall be a minimum to maintain. Right to life, Right to freedom of religion, Right to freedom of speech, Right to property, etc.
-Basically make it the highest ideals possible as without that what is really the point in having the UN?

I don't really care if they create their own organization and keep us out. Personally I am at the point where I don't even think we should be trading with countries that commit human rights abuses. We tolerate the worst of human behavior in the name of the almighty dollar and that shouldn't be. At the moment we are basically funding genocide on a scale not seen since the Soviets/Nazis (China), yet no one wants to talk about that. Just a other example of how the UN is a joke as they should be all over that.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Without veto power, there would be no UNSC,  it was a critical feature for all UNSC members when it was establish. In Internal Relations, countries inherently prioritize their own interests and this is one way to make sure of that.


----------



## FJAG

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Well for starters I would do the following:
> -Remove Veto powers, they shouldn't exist



As of July 2020, Russia/USSR has used its veto 116 times, United States 81 times, UK 29 times, France 16 times and China 16 times. Seems it cuts both ways. Besides getting the big boys to give up their Orwellian "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" standard will never sell. Do you really think that the US, Russia and China would voluntarily stand on the same level with, say, Tuvalu?



> -Make it so only true democracies can be full members, other countries can join but only as associate members who lack the power to vote



Good luck with setting a universally acceptable testing standard for that. Would the US's penchant for gerrymandering and denouncing voting by mail qualify?



> -Set up human rights standards which shall be a minimum to maintain. Right to life, Right to freedom of religion, Right to freedom of speech, Right to property, etc.



You're a little late with that. See the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Declared on 10 December 1948.

 :cheers:


----------



## Donald H

FJAG said:
			
		

> As of July 2020, Russia/USSR has used its veto 116 times, United States 81 times, UK 29 times, France 16 times and China 16 times. Seems it cuts both ways. Besides getting the big boys to give up their Orwellian "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" standard will never sell. Do you really think that the US, Russia and China would voluntarily stand on the same level with, say, Tuvalu?
> 
> Good luck with setting a universally acceptable testing standard for that. Would the US's penchant for gerrymandering and denouncing voting by mail qualify?
> 
> You're a little late with that. See the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Declared on 10 December 1948.
> 
> :cheers:



Article 23, at first glance appears to fly directly in the face of capitalism. But then does it really? It is consistent with socially responsible capitalism. Does such a thing exist?
But that's definitely getting off the topic of police brutality against black men


----------



## Good2Golf

FJAG said:
			
		

> As of July 2020, Russia/USSR has used its veto 116 times, United States 81 times, UK 29 times, France 16 times and China 16 times. Seems it cuts both ways. Besides getting the big boys to give up their Orwellian "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" standard will never sell. Do you really think that the US, Russia and China would voluntarily stand on the same level with, say, Tuvalu?



...or Canada?


----------



## Donald H

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...or Canada?



Good one! But Canada is likely the world's most valued country for our being supportive of US foreign policy. Even more than GB because they only have military assets to offer while we bring along moral support and great justification.

 :cheers:


----------



## FJAG

Donald H said:
			
		

> Good one! But Canada is likely the world's most valued country for our being supportive of US foreign policy. Even more than GB because they only have military assets to offer while we bring along moral support and great justification.
> 
> :cheers:



 :rofl:

Good one.


----------



## Donald H

FJAG said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> Good one.



Thank you but how do I interpret the little laughing man?
I'll take a chance and send my limited amount of best wishes.

edit: just learned something new! I can only send 'happies' to you once a day.


----------



## Remius

Donald H said:
			
		

> Thank you but how do I interpret the little laughing man?
> I'll take a chance and send my limited amount of best wishes.
> 
> edit: just learned something new! I can only send 'happies' to you once a day.



He was disagreeing with your statement.


----------



## Good2Golf

Donald H said:
			
		

> Thank you but how do I interpret the little laughing man?
> I'll take a chance and send my limited amount of best wishes.
> 
> edit: just learned something new! I can only send 'happies' to you once a day.



I’m pretty sure that the five permanent members of the UNSC couldn’t give a fig about anyone that doesn’t have a veto....ie. everyone else, so long as yes votes total At least 9. If there’s a motion and none of the P5 veto, and at least 4 of the 10 temps bite yes, it’s approved.  Others (temp or non-member alike) could conceivably place their proverbial hands on their hips and pout of they don’t agree with the P5, but 5+4 yeas and it’s a moot point.  Canada just happens to excel in its mootness.


----------



## Donald H

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I’m pretty sure that the five permanent members of the UNSC couldn’t give a fig about anyone that doesn’t have a veto....ie. everyone else, so long as yes votes total At least 9. If there’s a motion and none of the P5 veto, and at least 4 of the 10 temps bite yes, it’s approved.  Others (temp or non-member alike) could conceivably place their proverbial hands on their hips and pout of they don’t agree with the P5, but 5+4 yeas and it’s a moot point.  Canada just happens to excel in its mootness.



Sorry but I must have misled you as to my meaning when I changed the subject of discussion to 'US foreign policy' in #117. That's what I was meaning about Canada's importance and it's value as a supporter of US foreign policy. 

Otherwise, as this pertains to the UNSC, I agree with what you've said.


----------



## Haggis

Donald H said:
			
		

> Good one! But Canada is likely the world's most valued country for our being supportive of US foreign policy. Even more than GB because they only have military assets to offer while we bring along moral support and great justification.



Under the Liberals, if global politics were a sandlot ball game Canada would get picked last and only because we always buy the beavertails after the game.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Canada is that nice kid that always comes by and mows your lawn without expecting anything in return. The world notices but doesn't give a shit.


----------



## Donald H

Haggis and Target UP, I think Canada is the best country in the world, regardless of whether it's under the Liberals or Conservatives, bar none!

Is there a country better? 

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It is a good country warts and all. Curious I looked at your profile, you have nothing at all and I would say that over 90% of your posts are political oriented. I am curious as why you would purse political discourse on a site dedicated to the military and not politics?  

So what's your primary interest in military stuff?

Cheers


----------



## Kat Stevens

If I didn't think Canada was a pretty great place, I wouldn't be here, I have options. It just makes me laugh a little when people overestimate our place in the world and the weight our opinions have with it.


----------



## Donald H

Colin P said:
			
		

> It is a good country warts and all. Curious I looked at your profile, you have nothing at all and I would say that over 90% of your posts are political oriented. I am curious as why you would purse political discourse on a site dedicated to the military and not politics?
> 
> So what's your primary interest in military stuff?
> 
> Cheers



I'm not going to let this become a personal attack against me Colin but if you send me a p.m. with your questions I might be able to provide you with some answers. 

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

No personal attack but a blank profile and very narrow posting history does beg the question. I am sure you can add value to other non-political discussions as well.


----------



## Weinie

Donald H said:
			
		

> I'm not going to let this become a personal attack against me Colin but if you send me a p.m. with your questions I might be able to provide you with some answers.
> 
> :cheers:



Colin P has posed a valid question. Your profile is scanty, your opinions are not. This is not a personal attack, rather it is a sense of determining where you come from in terms of experience, background, etc. 

The vast majority of folks on this site post CV data. It helps to determine the difference between SME's, the uneducated, the interested, the questioning, trolls, and posers. You have posted some info that suggests a broad range of knowledge and experience, albeit with links that are readily available via Google.  Hence, his question.


----------



## Donald H

Weinie said:
			
		

> Colin P has posed a valid question. Your profile is scanty, your opinions are not. This is not a personal attack, rather it is a sense of determining where you come from in terms of experience, background, etc.
> 
> The vast majority of folks on this site post CV data. It helps to determine the difference between SME's, the uneducated, the interested, the questioning, trolls, and posers. You have posted some info that suggests a broad range of knowledge and experience, albeit with links that are readily available via Google.  Hence, his question.



I'll take back what I said to Colin, you and him get nothing. Make an appeal to the staff here if you want me removed so bad. Something may be negotiable with them if it can ensure that I remain anonymous. Otherwise, stop your personal attack because a few of you can't handle my political opinions. 

Typical culprits who have been trying to cause trouble right from the beginning.


----------



## mariomike

Regarding profiles. From the Conduct Guidelines,



> Public Profiles
> I strongly encourage you to fill out all the sections of your public profile that you're comfortable with. We respect your privacy and won't force you to fill out your profile if you don't want to. Bear in mind though, that the amount of identifiable info in your profile will increase your general credibility here. Those with empty profiles are much harder to verify and will have to put a lot more effort into building a credible presence here.
> 
> Unfortunately, we've had some cases where a visitor tries to exaggerate or invent stellar military experience. ("I was a special forces sniper, but I can't tell you about that as my file is sealed...") Please. Don't insult us with this drivel. It is always painfully obvious what your real experience is, and we're impressed with quiet professionalism, not open bragging. These guys inevitably get forced out in the open and eventually leave the forums in disgrace.
> https://army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html


----------



## Jarnhamar

Donald H said:
			
		

> Make an appeal to the staff here if you want me removed so bad.


Little bit over dramatic. 



> Typical culprits who have been trying to cause trouble right from the beginning.



For the whole month and a half you've been here.


----------



## Weinie

Donald H said:
			
		

> I'll take back what I said to Colin, you and him get nothing. Make an appeal to the staff here if you want me removed so bad. Something may be negotiable with them if it can ensure that I remain anonymous. Otherwise, stop your personal attack because a few of you can't handle my political opinions.
> 
> _*Typical culprits who have been trying to cause trouble right from the beginning.*_



Culprit?  Hmmmm..........never been called that before.

If you want to rain fire on topics, then be prepared to receive fire back. It is the way that public discourse and debate occurs. 

I know many of the folks on this site personally; I know many more through their posts and demonstrated knowledge on topics. I respect their positions, and sometimes challenge them. You have posted some strong positions, and what many would consider inflammatory rhetoric, and have been challenged. You have no bona fides established, and when I question them, you escalate to the mods.

Do you want to reconsider that?


----------



## Donald H

mariomike said:
			
		

> Regarding profiles. From the Conduct Guidelines,



see p.m.

 :cheers:


----------



## mariomike

Like it says,



> We respect your privacy and won't force you to fill out your profile if you don't want to.


----------



## Donald H

Weinie said:
			
		

> Culprit?  Hmmmm..........never been called that before.
> 
> If you want to rain fire on topics, then be prepared to receive fire back. It is the way that public discourse and debate occurs.
> 
> I know many of the folks on this site personally; I know many more through their posts and demonstrated knowledge on topics. I respect their positions, and sometimes challenge them. You have posted some strong positions, and what many would consider inflammatory rhetoric, and have been challenged. You have no bona fides established, and when I question them, you escalate to the mods.
> 
> Do you want to reconsider that?



For you and the rest of your friends here. P.m me with your personal attacks. I have nothing more to say to you or any of the others than to tell you to bring on the fire. Why not start with the inflammatory rhetoric that seems to be bothering you.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Donald H said:
			
		

> I'll take back what I said to Colin, you and him get nothing. Make an appeal to the staff here if you want me removed so bad. Something may be negotiable with them if it can ensure that I remain anonymous. Otherwise, stop your personal attack because a few of you can't handle my political opinions.
> 
> Typical culprits who have been trying to cause trouble right from the beginning.



I won't even ask to have you removed, not that my word would carry any weight anyways. However it does inform as to how much effort I will put to engage with you, have a nice day and be safe.

Colin


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Back on track, folks.

Staff


----------



## Haggis

Donald H said:
			
		

> Haggis and Target UP, I think Canada is the best country in the world, regardless of whether it's under the Liberals or Conservatives, bar none!



I have stood on that wall for Canada wearing a green or blue uniform for over 40 years.  It is a wonderful, beautiful country with some of the smartest, kindest and most giving people in the world.

However, what I think of Canada internationally is irrelevant. My post was to make the point that Canada has not been taken seriously on the world stage since 2015 and probably  will retain that ignominious status for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Donald H

Haggis said:
			
		

> However, what I think of Canada internally is irrelevant. My post was to make the point that Canada has not been taken seriously on the world stage since 2015 and probably  will retain that ignominious status for the foreseeable future.



I've also been around for more than 65 years but I didn't wear the uniform for nearly as long as you did. And I won't ask you what you mean by internally because you're said it's irrelevant and that tells me you don't want to discuss it further.

But I 'will' take an opposing position on your comment of Canada not being taken seriously on the world stage since 2015. My point is, that which counts for your opinion is in my opinion quite possibly not the same for the majority of Canadians.

I can only guess on what your opinion is founded so why not tell us what your think happened in 2015 that stopped Canada being taken seriously on the world stage. 

 :cheers:


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Haggis said:
			
		

> However, what I think of Canada internally is irrelevant. My post was to make the point that Canada has not been taken seriously on the world stage since 2015 and probably  will retain that ignominious status for the foreseeable future.



"internally"?? Or did you mean "internationally" ?


----------



## Haggis

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> "internally"?? Or did you mean "internationally" ?



Gosh darn otto korrect.  Fixed.


----------



## Donald H

Haggis said:
			
		

> Gosh darn otto korrect.  Fixed.



Now it makes more sense! But makes me doubly curious as to what you think happened to Canada in 2015 on the international scene to cause us to be regarded not so highly?

Could you have possibly meant 1995? That makes a lot of sense to me but I won't lead the conversation in that direction right now.

Your opinions are valuable to me. There's been a lot of water under your bridge. My bridge too and so I'll bring you a different perspective if I continue here.


----------



## mariomike

Looks like the trial is coming up soon. Likely to see a lot of boarded up windows.

Saw this in the news yesterday.









						Police video: California man who died while restrained by cops said ‘I can’t breathe’
					

A man being restrained by Fresno police officers and sheriff’s deputies cried out “I can’t breathe!” in the moments before he died, body camera footage released Friday shows…




					www.mercurynews.com
				




Paramedics arrive at a call and help police officers restrain a man in distress with a backboard.

( The "scoop sandwich" was used back in the day, but I never saw it in the 21st century. Looks like the crew didn't get the memo. )

"It's not until paramedics arrive and help officers restrain him with a blue plastic backboard that he becomes unresponsive."

“We’re going to put this on his back, and you guys can sit on it. Sit on that board.”

...yeah, he died.

Lessons learned:

The end.
This is the body cam footage. It was released on Friday.​




I'm no expert, but I see it as a straight up EMS kill. They should have known better. My guess is the crew will be sent for remedial training, and the taxpayers will be on the hook for a major lawsuit.

( Sorry about the bold in some places. It's my computer, not me. )


----------



## Good2Golf

Yikes! Is that SOP?

Seems like they were more focused on getting his hands secured than making sure he stayed alive...


----------



## mariomike

Good2Golf said:


> Yikes! Is that SOP?


With everything that has been taught about positional asphixia since the mid 1990s, I'm surprised there are services still using boards.

Seems like local protocols may vary.


----------



## mariomike

Looks like the family is getting $27,000,000 USD.









						City of Minneapolis reaches $27M settlement with George Floyd's family
					

George Floyd's family filed a federal lawsuit in July against the city and the four officers accused in his death.




					www.nbcnews.com


----------



## daftandbarmy

mariomike said:


> Looks like the family is getting $27,000,000 USD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> City of Minneapolis reaches $27M settlement with George Floyd's family
> 
> 
> George Floyd's family filed a federal lawsuit in July against the city and the four officers accused in his death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com


----------



## mariomike

Yes. That's what gets me, D and B. Not just this case either.

We had one involved my former department just after I retired.  Police were not involved. There was no criminality. No criminal charges.  Not even a parking ticket. Nobody got fired. Just some remedial training.

But, that one boo-boo cost the city taxpayers ( as I am ) $10,000,000.


----------



## OldSolduer

mariomike said:


> Looks like the family is getting $27,000,000 USD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> City of Minneapolis reaches $27M settlement with George Floyd's family
> 
> 
> George Floyd's family filed a federal lawsuit in July against the city and the four officers accused in his death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com


Really - 27,000,000.

We had a lotto winner here in Manitoba a number of years ago that won $ 10 million.

He was broke and dead within two or three years.


----------



## CBH99

Absolute horse crap.

Was it a tragic & avoidable situation?  Absolutely.  Will the family be paid a hefty sum?  Absolutely.

But $27M??

That's not even remotely reasonable.


----------



## brihard

CBH99 said:


> Absolute horse crap.
> 
> Was it a tragic & avoidable situation?  Absolutely.  Will the family be paid a hefty sum?  Absolutely.
> 
> But $27M??
> 
> That's not even remotely reasonable.


It’s a message to the policing profession collectively to un**** itself. It’s saying “here are the financial consequences to any municipality that doesn’t get it together”. Bear in mind that this was a settlement. They clearly feared a trial would result in a much higher amount. The intent with these large amounts is to deter like behaviour in future.


----------



## CBH99

Okay, from that perspective, that huge sum makes more sense.

Still...mind boggling.  Just wow.


----------



## mariomike

And never, NEVER, admit the department has done anything wrong.

That $27 million from the city is on top of the other donations to the family.









						George Floyd GoFundMe surpasses $13 million, breaks donation record
					

After George Floyd's death at the hands of police officers in Minneapolis, people around the world have been inspired to donate to the cause breaking previous records.




					www.foxnews.com


----------



## Haggis

brihard said:


> Bear in mind that this was a settlement. They clearly feared a trial would result in a much higher amount.


To draw a Canadian comparison, this is exactly why the Trudeau government paid $10.5 M to Omar Khadr. Had his suit gone to trial it was likely the Crown would have lost and taxpayers would have been on the hook for five times more than that.


----------



## brihard

Haggis said:


> To draw a Canadian comparison, this is exactly why the Trudeau government paid $10.5 M to Omar Khadr. Had his suit gone to trial it was likely the Crown would have lost and taxpayers would have been on the hook for five times more than that.


Precisely.

“You as an organization are liable for a massive wrong. Don’t do it again or this will happen again.”


----------



## mariomike

> OP: Case against Minneapolis officers appears to be unraveling before it gets to trial since facts matter.



I guess by now most of us who have been following the case have read about the verdict in the criminal trial.

There is also the civil liability to the City of Minneapolis taxpayers.

From what I have read, Derek had 19 years of service with the city police, and earned a $72,000 salary in 2019.

The city paid the NOK of George Floyd $27 million.

If my calculation is correct, that would be Derek's salary for the next 375 years.

Reminds me of when my employer paid out $10 million to a NOK for a boo-boo by one of our crews on a  call. Unlike the case in Minneapolis, there were no criminal charges, and neither one got fired or resigned.


----------



## mariomike

Case against Minneapolis officers appears to be unraveling​Might have to re-think the thread title a little bit.

The judge handed Derek 22.5 years.


----------



## Loachman

mariomike said:


> Case against Minneapolis officers appears to be unraveling​Might have to re-think the thread title a little bit.
> 
> The judge handed Derek 22.5 years.



Maybe after the appeal.


----------



## brihard

Good. He committed murder, and in doing so caused our profession no end of grief. We cannot claim to be good cops if we don’t welcome accountability and consequence for the bad ones. And in a profession of this size, there will be some bad ones who have to be dealt with. At least this went the way it should.


----------



## mariomike

brihard said:


> At least this went the way it should.



Maybe he will have better luck with the Federal charges?



> Still faces charges in federal court on violating Mr. Floyd's civil rights. No trial date has been set.





> The three other fired officers have yet to have their state trials


----------



## Haggis

I was surprised by the sentence.  Given the damage his actions caused to the law enforcement profession and the second and third order deaths reaulting from the societal backlash against police, I expected a much longer sentence.


----------



## mariomike

The taxpayers of Minneapolis also wrote a cheque for  $27M US payable to Mr. Floyd's family for their loss.

Although money can never bring him back to them.


----------



## Maxman1

Seeing as one of the jurors admitted - multiple times - to lying to the judge about an automatic disqualification (attending a protest against the accused), and another juror claimed they were going to declare him guilty no matter what, an appeal seems likely.

A right to a fair trial must be upheld, no matter what scumbag is before the court.


----------



## brihard

Maxman1 said:


> Seeing as one of the jurors admitted - multiple times - to lying to the judge about an automatic disqualification (attending a protest against the accused), and another juror claimed they were going to declare him guilty no matter what, an appeal seems likely.
> 
> A right to a fair trial must be upheld, no matter what scumbag is before the court.


Could well be. As it stands, he’s a convicted murderer, and we all saw what he did, and what he failed to do. You simply don’t do that. I fully agree about the right to a fair trial, and if there is an appeal and a new trial based on that, so be it.


----------



## mariomike

For anyone interested, the federal civil rights indictment ( separate from the state charges ) the four former officers are facing,
Four Former Minneapolis Police Officers Indicted on Federal Civil Rights Charges for Death of George Floyd;​








						Four Former Minneapolis Police Officers Indicted on Federal Civil Rights Charges for Death of George Floyd; Derek Chauvin Also Charged in Separate Indictment for Violating Civil Rights of a Juvenile
					

A federal grand jury in Minneapolis, Minnesota returned two indictments that were unsealed today. The first indictment charges former Minneapolis Police Department officers Derek Chauvin, 45; Tou Thao, 35; J. Alexander Kueng, 27; and Thomas Lane, 38, with federal civil rights crimes for their...




					www.justice.gov


----------



## Colin Parkinson

mariomike said:


> The taxpayers of Minneapolis also wrote a cheque for  $27M US payable to Mr. Floyd's family for their loss.
> 
> Although money can never bring him back to them.


Judging by Mr Floyd criminal record, they are better off with the cash. I wonder if any of the families of his victims can now go after that cash?


----------



## OldSolduer

Colin Parkinson said:


> Judging by Mr Floyd criminal record, they are better off with the cash. I wonder if any of the families of his victims can now go after that cash?


That’s a very good question. I guess it depends on US and Minnesota law.


----------



## mariomike

OldSolduer said:


> I wonder if any of the families of his victims can now go after that cash?


For reference to the discussion, another recent Minnesota case.








						Daunte Wright's Estate Sued by Alleged Victims of His Violent Crimes
					

In May 2019, 16-year-old Caleb Livingston was at a gas station in Minneapolis when Wright allegedly pulled out a gun and shot him in the head, according to one of the lawsuits.




					www.policemag.com
				






> As ex-Brooklyn Center, MN, police officer* Kim Potter* is awaiting a manslaughter trial in the death of 20-year-old Daunte Wright, victims of Wright's alleged gun violence are suing his estate.


----------



## mariomike

This Defense tactic to "shift the blame" caught my eye during Derek's trial,



> As Derek Chauvin’s defense attorney attempted to shift blame from the former Minneapolis police officer in George Floyd’s death, he questioned paramedics on delays in their efforts to resuscitate Floyd.





> But one paramedic told jurors that he thought Floyd was already dead when he checked for a pulse while Chauvin was still pinning Floyd to the ground.





> Both paramedics testified that they saw no sign that Floyd was alive at that point.





> Paramedic Derek Smith testified that after checking for a pulse and not finding one, he quickly concluded: “In layman’s terms? I thought he was dead.”





> Officer Thomas Lane told a paramedic, “We were basically just restraining him until you guys got here.”





> But Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo has testified officers are trained in basic first aid, including chest compressions, and department policy requires them to provide necessary aid as soon as possible before paramedics arrive.



I'm no legal SME. But, my guess is, the upcoming federal civil rights indictment and trial against the four former officers will focus on their interaction with paramedics on scene,



> The indictment alleges that all four defendants saw Mr. Floyd lying on the ground in clear need of medical care and willfully failed to aid him. The indictment alleges that by doing so, all four defendants willfully deprived Mr. Floyd of his constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, which includes an arrestee’s right to be free from a police officer’s deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The indictment alleges that this offense resulted in bodily injury to, and the death of, Mr. Floyd.



It was different before telephones with cameras, Youtube, the civil rights protests, and massive civil suits against city taxpayers.

In the 1970's we weren't aware of "Positional asphyxia". "Sandwiching" face down with backboards, or "scoop" stretchers was common. ( They were curved, for "scooping". Coincidentally, shaped similar to police riot shields. ) We were equipped with straitjackets ( that's how it is spelled ) and padded leather body straps. Of course, the police rode in the back to the hospital ( .38's unloaded ) with the patient handcuffed ( behind the back ) prone on the stretcher ( which typically had the head elevated for extra effect ).

These were typically drug overdoses and out-patients from the mental hospitals released during the de-institutionalization era.

I'm not justifying the method. We didn't know any better back then, and weren't trained as well as they are now.


----------



## Kilted

OldSolduer said:


> That’s a very good question. I guess it depends on US and Minnesota law.


It appears that the statute of limitations in Minnesota varies between 2 and 6 years.  The more serious torts are on the lower end of that time frame.


----------



## Kilted

The convenience store he tried to pass off the fake bill at might have a case against him, although they probably have a better case against the police department, or many even BLM, although finding them liable would be very difficult


----------



## mariomike

With all the conversation about statues being defaced and taken down ( legally, or otherwise ), it seems  George Floyd statues are not immune.



			"george floyd" defaced - Google Search
		


They are being investigated as hate crimes.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Maxman1 said:


> Seeing as one of the jurors admitted - multiple times - to lying to the judge about an automatic disqualification (attending a protest against the accused), and another juror claimed they were going to declare him guilty no matter what, an appeal seems likely.
> 
> A right to a fair trial must be upheld, no matter what scumbag is before the court.


With the proliferation of social media and the 24 hour news media; can an unbiased jury be reasonably expected anymore ?


----------



## mariomike

The "unraveling" continues.

$27 million USD from the City to the family.

22.5 years for Derek in the Minnesota state pen.

All four officers fired and still facing Federal civil rights charges.

And in today's news, new state murder charges,









						Court OKs 3rd-degree murder against 3-ex cops in Floyd death
					

The Minnesota Court of Appeals says prosecutors may file aiding and abetting third-degree murder charges against three former Minneapolis police officers in the death of George Floyd




					abcnews.go.com


----------



## mariomike

In related news, another "deadly restraint" lawsuit coming to trial. 

This time against the City and County of Fresno, California.

Paramedic has police help him make a "psycho sandwich" ...  patient dies.








						Deadly restraint: Internal records reveal what officers, paramedics did and why
					

Action News has unearthed new records from the investigation into how a Fresno man died while restrained by law enforcement.




					abc30.com


----------



## daftandbarmy

mariomike said:


> In related news, another "deadly restraint" lawsuit coming to trial.
> 
> This time against the City and County of Fresno, California.
> 
> Paramedic has police help him make a "psycho sandwich" ...  patient dies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deadly restraint: Internal records reveal what officers, paramedics did and why
> 
> 
> Action News has unearthed new records from the investigation into how a Fresno man died while restrained by law enforcement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abc30.com



What a terrible situation to be thrust into, on both accounts.


----------



## mariomike

daftandbarmy said:


> What a terrible situation to be thrust into, on both accounts.


Right.


> "He was pretty much fighting the whole time," the paramedic said to internal affairs investigators. "I mean, it took a little bit of force to try to keep him down on the board on top of him. And continued to keep yelling. And then at some point, he became unresponsive."



Prior to the publication of "Positional Asphyxia-Death By EMS" in 1998, not much was heard about it.

Since cell phone cameras and body cams it is receiving more attention.

Anyone with an interest in Restraint Asphyxia may, or may not, wish to read this about the subject.

RESTRAINT ASPHYXIA – SILENT KILLER


			Restraint Asphyxia  Silent Killer, Part ONE
		



			Restraint Asphyxia  Silent Killer, Part TWO
		



			Restraint Asphyxia  Silent Killer, Part Three
		


Haven't read of many criminal convictions. But, some serious financial lawsuits over the years.


----------



## Good2Golf

Maybe it’s just me, wondering why this shouldn’t be common sense…it’s only the first two factors in first aid…Airway-Breathing(…-Circulation).


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> Maybe it’s just me, wondering why this shouldn’t be common sense…it’s only the first two factors in first aid…Airway-Breathing(…-Circulation).



And 2/3 rds of this immediate action drill is about the O2 thing...


----------



## mariomike

Good2Golf said:


> Maybe it’s just me, wondering why this shouldn’t be common sense…it’s only the first two factors in first aid…Airway-Breathing(…-Circulation).





daftandbarmy said:


> And 2/3 rds of this immediate action drill is about the O2 thing...



Right. That's what led to the federal civil rights charges against the four former Minnesota officers.



> The indictment alleges that all four defendants saw Mr. Floyd lying on the ground in clear need of medical care and willfully failed to aid him. The indictment alleges that by doing so, all four defendants willfully deprived Mr. Floyd of his constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, which includes an arrestee’s right to be free from a police officer’s deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The indictment alleges that this offense resulted in bodily injury to, and the death of, Mr. Floyd.



Those are in addition to the state murder charges against the four.

My - guess - is that Derek will make a deal to testify at his upcoming federal civil rights trial ( he didn't at his state murder trial ) in exchange for being allowed to serve his time in a federal, rather than Minnesota, prison.


----------

