ADVERTISEMENT

What should they have done differently?

Crazyhole

Todd's Tiki Bar
Jun 4, 2004
23,824
9,585
113
let's assume that the coroner's report is correct and that Floyd had fentanyl and meth in his system. There is video showing that he was struggling while in the back of the squad car (possibly having an episode) prior to the cops taking him out and pinning him down. This is a very large man, keep in mind and he's on drugs, already struggling with police and potentially putting traffic in harms way. What should the cops have done differently in this situation?
 
let's assume that the coroner's report is correct and that Floyd had fentanyl and meth in his system. There is video showing that he was struggling while in the back of the squad car (possibly having an episode) prior to the cops taking him out and pinning him down. This is a very large man, keep in mind and he's on drugs, already struggling with police and potentially putting traffic in harms way. What should the cops have done differently in this situation?
Called FD earlier when Floyd repeated that he can’t breathe. Gotten off of his back when he was non-combative but held the feet and upper area restraint. Come off the neck while still controlling the upper body. Ignored the distractions from the crowd and paid more attention to the condition of the detainee.

Really, that’s a policy and procedures question and it’s hard to answer when we don’t know what those are. That’s part of the reason officers are judged by officers and the concept of objective reasonableness.
 
Called FD earlier when Floyd repeated that he can’t breathe. Gotten off of his back when he was non-combative but held the feet and upper area restraint. Come off the neck while still controlling the upper body. Ignored the distractions from the crowd and paid more attention to the condition of the detainee.

Really, that’s a policy and procedures question and it’s hard to answer when we don’t know what those are. That’s part of the reason officers are judged by officers and the concept of objective reasonableness.

So its really just a matter of how he was restrained and in this case 1 cop restrained him incorrectly
 
1. Youre an idiot for posting this dumb take.

2. Stay off the sites looking to justify this murder.

3. The arresting officer had no idea about any drugs in his system when he killed him.

4. The arresting officer would have let a little old white woman go if she had passed a counterfeit bill. There is almost no way to prove a person knows a bill is counterfeit when they spend it.

5. When he passed out the officer shouldn't have kept crushing his neck.
 
1. Youre an idiot for posting this dumb take.

2. Stay off the sites looking to justify this murder.

3. The arresting officer had no idea about any drugs in his system when he killed him.

4. The arresting officer would have let a little old white woman go if she had passed a counterfeit bill. There is almost no way to prove a person knows a bill is counterfeit when they spend it.

5. When he passed out the officer shouldn't have kept crushing his neck.

Chud response. I've made it clear that I think the cop is guilty, what I'm doing is thinking through what the defense will present and how the jury will respond.

It seems unlikely that the DA would disregard the coroner's report in favor of the one that was done privately, so what they have to work with (or against) is that Floyd had drugs in his system and died from a heart attack, not asphyxiation. That really pins the prosecution in the corner. So if thats the case, they need to make the argument that the officer had other reasonable options if they want the murder charge to stick.
 
There is video showing that he was struggling while in the back of the squad car (possibly having an episode) prior to the cops taking him out and pinning him down.
The nature of the struggle was unclear. Floyd was seen on camera being non-combative with officers before the apparent 'struggle' inside the police vehicle.

And when Floyd was pressed into the pavement by three of the four officers with handcuffs on, exactly what threat did he pose? When he was no longer responsive and didn't even show a pulse, what threat did he pose?

As we've seen countless times, police have used the 'resisting arrest' line to justify very serious brutality and, in some cases, death. Did this man have a gun? Was this man accused of committing a violent crime? My God, he was accused of trying to cash a counterfeit check for crying out loud!

Playing defense attorney or not, there sure seems to be considerable 'excusing' of these officers' appalling conduct. Defending bad cop behavior helps no one.
 
Chud response. I've made it clear that I think the cop is guilty, what I'm doing is thinking through what the defense will present and how the jury will respond.

It seems unlikely that the DA would disregard the coroner's report in favor of the one that was done privately, so what they have to work with (or against) is that Floyd had drugs in his system and died from a heart attack, not asphyxiation. That really pins the prosecution in the corner. So if thats the case, they need to make the argument that the officer had other reasonable options if they want the murder charge to stick.

They could have pretty much just rolled the video and got a 3rd Degree Murder conviction + manslaughter. But documented moron Keith Ellison succumbed to the mob and got a 2nd degree murder charge imposed which now puts their case at risk given how MN defines 2nd degree murder.
 
The nature of the struggle was unclear. Floyd was seen on camera being non-combative with officers before the apparent 'struggle' inside the police vehicle.

And when Floyd was pressed into the pavement by three of the four officers with handcuffs on, exactly what threat did he pose? When he was no longer responsive and didn't even show a pulse, what threat did he pose?

As we've seen countless times, police have used the 'resisting arrest' line to justify very serious brutality and, in some cases, death. Did this man have a gun? Was this man accused of committing a violent crime? My God, he was accused of trying to cash a counterfeit check for crying out loud!

Playing defense attorney or not, there sure seems to be considerable 'excusing' of these officers' appalling conduct. Defending bad cop behavior helps no one.

I think the struggle inside the car helps the defense a lot, unless there is a dashcam video showing that they were just beating him up. Just thinking like an attorney here, they can say that they were performing a typical arrest and the guy, who had drugs in his system, fought them due to having an episode caused by drug use. He was then removed and subdued until the cops were confident that he no longer posed a threat. The cop that had his knee on Floyd's neck was doing that because floyd was a very large and powerful man, as evidenced by the fact that it took 3 officers to keep him down.

People are going to be pissed and probably riot again if he's acquitted of the murder charges, which is more likely than most people realize. The cop won't walk, but 24-60 months isn't going to satisfy the public.
 
They could have pretty much just rolled the video and got a 3rd Degree Murder conviction + manslaughter. But documented moron Keith Ellison succumbed to the mob and got a 2nd degree murder charge imposed which now puts their case at risk given how MN defines 2nd degree murder.
I think its actually easier to convict on 2nd degree than it is on 3rd degree. Might be wrong, but I know that I've heard that in the past. It has something to do with intent to cause harm and how thats defined.
 
Floyd died face-down in the street, not inside a police vehicle.

Resisting arrest (if it actually occurred) shouldn't mean a death sentence.
Agreed, but it lends credence to the defense that this was an accidental death.

The question that needs to be answered by the people who are protesting this is "what punishment is sufficient?" I watch that video and my gut tells me 20 years. I really hope that this isn't the sentiment in general because I'll bet dollars for doughnuts that he gets nothing close to that.
 
Thes
Agreed, but it lends credence to the defense that this was an accidental death.

The question that needs to be answered by the people who are protesting this is "what punishment is sufficient?" I watch that video and my gut tells me 20 years. I really hope that this isn't the sentiment in general because I'll bet dollars for doughnuts that he gets nothing close to that.
these are all important questions because reasonable doubt is a giant hurdle for a case this magnitude. Only takes one juror
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
So its really just a matter of how he was restrained and in this case 1 cop restrained him incorrectly
No, you can have mechanical asphyxiation from pressure on your chest or directly on your diaphragm inhibiting your diaphragm from being able to inflate your lungs. This can happen with larger people even if no one is applying pressure, in which case it would be positional asphyxiation. Most police officers have been trained about this risk. This is also why Dr. Baden is concluding that the two officers killed him.

The knee to the neck restraint was in the PD’s policy book and, if applied correctly, will not result in asphyxiation. It is dangerous, though, so most PDs won’t use it.
 
I think its actually easier to convict on 2nd degree than it is on 3rd degree. Might be wrong, but I know that I've heard that in the past. It has something to do with intent to cause harm and how thats defined.
All jurisdictions have their own nuances. I don’t think Ellison could’ve convicted on 3rd degree so he elevated. The problem is that 2nd degree requires either intent to murder or, if no intent, then it requires the murder to occur during the commission of a felony act. It’ll be interesting to see how he’s going to try the case. The more I learn, though, the more I fear that we aren’t going to get the verdicts that we expect and what will happen when that occurs.

More info if you want it: https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/...2nd-degree-murder-also-charge-other-officers/
 
All jurisdictions have their own nuances. I don’t think Ellison could’ve convicted on 3rd degree so he elevated. The problem is that 2nd degree requires either intent to murder or, if no intent, then it requires the murder to occur during the commission of a felony act. It’ll be interesting to see how he’s going to try the case. The more I learn, though, the more I fear that we aren’t going to get the verdicts that we expect and what will happen when that occurs.

More info if you want it: https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/...2nd-degree-murder-also-charge-other-officers/

Just my opinion, but I feel the opposite way. It would have been easier to prove that he acted recklessly which led to a death. It will be almost impossible to prove intent to commit a crime.
 
It will be almost impossible to prove intent to commit a crime.
Oh, I dunno. The officer continued to press his knee into Floyd's heck for over ten minutes
-- beyond the victim's cries that he couldn't breathe
-- after ignoring bystander pleas to help the guy
-- past the point where the victim clearly lost consciousness
-- and even after the absence of a pulse.

I'm no lawyer but that seems kind of intentional to me.
 
Oh, I dunno. The officer continued to press his knee into Floyd's heck for over ten minutes
-- beyond the victim's cries that he couldn't breathe
-- after ignoring bystander pleas to help the guy
-- past the point where the victim clearly lost consciousness
-- and even after the absence of a pulse.

I'm no lawyer but that seems kind of intentional to me.
It's the last two that are the points where you can hang your hat on intent and some of the points of possible violation of policy. People getting arrested say that they can't breathe all the time when they can breathe and policy will most likely be that a suspect can breathe if they can talk. The bystander pleas probably have no relevance because either they aren't experts at judging medical condition from afar or the police wouldn't have known that they were experts at such thing. Maintaining restraint for minutes after they should have recognized loss of consciousness is a good question to ask for the prosecution. After the absence of a pulse, what are the policies in place and what is the objectively reasonable action. Also, when did they call FD and what was the policy on that. I could see Ellison saying that the last two and the neglect to call FD according to policy plus the engagement with the crowd rather than the suspect shows and intent to end the life of the suspect. But I just don't think that you're going to remove any and all reasonable doubts based upon what the defense will present. We will see.
 
People getting arrested say that they can't breathe all the time when they can breathe and policy will most likely be that a suspect can breathe if they can talk.
"Your Honor, my client naturally assumed the victim was lying." :)
Maintaining restraint for minutes after they should have recognized loss of consciousness is a good question to ask for the prosecution.
The question has to be asked: why were three officers restraining him in such a brutal manner in the first place?

We hear the victim resisted arrest inside the police car -- and was told inconclusive film evidence somehow 'verifies' this assertion. I'll be interested to see what the body cams reveal. Over the course of Floyd's ten-plus minutes outside the vehicle down on the pavement, he displayed zero signs of a struggle.
 
"Your Honor, my client naturally assumed the victim was lying." :)
The question has to be asked: why were three officers restraining him in such a brutal manner in the first place?

We hear the victim resisted arrest inside the police car -- and was told inconclusive film evidence somehow 'verifies' this assertion. I'll be interested to see what the body cams reveal. Over the course of Floyd's ten-plus minutes outside the vehicle down on the pavement, he displayed zero signs of a struggle.
The flip side of that argument is that it TOOK 3 guys to hold him down.
 
"Your Honor, my client naturally assumed the victim was lying." :)
The question has to be asked: why were three officers restraining him in such a brutal manner in the first place?

We hear the victim resisted arrest inside the police car -- and was told inconclusive film evidence somehow 'verifies' this assertion. I'll be interested to see what the body cams reveal. Over the course of Floyd's ten-plus minutes outside the vehicle down on the pavement, he displayed zero signs of a struggle.
The bolded question is the most important question that we don't know the answer to and all the video that I've seen misses.

I see plenty of signs of a struggle. Floyd intentionally falling to the ground to avoid getting in the car for one. Floyd intentionally falling down on the sidewalk for another. Dude was definitely struggling with the police.
 
I see plenty of signs of a struggle. Floyd intentionally falling to the ground to avoid getting in the car for one. Floyd intentionally falling down on the sidewalk for another. Dude was definitely struggling with the police.
I would agree with that assessment. The question is whether or not the act of "intentionally falling" is worthy of the level of restraint that these officers displayed?

Keep in mind these officers were responding to an alleged counterfeit check cashing charge, not an assault in progress.
 
The cop that killed Philando Castile was found not guilty of second degree in Minnesota and that seemed just as bad as this.
 
I would agree with that assessment. The question is whether or not the act of "intentionally falling" is worthy of the level of restraint that these officers displayed?

Keep in mind these officers were responding to an alleged counterfeit check cashing charge, not an assault in progress.
That is going to be the million(s) dollar question. Right now, we don’t see exactly what happens in the video that prompts the restraint, so we can only assume. Like you said earlier, maybe the body cams will clear it up.
 
I would agree with that assessment. The question is whether or not the act of "intentionally falling" is worthy of the level of restraint that these officers displayed?

Keep in mind these officers were responding to an alleged counterfeit check cashing charge, not an assault in progress.
Intentionally falling down hurts the prosecutions case. I dont think the counterfeit check is material to the case quite honestly.
 
Intentionally falling down hurts the prosecutions case. I dont think the counterfeit check is material to the case quite honestly.
Maybe they can make it go to the police officer's expected state of mind. In other words, given a nonviolent offense, knowing what they knew at the time of the interaction, and all of the rest of the evolution of the interaction, it is objectively reasonable that any other officer(s) would restrain Floyd? To establish this, they need to get to the bottom of what the officers knew about Floyd, what they knew about the interaction, what exactly happened prior to the video that looks so horrible. Also playing a part would be what the officers knew about Floyd from previous interactions and maybe even conversations with him.

We think we know some of this. I seem to remember that the security guard told the police that Floyd was on drugs or something. That would set the initial frame of mind baseline for the rest of the interaction. So, even though the initial offense was a nonviolent relatively benign criminal act, the determination that he was intoxicated on something and his behavior being non-compliant probably was of more import in the officers' minds than the counterfeit check.
 
Maybe they can make it go to the police officer's expected state of mind. In other words, given a nonviolent offense, knowing what they knew at the time of the interaction, and all of the rest of the evolution of the interaction, it is objectively reasonable that any other officer(s) would restrain Floyd? To establish this, they need to get to the bottom of what the officers knew about Floyd, what they knew about the interaction, what exactly happened prior to the video that looks so horrible. Also playing a part would be what the officers knew about Floyd from previous interactions and maybe even conversations with him.

We think we know some of this. I seem to remember that the security guard told the police that Floyd was on drugs or something. That would set the initial frame of mind baseline for the rest of the interaction. So, even though the initial offense was a nonviolent relatively benign criminal act, the determination that he was intoxicated on something and his behavior being non-compliant probably was of more import in the officers' minds than the counterfeit check.

Do you know if its true that Floyd was just sitting in a Mercedes outside the business for 20 minutes after he tried passing the bill?
 
and nothing. It seems like the kind of thing that would be brought up at trial if one side or the other brings up the fake $20 bill. There's going to be a character aspect of the trial, not just against the cops history but also Floyds.
 
There's going to be a character aspect of the trial, not just against the cops history but also Floyds.
Yeah, Floyd's character is critical to this case. If he did drugs or tried passing counterfeit money, one has to assume he deserved to die. :rolleyes:
 
Yeah, Floyd's character is critical to this case. If he did drugs or tried passing counterfeit money, one has to assume he deserved to die. :rolleyes:
That kind of thing influences juries. No different than the cops history of complaints. Unless you think both should be disregarded, please explain.
 
Yep, if a man is on trial for a brutal back alley rape, the jury definitely needs to consider the victim’s career as a pole dancer at The Shady Lady.
Non-sequitor strawman.

Should Floyd's history be allowed as evidence at the trial?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ucfmikes
So if Floyd has a history of physical confrontation or breaking laws it probably should as well, correct?
It is admissible if the police officers knew that Floyd had a history of resisting, violence, and drug use. It may play a part in their rationale for their actions to restrain him the way they did. I don’t know if there’s any excuse for them to keep restraining him after he lost consciousness or after they could not detect a pulse. At that point, you would think that they would have the responsibility to start first aid, including CPR. But I don’t know what their legal responsibilities are in respect to rendering aid.

Also, when you’re dealing with someone on a drug binge, they’re acting in ways they wouldn’t act normally. History of being a great guy goes out the window.

Candace Owens brought up a point that I’ve made before. It hurts the cause when the people touted before all of America as great people turn out to be a lot less than that. When the narrative turns out to be false. That does as much damage at trying to win over hearts and minds as anything else. I wish we could have these national discussions In measured ways absent the wild crucible of uproar. But we need the media spotlight and the media only cares if they can get ratings.
 
It is admissible if the police officers knew that Floyd had a history of resisting, violence, and drug use.
The only relevant history in this case regarding Floyd is whether or not the police officers were aware of any past history of violence in general and resisting arrest in particular.
Candace Owens brought up a point that I’ve made before. It hurts the cause when the people touted before all of America as great people turn out to be a lot less than that.
That's bullshit. Whether George Floyd was a man of high character is totally irrelevant to what took place the day of his death.

Anyone can throw --and has thrown -- rocks at people who've succeeded in capturing the hearts and minds of people in an effort to discredit them. It happened to Colin Kaepernick...it happened to Martin Luther King...it has been used to tarnish the legacy of people like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, JFK, FDR, heck, you name 'em.

It all just depends on who is writing the story.
 
The only relevant history in this case regarding Floyd is whether or not the police officers were aware of any past history of violence in general and resisting arrest in particular.
That's bullshit. Whether George Floyd was a man of high character is totally irrelevant to what took place the day of his death.

Anyone can throw --and has thrown -- rocks at people who've succeeded in capturing the hearts and minds of people in an effort to discredit them. It happened to Colin Kaepernick...it happened to Martin Luther King...it has been used to tarnish the legacy of people like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, JFK, FDR, heck, you name 'em.

It all just depends on who is writing the story.
Your first sentence just repeats what I said almost exactly. Except that prior drug use would be relevant because it would bolster a belief that he was on drugs now based on observations of the police and of the security guard.

Whether George Floyd was a man of even decent character has everything to do with the public narrative that police are out there killing good people for no reason at all and the implication every interaction that results in use of force is unwarranted. The fact that the narrative is absolutely wrong on Trayvon, on Hands Up Don’t Shoot, on others is relevant in the court of public opinion.

Almost every one of these national cases has tried to claim that the person killed was a good person. Why is that if it’s not relevant? You know the answer, will you be honest about it?

Why hasn’t the media covered that Floyd has a history of violent crime and drug use? That should be relevant to the story, so why not cover it?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT