Who Killed George Floyd

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
11,457
Reaction score
691
Points
113
Read the Jason Whitlock article on Gary Patterson controversy. St Pauli.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
5,924
Reaction score
1,117
Points
113
My take is I don’t fault any football coach for saying racial slurs are not acceptable. And for what he say about Floyd, He can have his opinion. Mine is we don’t let the state be sloppy when using force against citizens. Every police contact is the result of actual illegal behavior or suspected illegal behavior. Defending poor police behavior by saying the citizen should not have been there bypasses due process. I’d hate for the standard for police custody to be so lax that death in custody is part of an understandable chain of events started with illegal activity.

The people who are most on board with the idea that you break the law you die are people who expect explicit racism from the police. If that is your worldview, I suppose, you could say Floyd is complicit in his own death for coming into contact with police. The rest of us will find it surprising even if he was intoxicated.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
5,924
Reaction score
1,117
Points
113
The thing that everybody will want to know in the trial, even if it revealed that Floyd was doomed to die of a drug overdose, is why when he went completely unresponsive the cops didn’t switch from restraining him to saving his life. Bystanders tried to engage the cops, and it appears the junior officers were concerned. It may not rise to murder but it certainly looks like they don’t care much about the people they are paid to serve.
 

theczar

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2018
Messages
1,329
Reaction score
438
Points
83
GF had issues and played a role in the event, but he didn’t have to / shouldn’t have died. Chauvin will still be convicted, IMO. I think he should be, and after all that has happened I just don’t see a jury acquitting him. I never felt the other cops would go down and this video supports that.

I think what this video does is shed light on the idea that this wasn’t some racially motivated act by a police force with “systematic racism”. That is what so many out there don’t want to see.
GEORGE FLOYD KILLED GEORGE FLOYD
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
11,457
Reaction score
691
Points
113
My take is I don’t fault any football coach for saying racial slurs are not acceptable. And for what he say about Floyd, He can have his opinion. Mine is we don’t let the state be sloppy when using force against citizens. Every police contact is the result of actual illegal behavior or suspected illegal behavior. Defending poor police behavior by saying the citizen should not have been there bypasses due process. I’d hate for the standard for police custody to be so lax that death in custody is part of an understandable chain of events started with illegal activity.

The people who are most on board with the idea that you break the law you die are people who expect explicit racism from the police. If that is your worldview, I suppose, you could say Floyd is complicit in his own death for coming into contact with police. The rest of us will find it surprising even if he was intoxicated.
Let’s remember I , and nearly everyone, do not condone police killing innocent people. Get that nugget firmly in your head.
Cops are and have been villains to a lot of folks for a long time. “Sloppy” is exactly what police deal with all day, everyday.
George appears to be a great example of sloppy, so you are on point. No matter how much you dismiss illegal drug use, booze, etc George made decisions that put him there. George, not the police.

You break the law you die? Really? Nice attempt to paint a far different picture than reality. Very few have that view, that is simply your bail out for poor personal decisions.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
11,457
Reaction score
691
Points
113
The thing that everybody will want to know in the trial, even if it revealed that Floyd was doomed to die of a drug overdose, is why when he went completely unresponsive the cops didn’t switch from restraining him to saving his life. Bystanders tried to engage the cops, and it appears the junior officers were concerned. It may not rise to murder but it certainly looks like they don’t care much about the people they are paid to serve.
Always, and I mean always someone else’s fault.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
8,088
Reaction score
505
Points
113
My opinion: George Floyd may have likely died from ingesting the load of drugs in his car in an attempt to not go back to jail for months, but Chauvin's knee on his neck moved that death along more rapidly. Chauvin should pay for that extremely poor lack in judgment.

I admit this is just my opinion and it could be wrong. I'm not wedded to this and won't die fighting on this hill. In any case, a man is dead and it is a tragedy.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
5,924
Reaction score
1,117
Points
113
Always, and I mean always someone else’s fault.
That’s what Chauvin’s defense will be. And usually is for MPD. Look at the payouts over the past ten years, and you might decide sometimes the officer isn’t correct.
You mock people for having commenting on ag policy with no farm experience. You ask USAF if he actually knows a farmer. Well, I’d ask what your experience with the Minneapolis police Department is. I’m making no presumption, but if you want people to give witness to their experience now is the time for you to tell us your story.

Having lived in Minneapolis, I find the most of the MPD to be mostly concerned with the MPD. I don’t find that attitude at all with my current city, that has better leadership. I love my police department.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
5,924
Reaction score
1,117
Points
113
More than a decade of living in Minneapolis and not one positive experience with the police Department. No, I was never arrested, or any such thing. And I’m really not a smartass in real life. I learned in boot camp how to say yes sir and no sir when it didn’t make sense to do anything else.
Strictly anecdotally, that department is populated by some cops who shouldn’t be cops.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
11,457
Reaction score
691
Points
113
That’s what Chauvin’s defense will be. And usually is for MPD. Look at the payouts over the past ten years, and you might decide sometimes the officer isn’t correct.
You mock people for having commenting on ag policy with no farm experience. You ask USAF if he actually knows a farmer. Well, I’d ask what your experience with the Minneapolis police Department is. I’m making no presumption, but if you want people to give witness to their experience now is the time for you to tell us your story.

Having lived in Minneapolis, I find the most of the MPD to be mostly concerned with the MPD. I don’t find that attitude at all with my current city, that has better leadership. I love my police department.
Sometimes the officers are not correct. Haven’t seen anyone say otherwise.
I base my comments on The experience of two friends who happen to be officers in the inner city. It appears telling that you wouldn’t have ever had a positive experience with the police. Sometimes the officers are, indeed, correct. That you have to work so hard to find positive in police officers is interesting.

Be clear - I didn’t mock usaf or jam jamm. I can tell when posters are talking out of their a$$ on subjects like farming in today’s environment. Close relatives run thousands of acres. I am sure you noticed they had nothing, correct? Yet you choose to fire this direction instead of the other way.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
5,924
Reaction score
1,117
Points
113
If they are wrong, tell them why, not that they can’t hold an opinion base on their circumstances. If you are speaking from expertise, it will show to people who know.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
5,924
Reaction score
1,117
Points
113
For the record, Burn, you were 100% right in the farm stuff.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
16,578
Reaction score
2,050
Points
113
More than a decade of living in Minneapolis and not one positive experience with the police Department. No, I was never arrested, or any such thing. And I’m really not a smartass in real life. I learned in boot camp how to say yes sir and no sir when it didn’t make sense to do anything else.
Strictly anecdotally, that department is populated by some cops who shouldn’t be cops.
I believe you. And I suspect you are right that some of that department shouldn’t be cops. I think that is a safe bet. However, it is a gigantic leap from that to “systematic racism”. The problem with this situation, as with many, is the pendulum swung too far. That makes others dig in and in the end helps no one.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
5,924
Reaction score
1,117
Points
113
I believe you. And I suspect you are right that some of that department shouldn’t be cops. I think that is a safe bet. However, it is a gigantic leap from that to “systematic racism”. The problem with this situation, as with many, is the pendulum swung too far. That makes others dig in and in the end helps no one.
Fair take.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,167
Reaction score
545
Points
113
Honestly, the drugs are only a very small part of this. Let’s just assume the fentanyl/meth/alcohol amount/mixture wasn’t enough to kill him. The transcript paints a very different picture than what was reported. I didn’t watch the leaked body cam videos (no desire to watch somebody die). But him saying he can’t breathe before being knelt on, and asking to be laid on the ground instead of being in the police car are interesting. Based purely on the transcript, it would seem manslaughter is a more likely conviction than 2nd degree murder. That is also assuming they can prove that although Chauvin used an approved technique, that he did it for too long or in the wrong situation.

Will he be able to plea it down to manslaughter after this is entered into evidence of a trial? Maybe the video shows something more incriminating, or eyewitnesses have damning evidence. But at least from the transcript, it seems like he’s probably not guilty of 2nd degree. That’s not to say they can’t convict him of that. The jurors all know that if they find him innocent, or even if theres a hung jury, the city will burn worse than the first time. I do not envy those jurors in the least; that’s a huge weight to bear.
I agree that a likely outcome might be to plea it down to manslaughter. Maybe the defense lawyers will go for broke and have him plea innocent, but if so, maybe the prosecutor reduces the charge to manslaughter (w/o any plea bargain) and maybe they convict, maybe not. I almost suspect that the jury will convict of something, just to make the resulting "Burn, Minneapolis, Burn" fest less hellish than it otherwise would be with no conviction at all.

> Honestly, the drugs are only a very small part of this. Let’s just assume the fentanyl/meth/alcohol amount/mixture wasn’t enough to kill him.

I disagree with that point. I think the drugs did kill him, perhaps due to the combo of fentanyl + meth, which both contribute to similar symptoms that he had in spades, namely shutting down of the respiratory system, coma and death (fentanyl); and paranoia, respiratory distress, coma, and death (meth). George Floyd went into a coma and died. This is a gradual process.

To make one pass out, you need to shut off both carotid arteries, and generally that only takes maybe 8-10 seconds max. It's been proven that Floyd did not die of strangulation (even though the Floyd family autopsy tried to put that out there as a cause, they had no evidence). Plus, George was chatty as all getout the whole time, saying "I can't breathe" about 20 or 30 times starting from the initial arrest, and not changing in intensity of the complaint or pleading for Chauvin to take his foot off his neck, the whole time. So it wasn't lack of air, but rather, if anything, lack of blood flow to the brain that caused unconsciousness and perhaps accelerated his decline and made his demise occur a couple minutes earlier than it otherwise would have happened.

There's two really bad parts: (a) the fact that the knee on neck maneuver was legal for the Mpls Police in the first place (and that's on the Police Commissioner and the Police Union (for not campaigning against it) and the Mayor (again, for not campaigning against it); and (b) the fact that Chauvin felt the need to use that neck maneuver at all, let alone for almost 9 minutes (and that's on Chauvin, of course, but the other officers, although seeming to point it out, should have stepped in and said "no more" and taken over from Chauvin).

Any way you look at it, I think Chauvin (and perhaps the other officers) are guilty of something. It was stupid, and totally unnecessary to place any kind of hold on George Floyd. Unless the defense can prove that there really was no knee on his neck at all (e.g., perhaps the knee was an inch away from the neck and it was only the threat of a knee-on-neck hold (which Floyd may have experienced before during his illustrious criminal career)), then one could easily believe manslaughter charges against Chauvin for depriving Floyd of a couple minutes of his life, even though Floyd was going to die anyway.

One other thing is clear: there was no racism involved whatsoever. Unless you want to claim that part (a) above (the Mpls Police considering that knee-on-neck hold to be a legal and viable policing tool) to be a form of systemic racism. Actually, in spite of the fact that almost all the accusations of systemic racism are unfounded, you really could make a quite reasonable case that the (a) offense of the MPD is systemic racism. Why? Because the MPD has authorized a cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners by police, which is almost never needed in any event (e.g., only if the suspect has a lethal weapon in hand), yet is used much more often against suspects of color than against Caucasions - even way out of proportion to by-race frequency of violent crimes.

Actually, I'd like to see the prosecutor bump it up to conspiracy charges, and add the Mayor and Police Chief to the list of accused. Yet, is it possible that Chauvin had a little more fun using that knee-on-neck hold than is healthy for a police officer? Yes. And on that basis, he probably ought to be convicted of manslaughter.

But murder 2 or murder 3 should be off the table, once the tox report is filed into evidence.

Here are some key points from "Who Killed George Floyd?"

"The autopsy report by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office is titled “CARDIOPULMONARY ARREST COMPLICATING LAW ENFORCEMENT SUBDUAL, RESTRAINT, AND NECK COMPRESSION.” Strangely enough, the report, which thoroughly sets forth in detail all physical and toxicological findings, makes no other mention of the purported cause of death. In fact, the first iteration of the report didn’t even mention “law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression,” and the criminal complaint filed by prosecutors stated that the autopsy “revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.”"

What had happened is that the original HCME report was just titled something like "CARDIOPULMONARY ARREST" but later on, after the family's separate autopsy pushed the non-existent evidence of "traumatic asphyxia or strangulation" in an effort to get Chauvin accused of strangling Floyd, the HCME report title was amended to add the "COMPLICATING LAW ENFORCEMENT SUBDUAL, RESTRAINT, AND NECK COMPRESSION" part to the title. That was an effort to adapt the facts to the meme being promoted by the Floyd family. But there didn't seem to be any evidence of "traumatic asphyxia or strangulation" added to the HCME report, even after they were strong-armed into changing the title of the report.

"... the arrest warrant for Officer Chauvin, which was filed on May 29, 2020. This date is significant because, as you will see, neither the Medical Examiner nor the prosecutors had yet received Floyd’s toxicology report. That report was issued by NMS Labs of Horsham, Pennsylvania, on May 31, 2020. (That is, the toxicology report did not arrive until two days after the arrest warrant was issued.)"

"In short, Chauvin was charged with third-degree murder (later raised to second-degree murder by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison) without the benefit of a complete and competent investigation of all the relevant facts and circumstances of Floyd’s death."

This third-degree murder charge was clearly a premature action taken by the Hennepin County Prosecutor's Office in order to appease the now-rioting Minneapolis protesters. In other words, prosecution by mob. Due process would have waited to analyze the toxicology report as part of fact-finding prior to making a decision on whether or not to prosecute.

"After Drs. Baden and Wilson (the Floyd family's autopsy specialists) concluded that Floyd’s death was “a homicide due to the way he was being subdued,” the Hennepin County Medical Examiner then amended his report to include the reference to “complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.”"

Drs. Baden and Wilson also did not have access to the autopsy report when they made their assessment on cause of death. Therefore, their autopsy is pretty much junk. They were paid by a grieving family that wanted to sue the city for millions, and they delivered what the family asked for.

The paper we're discussing goes on to argue that it was all about the drugs, which caused Floyd's death by "cardiopulmonary arrest," concluding "So, who killed George Floyd? He did."

And I do strongly suspect that they are largely right, at least to the point of it being about 90% true that "George Floyd killed George Floyd via an overdose."

But I also think that it's not quite that simple. Namely, what about the other 10%. I'd say that 10% breaks down into the (a) and (b) halves noted above, that is, firstly, 5% of the cause of Floyd's death goes on the shoulders of Mayor Frey and the Police Chief and the Police Union for not only endorsing, but also teaching Minneapolis police officers that so-called “neck restraint” technique. Can we get Frey on manslaughter for his share in that 5%. And secondly, 5% of the cause of Floyd's death goes on the shoulders of Chauvin for using that "neck restraint" technique when it was totally uncalled for. We'll let the courts decide whether Chauvin et al. are guilty of that 5%, and what that 5% of the guilt should merit in terms of sentencing guidelines, if convicted.

There's about four other things I want to call out about this whole mess that is centered around the peripheral participation by a handful of others in the mostly death-by-overdose of George Floyd.

First, the initial 2nd degree murder charge was apparently not satisfactory to Governor Tim Walz and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. So Walz made the call to take the case out of the hands of the Hennepin County Prosecutor, and hand it off to AG Keith Ellison. This was ostensibly to ensure that they got the correct charges filed against the suspects. And, in the minds of the mob at that time destroying Minneapolis, Ellison moved the needle in the lynching direction demanded by the mob, namely upping the charge from third-degree to second-degree murder. This fit the meme of the moment that Chauvin intentionally killed Floyd by choking him, and presumably did so for racist reasons. But we now see that there was certainly no racism involved, and almost certainly no choking involved, albeit there may have been some partial suppression of one (of two) carotid arteries involved as a consequence of the so-called “neck restraint” technique that Chauvin used ill-advisedly.

What is wrong, and indeed evil about this is that Chauvin's opportunity for justice was thrown away right from the get-go by Tim Walz and Keith Ellison. They charged with third-degree murder without even having the toxicology evidence in hand; and then they doubled-down on this by upping it to second-degree murder - presumably after seeing the toxicology report, which for any sane person would have argued strongly in favor of reducing the charge to manslaughter, not upping it to second-degree. Walz violated Chauvin's civil rights in response to (and appeasing) the mob that was by this time burning down the city. The crowd was chanting "no justice, no peace." And we actually got just that. Chauvin got "no justice" and the city of Minneapolis got "no peace." Walz kow-towed to the violent mob instead of seeking justice, while at the same time allowing the city to be burned without responding with suitable force, and as a background task, he was busy ensuring that 75% of Minnesota Covid deaths happened to residents in nursing homes and long-term care facilities. Walz should be impeached ASAP.

Second, when the body-cam video evidence was leaked, the liberal media responded to it disingenuously. For instance, MSNBC showed only a few seconds of the video, namely he officer pointing his gun at George Floyd, and Floyd yelling don't shoot. And of course, their commentary didn't divulge that with this new evidence, it looks like George Floyd's death was mostly an overdose, and most certainly wasn't a racially motivated killing by a white police officer. Per the article we're discussing, the truth about the gun is that it was obvious already while initially approaching the vehicle that Floyd was acting extremely erratically, and that could mean a number of things, but some of those possibilities often have bad outcomes, so that it was more than warranted for the officer to draw their service revolver when approaching the vehicle. George was extremely paranoid due to the drugs he was overdosing on, but when he finally complied well enough to put his hands on the steering wheel, the officer holstered the gun and assured Floyd that nobody is going to shoot him.

By that time, they already had some strong hints that Floyd had a load of drugs in him. In fact, shortly thereafter, they noticed him foaming at the mouth. The newly released video evidence didn't fit the MSNBC meme of systemic racism, but an officer pointing a gun at a black man did fit the meme, so they ran with that. This is just one of the many instances of dishonest journalism associated with this whole George Floyd/BLM nightmare. The left-leaning media outlets have done nothing but fan the flames of racist claims for several months now, including running cover for the Marxist BLM revolutionaries. As a result of a drug overdose by George Floyd, plus fanning of the flames by Walz and Ellison and Frey and BLM and antifa, thousands of small business were looted and/or burned across the country, and at least 30 people have been killed during the rioting per se, not to mention a surplus murder death toll (over normal murder rates) perhaps approaching a thousand extra deaths, mostly black-on-black murders, all thanks to a bunch of ridiculous idiots arguing that we ought to defund the police. This whole mess will go down in the history books as one of the most shameful mob-rule episodes in American history.

Third, the Marxist Black Lives Matter Global Network organization was just itching to get an incident just like the George Floyd incident. They were waiting patiently for an incident of the death of a black suspect by a white policeman that has *great optics*. And by *great optics* I mean optics that are *horrible* to the average viewer of the video, but that are perfect for BLM to use to foment racially divisive violence and mayhem, all covered by mobs of mostly innocent protesters that contained a minority of rioters. I can't prove in a court of law that they were just itching to do this, since I can't read their minds. But what I do know is that, about a month before the George Floyd incident, I was thinking about just this - that is, I was daydreaming about organizations like Black Lives Matter, which I think may have started out innocently enough a few year back, but which I now suspected were largely taken over by a mob of Marxists.

Oddly, I guess that even though I was thinking about that, I was too lazy to google it at that time, so it wasn't til much later that I did google it, and found out that my suspicion was indeed true. But at that time, a month before the George Floyd incident, I predicted that some time this summer the BLM would find the perfect incident (of a black killed by a white cop) that had *great optics* that they could use to "let the rioting begin." Little did I know that the incident they selected, would happen right in my own urban area of Minneapolis. Little did I know that Minneapolis would burn. At the time I figured, "well that's a crazy daydream." But it turned out that what I feared was actually true, and the BLM was indeed looking for an incident with *great optics* and found that incident in the event of George Floyd dying of a drug overdose, but in the accompaniment of officer Chauvin applying an archaic and dangerous and ill-advised (not to mention career-terminating for him) but legal “neck restraint” technique that was perfectly caught on video by a passer-by. The rest is history. I quite literally anticipated vicious riots throughout the country this summer, sponsored by BLM. Part of me suspected that everybody being cooped-up by Covid would make it worse.

Finally, associated with all the summer goings-on surrounding the George Floyd incident of drug overdose under the knee of Chauvin, there have been some huge violations of our treasured rights of free speech, often accompanied by extremely ugly violations of other civil rights by means of doxxing. Some of these free-speech violations have been associated with people trying to openly discuss Covid-related issues (but going afoul of the thought police who would wish us not to have the right to freely discuss Covid issues); and others of these free-speech violations have been associated with people trying to openly discuss issues related to the George Floyd incident or related general issues such as the presence or lack of institutional racism (but going afoul of the thought police who would wish us not to have the right to freely express our opinion on George Floyd or related issues).

But there was one thing that the American founding fathers and authors of our Constitution could not possibly have anticipated. Of course, they valued free speech, and so within our Constitution and Bill of Rights they added words that would effectively ban any unreasonable censorship - by the government. What they could not have anticipated was the Internet, and that once the Internet took off, it would become the de facto "public square" for public discourse. As such, the public square is now effectively owned by Big Tech companies, and most of the owners and CEOs of the Big Tech companies are leftists, and the founding fathers could not have known that at some far date in the future, leftist Big Tech bigwigs would start censoring the public square.

I'll give you an example. Stefan Molyneux is a right-leaning atheist philosopher who often discusses controversial issues. That's what philosophers do. Philosophers are often more interested in questions of what methodology is best to ascertain the truth, and typically leave the actual investigation of the truth to the scientists. Stefan is very unpopular with the left since he sometimes conducts discussions with people embracing some very out-there ideas. But that's what philosophers do - it's their job. The left (who wrote his Wikipedia entry) calls him a white supremacist and white nationalist. I really only read one of his online pieces, so I can't really be a good judge, but I have a hunch that he's not truly a white supremacist/nationalist since what I read was very mild. But who knows, maybe I just didn't encounter his more egregious stuff yet. Anyway, even though I'm probably antagonistic to many/most of his views, I don't think that he should be censored.

But the leftist Cancel Culture has apparently been itching to cancel Stefan Molyneux for quite some time. Quite recently, they got their opportunity when YouTube banned (canceled) him. They deleted his YouTube site without warning. He probably has a backup of his videos, but he lost all the user comments, etc. What precipitated this move by YouTube? Stefan Molyneux posted a video in which he speculated on the possibilities of what the deeper truth might be surrounding the George Floyd incident. That's the one-and-only Molyneux video I've seen, and I thought he did a good job on it. As a philosopher, he was speculating what the details of the truth might be (since obviously he could not have known those details at that time (about a month ago)). Speculation is just thinking of possibilities re what might have happened, and perhaps sorting them in order of what one guesses might be more likely. Since it's just speculation, it's not really even him saying that he firmly believes in one speculative theory or another. One should never get banned or canceled for speculating. Speculation is the heart of science. When the thought police tell us we can't speculate anymore, then science is dead.

So anyway, what Molyneux speculated about in his video was almost exactly along the lines of the new information that has just come out with the release of the police body-cam footage, and further explicated in the article "Who Killed George Floyd?" As it turns out, Stefan Molyneux's speculations were almost exactly on target. He thought it was fairly likely that George Floyd actually died of a drug overdose, and was at most partially assisted in his demise by Chauvin. YouTube banned him for mere speculation, in which said speculation actually turned out to be largely true with the hindsight of the recently released evidence. However, at the time he published them, Molyneux's speculations ran counter to the leftist meme of "death by a racist cop" that BLM and others were trying to perpetrate on society in order to foment rioting and destruction across the nation. Stefan Molyneux was banned from YouTube for speculating (what turned out to be) the truth, but which contradicted the lie that Chauvin was a racist who murdered Floyd for racist purposes.

Per YouTube's (Google's/Alphabet's) rationalization, Stefan was posting false information, and that violated their terms of service. It's a scary thing when proponents of lies have the authority and power to censor people that are merely speculating about what the truth might be, whenever said speculation goes counter to their own lies.
 
Last edited:

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,573
Reaction score
1,298
Points
113
It's a shame the AG/Police decided to withhold that video until now, or we might have been able to avoid a bunch of violence & destruction.

What the video shows us is that Floyd was indeed resisting arrest as the cops claimed, that he appeared to be out of his mind on drugs, and most importantly that he was claiming "I can't breathe" long before he was ever on the ground, or Chauvin ever had his knee on him.

I think Chauvin's attorney is going to make a credible case that Chauvin had no idea Floyd was actually asphyxiating, since Floyd had been claiming he couldn't breathe for some time before that, when Floyd obviously could breathe.

Chauvin isn't off the hook, because he still can't let a suspect die on him, but the 2nd & 3rd degree murder charges seem pretty silly at this point. Manslaughter charges probably still make sense, but that's likely to be pled down to a few years. It makes you wonder why AG Keith Ellison would allow Chauvin to be charged with 2nd and 3rd degree murder, because presumably he must have seen this video?
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,573
Reaction score
1,298
Points
113
More than a decade of living in Minneapolis and not one positive experience with the police Department. No, I was never arrested, or any such thing. And I’m really not a smartass in real life. I learned in boot camp how to say yes sir and no sir when it didn’t make sense to do anything else.
Strictly anecdotally, that department is populated by some cops who shouldn’t be cops.
Every day that goes by, I'm more in favor of abolishing public sector unions. The reason bad cops keep their jobs, is the police union. The union cares about power & the cops, not about the the people. Same with the teacher's union & the millions of failing kids/schools. Like the police union, they care about power & the teachers, not the kids. I say, if you decide you want to work in public service for the city, county, state, fed, then you should take the compensation package they offer.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
9,622
Reaction score
1,326
Points
113
It's a shame the AG/Police decided to withhold that video until now, or we might have been able to avoid a bunch of violence & destruction.
Don't kid yourself. There was always going to be a 'nuclear option' for putting Biden in the WH. If not the Floyd incident, it would have been something else
 

WAGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,035
Reaction score
169
Points
63
Chauvin isn't off the hook, because he still can't let a suspect die on him, but the 2nd & 3rd degree murder charges seem pretty silly at this point. Manslaughter charges probably still make sense, but that's likely to be pled down to a few years. It makes you wonder why AG Keith Ellison would allow Chauvin to be charged with 2nd and 3rd degree murder, because presumably he must have seen this video?
I Also thought manslaughter charges would be filed. However, the video shows that Chauvin disregarded the other officers concerns, and belittled Floyd’s asking for help. Those actions can be seen as intent to harm, which is required for a murder charge.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,573
Reaction score
1,298
Points
113
I Also thought manslaughter charges would be filed. However, the video shows that Chauvin disregarded the other officers concerns, and belittled Floyd’s asking for help. Those actions can be seen as intent to harm, which is required for a murder charge.
Can you be more specific about how he belittled Floyd's cries for help, or how he disregarded the other officers? I.e. I have not seen those things. What was said specifically?
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,167
Reaction score
545
Points
113
Can you be more specific about how he belittled Floyd's cries for help, or how he disregarded the other officers? I.e. I have not seen those things. What was said specifically?
I'm not sure I have all the details re that, but I'll state what I think to be true, and perhaps @WAGopher can fill in what I missed.

As far as "how he belittled Floyd's cries for help" we know that Floyd was saying "I can't breathe" and we now know that he said that about 20-30 times from the beginning of the arrest - almost incessantly. So Chauvin, in essence, ignored those statements of distress. Well, to be fair, they had already called the ambulance - initialy just due to Floyd bumping his forehead on the squad car window, but then later bumped up the urgency of that call-for-ambulance when they realized that he was certainly in the throes of some kind of drug overdose.

Maybe Chauvin figured, hey we already called an ambulance, what more could we do. Maybe there also was a bit of the "boy who cried wolf" phenomenon going on. Also, maybe Chauvin figured, he can't possibly have any issue in breathing just due to his knee-on-neck hold, not only since he'd been crying that ever since he was upright, but also because it takes part of your breath to talk, and you couldn't talk if you were choking.

Yet, Chuvin certainly must have know two facts: (a) to the extent that he (Chauvin) was potentially blocking one or two carotid arteries, that couldn't possible help Floyd's (possibly drug-overdose-related) distress condition any, and quite possibly could make it worse; and (b) Floyd was a hurtin ma at that point, and was not in any condition to try to make a get-away, so that there was absolutely no reason at all to use any kind of hold on him. The hand-cuffs were enough. End of story. So you pretty much have a case for manslaughter just due to him continuing to apply a hold that "potentially" might have caused harm to Floyd, even if Floyd's death was (say) 99% due to a drug overdose.

As far as "how he disregarded the other officers" the story I heard is that (maybe two?) other officers stated to Chauvin that he was in serious stress, and that they should do something about it. What the suggested something was, I don't know. I suspect they were referring to the knee-on-neck hold and were trying to make the point that that was excessive and not needed. Apparently, Chauvin ignored those comments by his colleagues.

Now, Chauvin was the senior officer, and two of the others were rank rookies (perhaps the ones with the suggestions). Maybe Chauvin might argue that he was using this as a teaching moment. But if so, he could have taught that lesson via a hold with duration one second, not enough to make Floyd pass out.

As far as the other officers guilt or not, I'd say the following. Of course this is all 20-20 hindsight and based on what I think I would have done in this situation. But once Chauvin didn't heed their warning of concern, they should have escalated that with (first, maybe) something like "Seriously, stop with the hold already, cuz we don't need it, he's not going to get away. And seriously, it looks really bad and you're on video right now."

Assuming that failed to convince Chauvin to stop the hold, if I were in that situation, I would have felt the obligation to (in strong assertive tone of voice) tell Chauvin to "stand down, I'm taking over here."

They didn't do that. They were rookies. It might have meant career suicide doing so. Yet, it needed to be done, career be damned.

If Chauvin failed to stand down after that, then one or more of the other three officers should have drawn their service revolver, and then told Chauvin, "no, I'm serious, you're standing down right now - we'll straighten this out later on at the precinct, but seniority or no seniority, I'm taking over here, so (addressing another officer) please take his service revolver from his holster and secure it, and Chauvin, please go sit in the squad car."

That was really what was necessary. To the extent that the other officers didn't do that, they are indeed guilty of being accessories to whatever Chauvin gets convicted of. In a time like that, morality trumps seniority and trumps career future.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,573
Reaction score
1,298
Points
113
I'm looking for what Chauvin said specifically to "belittle Floyd’s asking for help" i.e. That paints a picture in my mind of Chauvin mocking him "Oh you can't breathe? Should I call your Mommy?" or something along those lines? This is an important element. If in fact Chauvin is on tape mocking Floyd, that could indeed change things, but this is the first I've heard of it so I'm looking for the specific wording or actions?

Without that, I'd think 2nd and 3rd degree murder charges are out the window. Any decent defense attorney is going to show Floyd was either od'ing the whole time which is why he kept saying he couldn't breathe, and it was an OD, not Chauvin who killed Floyd, or that Floyd was the boy who cried wolf, and after saying it multiple times when it clearly wasn't true, Chauvin assumed it wasn't true this time either. In either scenario, there's no case for murder.
 

forever a gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
270
Points
83
I'm looking for what Chauvin said specifically to "belittle Floyd’s asking for help" i.e. That paints a picture in my mind of Chauvin mocking him "Oh you can't breathe? Should I call your Mommy?" or something along those lines? This is an important element. If in fact Chauvin is on tape mocking Floyd, that could indeed change things, but this is the first I've heard of it so I'm looking for the specific wording or actions?

Without that, I'd think 2nd and 3rd degree murder charges are out the window. Any decent defense attorney is going to show Floyd was either od'ing the whole time which is why he kept saying he couldn't breathe, and it was an OD, not Chauvin who killed Floyd, or that Floyd was the boy who cried wolf, and after saying it multiple times when it clearly wasn't true, Chauvin assumed it wasn't true this time either. In either scenario, there's no case for murder.
While theoretically true, that doesn't mean it'll matter. For the sake of argument, let's say the facts show that either Chauvin isn't guilty of 2nd/3rd degree murder, or there is at least enough doubt to acquit. Think of the jurors and what they know will happen if he isn't convicted. Undoubtedly, there will be more riots, and I would say likely worse than the first round if this Covid thing is still going on. Which most assuredly also means more civilian deaths by the rioters. Plus, it's also likely that you'll get the left-wing zealots that will find your identity and address and either threaten you for "protecting the police / being a racist", or possibly worse.

The question for me is - would Ellison/Freeman accept a manslaughter plea deal? Is that political suicide from the lefties? I have to imagine it's better for them to try it as 2nd/3rd and lose than accept a lower charge. They can at least claim they were "trying for justice" and it's the jury's/court's fault for being systemically racist or having unconscious bias.
 

WAGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,035
Reaction score
169
Points
63
Can you be more specific about how he belittled Floyd's cries for help, or how he disregarded the other officers? I.e. I have not seen those things. What was said specifically?
I just re-read the long transcript, which is an image so I can’t copy the text. Chauvin, while his knee is on Floyd’s neck continually ignores Floyd’s assertion he can’t breath, ignores Floyd when he complains about his face, and keeps his knee on Floyd’s neck for about two minutes after he becomes unresponsive.

Chauvin at least twice belittled, or chided, Floyd for being able to talk while claiming he couldn’t breath. One of them was something like, “it takes a lot of oxygen to talk.”

The other officers asked Chauvin at least twice if they should turn Floyd on his side [to help with His distress].

Note: A person can suffucate even when their lungs are full of air, but the oxygen in the lungs is blocked from being delivered to vital organs, especially the brain. A common occurrence of this is a double pulmonary embolism, where a blood clots fill the blood vessels in both lungs making the transfer of oxygen to the bloodstream impossible, even with the lungs full of air. Another is blocking blood flow to the brain by compressing the carotid artery in the neck, which is what happened to Floyd.

This is something that isn’t just known to most of us, but it should be part of the training that police officers get. I would think Chauvin’s lawyer would be all over whether he was properly trained to understand the risks of choking as a restraint method.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,573
Reaction score
1,298
Points
113
Chauvin at least twice belittled, or chided, Floyd for being able to talk while claiming he couldn’t breath. One of them was something like, “it takes a lot of oxygen to talk.”
I don't think he was belittling him, I think he was pointing out the obvious. I see this working in Chauvin's defense, not against him. It shows Chauvin believed Floyd was Ok, and wasn't trying to murder him.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
41,410
Reaction score
2,710
Points
113
More riots ahead in Minneapolis....
 
Top Bottom