Ham:

MPD policy notes that when a suspect is violently resisting, the suspect should be place in prone position and weight restrained. Once the suspect is cuffed *and* hobbled (i.e. leg restraints) the classic weight restraint of one officer on each leg, one on the hips or lower back just up from the hips, and one officer on the upper back can be reduced to one on the hips.

But, Chauvin and the four were facing a horrendously antagonistic and loud crowd, some of whom were threatening violence on the officers there and then. That was a horrendously bad and aggravating issue, since no one officer could then at that point move to get the hobble restraints.

The crowd is the sole reason the EMT team did a 'load and scoot' -- that is no treatment at the scene but loading and moving a few blocks away.

If the crowd hadnt been threatening violence, I would agree with you. And even the state's use of force experts agreed that having Floyd in cuffs was not sufficient --- one state's witness recounted an attack on himself by a suspect who was cuffed, prone, and 'calm', who at one point went ape wild and actually got up from the prone position while cuffed and renewed his attack.

Further, each of the 4 officers on scene believed Floyd was undergoing an 'excited delirium' state. Thus the group of officers all acting to pin a leverage point.

Just to be perfectly clear, I wish George Floyd was still alive. I did not know him personally and have no animus toward him now or in the past.

I'm posting this because I am confused by what I have seen in the reporting of this case and the decisions made by the prosecution, the judge, and the jury.

Now maybe George Floyd's physiology is different, but in my experience compression on anything other than the front of your throat doesn't impact the trachea and therefore doesn't impact your breathing. I'm fairly certain that the autopsy revealed no damage to the neck and specifically no damage to the trachea. Then there's the uncomfortable fact that the pressure point wasn't necessarily the side of the neck at all times, but also the shoulder proximal to the base of the neck. How would that have adversely impacted his breathing?

It seems that the determining factor as to whether the applied force was excessive or employed for an excessive duration is that George Floyd died. Where there is no evidence, or no presented evidence, of 'physical' asphyxiation, then I can only assume that the applied force was deemed sufficient to increase George Floyd's stress level to the point that death was in fact inevitable. So whether the force action was for nine minutes or ninety seconds or nine seconds, I don't think that affects the outcome of this trial.

If anyone can explain this to me I would truly be grateful.

(04-22-2021 07:12 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Just to be perfectly clear, I wish George Floyd was still alive. I did not know him personally and have no animus toward him now or in the past.

I'm posting this because I am confused by what I have seen in the reporting of this case and the decisions made by the prosecution, the judge, and the jury.

Now maybe George Floyd's physiology is different, but in my experience compression on anything other than the front of your throat doesn't impact the trachea and therefore doesn't impact your breathing. I'm fairly certain that the autopsy revealed no damage to the neck and specifically no damage to the trachea. Then there's the uncomfortable fact that the pressure point wasn't necessarily the side of the neck at all times, but also the shoulder proximal to the base of the neck. How would that have adversely impacted his breathing?

It seems that the determining factor as to whether the applied force was excessive or employed for an excessive duration is that George Floyd died. Where there is no evidence, or no presented evidence, of 'physical' asphyxiation, then I can only assume that the applied force was deemed sufficient to increase George Floyd's stress level to the point that death was in fact inevitable. So whether the force action was for nine minutes or ninety seconds or nine seconds, I don't think that affects the outcome of this trial.

If anyone can explain this to me I would truly be grateful.

You are correct that the coroner's report showed no damage to the neck nor any damage to the trachea. Nor was there any compression damage to any of the airway. And, that absence was brought out as well from the State's own medical experts under cross exam.

One of the state's use of force experts also buttressed that there was no 'front' choke involved.

The other state use of force expert noted that had a side force choke been the issue, that would have been a so-called 'blood choke' --- and the state expert also noted that had such a blood choke been in issue that an individual would be rendered unconscious in app. 10 sec. Floyd obviously was conscious for far more than that and precluded such a 'blood choke' mode.

And the state never did point to a specific mode of death that the officer(s) inflicted. In short, their theory moved variously from 'air choke', to 'blood choke', to positional asphyxia. When the defense noted the positional restraint issues given the resistance and the hostile crowd (not to mention the MPDs own policies), they brought up the spectre of 'you waited too long to call the medical team'.

When the time information on the call for help and response was introduced, and the issue that the crowd required a 'load and scoot' measure, the prosecution reverted to 'well, look at the 9 mins and 29 secs and tell me that isnt bad' theme.

It worked.

The defense attorney made an extraordinarily bad move at the end of the trial. In closing, he said 'if any of the the issues of the massive dope level, heart artery occlusion, or heart failure played *any* role in Floyd's death, that fails to meet the definition required in the jury instructions to convict.'

The prosecution had the judge re-read that instruction, then hammered the defense for misstating the threshold. The issue is, if the officer's actions played a significant role in his death, that was a threshhold fpr culpability in each of the three counts.

The prosecution rightfully hammered the defense statement as a falsehood to the jury.

But I join your points above wholeheartedly. If one actually followed the context and whole of the trial, your statements above are spot on.

But, we now have our blood sacrifice, and I dont think anyone on one particular side gives a flying rat's ass about those issues and facts.

(04-22-2021 02:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Ham:

MPD policy notes that when a suspect is violently resisting, the suspect should be place in prone position and weight restrained. Once the suspect is cuffed *and* hobbled (i.e. leg restraints) the classic weight restraint of one officer on each leg, one on the hips or lower back just up from the hips, and one officer on the upper back can be reduced to one on the hips.

But, Chauvin and the four were facing a horrendously antagonistic and loud crowd, some of whom were threatening violence on the officers there and then. That was a horrendously bad and aggravating issue, since no one officer could then at that point move to get the hobble restraints.

The crowd is the sole reason the EMT team did a 'load and scoot' -- that is no treatment at the scene but loading and moving a few blocks away.

If the crowd hadnt been threatening violence, I would agree with you. And even the state's use of force experts agreed that having Floyd in cuffs was not sufficient --- one state's witness recounted an attack on himself by a suspect who was cuffed, prone, and 'calm', who at one point went ape wild and actually got up from the prone position while cuffed and renewed his attack.

Further, each of the 4 officers on scene believed Floyd was undergoing an 'excited delirium' state. Thus the group of officers all acting to pin a leverage point.

Tanq... I suppose we can debate what 'violently' means. That aside, They apparently never hobbled him.... per the guidance. That's a violation of policy by your own admission. Had they done so, the weight would have gone from the are around the lungs to the hips... again, by policy... which never happened. I really don't see how the crowd didn't stop him from cuffing his hands and keeping his weight near his chest, but DID stop them from cuffing his legs and moving the weight lower... ESPECIALLY in that he was complaining about not being able to breathe. I didn't hear any good explanation for violating policy, regardless of what the crowd did or did not do.... and this has been my position since day 1.

Actually they should have hobbled him with leg restraints. They didnt since the crowd was very touchy and very threatening, and they could not get to the leg hobbles without either going into the crowd or slackening the 4 point restraint.

And the cuffing wasnt an issue, he was cuffed 3 mins into the 25 min thing --- he was cuffed as he was kicking them when they tried to put him into the cruiser the first time. And yes, kicking at officers is 'violent' in my opinion. In fact, it probably qualifies as a separate aggravated assault on law enforcement charge at that juncture above and beyond the resisting.

The crowd grew quasi violent and threatening as they were trying to get him into the cruiser -- well before he was placed face down and prone.

The handcuffs were placed on Floyd as he came out of his car, and well before the crowd grew and grew agitated.

I would suggest looking at the the entire 25-35 minute wall of videos spanning from the officers initially approaching Floyd in his car, Floyd's departure from his car, the struggle to march him to the cruiser, the violent struggle at and in the cruiser, the removal of Floyd from the cruiser. Yes, Floyd struggled with the officers violently in that span. I dont see how anyone could characterize that as anything but that, to be honest.

(04-24-2021 05:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually they should have hobbled him with leg restraints. They didnt since the crowd was very touchy and very threatening, and they could not get to the leg hobbles without either going into the crowd or slackening the 4 point restraint.

And the cuffing wasnt an issue, he was cuffed 3 mins into the 25 min thing --- he was cuffed as he was kicking them when they tried to put him into the cruiser the first time. And yes, kicking at officers is 'violent' in my opinion. In fact, it probably qualifies as a separate aggravated assault on law enforcement charge at that juncture above and beyond the resisting.

The crowd grew quasi violent and threatening as they were trying to get him into the cruiser -- well before he was placed face down and prone.

The handcuffs were placed on Floyd as he came out of his car, and well before the crowd grew and grew agitated.

I would suggest looking at the the entire 25-35 minute wall of videos spanning from the officers initially approaching Floyd in his car, Floyd's departure from his car, the struggle to march him to the cruiser, the violent struggle at and in the cruiser, the removal of Floyd from the cruiser. Yes, Floyd struggled with the officers violently in that span. I dont see how anyone could characterize that as anything but that, to be honest.

last parts first....
I only mentioned 'violently' because there is a difference between someone who us violently resisting being put into a cruiser because they are having an anxiety attack/freak out/claustrophobia whatever, and somebody trying to escape. I know it is difficult to tell the difference, but these are professionals. I didn't see him trying to escape. What I saw, they could have sat him on the edge of the car with the door open or even on a bench... and surrounded him until an ambulance or a 'paddy wagon' or a supervisor arrived. The crowd was clearly protesting HOW he was being arrested.

Yes, I realize he was cuffed and had been for a good while... hence my point.

Now to the 'why they didn't hobble him'. I don't buy it.
First, I don't see that they are REQUIRED to hobble him. If they thought he was trying to escape, yes... or even just secure him to a bench or something... and wait for help.... but even without that, they should have and didn't.... and instead CHOSE to 'defy' the very crowd they were supposedly afraid of by restraining him?? I'm sorry Tanq, I just don't see that. I see that they had numerous options, and that they took the most 'aggressive' one... and a man died.

The whole point of hobbling him and moving the pressure is because putting pressure on the upper chest is MORE DANGEROUS than on the hip. Of they didn't want to hobble, they STILL could have moved to the hip or legs. They followed neither the letter nor the spirit... by your own description.

He was not armed... he was cuffed... he was not threatening harm to others... he did not commit a violent crime... He was responsive, he just didn't want to get in the car.

They could have spent that 9 minutes sitting with him and calmly talking to him about options... and maybe spent another 5-10 minutes getting him into some form of transport...

Was his life not worth another 10 minutes?

I think such tactics should be reserved for people who are actual risks. I think people like George should have been treated as a nuisance, not a threat.

I appreciate your perspective, I just disagree with it. I understand why cops have an incredibly tough job... but I think making simple corrections like I'm talking about are the right thing to do. Cops should spend more of that aggression on DANGEROUS people.

Quote:I think people like George should have been treated as a nuisance, not a threat.

I might have agreed until I listened to the cross exams of the State's own expert use of force witnesses.

Every one of them under cross said, that when a subject exhibits *any* violence, whether in resisting or in attacking, two items arise. First, the mere presence of handcuffs *may* be insufficient to thwart any reignition of violent behavior. Second, a cop always has to assume that any passivity might be passing in nature, and that resistance can rearise no matter what happens.

Every single state expert use of force witness agreed with the two points above. A post facto examination of Floyd's arrest is fine and dandy --- but that post facto examination that is undertaken as above completely contradicts the two points above that were made by the State's own use of force witnesses. All three of them.

This is my point. We can debate and pontificate all we want with the benefit of a year or so of analysis and pondering possibilities. The law enforcement officer (LEO) on the street, much like the soldier on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan, doesn't have the luxury of time. He has to make split-second decisions, with life or death at stake.
Was Floyd a life or death threat? Apparently not.
Could he have reasonably been perceived as one at some point? Certainly.
Can you turn the resulting adrenaline rush on and off like a light switch? I can't, can you?
Did Chauvin exceed what a reasonable LEO should have done? Absolutely.
Murder? No. Manslaughter? Probably.

But the issue has to be dealt with on a broader scale. How do we defuse situations like this? We need to teach officers how to defuse them. Why are young black men inclined to resist rather than comply? We need to teach cooperation rather than resistance. I'd really be interested in police killing statistics broken down, not by race or color, but by citizen complies versus citizen resists.

If George Floyd had simply complied and cooperated and gotten into the squad car, would he be alive today? Almost certainly. So why didn't he?

(04-24-2021 09:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Was his life not worth another 10 minutes?

False choice. I am sure that if the officers involved including Chauvin had been told that it was either a or b, they would have chosen the option that did not result in death.

It is a false narrative that police officers kill black people because they are racist, yet we hear it every time a black person is killed by a white officer. We are hearing it now about the case of the 16 year old black girl trying to stab a black woman.

(04-25-2021 09:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2021 09:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Was his life not worth another 10 minutes?

False choice. I am sure that if the officers involved including Chauvin had been told that it was either a or b, they would have chosen the option that did not result in death.

It is a false narrative that police officers kill black people because they are racist, yet we hear it every time a black person is killed by a white officer. We are hearing it now about the case of the 16 year old black girl trying to stab a black woman.

It's not a false choice, though I realize I could have worded it better.

My point is that lacking an immediate threat of life to anyone, the officers had the benefit of 'time'. We've seen 'stand-offs' with armed persons last hours, even days or weeks... so why did we use 'force', when we had 'time'? Those WERE choices that the cops had, and in this case the choice cost not only floyd, but chauvin... quite dearly.

I agree 100% that the cop didn't intend to kill him... but he treated him like a threat... and I just don't see it.

I'm betting that if you asked Chauvin if he wishes he had simply waited for more (or different) assistance or taken a much more passive position, he would say 'yes'. The only reason he wouldn't now is because saying so would hamper his defense. I don't mean that ugly... its just the reality. If he says he wishes he had done something else, he is admitting he screwed up and there goes his defense... but I guarantee that he wishes he hadn't done something that could even be ACCUSED of contributing to this man's death.

I think everyone involved looking back on it would rather have invested the time than the millions in damage, pain, anguish, settlements, lawsuits, etc etc etc... and that WAS an option.

One important point...
Chauvin's boss is a minority who 10 years ago was a beat cop who sued the force for discrimination iirc, and he was subsequently moved to head up the IA on the force when it comes to equality, and he rose to be chief like 4 years ago... ALL under a heavily democratic administration. If EVER there was a time and place for 'internal bias' to be vetted out of the force by the left, this was it.