I do. I fear the outcome could very likely be the same as the Trevon Martin Case.
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-overview.html
Yes. Third degree seemed like a slam dunk. Remember philando Castile? Same thing happened.
The guy who was fondling himself while he killed someone? No.
In before the lock!
Well to begin with let's look at the actual statute that he us charged under:
Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or
https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2020/docs/Complaint_Chauvin.pdf
It looks like the whole "upgraded charge" thing is actually adding a "felony murder" count to the prosecution. "Felony murder" is, for simplicity's sake, killing someone while committing another felony crime. Committing an armed robbery and the victim slips, falls, and dies even though you didn't touch them? Felony murder could be on the table.
Criminal law his this concept called "mens rea." The mens rea is a state of mind of the offender. Was the offender negligent? reckless? did they act with intent? Charge Reckless Homicide but you can only prove the offender was negligent? Not guilty verdict. (To my recollection this where the overcharging of Zimmerman bit the prosecution, they couldn't prove that Zimmerman intended Martin's death, but speculation is that they could have proven that he caused the death recklessly).
Felony murder is a criminal statue with NO mens rea element. The government doesn't need to prove Chauvin acted with any criminal mindset, simply that Floyd died while Chauvin was committing an underlying felonious act.
So, then we have to look down to to the underlying felony charges, which, I think, haven't changed. If they could prove a reckless homicide before, they can now. I guess, since we're here, let's look at the other charging 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.
I see three issues:
1. Is the knee-on-neck technique "eminently dangerous to others"? Expect the defense to trot out an army of experts who have built their careers on the militarization of police industry. Will that defense work? I dunno, probably not? I guess it depends on how convincing the experts are, and how good the prosecution is at impeaching their conflicts of interest.
2. Did Chauvin act with "a depraved mind, without regard for human life"? Expect the defense, again, to rely on experts to say that a reasonable police officer in a similar situation would have used the same technique. Same issues as above apply.
3. Did Chauvin's application of knee-on-neck cause Floyd's death? We already saw the trial balloons of "underlying health issues" floating around in the immediate wake of Floyd's autopsy, so again I'd expect the defense to beat this drum.
And lastly
609.20 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
Whoever does any of the following is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both:
(1) intentionally causes the death of another person in the heat of passion provoked by such words or acts of another as would provoke a person of ordinary self-control under like circumstances, provided that the crying of a child does not constitute provocation;
I have no idea why this is here and a MN criminal attorney would have to give me an explanation on duplicitive charging practices there, because it seems to mirror the second count but frankly be weaker. Why would they draw a parallel of Chauvin to a reasonable person? But again, I'm out of element here. I've got no good read on this one. I think if they charge Murder 3 it necessarily precludes Man 1, but again, not my field <shrug>
Okay, tl;dr, no. I don't think he was overcharged.
Prosecutors structured the charges so that even if a judge or jury somehow decides it was all just a big accident and there was no intent, they can still find guilt on the lesser included charge of third-degree murder.
So, the answer is no.
;D
Quote from: Pakuni on June 08, 2020, 09:07:39 AM
Prosecutors structured the charges so that even if a judge or jury somehow decides it was all just a big accident and there was no intent, they can still find guilt on the lesser included charge of third-degree murder.
So, the answer is no.
So he is still charged with 3rd degree murder and trying to get him on second degree. Thanks for the clarification.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on June 08, 2020, 09:27:53 AM
;D
So he is still charged with 3rd degree murder and trying to get him on second degree. Thanks for the clarification.
Yes. I just linked the charging document above and literally explained that the "2nd degree murder" charge is actually a felony murder charge that, by necessity, requires an underlying felony to stand.
Covid?
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 08, 2020, 09:49:22 AM
Covid?
Seeing how some states were counting murder victims with Covid as Covid deaths, why not?
Waiting for a prominent businessman, who one day might run for the presidency, to take out full-page newspaper ads saying Chauvin should be executed.
In before a thread that never should have been started gets locked.
Let the jury decide.
We have seen a small fraction of the evidence the Minnesota Attorney General intends to present.
This city will erupt again if this is not handled properly.
Mike, you're right....IBFTL
No.
Based strictly on the language of the statute, third-degree seemed like the better charge. But I read on some legal blog that case law in MN has consistently held that "an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life" means that the act has to endanger multiple people (like driving a car into a crowd or shooting a gun in a crowded theater). Chauvin's action was clearly depraved and disregarded Floyd's life, but I don't see how prosecutors could prove he endangered anyone else. I can't find the blog right now and I don't do criminal law, but if that interpretation of case law is correct, the original third-degree charge was a major faux pas by the prosecutor.
Second degree is a challenge that it requires intent to kill...but it doesn't require premeditation. I suspect the prosecutor will show that Chauvin may not originally have planned to kill anyone (or Floyd in particular), but that this intent evolved over the course of the incident, as evidenced by the fact that he kept his knee on Floyd's neck long after he was subdued and no longer a threat, after another officer asked if the knee was necessary, and after onlookers pleaded with him to get off. Big challenge...but not impossible.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 08, 2020, 09:07:39 AM
Prosecutors structured the charges so that even if a judge or jury somehow decides it was all just a big accident and there was no intent, they can still find guilt on the lesser included charge of third-degree murder.
So, the answer is no.
exactly. If they don't prove second degree they can prove third degree. There's also the charge for manslaughter. They have been very careful here to make sure they can get something to stick. I just hope violence or outrage (looking at you, DSA) won't occur if he gets convicted on third-degree and not second degree.
Quote from: Billy Hoyle on June 08, 2020, 01:24:34 PM
exactly. If they don't prove second degree they can prove third degree. There's also the charge for manslaughter. They have been very careful here to make sure they can get something to stick. I just hope violence or outrage (looking at you, DSA) won't occur if he gets convicted on third-degree and not second degree.
Pretty sure the anarchists will get violent no matter what the jury decides.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on June 08, 2020, 01:12:13 PM
[...]
Second degree is a challenge that it requires intent to kill...but it doesn't require premeditation. I suspect the prosecutor will show that Chauvin may not originally have planned to kill anyone (or Floyd in particular), but that this intent evolved over the course of the incident, as evidenced by the fact that he kept his knee on Floyd's neck long after he was subdued and no longer a threat, after another officer asked if the knee was necessary, and after onlookers pleaded with him to get off. Big challenge...but not impossible.
Is there a different charging document than the one I posted? I'm pretty sure the 2nd degree charge specifically lacks an intent element.
Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on June 08, 2020, 01:48:12 PM
Pretty sure the anarchists will get violent no matter what the jury decides.
no doubt they will. The same people are complaining about not charging Chauvin with first-degree murder. My wife and I watched in horror as they hijacked a vigil for George Floyd and marched downtown smashing windows and tagging buildings along the way (including my wife's office building) then looted the Apple Store, Louis Vuitton, the Sprint store, jewelry stores, etc. and setting fires. You know, because nothing says "Black Lives Matter" like a bunch of white kids looting and spraying ACAB and F--k 12.
Rant over.
Quote from: WarriorDad on June 08, 2020, 09:52:03 AM
Seeing how some states were counting murder victims with Covid as Covid deaths, why not?
What value are you adding to this conversation by spouting this drivel?
Quote from: WarriorDad on June 08, 2020, 09:52:03 AM
Seeing how some states were counting murder victims with Covid as Covid deaths, why not?
So wrong. So troll. So over this iteration.
Quote from: jficke13 on June 08, 2020, 02:10:03 PM
Is there a different charging document than the one I posted? I'm pretty sure the 2nd degree charge specifically lacks an intent element.
This is what the MN statute says verbatim: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19
609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or
(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.____________
IMHO, the underlined part (with intent but without premeditation) fits this case better than the unintentional sections, because one requires another felony, and the other requires that the perpetrator be under an order for protection.
If prosecutors can charge someone with second AND third-degree murder for the same crime, why don't they do it all the time?
It seems to me they'd have nothing to lose.
He was charged under 609.19.2(1):
Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting
It's the felony murder statute. Not 2nd degree intentional.
Happy to have a MN atty correct me, but I read the statute pointing to Subdivision 2, not subdivision 1.
Quote from: jficke13 on June 08, 2020, 03:43:26 PM
He was charged under 609.19.2(1):
Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting
It's the felony murder statute. Not 2nd degree intentional.
Happy to have a MN atty correct me, but I read the statute pointing to Subdivision 2, not subdivision 1.
So the prosecutor has to prove (in order):
1) Chauvin was indeed committing a felony assault
2) During the process of that assault, he ended up killing Floyd
And hence intent isn't relevant for this case.
Do I have that correct?
Quote from: Eldon on June 08, 2020, 03:48:53 PM
So the prosecutor has to prove (in order):
1) Chauvin was indeed committing a felony assault
2) During the process of that assault, he ended up killing Floyd
And hence intent isn't relevant for this case.
Do I have that correct?
Kinda. Felony murder is causing death while "attempting to commit a felony offense" so proving an underlying felony of any kind would allow the prosecutor to tack on a serious homicide charge without needing to prove intent.
Normally this comes up in robberies gone wrong. Prove the underlying robbery, then you get the capital murder charge even if the defendant had no intent whatsoever of committing homicide.
Quote from: jficke13 on June 08, 2020, 03:43:26 PM
He was charged under 609.19.2(1):
Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting
It's the felony murder statute. Not 2nd degree intentional.
Happy to have a MN atty correct me, but I read the statute pointing to Subdivision 2, not subdivision 1.
Sorry, did not mean it to sound like a correction. I did not see the charging document before posting, so I was solely posting my opinion based on the statutory language what I had read about third-degree murder on the blog. Anyhow, I still think their best bet would be under subdivision 1 because it does not require proving two separate felonies.
As I mentioned earlier, I am not a criminal attorney (pretty much slept through Criminal Law in law school) so take that opinion for the $0.02 it's worth.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on June 08, 2020, 04:00:36 PM
Sorry, did not mean it to sound like a correction. I did not see the charging document before posting, so I was solely posting my opinion based on the statutory language what I had read about third-degree murder on the blog. Anyhow, I still think their best bet would be under subdivision 1 because it does not require proving two separate felonies.
As I mentioned earlier, I am not a criminal attorney (pretty much slept through Criminal Law in law school) so take that opinion for the $0.02 it's worth.
No problem. I'm not a criminal atty either and have really only plugged into this one superficially. I literally wasn't sure if there was another amendment to the charging doc that I was missing. I would say my ability to give any deeper professional analysis here is fast coming to an end.
What will be interesting will be Mr. Chauvin's legal defense.
If he ends up with a high-powered legal team that makes the effort OJ's legal team did, then the problem becomes "what happens when?" Keep in mind that he only must make one juror uncertain and the whole case goes away.
The question will be who takes on the case, does Mr. Chauvin have that kind of resource available to him and whether his defense team is willing to do a scorched earth policy to win acquittal?
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 09, 2020, 07:02:15 AM
What will be interesting will be Mr. Chauvin's legal defense.
If he ends up with a high-powered legal team that makes the effort OJ's legal team did, then the problem becomes "what happens when?" Keep in mind that he only must make one juror uncertain and the whole case goes away.
The question will be who takes on the case, does Mr. Chauvin have that kind of resource available to him and whether his defense team is willing to do a scorched earth policy to win acquittal?
Given the extremely high-profile nature of this case, it is possible Chauvin may get better representation then he could otherwise afford. An acquittal in this case could build the reputation of an experienced defense attorney, or make a career for a promising up-and-coming one.
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 09, 2020, 07:02:15 AM
What will be interesting will be Mr. Chauvin's legal defense.
If he ends up with a high-powered legal team that makes the effort OJ's legal team did, then the problem becomes "what happens when?" Keep in mind that he only must make one juror uncertain and the whole case goes away.
The question will be who takes on the case, does Mr. Chauvin have that kind of resource available to him and whether his defense team is willing to do a scorched earth policy to win acquittal?
The first thing any competent defense attorney will do is ask for a change in venue.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on June 09, 2020, 09:57:27 AM
The first thing any competent defense attorney will do is ask for a change in venue.
They'll definitely ask, but it'll be an uphill battle. There's nowhere in the state that a defense lawyer will be able to point to and argue that it hasn't seen vast amounts of pre-trial publicity. And the court is going to be excessively careful about finding a jury pool that reflects the community where the alleged crime occurred.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 09, 2020, 01:38:58 PM
They'll definitely ask, but it'll be an uphill battle. There's nowhere in the state that a defense lawyer will be able to point to and argue that it hasn't seen vast amounts of pre-trial publicity. And the court is going to be excessively careful about finding a jury pool that reflects the community where the alleged crime occurred.
Yep. The only places in MN that come close to reflecting the diversity of the Twin Cities are Rochester and Duluth, and both areas are very aware of what happened. I would also note that both areas are generally quite supportive of the Black Lives Matter movement, so there probably wouldn't be any "political/ideological" benefit to moving.
The rest of MN doesn't even come remotely close to the TC demographic.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on June 09, 2020, 02:08:05 PM
Yep. The only places in MN that come close to reflecting the diversity of the Twin Cities are Rochester and Duluth, and both areas are very aware of what happened. I would also note that both areas are generally quite supportive of the Black Lives Matter movement, so there probably wouldn't be any "political/ideological" benefit to moving.
The rest of MN doesn't even come remotely close to the TC demographic.
So how would he get a fair trial in a community that supports the political ideological Black Lives Matter movement.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on June 09, 2020, 03:22:04 PM
So how would he get a fair trial in a community that supports the political ideological Black Lives Matter movement.
My guess is that his post-conviction appeal will be specifically framed around this issue.
Honestly, I'm so happy I don't have to impanel that jury. "Are you aware of the circumstances surrounding this case?" "Yes" "Have you seen any video of the incident?" "Yes" "Dismissed." Repeat, ad infinitum. There probably aren't 12 people over the age of 18 in the entire dang country who haven't already made their minds up about this case.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on June 09, 2020, 03:22:04 PM
So how would he get a fair trial in a community that supports the political ideological Black Lives Matter movement.
BLM is a political movement?
Quote from: jficke13 on June 09, 2020, 03:42:13 PM
My guess is that his post-conviction appeal will be specifically framed around this issue.
Honestly, I'm so happy I don't have to impanel that jury. "Are you aware of the circumstances surrounding this case?" "Yes" "Have you seen any video of the incident?" "Yes" "Dismissed." Repeat, ad infinitum. There probably aren't 12 people over the age of 18 in the entire dang country who haven't already made their minds up about this case.
Being aware of the case or even seeing the video are not automatic disqualifiers, nor should they be.
I imagine the judge will give each side far more peremptory challenges than a typical murder case, but there has to be a limit. Not every juror who's seen the video is getting struck.
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 09, 2020, 04:13:50 PM
BLM is a political movement?
It is to this guy. He's awful old and simple, better to just let him be.
Quote from: jesmu84 on June 09, 2020, 04:13:50 PM
BLM is a political movement?
This MSNBC article acknowledges as much.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/black-lives-matter-obama-marshall-project
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on June 09, 2020, 10:03:06 PM
It is to this guy. He's awful old and simple, better to just let him be.
I thought one of the goals of Black Lives Matter is to have respect for one another. Just so you know I want Chauvin locked up as bad as anyone else. I want the jury to decide his guilt based on the evidence not their politics. Just because we disagree does not mean we have to hurl insults at one another.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 09, 2020, 05:01:42 PM
Being aware of the case or even seeing the video are not automatic disqualifiers, nor should they be.
I imagine the judge will give each side far more peremptory challenges than a typical murder case, but there has to be a limit. Not every juror who's seen the video is getting struck.
Even still, I don't envy the task of finding 12 who haven't made up their minds about what they've seen. I have, and I don't know a single person who has seen it who hasn't.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on June 10, 2020, 06:25:59 AM
I thought one of the goals of Black Lives Matter is to have respect for one another. Just so you know I want Chauvin locked up as bad as anyone else. I want the jury to decide his guilt based on the evidence not their politics. Just because we disagree does not mean we have to hurl insults at one another.
You're putting your prepositions about BLM without doing a cursory search about the idea.
You won't even learn anything about a topic before espousing wrong beliefs about it. You don't see something wrong with that?
Quote from: muwarrior69 on June 09, 2020, 03:22:04 PMthe political ideological Black Lives Matter movement.
The one the pope supports?
Quote from: jficke13 on June 10, 2020, 08:05:26 AM
Even still, I don't envy the task of finding 12 who haven't made up their minds about what they've seen. I have, and I don't know a single person who has seen it who hasn't.
Agree. If there are any people who haven't made up their minds, they are probably living off the grid and not registered to vote. The likely juror pool has decided one way or another.
Quote from: tower912 on June 10, 2020, 09:18:40 AM
The one the pope supports?
I don't think that argument will work with him. Many see the Pope as a radical leftist.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on June 09, 2020, 02:08:05 PM
Yep. The only places in MN that come close to reflecting the diversity of the Twin Cities are Rochester and Duluth, and both areas are very aware of what happened. I would also note that both areas are generally quite supportive of the Black Lives Matter movement, so there probably wouldn't be any "political/ideological" benefit to moving.
The rest of MN doesn't even come remotely close to the TC demographic.
It's probably less about diversity and more about finding a jury that has at least some ignorance/open mindedness to the problem. That's going to be really hard.
Maybe in Redwood Falls, International Falls (which I know is in St.Louis County) or Grand Marais. I would agree though that if it were out of the Twin Cities, the case would either be held in Rochester or Duluth.
There may have been personal animus between the two.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-floyd-derek-chauvin-nightclub-bumped-heads/
That will not be a positive for Chauvin.
Quote from: tower912 on June 10, 2020, 07:58:07 PM
That will not be a positive for Chauvin.
I agree, especially if they can get more than one witness to corroborate what was said in that news report.
I thought I read somewhere that George died of a heart attack due to the fentanyl in his system.
If that's the case, and one juror agrees, prepare for mass riots once Chauvin is found innocent.
Could get interesting
Quote from: Bad_Reporter on June 10, 2020, 11:49:25 PM
I thought I read somewhere that George died of a heart attack due to the fentanyl in his system.
If that's the case, and one juror agrees, prepare for mass riots once Chauvin is found innocent.
Could get interesting
That was not determined as the cause of death.
Quote from: Bad_Reporter on June 10, 2020, 11:49:25 PM
I thought I read somewhere that George died of a heart attack due to the fentanyl in his system.
If that's the case, and one juror agrees, prepare for mass riots once Chauvin is found innocent.
Could get interesting
if they find that brutality was what put unnecessary strain on his body Then he still gets manslaughter right?
Quote from: Bad_Reporter on June 10, 2020, 11:49:25 PM
I thought I read somewhere that George died of a heart attack due to the fentanyl in his system.
If that's the case, and one juror agrees, prepare for mass riots once Chauvin is found innocent.
Could get interesting
The cause of death was the choking. A savvy defense attorney will use the presence of anything in the blood stream to try to deflect. Their job is to get to 'reasonable doubt'.
Quote from: Galway Eagle on June 11, 2020, 08:55:28 AM
if they find that brutality was what put unnecessary strain on his body Then he still gets manslaughter right?
I believe so, the independent autopsy showed Chauvin asphyxiated Floyd.
Shocking, or maybe not, that the ATL shooting hasn't been a topic of discussion here, hey?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 11:30:10 AM
Shocking, or maybe not, that the ATL shooting hasn't been a topic of discussion here, hey?
Thought the mods made it pretty clear they didn't want to talk about the protests.
Didn't see any protests over the firing of a police officer doing his job.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 11:49:50 AM
Didn't see any protests over the firing of a police officer doing his job.
Relinquishing his taser to a suspect, and then shooting said suspect as he ran away with the taser is "doing his job?"
Talk about setting the bar low....
Quote from: GooooMarquette on June 14, 2020, 01:36:29 PM
Relinquishing his taser to a suspect, and then shooting said suspect as he ran away with the taser is "doing his job?"
Talk about setting the bar low....
Just imagine where else that drunk man might have fallen asleep had he not been shot to death.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 14, 2020, 01:49:14 PM
Just imagine where else that drunk man might have fallen asleep had he not been shot to death.
Or woken up, try to drive home, and crash his car into a group of pedestrians, or another car. I think he didnt need to be shot, but he should have been arrested. Couldnt the two sober police officers chase him down?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 11:49:50 AM
Didn't see any protests over the firing of a police officer doing his job.
Spoken like man who claims DTJ is the greatest POTUS of his life.
Quote from: lawdog77 on June 14, 2020, 02:10:57 PM
Or woken up, try to drive home, and crash his car into a group of pedestrians, or another car. I think he didnt need to be shot, but he should have been arrested. Couldnt the two sober police officers chase him down?
Nobody's suggesting he shouldn't have been arrested ... though I'm pretty sure he wasn't going to get back in his car and drive off, given that he was running the opposite direction. My point is there didn't appear to be a need to use lethal force on a man who was running away and not armed with a deadly weapon.
Any y'all see the bodycam video where the subject turned violent and attempted escape after his sobriety test? Or doesn't CNN show that part?Bottom line is you don't run from the police. You won't win that battle. Nice move to use Wendy's for kindling too. After all, its their fault. Next time ya get your boob in the wringer, don't call the defunded police. Call Ghostbusters for help.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 03:17:22 PM
Any y'all see the bodycam video where the subject turned violent and attempted escape after his sobriety test? Or doesn't CNN show that part?Bottom line is you don't run from the police. You won't win that battle. Nice move to use Wendy's for kindling too. After all, its their fault. Next time ya get your boob in the wringer, don't call the defunded police. Call Ghostbusters for help.
Just saying, running away from police should not be punishable by extrajudicial killing via a bullet to the back. Aina.
Why's he running? Wanted for murder, rape, kidnapping, or drug dealing? Teach your kids not to run from the police. And, why would if you, if have nothing to hide?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 03:17:22 PM
Any y'all see the bodycam video where the subject turned violent and attempted escape after his sobriety test? Or doesn't CNN show that part?Bottom line is you don't run from the police. You won't win that battle. Nice move to use Wendy's for kindling too. After all, its their fault. Next time ya get your boob in the wringer, don't call the defunded police. Call Ghostbusters for help.
Wow. You think it's justifiable for police to shoot a suspect in the back simply for not following orders?
DUI, resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer, taking an officer's taser and fleeing the scene.
But OTOH, they knew who the guy was, where he lived and had his car.
There was a time when no one would have blinked over a cop shooting a guy under these circumstances. That time has passed. And that's a good thing.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 03:36:46 PM
Why's he running? Wanted for murder, rape, kidnapping, or drug dealing? Teach your kids not to run from the police. And, why would if you, if have nothing to hide?
With this logic, just call in a drone strike for everyone who doesn't pull over from the cops. And honestly, I think you might actually agree.
Don't resist or run from the police and you'll get your day in court, rather than getting planted on the wrong side of the grass.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 03:46:02 PM
Don't resist or run from the police and you'll get your day in court, rather than getting planted on the wrong side of the grass.
I have higher expectations of law enforcement than you. So every college party of scattering freshman when police show up, your solution is: POP POP POP
Quote from: reinko on June 14, 2020, 03:44:23 PM
With this logic, just call in a drone strike for everyone who doesn't pull over from the cops. And honestly, I think you might actually agree.
Might be the default mode of law enforcement going forward. Since, who in their right mind would ever want to be a cop?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 14, 2020, 03:44:06 PM
DUI, resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer, taking an officer's taser and fleeing the scene.
But OTOH, they knew who the guy was, where he lived and had his car.
There was a time when no one would have blinked over a cop shooting a guy under these circumstances. That time has passed. And that's a good thing.
Yep.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 03:17:22 PM
Any y'all see the bodycam video where the subject turned violent and attempted escape after his sobriety test? Or doesn't CNN show that part?Bottom line is you don't run from the police. You won't win that battle. Nice move to use Wendy's for kindling too. After all, its their fault. Next time ya get your boob in the wringer, don't call the defunded police. Call Ghostbusters for help.
You need to read more about what define the police really means. Start with changes implemented in Camden
Quote from: Pakuni on June 14, 2020, 02:28:52 PM
Nobody's suggesting he shouldn't have been arrested ... though I'm pretty sure he wasn't going to get back in his car and drive off, given that he was running the opposite direction. My point is there didn't appear to be a need to use lethal force on a man who was running away and not armed with a deadly weapon.
There are law enforcement experts
on TV stating the police should have allowed him to call an Uber unstead of performing a sobriety test. I thought that is what you were implying.
Quote from: Bad_Reporter on June 10, 2020, 11:49:25 PMI thought I read somewhere that George died of a heart attack due to the fentanyl in his system.
From a medical perspective, I think that would be a massive, massive uphill climb. Cocaine, you could maybe make the argument, but that's not how fentanyl and other opiates work in the body. You don't die of a heart attack, you die of respiratory arrest. And while it can certainly be argued that Floyd went into respiratory arrest, the fact that he was clearly talking through the events is a strong indicator that the cause of his respiratory arrest was not the drugs (which slows the respiratory drive, leading to agonal respirations and ultimately inadequate oxygenation over the course of minutes to hours) but the knee compressing his neck as he continued to try to talk (impossible in a fentanyl-induced respiratory arrest).
I saw that report and immediately thought whoever filed it had no idea what they were talking about. The idea of a fentanyl-induced heart attack makes no sense. It would be the automotive equivalent of saying the car wouldn't start because of electrical issues with a full battery and empty gas tank.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 03:17:22 PM
Any y'all see the bodycam video where the subject turned violent and attempted escape after his sobriety test? Or doesn't CNN show that part?Bottom line is you don't run from the police. You won't win that battle. Nice move to use Wendy's for kindling too. After all, its their fault. Next time ya get your boob in the wringer, don't call the defunded police. Call Ghostbusters for help.
Nobody is defending his decision to run away from police. We are simply saying that this does not justify killing him. Given that he was drunk and being chased by two (presumably sober) officers, it should not have been very difficult for them to catch and subdue him.
And to your specific question: yeah, CNN showed the part where he was running away and the police shot him in the back. Clearly an "imminent threat." ::)
He turned and fired the taser gun at pursuing police before being shot. Sorry, but he caused his own demise.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 03:46:02 PM
Don't resist or run from the police and you'll get your day in court, rather than getting planted on the wrong side of the grass.
JuSt LiStEn aNd cOmPlY........
I understand these are just a few videos, but the idea police treat all races the same shows gross ignorance.
https://twitter.com/ShiJeHi24/status/1271995533247148032
https://twitter.com/shijehi24/status/1271996117878595584?s=12
https://twitter.com/camposmartinez1/status/1271922405288677382?s=12
https://twitter.com/qasimrashid/status/1271990915985440768?s=12
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 05:49:37 PM
He turned and fired the taser gun at pursuing police before being shot. Sorry, but he caused his own demise.
Tasers are specifically used as non-lethal force. Pointing a known non-lethal means of force should not result in lethal reciprocation.
Quote from: brewcity77 on June 14, 2020, 05:56:00 PM
Tasers are specifically used as non-lethal force. Pointing a known non-lethal means of force should not result in lethal reciprocation.
Not to mention the Taser was spent and he was not shot by the officer in nearest vicinity of the Taser, but the trailing officer whose Taser was taken.
Also, trying to substantiate, but I saw reports that officers were collecting the shell casings with gloves before Brooks had even received full and complete medical care
I got into an argument with my father over this earlier. Being a police officer is obviously a very difficult job with insane stressors, but there is still such a shoot first ask questions later mentality. Being disorderly and resisting arrest should not merit a death sentence. There is also video of Brooks calmly speaking with the police outside of his car before they decided to escalate the situation and begin processing him for the inebriation offenses.
Quote from: brewcity77 on June 14, 2020, 05:56:00 PM
Tasers are specifically used as non-lethal force. Pointing a known non-lethal means of force should not result in lethal reciprocation.
Maybe the deceased should have thought of that before taking the officer's taser gun from him.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 06:18:54 PM
Maybe the deceased should have thought of that before taking the officer's taser gun from him.
AMDG
Quote from: panda on June 14, 2020, 05:54:29 PM
JuSt LiStEn aNd cOmPlY........
I understand these are just a few videos, but the idea police treat all races the same shows gross ignorance.
https://twitter.com/ShiJeHi24/status/1271995533247148032
https://twitter.com/shijehi24/status/1271996117878595584?s=12
https://twitter.com/camposmartinez1/status/1271922405288677382?s=12
https://twitter.com/qasimrashid/status/1271990915985440768?s=12
Jeez.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 05:49:37 PM
He turned and fired the taser gun at pursuing police before being shot. Sorry, but he caused his own demise.
Georgia law only permits the use of deadly force in limited circumstances. The closest one states that could apply is if an officer "reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury."
A taser is not deadly, and is not likely to result in serious bodily injury. All it does is temporarily stun people. The officers violated their own department's policy and caused a death in the process.
But yeah - keep defending them.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 06:18:54 PM
Maybe the deceased should have thought of that before taking the officer's taser gun from him.
did those police miss the class on how to shoot objects outta their hands or take out a knee??
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 06:18:54 PM
Maybe the deceased should have thought of that before taking the officer's taser gun from him.
No, but the officer who is paid and trained to do so certainly should've thought about it before he used lethal force on a non-threatening target.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 14, 2020, 06:39:06 PM
did those police miss the class on how to shoot objects outta their hands or take out a knee??
Says the poster who calls out others about cheering and joking about death.
Quote from: brewcity77 on June 14, 2020, 05:56:00 PM
Tasers are specifically used as non-lethal force. Pointing a known non-lethal means of force should not result in lethal reciprocation.
i realize the dude just took the taser from the cops and i understand the taser should be readily identifiable, but do you assume in that split second, it was a taser being pointed at you? what if the taser deploys, officer down, and then he takes his handgun? lots of problems right there.
too many decisions had to be made here that could have been avoided altogether if...
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 14, 2020, 06:44:11 PM
i realize the dude just took the taser from the cops and i understand the taser should be readily identifiable, but do you assume in that split second, it was a taser being pointed at you? what if the taser deploys, officer down, and then he takes his handgun? lots of problems right there.
too many decisions had to be made here that could have been avoided altogether if...
There is a second cop there. If one gets tasered and the guy goes for the stunned cop's gun then the other cop can use his.
Shocked at the people that are okay with a man being shot in the back as he ran away. I'm guessing they think Breonna Taylor deserved to die for dating a guy who would shoot a gun at officers who busted into the wrong house without announcing their presence.
Quote from: wadesworld on June 14, 2020, 06:46:59 PM
There is a second cop there. If one gets tasered and the guy goes for the stunned cop's gun then the other cop can use his.
Shocked at the people that are okay with a man being shot in the back as he ran away.
I'm not shocked.
Shockin' how many want the inmates running the asylum.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 06:52:59 PM
Shockin' how many want the inmates running the asylum.
Good thing we have the best POTUS of your life as the warden, aina?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 06:52:59 PM
Shockin' how many want the inmates running the asylum.
One of the most racist long running statements used in this country.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 05:49:37 PM
He turned and fired the taser gun at pursuing police before being shot. Sorry, but he caused his own demise.
Not a deadly weapon.
Let's all live in a lawless society snd see how that shakes out, hey?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 07:15:05 PM
Let's all live in a lawless society snd see how that shakes out, hey?
Police killing black men within the laws, apparently.
Quote from: wadesworld on June 14, 2020, 07:20:05 PM
Police killing black men within the laws, apparently.
"I don't get it?! I always listen to the police and nothing bad ever happens to me!!!"
-White man living in suburbia with no alternative world view
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 14, 2020, 03:44:06 PM
DUI, resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer, taking an officer's taser and fleeing the scene.
But OTOH, they knew who the guy was, where he lived and had his car.
There was a time when no one would have blinked over a cop shooting a guy under these circumstances. That time has passed. And that's a good thing.
Agree Lenny. This is a good take
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 05:49:37 PM
He turned and fired the taser gun at pursuing police before being shot. Sorry, but he caused his own demise.
The Atlanta Police Department's official policy disagrees.
4.2
Use of Deadly Force
An employee may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when:
1.He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others; or
2.When there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm (O.C.G.A. Section 17-4-20) and the employee reasonably believes that the suspect's escape would create a continuing danger of serious physical harm to any person.
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/investigations-alleged-officer-misconduct-not-enough-man-permanently-125200300--abc-news-topstories.html
This department didn't discriminate. They randomly shot a guy in the eye for being out after curfew and walking to his car.
Quote from: tower912 on June 14, 2020, 08:09:37 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/investigations-alleged-officer-misconduct-not-enough-man-permanently-125200300--abc-news-topstories.html
This department didn't discriminate. They randomly shot a guy in the eye for being out after curfew and walking to his car.
Maybe the he should have thought of that before being out past curfew.
-4eva
Pretty sure your interpretation is skewed. You cannot take an officer's weapon. Should the armed officer be tased, he would have been incapacitated and potentially his weapon could have been taken from him and used against him by the subject. A grand jury, if called, will see the suspect clearly resisted and engaged the officers when attempting to cuff him. Bad things can happen in this scenario and that's the choice the subject made at the moment.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 08:16:44 PM
Pretty sure your interpretation is skewed. You cannot take an officer's weapon. Should the armed officer be tased, he would have been incapacitated and potentially his weapon could have been taken from him and used against him by the subject. A grand jury, if called, will see the suspect clearly resisted and engaged the officers when attempting to cuff him. Bad things can happen in this scenario and that's the choice the subject made at the moment.
Expect there was another cop there....
Except a taser isn't a deadly weapon....
But you're right - He had it coming. Shoot him three times in the back just to make sure!
Trump, that bastard, made him do did it, aina?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 08:16:44 PM
Pretty sure your interpretation is skewed. You cannot take an officer's weapon. Should the armed officer be tased, he would have been incapacitated and potentially his weapon could have been taken from him and used against him by the subject. A grand jury, if called, will see the suspect clearly resisted and engaged the officers when attempting to cuff him. Bad things can happen in this scenario and that's the choice the subject made at the moment.
Again, he had a partner there. The partner can use his fun if the guy is able to stun the police officer and then reach for the stunned police officer's gun. Not that hard to comprehend, is it?
Quote from: rocket surgeon on June 14, 2020, 06:44:11 PM
i realize the dude just took the taser from the cops and i understand the taser should be readily identifiable, but do you assume in that split second, it was a taser being pointed at you? what if the taser deploys, officer down, and then he takes his handgun? lots of problems right there.
too many decisions had to be made here that could have been avoided altogether if...
If you can't in a split second decipher that a BRIGHT YELLOW Taser pointed at you is not a gun, then you should probably taken off the beat cause your reactions and critical thinking are lacking for such a high pressure gig
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 08:21:50 PM
Trump, that bastard, made him do did it, aina?
How dare you speak ill of the greatest POTUS of your lifetime like that?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 08:16:44 PM
Pretty sure your interpretation is skewed. You cannot take an officer's weapon. Should the armed officer be tased, he would have been incapacitated and potentially his weapon could have been taken from him and used against him by the subject. A grand jury, if called, will see the suspect clearly resisted and engaged the officers when attempting to cuff him. Bad things can happen in this scenario and that's the choice the subject made at the moment.
No one is saying the victim didn't act stupidly. We are saying he shouldn't have been shot in the back and killed.
For a guy who has been against government overreach when it comes to shutting down for the pandemic, you certainly don't seem to mind when the government actually kills someone.
Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on June 14, 2020, 08:32:56 PM
No one is saying the victim didn't act stupidly. We are saying he shouldn't have been shot in the back and killed.
For a guy who has been against government overreach when it comes to shutting down for the pandemic, you certainly don't seem to mind when the government actually kills someone.
Agreed. The guy was stupid and should face consequences. He should be alive to face those consequences.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 14, 2020, 08:16:44 PM
Pretty sure your interpretation is skewed. You cannot take an officer's weapon. Should the armed officer be tased, he would have been incapacitated and potentially his weapon could have been taken from him and used against him by the subject. A grand jury, if called, will see the suspect clearly resisted and engaged the officers when attempting to cuff him. Bad things can happen in this scenario and that's the choice the subject made at the moment.
You can what if any situation to the end of time, but the reality is the citizen was running away, pointing a non-lethal weapon in the vague direction of the officer. He was not a life threat by any stretch of the imagination and that did not warrant a use of lethal force.
The bad choice was made by the person who shot a fleeing man in the back.
Wow. Advocating for the cold-blooded murder of Americans who pose no imminent threat.
Quote from: reinko on June 14, 2020, 08:30:38 PM
How dare you speak ill of the greatest POTUS of your lifetime like that?
Imagine 4never, guru, and rocketsurgeon if Joe Bidon walked down a ramp like this...
https://mobile.twitter.com/glamelegance/status/1272002799774154752
In retrospect the police should have busted out in song. Perhaps the Supremes "Stop in the Name of Love" would've avoided the entire situation, aina?
I only wish 4ever, guru, rocket, Ners and a few other Scoopers held police officers and the president of the United States to the same standards of job performance as they do the Marquette basketball coach.
If the latter only makes 3 NCAA tournaments in 4 years, he's an abject failure. There are no excuses for the putrid results on his watch. He is 100% at fault, and he has to go.
Plenty of excuses for cops murdering American citizens who posed no threat to them. The latest: Shooting a black man running away, one not armed with a lethal weapon? He had it coming!
And an endless string of a excuses for the POTUS who has seen at least 115K Americans die on his watch from a virus he downplayed for months; the economy tanking on his watch; Americans feeling they have no choice but to take to the streets to protest systemic racism, as well as the police brutality that he has openly encouraged; him responding to protests by threatening to have our military "dominate" American citizens, a threat so unethical and un-American that the Pentagon has rejected it; racists no longer needing hoods because they understand the obvious "go right ahead" signal from the President of the United States.
But hey, at least these killer cops and our racist, violence-inciting POTUS didn't have a player commit a foul in a tie game. That's the REAL tragedy that has befallen America in 2020.
Wow Mike, take a chill pill. I don't want your head to implode if and when he's reelected, hey?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 15, 2020, 05:53:30 AM
In retrospect the police should have busted out in song. Perhaps the Supremes "Stop in the Name of Love" would've avoided the entire situation, aina?
In retrospect they should have chased after him, and if he got away, they have his car and his address so they can go arrest him later. He was posing no imminent threat to the officers or the community.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 15, 2020, 07:14:44 AM
Wow Mike, take a chill pill. I don't want your head to implode if and when he's reelected, hey?
Attaboy, Doc. Perfect response.
Much better than answering why you expect excellence and no excuses from a college basketball coach but why you accept so very, very, very much less from police officers and the leader of the free world.