Derek Chavin case - help me understand the charges

[CZfool68]

The officer supposedly followed his training and did what he was trained to do. The dead guy had no bruising on his trachea. So IMO it would be hard to convict. But they likely will. No winners here other than the people that would have been Floyd’s future victims.

 

[NCFubar]

I am not an attorney nor have any real criminal law knowledge ...

But I believe that “human nature” of the jurors will be as big of a part of the decision as the letter of the law. Some may emotionally choose guilty on one, some or all 3 major charges even if all the boxes of a specific 1 is not checked by the evidence presented. It will be interesting to see just how the vote goes on each charge ...

- 2nd-degree manslaughter (least charge) ... up to 10 years with the norm falling 3.5 to 4 years ... negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another

- 3rd-degree murder ... up to 25 years with the norm falling 7 to 10 years ... whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evidencing a depraved mind, without regard for human life

- 2nd-degree unintentional murder ... up to 40 years with the norm falling between 10 to 15 years ... without intent to effect the death of any person while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct

If I were taking bets ...

2nd manslaughter seems to be fairly attainable. Getting the jurors to believe Chauvin acted negligently by placing and holding the knee to the neck led to Floyd’s death will take a pretty much a black and white coroner’s report cause of death reported as drug related to even come close to clearing Chauvin. The other 2 will take a little more ... hung jury on those.

The verdict will be only Manslaughter and no mention of “Murder” so the social justice warriors will attack various places throughout the country pillaging and burning government buildings as well as innocent businesses (so they can get their looting on).

 

[Timfoilhat]

The verdict will be only Manslaughter and no mention of “Murder” so the social justice warriors will attack various places throughout the country pillaging and burning government buildings as well as innocent businesses (so they can get their looting on).

I kind of hope they do. It'll be great when BidenHarris can't control the fires they stoked last year, and this one will be on them. I'd really like to see the police stand up to the looters and fire mobs too. Caught with a molotov burning in your hand? Light them up with rubber bullets until they drop it (might result in death, might just be a very hard lesson). Caught exiting a store being looted? Eat some fire hose.

 

[two fingers]

It should be cut and dry. Chauvin needs to pay the same price myself or any other non-LEO would have to pay had we been kneeling on a restrained man that was having a life-threatening medical issue for over 9 minutes.

If he was going to die anyway, the cop didn't kill him. Charge him with assault. Whatever. Murder was not the case. Cut and dry.

 

[Chuckman]

Anything other than "guilty on all counts" for the biggest charge will result in calamitous riots. Even that will get riots. Minneapolis is f***ed.

 

[chiefjason]

I trained in physical restraint for 6 years. Mostly with a staff member trained by Cornell U, and twice by the developers of the system from Cornell U. I have probably preformed hundreds of physical restraints on pissed off teenage boys. I'll admit to some differences in these two situations but a lot of similarities in the process.

We were trained to take them down without injury. That will be a bit different in a LE setting. But in both settings you can take someone down hard if you want to set that example up front.

You use the least amount of force necessary. Meaning you have to monitor the restrainee. When they let up, you let up. The point of any restraint is to use physical force to exhaust the person and deescalate their behavior. A no point should the restrainer be escalating force unless the restrainee is escalating and you are reacting to it.

To do the above you have to mentally detach from the emotions of the restraint. It's got to be business, nothing personal.

You initiate breaking the restraint under controlled circumstances once you assess the restrainee has settled down.

With multiple people restraining, controlling the legs and arms is the most important. Once those are controlled the head is pretty easy to deal with. Keep them from getting a base, keep the restraint prone on the ground, you keep control. Without legs and arms the head is useless in getting up. You can control it with a hand, or your own head. You don't need much to do it. And you don't need an officer dedicated to the neck unless it's life or death IMO.

Almost no one sets out to kill someone in a restraint. They usually restrain too long, improperly from lack of training, or don't detach and let it get personal. But you can kill someone very dead in under 10 minutes with a poor physical restraint.

I think this could check one or all of the above.

So by doing most of this restraint wrong you end up with 2 main scenarios. You meant to prove some kind of point and it went sideways. Or you did it wrong, held the restraint too long, and now it looks like you meant to hurt Floyd. I doubt this was the outcome anyone there wanted. But it's in part the outcome their behavior helped produce.

All the baggage Floyd brought into this situation and the behavior that brought the police there would be the focal point if the LEO's had done a proper restraint and taken care of the situation better. But they didn't. And here we are. A man is dead that it seems should not have been killed in that situation. LEO's were in control of Floyd when he died. So their behavior in the process is now what's on trial.

If Chauvin was acting within the bounds of his training with that, the training is WAY outdated and dangerous IMO.

 

[Timfoilhat]

Anything other than "guilty on all counts" for the biggest charge will result in calamitous riots. Even that will get riots. Minneapolis is f***ed.

And Chicago, Milwaukee, Seattle, Baltimore, Portland...

 

[NCFubar]

And Chicago, Milwaukee, Seattle, Baltimore, Portland...

... and LA, Oakland, Atlanta, Philly, Baltimore and other liberal crazed cities of similar demographics. Hell, even Charlotte, Greensboro, Durham and Raleigh would likely see serious protests that could turn for the worst with a few bad choices.

If the mouthing marauding minority does not like the results the silent majority of innocent residents and businesses owner will pay.

 

[Qball]

I’m as guilty as anyone else for derailing the OP’s thread here. I agree with everyone here who stated there should be one charge only and throwing two or more to see if one sticks shouldn’t be allowed in our justice system.

As far as the paid criminal rioters and looters are concerned? There has to be some serious money laundering going on in order to stymie the paper trail. That or the local, state, and fed governments just don’t care who is behind all of this mess. Maybe they are behind some of it.

The people running those turd bowl cities up north, central north, and Pacific Northwest certainly have some major culpability with regards to their own demise.

 

[CZfool68]

Anything other than "guilty on all counts" for the biggest charge will result in calamitous riots. Even that will get riots. Minneapolis is f***ed.

Good. They’ve let their politics partially destroy their city. Might as well finish the job.

 

[DrScaryGuy]

I kind of hope they do. It'll be great when BidenHarris can't control the fires they stoked last year, and this one will be on them. I'd really like to see the police stand up to the looters and fire mobs too. Caught with a molotov burning in your hand? Light them up with rubber bullets until they drop it (might result in death, might just be a very hard lesson). Caught running existing a store being looted? Eat some fire hose.

i mean, if you want to restrain them, sure
on the other hand, taking out that bolded section will stop the looting and rioting pretty quick

 

[Cowboy]

I’m as guilty as anyone else for derailing the OP’s thread here. I agree with everyone here who stated there should be one charge only and throwing two or more to see if one sticks shouldn’t be allowed in our justice system.

As far as the paid criminal rioters and looters are concerned? There has to be some serious money laundering going on in order to stymie the paper trail. That or the local, state, and fed governments just don’t care who is behind all of this mess. Maybe they are behind some of it.

The people running those turd bowl cities up north, central north, and Pacific Northwest certainly have some major culpability with regards to their own demise.

In NC the multiple charge thing is a jury instruction instead of charges. The judge usually gives them more than one sentence option like First degree murder or second degree murder if they can't meet the premeditation elements. I honestly do not know how they get those charges but I believe it's pre trial motions and the judge decides proper jury instructions. So the multiple charges isn't completely uncommon.

 

[Goofyfoot2001]

I included the reference to race as one of several facts relevant to each man. George Floyd was many things: among them, apparently drugged, restrained, obviously dying, a citizen and black. Chauvin was a police officer, in a position of power (which he abused) and white. Perhaps race had absolutely nothing to do with what happened here. I think that’s unlikely, but it could be true. Regardless, assume that all this was, was a police officer abusing his position of power in a way that contributed to the death of a restrained citizen. My anger remains. As does my surprise at some of the reactions here, many of which suggest that George Floyd’s death wasn’t really all that tragic or undeserved. Makes me wonder why that is. His criminality? His failure to obey law enforcement in precisely the way they wanted to be obeyed? His race? Something else entirely?

The post was not racist, although I’m not surprised that was your reaction. It’s a convenient response under the circumstances. I’m just trying to figure out how the reactions I’m seeing to an obvious abuse of government authority square with the Don’t Tread On Me ethos that seems to otherwise pervade the forum. Something about this particular abuse of power makes it a little easier for many of us to swallow, for some reason. Much easier than if the government tried to, say, criminalize and take some of your precious property. The disconnect there is obvious to me, and also very confusing.

To the OP: The reason you can be charged and convicted of multiple charges for a single death is that the death itself is only one element in a wide range of distinct criminal charges. The same death could be factually tied to a litany of other circumstances, actions and mindsets, all of which support a range of potentially criminal conduct. That’s why it was so significant that the third charge was reinstated in this case. It is the rough equivalent of common-law (reckless) murder, and the only murder charge of the two that seems to have any realistic chance of getting a conviction.

No, sorry, it isnt about race please stop. Wait it is if you are a leftist. After today he should be acquitted. Let them burn the cities, that's what they are planning anyway. I bet they are flying in folks as we speak.

 

[Relapse]

How can anyone who loves freedom and hates tyranny think otherwise? I struck out racism because I don't know what's in his head. But even without regard to race, I suppose a LEO bootlicker might think he behaved correctly. I do not.

So only a boot licker would call for absolute objective justice for everyone, even the police? You sound quite angry and from what you state, you may have missed, over looked, or misunderstood some - if not all - the salient points in this blatant case of prosecutorial abuse of power. It took three men to get that big, drugged up son of a bitch on the ground until the ambulance arrived. Trying to save his life, preoccupied by a jeering, angry mob; how exactly would a compassionate non-boot licker handle him? Race pandering at its worst and shameful capitulation to agenda driven mob violence.

 

[Qball]

In NC the multiple charge thing is a jury instruction instead of charges. The judge usually gives them more than one sentence option like First degree murder or second degree murder if they can't meet the premeditation elements. I honestly do not know how they get those charges but I believe it's pre trial motions and the judge decides proper jury instructions. So the multiple charges isn't completely uncommon.

If there’s anyone on here that I’ll trust and take their word on such matters, it’s you sir. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Button Pusher]

Interesting take on the force on the arteries in the neck of Mr. Floyd. I think murder will be hard to prove unless the prosecution can show that both men had a history while working as security for a local business. Perhaps the officer made it personal. Why approach a person suspected of passing a bad $20 bill with service weapon drawn?

George Floyd's Death Was Murder, Plain and Simple

As part of my job as an educator, I have, at times, had to restrain teenagers. I was trained to do so. It is my least favorite part of my job. It feels sca

educationpost.org

 

[J R Green]

I take the fact that they knew each other a little differently. Usually a suspect can be calmed by seeing a cop that he knows and has history with.

This guy wasn't going to be calmed down though. He wasn't chemically able.

 

[DrScaryGuy]

Interesting take on the force on the arteries in the neck of Mr. Floyd. I think murder will be hard to prove unless the prosecution can show that both men had a history while working as security for a local business. Perhaps the officer made it personal. Why approach a person suspected of passing a bad $20 bill with service weapon drawn?

but is it really a GOOD comparison?
Restraining teenage boys in school with a little beef vs a 6'4" 225lb man with a history of being a bouncer and using his size to his benefit?

 

[elirab]

My feeling is that the video will convict. All the debate about what is appropriate etc. will fall by the wayside in the juror's minds. The video is what will stick.

Riots either way I suspect.

 

[BigWaylon]

Why approach a person suspected of passing a bad $20 bill with service weapon drawn?

I had it happen for a headlight out. One car pulled across the road in front of me, one pulled up behind. Cops got out of both with firearms drawn. 🙄

 

[Button Pusher]

I had it happen for a headlight out. One car pulled across the road in front of me, one pulled up behind. Cops got out of both with firearms drawn. 🙄

WOW Were they looking for a car similar to the one you were driving?

 

[BigWaylon]

WOW Were they looking for a car similar to the one you were driving?

No idea. We were at the beach (topsail island). Stopped for ice cream and had an officer mention it to us that we had a light out. Thanked him and headed to our house, less than 10 minutes away.

I was driving but it was my buddy’s car. A gold Isuzu car (not SUV). We crossed whatever little town line (topsail to north topsail or something) and were ~6 houses from our destination when they trapped us. First question was “do you have any drugs, alcohol or other paraphernalia in the vehicle”...followed by “are you aware you have a headlight out”?

I said something along the lines of “yep, officer just told us that <10 minutes ago...but nothing is open around here to buy one at this hour” (it was only 9p or so if I remember, but in mid-90s nothing was open there). Worst part was the guy that owned the car was in the passenger seat and started running his mouth because he’d taken a couple criminal law classes at his local community college or something...🙄

I have a souvenir pic around here somewhere that another person with us took, as they were already at the house and took a pic of the lights flashing down the street. 🤣

for all I know, the first LEO called the seconds ones?

 

[McDirkale]

You are raising a good point and I agree with you that there is something different about this particular case in that it is not triggering the normal abuse of power, anti cop, anti govt. outrage that other cases have. I think it’s a combination of things:

1) I think normal people are getting really tired of the anti white narratives that are being pushed into our faces that it does cause some feelings that people aren’t going to comfortable discussing, at least publicly. A lot of people who otherwise don’t or didn’t care about race have started to.

2) Disgust with the reaction from the black ‘community” of burn down the CVS, rioting in the streets, the NFAC bozos and everything else. This is heightened by race based prosecution or lack there of with the system going after whites and patriots with the full force of the surveillance / police state while if your black and antifa you get away free.

3) there is some lack of sympathy for a piece of trash like Floyd who had a long record of violence. Again, the “system” failed like it usually does as he was both out in public and massively drugged up.

4) an overall loss of faith in the legal system, courts, government in general that really took a turn with disgust over the stolen election causing a general sensation of apathy.

You forgot looting....never forget looting....we all know that free stolen stuff makes everyone aware of just how angry you are......LOL

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

 

[noway2]

In NC the multiple charge thing is a jury instruction instead of charges. The judge usually gives them more than one sentence option like First degree murder or second degree murder if they can't meet the premeditation elements. I honestly do not know how they get those charges but I believe it's pre trial motions and the judge decides proper jury instructions. So the multiple charges isn't completely uncommon.

That still sounds a little bit weird. It’s like the prosecution is just making a generalized case and then the jury gets to decide which glove, er I mean shoe fits. (See what I did there, glove. )

 

[wvsig]

His direct supervisor stated today in court that Chauvin did not follow proper procedure when restraining Floyd. This is a quote:

"When Mr. Floyd was no longer offering up any resistance to the officers, they could have ended their restraint," the former supervisor testified Thursday.

Derek Chauvin's former supervisor testifies his restraint of George Floyd violated use-of-force policies

"When Mr. Floyd was no longer offering up any resistance to the officers, they could have ended their restraint," the former supervisor testified Thursday.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[BlackGun]

If I was one of the jurors it would come down to the medical examiner’s testimony. Given all the options upfront Chauvin faces almost certain conviction. Its wrong to charge someone with many options. The message is he is guilty, now pick your poison. I don’t know how anyone could convict of anything greater than manslaughter.

 

[Radar]

Medic was back at it on the stand:

"There was a man being killed," Hansen, who testified in her dress uniform and detailed her emergency medical technician training, said in court Tuesday. "I would have been able to provide medical attention to the best of my abilities. And this human was denied that right."

LIVE UPDATES: Derek Chauvin trial continues as prosecutors show videos of George Floyd being removed from SUV

The trial for Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer charged in George Floyd’s death, will resume Wednesday.

www.foxnews.com

I have not heard if she was there as a bystander or in an official capacity. Regardless, if she uttered that on the stand, she's be nuclear to me. I'd refuse to ride with her.

She was off duty....had no medical equipment with her either.

 

[DrScaryGuy]

That still sounds a little bit weird. It’s like the prosecution is just making a generalized case and then the jury gets to decide which glove, er I mean shoe fits. (See what I did there, glove. )

and if i were on that jury, that would factor into my decision.
it's kind of like the prosecutor is admitting they don't know what to charge him with, and they want to just get him on SOMETHING.

 

[Spartan]

Interesting take on the force on the arteries in the neck of Mr. Floyd. I think murder will be hard to prove unless the prosecution can show that both men had a history while working as security for a local business. Perhaps the officer made it personal. Why approach a person suspected of passing a bad $20 bill with service weapon drawn?

George Floyd's Death Was Murder, Plain and Simple

As part of my job as an educator, I have, at times, had to restrain teenagers. I was trained to do so. It is my least favorite part of my job. It feels sca

educationpost.org

@Button Pusher
Interesting article.
The guy who is a teacher wants to compare it to being a cop. At best apples to oranges.
He is a teacher, and probably receives minimal state sponsored training, but acts as though he is an expert at being a cop, violent restraint, drug toxicity and other medical issues, as well as legal issues.
he complained that Floyd was not charged or accused, yet is happy to assert that Chauvin is guilty.

 

[Chuckman]

Paramedic testimony:

Paramedic Derek Smith testified that he arrived to the scene where Minneapolis police officers encountered George Floyd and thought Floyd was dead. "I walked up to the individual, noticed he wasn't moving. I didn't see any chest rise or fall on this individual," Smith said. He didn’t feel a pulse when rendering first aid.

 

[P01135809]

p

Paramedic testimony:

Paramedic Derek Smith testified that he arrived to the scene where Minneapolis police officers encountered George Floyd and thought Floyd was dead. "I walked up to the individual, noticed he wasn't moving. I didn't see any chest rise or fall on this individual," Smith said. He didn’t feel a pulse when rendering first aid.

whats your take on this guy’s testimony?

 

[DrPhudd]

Failing to appear for a jury summons in MN is a maximum $1,000 fine and/or 90 days in jail.
And would be worth every penny/second
NFW I would be on that jury

 

[Cowboy]

Failing to appear for a jury summons in MN is a maximum $1,000 fine and/or 90 days in jail.
And would be worth every penny/second
NFW I would be on that jury

I find it odd that it took less time to see this jury than one in my county that took like 3 weeks. It was for a longtime criminal offender. They called my wife for jury duty and the DA just put her head on the table. The judge asked her name and said do you have any connections to the defendant? She said yes ma'am I had the privilege to not just convict him as an ADA but also defend him as a defense attorney. The judge just laughed.

 

[chiefjason]

His direct supervisor stated today in court that Chauvin did not follow proper procedure when restraining Floyd. This is a quote:

"When Mr. Floyd was no longer offering up any resistance to the officers, they could have ended their restraint," the former supervisor testified Thursday.

Derek Chauvin's former supervisor testifies his restraint of George Floyd violated use-of-force policies

"When Mr. Floyd was no longer offering up any resistance to the officers, they could have ended their restraint," the former supervisor testified Thursday.

www.nbcnews.com

@Button Pusher
Interesting article.
The guy who is a teacher wants to compare it to being a cop. At best apples to oranges.
He is a teacher, and probably receives minimal state sponsored training, but acts as though he is an expert at being a cop, violent restraint, drug toxicity and other medical issues, as well as legal issues.
he complained that Floyd was not charged or accused, yet is happy to assert that Chauvin is guilty.

The concept the teacher is explaining is the same thing I said. And the same thing his supervisor said. Minimum force necessary. When the suspect stops resisting, you stop escalating. When it's clear it's over, end it. When Chauvin continued the restraint for too long he invited this scrutiny of his behavior and he will likely have a price to pay for that decision. Because it was the wrong decision. People do get hurt in LE interactions. But when the LEO's actions contribute to that they should be held accountable. Because they are responsible for the subject in their care.

Do you know what training he had? I don't. But I know what training I had. Several days of initial training to include de-escalation, restraint, how to end the restraint, and after restraint counseling. And yearly full day refreshers. My disagreement with the teacher is not to talk during the restraint. Nothing you can say will calm it down in the moment. Save the talking for the end. But anyone in a position of power over another should be required to use the minimum force necessary for compliance in a non authoritarian society. It's authoritarians that go around hurting people to prove a point or acting so carelessly and recklessly that people get hurt.

 

[Chuckman]

p

whats your take on this guy’s testimony?

It was brief, and he said exactly what he saw. He didn't go off-script or go all "well, I think this what was happening."

 

[Diablos]

The concept the teacher is explaining is the same thing I said. And the same thing his supervisor said. Minimum force necessary. When the suspect stops resisting, you stop escalating. When it's clear it's over, end it. When Chauvin continued the restraint for too long he invited this scrutiny of his behavior and he will likely have a price to pay for that decision. Because it was the wrong decision. People do get hurt in LE interactions. But when the LEO's actions contribute to that they should be held accountable. Because they are responsible for the subject in their care.

Do you know what training he had? I don't. But I know what training I had. Several days of initial training to include de-escalation, restraint, how to end the restraint, and after restraint counseling. And yearly full day refreshers. My disagreement with the teacher is not to talk during the restraint. Nothing you can say will calm it down in the moment. Save the talking for the end. But anyone in a position of power over another should be required to use the minimum force necessary for compliance in a non authoritarian society. It's authoritarians that go around hurting people to prove a point or acting so carelessly and recklessly that people get hurt.

i thought you had to say "stop resisting"

 

[B00ger]

Personal opinion, and I am not a lawyer, but just have minimal legal training in my past. Two points:

1. The legal system is >supposed< to be designed to never, ever, be “open and shut”. A legal proceeding is the government interfering with the life of a citizen. It is designed in such a way that it is required to be difficult for the government to take away life/liberty/property from a citizen. I learned this during a discussion with a defense attorney. We had asked him how he is able to stomach defending “horrible” people who have done heinous things. And it boils down to how much power, and the controls on that power, you want the government to have. This is why defense attorneys will vigorously defend even the most “horrid” criminals. Because it is their job to force the government to cross every T and dot every I before they can punish a citizen. So if you truly, at your core, believe in limited government then you should never declare a case “open and shut”. You should, in ALL cases, demand the state do absolutely every thing they have to do to prove their case before a verdict is met. Whether this be for a minor traffic infraction, all the way up to flying airplanes into buildings.

2. The exact reason we should hold the legal system to such an extremely high level of restraint is also the reason its enforcement members must also be held to this standard. So saying things like “he shouldn’t have been on drugs.” “That’s what happens when you resist” or anything else that desires to remove the burden of restraint from LE gives them more room to over step their bounds. We have to remember is the precedent that it sets “He shouldn’t have been on drugs.” Does this apply to having a couple of beers? Legal weed? We won’t even delve into what right the government has in telling me what I can do to my own body. “He shouldn’t have resisted”...so you are claiming there is >never< a reason to resist the police? If so then let’s go ahead and remove the 2nd, because you are claiming any resistance to the law earns you what you get. That is >literally< what the 2nd was written for...to resist when necessary.

My personal opinions as far as this case goes is simple. I do think the cop contributed to his death. It does appear that there were many times that aid could have been rendered. I don’t believe it murder, as in I don’t believe he intended to cause death. It is my hope that the prosecution does everything it possibly can to >prove< it’s case, and I hope that the defense attorney absolutely forces the prosecution to bring it’s A game. And if the state cannot prove its case then I will be satisfied with the outcome. If the state does prove its case, I will also be satisfied with the outcome. My personal feelings do not matter.


Disclaimer: I understand, fully, the crap level of garbage that the police have to deal with. I fully understand that there are terrible people out there doing terrible things, and police often find themselves having to wade into the muck and sludge of society day in and day out. I know their job is difficult. But it should be. They have in their power the ability to restrict the freedoms of citizens immediately. For any of us who actually value ones freedom and liberty, those charged with the capacity to restrict it >should< be wary of overstepping their reach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BlackGun]

Personal opinion, and I am not a lawyer, but just have minimal legal training in my past. Two points:

1. The legal system is >supposed< to be designed to never, ever, be “open and shut”. A legal proceeding is the government interfering with the life of a citizen. It is designed in such a way that it is required to be difficult for the government to take away life/liberty/property from a citizen. I learned this during a discussion with a defense attorney. We had asked him how he is able to stomach defending “horrible” people who have done heinous things. And it boils down to how much power, and the controls on that power, you want the government to have. This is why defense attorneys will vigorously defend even the most “horrid” criminals. Because it is their job to force the government to cross every T and dot every I before they can punish a citizen. So if you truly, at your core, believe in limited government then you should never declare a case “open and shut”. You should, in ALL cases, demand the state do absolutely every thing they have to do to prove their case before a verdict is met. Whether this be for a minor traffic infraction, all the way up to flying airplanes into buildings.

2. The exact reason we should hold the legal system to such an extremely high level of restraint is also the reason its enforcement members must also be held to this standard. So saying things like “he shouldn’t have been on drugs.” “That’s what happens when you resist” or anything else that desires to remove the burden of restraint from LE gives them more room to over step their bounds. We have to remember is the precedent that it sets “He shouldn’t have been on drugs.” Does this apply to having a couple of beers? Legal weed? We won’t even delve into what right the government has in telling me what I can do to my own body. “He shouldn’t have resisted”...so you are claiming there is >never< a reason to resist the police? If so then let’s go ahead and remove the 2nd, because you are claiming any resistance to the law earns you what you get. That is >literally< what the 2nd was written for...to resist when necessary.

My personal opinions as far as this case goes is simple. I do think the cop contributed to his death. It does appear that there were many times that aid could have been rendered. I don’t believe it murder, as in I don’t believe he intended to cause death. It is my hope that the prosecution does everything it possibly can to >prove< it’s case, and I hope that the defense attorney absolutely forces the prosecution to bring it’s A game. And if the state cannot prove its case then I will be satisfied with the outcome. If the state does prove its case, I will also be satisfied with the outcome. My personal feelings do not matter.


Disclaimer: I understand, fully, the crap level of garbage that the police have to deal with. I fully understand that there are terrible people out there doing terrible things, and police often find themselves having to wade into the muck and sludge of society day in and day out. I know their job is difficult. But it should be. They have in their power the ability to restrict the freedoms of citizens immediately. For any of us who actually value ones freedom and liberty, those charged with the capacity to restrict it >should< be wary of overstepping their reach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BlackGun]

Personal opinion, and I am not a lawyer, but just have minimal legal training in my past. Two points:

1. The legal system is >supposed< to be designed to never, ever, be “open and shut”. A legal proceeding is the government interfering with the life of a citizen. It is designed in such a way that it is required to be difficult for the government to take away life/liberty/property from a citizen. I learned this during a discussion with a defense attorney. We had asked him how he is able to stomach defending “horrible” people who have done heinous things. And it boils down to how much power, and the controls on that power, you want the government to have. This is why defense attorneys will vigorously defend even the most “horrid” criminals. Because it is their job to force the government to cross every T and dot every I before they can punish a citizen. So if you truly, at your core, believe in limited government then you should never declare a case “open and shut”. You should, in ALL cases, demand the state do absolutely every thing they have to do to prove their case before a verdict is met. Whether this be for a minor traffic infraction, all the way up to flying airplanes into buildings.

2. The exact reason we should hold the legal system to such an extremely high level of restraint is also the reason its enforcement members must also be held to this standard. So saying things like “he shouldn’t have been on drugs.” “That’s what happens when you resist” or anything else that desires to remove the burden of restraint from LE gives them more room to over step their bounds. We have to remember is the precedent that it sets “He shouldn’t have been on drugs.” Does this apply to having a couple of beers? Legal weed? We won’t even delve into what right the government has in telling me what I can do to my own body. “He shouldn’t have resisted”...so you are claiming there is >never< a reason to resist the police? If so then let’s go ahead and remove the 2nd, because you are claiming any resistance to the law earns you what you get. That is >literally< what the 2nd was written for...to resist when necessary.

My personal opinions as far as this case goes is simple. I do think the cop contributed to his death. It does appear that there were many times that aid could have been rendered. I don’t believe it murder, as in I don’t believe he intended to cause death. It is my hope that the prosecution does everything it possibly can to >prove< it’s case, and I hope that the defense attorney absolutely forces the prosecution to bring it’s A game. And if the state cannot prove its case then I will be satisfied with the outcome. If the state does prove its case, I will also be satisfied with the outcome. My personal feelings do not matter.


Disclaimer: I understand, fully, the crap level of garbage that the police have to deal with. I fully understand that there are terrible people out there doing terrible things, and police often find themselves having to wade into the muck and sludge of society day in and day out. I know their job is difficult. But it should be. They have in their power the ability to restrict the freedoms of citizens immediately. For any of us who actually value ones freedom and liberty, those charged with the capacity to restrict it >should< be wary of overstepping their reach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Redirect Notice

images.app.goo.gl

 

[chiefjason]

i thought you had to say "stop resisting"

As a teacher or counselor best to shut up until things are calmed down. The person you are restraining is just going to argue anyway.

Might not be a bad idea with LE too. Everyone knows what’s happening. Not sure why they feel the need to explain it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk