(06-29-2021 02:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 02:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 02:04 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 01:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 01:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Well, my attempt to broker a constructive conversation here has failed so I'll move on


But that's the point, 93... You're literally making it binary when you say what you're saying 'without Chauvin, he lives that day'. That's a purely binary outcome. While I believe one also can't say, with Fentanyl, he dies that day.... He DID die... and we're discussing a murder case. If he dies from Fentanyl, its not murder.

Now let me address the BIG issue.

With no hypoxia reported, it is extremely unlikely that Floyd dies from what Chauvin did, without the other factors.


If its a relatively low amount, like a clinical dose.... The one with the history is more likely to die.

If its a relatively high amount, it depends on lots of details that nobody knows. How high, how 'damaged' the regular user is and how 'healthy' the new guy is.

I think you assume that it is 'safer' for the habitual user to take the drug, but you're completely ignoring that a regular user is compromised... so they aren't starting from the same state of health. They have an enlarged heard, high blood pressure, likely untreated... the arteries are weakened relative to the average person.


He violated procedures for sure (it seems/testimony said)... but what you just described was 'reasonable doubt' in terms of some definitions of 'murder'.... because by the same token... someone WITHOUT Fentanyl likely doesn't die nor is even injured as a result of what Chauvin did.

This is the crux of the debate, IMO



Again, my comment was more general.... but you're right that it was a toxic combination.

IMO, It's a conversation between a layman seeking to right a wrong and a lawyer seeking to follow the laws.

What Chauvin did, despite the fact that it contributed to the death of Floyd and was beyond protocol.... was NOT by almost any definition, murder.



I'd ask those on the left... If you go running around a pool which is against the pool rules; and because you come up suddenly, you scare a woman with a heart issue and she dies... are you a murderer? If someone has a better example, please have at it.

I've not been following this back and forth, so forgive me if I missed something crucial; I just found the last few sentences to be interesting and thought provoking.

Chauvin was found guilt of second-degree and third-degree murder, so I think, by definition, it was murder.

He was convicted of three counts.

Unintentional second-degree murder while attempting to commit felony assault;
Third degree murder by engaging in a reckless action that resulted in the death of others;
2nd degree manslaughter, specifically culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.

1. Minnesota is the only jurisdiction that bootstraps the felony murder as the action itself --- most jurisdictions allow for a felony murder when a death occurs in the commission of felony, think a bank robbery (felony) that results in a death.

Minnesota allows the underlying felony assault (a lesser included charge) to be the bootstrap to this.

2. The 3rd degree charge is under review. Funnily because of lad's favorite example Noor. This charge is the depraved indifference charge -- shooting a gun into a bus. No intent to kill anyone specifically. The Noor prosecution argued that the non-general 'other' that is intended extends to people you specifically target (Noor specifically intended to shoot the woman in the gut --- mistakenly so)

3. Negligent manslaughter. Self-explanatory.


So, to those out there, for #1, what is the underlying felony assault? To those that say the restraint by itself was the 'assault', are you saying that George should have never been restrained? You pretty much have a true 'either/or' situation with this.

The problem with a conviction solely on 3 is explained by OO. A conviction on this alone and you have the BLM Air Force doing their impersonation of the firebombing of Tokyo.

Can't restraint be required but the act of restraining, in terms of how it is carried out, be considered assault? As in, if someone clearly uses an unsanctioned method to restrain someone can't it be considered assault? But if they used a sanctioned technique it wouldn't be?

I don't think it's binary in the way you're portraying it, that if the type of restraint applied by Chauvin is considered assault, then Chauvin should not have restrained him in any fashion. I don't think you have the "either or" situation at all as there is a spectrum of how restraint can be applied, right? There is a difference between restraining someone by placing their hands behind their back in a standing position, doing what Chauvin did, etc.

So is your question really "should the method of restraint that Chauvin relied on not be sanctioned by the PD?"

If the method of restraint is in a training manual, would that be sanctioned?

Again, where is the felony assault? What specific actions constitute that felony assault?

Again, in the trial, it was brought forward that individuals in the force use many means of restraint. The PD brass, under cross, said that there were many allowable and proper means of restraint that are not given the Good Housekeeping Seal of Restraint Approval, that would not, and should not be punished.

To use 93s new version of 'context sensitive' dynamics, forcing a police force into using only 'moves' out a cookbook would not be good for law enforcement.

The better alternative is to say 'DONT use moves x, y, and z' -- like the directives on choke baton holds and such.

Now again, given that a Minneapolis PD training manual not only shows a restraint like the one on Floyd, it gives directions -- one person directly on the upper back, two more pinning legs, and one leaning in applying on the lower back.

Had the evidence shown Chauvins boot in a constricting manner -- yep I would agree with you. Two points on that -- the state's own witness (a fact witness that they used in their own behalf for not just the facts, but on restraints) was particularly damaging to the 'boot on the neck' theory. The guy, a martial arts master, under cross noted that had Chauvins' boot been in a constricting position at that point, Chauvin would have been in an MMA-style 'instant out' hold. Pressure at that point, per the state witness, would result in unconsciousness in less than 10 secs. But the video shows Chauvin still speaking.

The second point on the 'boot on the neck' I talked about before. In that position, had the boot been on the neck, the EMT would be unable to get his hand in to get a pulse. The EMT did get that pulse.

So, what/where is the underlying felony assault? Is the training manual an acceptable excuse? Do you ban all prone restraints with a body anywhere on the back? You dont put restraint on the back, there is no need to put any restraint on, since one can fight through a three point limb restraint. Again, per witness testimony in the Chauvin trial.

I have zero interest in getting into the back and forth of my interpretation of the evidence vs yours. You've clearly got a bone to pick and a perspective that is unshaking.

I was speaking more generally, as getting into the details just devolves rather quickly.

Generally, I would imagine that if a specific restraint method was approved, and a description of the amount of force required (i.e. how to apply it and for how long), then an officer working within that framework would not be assaulting someone. However, should they use an approved method in an inappropriate manner or at an inappropriate time, then I could easily see that being considered assault.