Death of George Floyd and Subsequent Riots.

[Sir Adrian]

He was feeling that he was being chocked because he was overdosing on fentanyl, which according to everyone causes asphyxiation and hypoxia. Hypoxia by itself also makes you feel like you are chocking because the brain suddenly thinks the lungs are not working, even though they are. Imho if the trial is fair the cops will be found guilty of negligence and nothing more - when someone is shouting he can't breathe, you handcuff him just in case and call the paramedics immediately.

They didn't kill GF but they could have done a bit more to save him.

[Cope]

Well the dead guy reportedly felt he was being choked, but far be it from me to suggest that might be relevant. IIRC the coroner found the restraint led to the guys heart stopping, and kneeling on the veins and arteries will kill you as surely as crushing the trachea.

This nonsense has all been trolled over ITT several times over, and the oddly specific focus on the trachea has come up and been slapped down before. The US legal system thinks it's weird this guy died the way he did and an agent of government is being charged over their conduct.

A person can feel that they are short of breath without being "choked". Since the case (which is being tried as we speak) ultimately rests on how and why George Floyd died, discussing that point is neither "oddly specific", "nonsense" nor "trolling".

[PointOfViewGun]

Ah yes, people defending someone putting his knee with his full weight on the neck of someone already pinned on the hard ground, a technique not allowed in many places purely because it can cause suffocation. Heck, a technique that Minneapolis cop guidebook warns of causing pass outs. I wonder if they'd be willing to demonstrate how they breathe just fine in such a situation. In the end, they are defending a coward low life.

[Cyclops]

Ah yes, people defending someone putting his knee with his full weight on the neck of someone already pinned on the hard ground, a technique not allowed in many places purely because it can cause suffocation. Heck, a technique that Minneapolis cop guidebook warns of causing pass outs. I wonder if they'd be willing to demonstrate how they breathe just fine in such a situation. In the end, they are defending a coward low life.

While it might be possible to judge the cop's character by their actions, their character is largely irrelevant. Do this government employee's action meet the definition of law breaking? My uninformed guess is yes, we shall see how the courts adjudge it.

I mean I think the technique is dangerous but I'm no expert. Maybe fellow posters could demonstrate its safety by having their throats knelt on for ten minutes? We'd have to refuse first aid of course just so the demonstration was true to the incident we are trying to simulate. We can't have the Replication Crisis casting its ugly shadow over this sensible debate.

[Cope]

While it might be possible to judge the cop's character by their actions, their character is largely irrelevant. Do this government employee's action meet the definition of law breaking? My uninformed guess is yes, we shall see how the courts adjudge it.

I mean I think the technique is dangerous but I'm no expert. Maybe fellow posters could demonstrate its safety by having their throats knelt on for ten minutes? We'd have to refuse first aid of course just so the demonstration was true to the incident we are trying to simulate. We can't have the Replication Crisis casting its ugly shadow over this sensible debate.

George Floyd's throat was not being knelt on. An MPD training manual shows how the hold used by Chauvin is meant to be executed. The point of contention is not whether use of this technique was legal (it was), but whether Chauvin used it either negligently or maliciously by not properly placing Floyd in the recovery position.

Image from the manual:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[PointOfViewGun]

George Floyd's throat was not being knelt on. An MPD training manual shows how the hold used by Chauvin is meant to be executed. The point of contention is not whether use of this technique was legal (it was), but whether Chauvin used it either negligently or maliciously by not properly placing Floyd in the recovery position.

Image from the manual:

This is a moot point. It has as much value as saying that it's not illegal to shoot someone but whether you do it not for self defense or not. Yes, the officer may not be kneeling on his throat directly but he was kneeling on his neck which happens to be next to his throat. In that position, regardless of what part of the neck you stand on you will effect breathing capabilities. Pushed against a hard ground any weight around your neck will make it harder to breathe if not choke you all together.

The manual itself at the time of the officer's act said this, the relevant sections:

5-311 USE OF NECK RESTRAINTS AND CHOKE HOLDS (10/16/02) (08/17/07) (10/01/10) (04/16/12)
DEFINITIONS I.
Choke Hold: Deadly force option. Defined as applying direct pressure on a person's trachea or airway (front of the neck), blocking or obstructing the airway (04/16/12)
Neck Restraint: Non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person's neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck). Only sworn employees who have received training from the MPD Training Unit are authorized to use neck restraints. The MPD authorizes two types of neck restraints: Conscious Neck Restraint and Unconscious Neck Restraint. (04/16/12)
Conscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with intent to control, and not to render the subject unconscious, by only applying light to moderate pressure. (04/16/12)
Unconscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure. (04/16/12)

PROCEDURES/REGULATIONS II.
A. The Conscious Neck Restraint may be used against a subject who is actively resisting. (04/16/12)
B. The Unconscious Neck Restraint shall only be applied in the following circumstances: (04/16/12)
1. On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or;
2. For life saving purposes, or;
3. On a subject who is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject; and if lesser attempts at control have been or would likely be ineffective.
C. Neck restraints shall not be used against subjects who are passively resisting as defined by policy. (04/16/12)
D. After Care Guidelines (04/16/12)
1. After a neck restraint or choke hold has been used on a subject, sworn MPD employees shall keep them under close observation until they are released to medical or other law enforcement personnel.
2. An officer who has used a neck restraint or choke hold shall inform individuals accepting custody of thesubject, that the technique was used on the subject.

[enoch]

Minneapolis Police Chief testified Chauvin used the knee pin incorrectly and used “unreasonable” force on George Floyd.

There you have it. The pin was not done correctly and the force was not reasonable. None of us know more about Minneapolis Law Enforcement than the Minneapolis Police Chief.

[Gaidin]

Minneapolis Police Chief testified Chauvin used the knee pin incorrectly and used “unreasonable” force on George Floyd.

There you have it. The pin was not done correctly and the force was not reasonable. None of us know more about Minneapolis Law Enforcement than the Minneapolis Police Chief.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/der...f3de682c0b8c54

Apparently Chauvin, as a training officer, was trained above other officers but still used unrecognizable tactics.

[enoch]

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/der...f3de682c0b8c54

Apparently Chauvin, as a training officer, was trained above other officers but still used unrecognizable tactics.

Making it all the more malicious. At least those in this thread who argued Chauvin did things according to the rules will mea culpa.

[Cope]

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/der...f3de682c0b8c54

Apparently Chauvin, as a training officer, was trained above other officers but still used unrecognizable tactics.

See post #2425. The tactic was not "unrecognizable". This is why the claim that Chauvin intentionally committed a felony (required for second-degree murder) when restraining Floyd will be difficult for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That said, Chauvin doesn't have a strong a defense against the second-degree manslaughter charge, supposing the jury finds that it was the hold which caused Floyd's death.

[Gaidin]

See post #2425. The tactic was not "unrecognizable". This is why the claim that Chauvin intentionally committed a felony (required for second-degree murder) when restraining Floyd will be difficult for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That said, Chauvin doesn't have a strong a defense against the second-degree manslaughter charge, supposing the jury finds that it was the hold which caused Floyd's death.

"See testimony." Until you can actually counter that, well, post numbers don't mean jack or crap.

There's a god damned reason you haven't replied for a week. Testimony has come out for a week. You haven't replied for a week. Testimony has come out from police officers since last Thursday. This is your first reply. Your. Are. Desperate.

If you want to reply, reply to the testimony. Not this high and mighty BS.

[Gromovnik]

Oh, I'm sure Minneapolis police chief is just lying in order to bring commulibrulism to America. Right, boys?

[Gaidin]

Oh, I'm sure Minneapolis police chief is just lying in order to bring commulibrulism to America. Right, boys?

Not just the chief. The entire chain of command.

[Infidel144]

From the CNN link above it provides various quotes from and statements about the witnesses from the direct. But simply refers to the cross as something that is happening (while re-emphasizing the direct).

Should I take it that there was nothing interesting or relevant brought out in the cross-examination(s)?

[Cope]

"See testimony." Until you can actually counter that, well, post numbers don't mean jack or crap.

There is a difference between misusing a technique as a result of negligence and operating outside of the guidelines with malicious intent. The police chief acknowledged an "initial reasonableness" in Chauvin's use of force, but argued it became unreasonable after Floyd was no longer resisting, esp. after he became non-responsive. He did not comment on Chauvin's motivations. This is entirely relevant with regard to which charges are applicable and which are not.

To reiterate: in order to find Chauvin guilty of second-degree murder, the prosecution must prove that he acted maliciously (i.e. was committing an assault) during his interaction with Floyd.

There's a god damned reason you haven't replied for a week. Testimony has come out for a week. You haven't replied for a week. Testimony has come out from police officers since last Thursday. This is your first reply. Your. Are. Desperate.

If you want to reply, reply to the testimony. Not this high and mighty BS.

Aggressively impugning my motives and fabricating explanations regarding my posting habits isn't a substitute for an argument. I have repeatedly stated throughout this thread that Chauvin is likely guilty of second-degree manslaughter.

[Gaidin]

From the CNN link above it provides various quotes from and statements about the witnesses from the direct. But simply refers to the cross as something that is happening (while re-emphasizing the direct).

Should I take it that there was nothing interesting or relevant brought out in the cross-examination(s)?

The testimony is a matter of public record. I'm sure you can interact with a search record, find it or a news site that commented on it, and comment on it.

At your right bold age of older than ten you don't need my help.

[PointOfViewGun]

We know for a fact that Chauvin operated outside the guidelines.

[enoch]

Aggressively impugning my motives and fabricating explanations regarding my posting habits isn't a substitute for an argument. I have repeatedly stated throughout this thread that Chauvin is likely guilty of second-degree manslaughter.

Why do you think Chauvin did it? Was it direct malice? Is Chauvin just hard core racist? Was he hoping for his life to be ruined and spend its remainder in jail or in fear of reprisals? Was he angling for a job on Fox News?

Please try your best to give us your take. Mine is systemic racism played a part and Chauvin was motivated by it not his own self interest.

[Vanoi]

From the CNN link above it provides various quotes from and statements about the witnesses from the direct. But simply refers to the cross as something that is happening (while re-emphasizing the direct).

Should I take it that there was nothing interesting or relevant brought out in the cross-examination(s)?

Any comment on the testimony brought forth by the chief of police? The testimony has been pretty faking so far. Why aren't you guys talking about it?

[Pontifex Maximus]

We know for a fact that Chauvin operated outside the guidelines.

Any opinion as to how having 4x the lethal dose of fentanyl in his system did not contribute in a significant way to Saint Floyd's death? Bear in mind his boo testified extensively to the nature and extent of his drug habit, which included a recent hospitalization and overdose. Or is this post too confusing and off topic? Maybe it doesn't conform to your strict construction of posts worth addressing honestly, due to it being off topic, confusing, or missing the point? After all, some arguments are hard to address without punting in the most blatant and pathetic ways possible.