Death of George Floyd and Subsequent Riots.

[Infidel144]

Why are we even discussing it. 1) Kneeling on someone's neck isn't exactly by the police book

As noted previously in the thread, neck restraints, using the legs, are (or, rather, were) permitted by the book in Minneapolis.
"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)"
See posts #20 and #429.
They are now prohibited as of June 9th.
http://www2.minneapolismn.gov/police...cy_5-300_5-300

2) the guy doing it had killed before with impunity

Ummm.... he seems to have been involved in one incident that resulted in the death of a man, who had just stabbed two people, after that man pulled out a shotgun. it is not clear that he killed the perp:
"In 2006, Chauvin was one of six officers from the Third Precinct who responded to a stabbing at a Minneapolis home. Police said Wayne Reyes stabbed his friend and his girlfriend and then threatened to kill all of them with a shotgun.

Police pursued Reyes, who fled in his truck. He got out of the vehicle with a shotgun, and "several officers fired multiple shots," killing Reyes, police said in a report."
https://web.archive.org/web/20200528...story-n1215691

[PointOfViewGun]

So to be clear you're like "haha oh hell yeah science" until the science doesn't perpetuate your politics and then you're like "Oh that's fake science."

True toxicology reports have never been achieved, amirite?

The fact he was resisting arrest, had a more than lethal dose of drugs in his body, and was a felon with an extensive wrap sheet isn't enough for you to say he dindu nuffin and st. george was innocent. The only person who buys into that silly narrative is you and people like you who are hell bent on carrying water for the democrat party. Lame. I'd care more about your blatant lies and propoganda if I thought if more people would be deluded and misled by them

Where was I "haha oh hell yeah science" or "Oh that's fake science" in this conversation? How about you argue against what people actually argue?

As noted previously in the thread, neck restraints, using the legs, are (or, rather, were) permitted by the book in Minneapolis.
"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)"
See posts #20 and #429.
They are now prohibited as of June 9th.
http://www2.minneapolismn.gov/police...cy_5-300_5-300

He should definitely check post# 430 as well as it indicated this restriction:

The Unconscious Neck Restraint shall only be applied in the following circumstances: (04/16/12)On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or;For life saving purposes, or;
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.
Neck restraints shall not be used against subjects who are passively resisting as defined by policy. (04/16/12)

[Infidel144]

He should definitely check post# 430 as well as it indicated this restriction:

That portion of the manual is quoted in both of the posts I indicated (20 and 429).

[Cope]

That portion of the manual is quoted in both of the posts I indicated (20 and 429).

There is a clear case to be made that Chauvin's use of the hold was improper, particularly after the cardiopulmonary incident. Whether it amounts to murder or manslaughter is a different question. I think it unlikely that the murder charge will stick, but there's a strong possibility that the manslaughter charge will.

[wanderwegger]

We are discussing it because racists hiding behind what they confuse as libertarian views exist everywhere, particularly amongst the sad, bitter young men one would expect to find in certain obvious places.

To answer Cookie's query.

[Alwyn]

There is a clear case to be made that Chauvin's use of the hold was improper, particularly after the cardiopulmonary incident.

I agree there's a clear case that Floyd shouldn't have been restrained in this way. As you said before, whether this was murder is up to the court.

When I saw that the MPD allowed (at the time) neck restraints, I wondered whether the MPD was following normal practice for US police departments by allowing them. I found a Washington Post report saying that at least 26 of the 65 largest police departments in the US have banned or strengthened restrictions on neck restraints after George Floyd's death. This seems to indicate that it was fairly common (at minimum) for police departments to allow neck restraints.

A CNN report said that in New York they passed an Eric Garner Anti Chokehold Act. Would it be fair to say that the death of Eric Garner in 2014 showed that neck restraints are dangerous? Would it be fair to say that the death of Eric Garner was widely reported in the US? If so, I can see why George Floyd would have been terrified when he was restrained in this way, and why people would want to protest another death in similar circumstances, since police departments continued to allow the use of neck restraints after Eric Garner's death.

[wanderwegger]

MPD and almost all large departments allow(ed) chokeholds and neck restraints ONLY when an officer feels their life is in danger. Hard to believe Chauvin was under such a belief.

[Cope]

I agree there's a clear case that Floyd shouldn't have been restrained in this way. As you said before, whether this was murder is up to the court.

When I saw that the MPD allowed (at the time) neck restraints, I wondered whether the MPD was following normal practice for US police departments by allowing them. I found a Washington Post report saying that at least 26 of the 65 largest police departments in the US have banned or strengthened restrictions on neck restraints after George Floyd's death. This seems to indicate that it was fairly common (at minimum) for police departments to allow neck restraints.

A CNN report said that in New York they passed an Eric Garner Anti Chokehold Act. Would it be fair to say that the death of Eric Garner in 2014 showed that neck restraints are dangerous? Would it be fair to say that the death of Eric Garner was widely reported in the US? If so, I can see why George Floyd would have been terrified when he was restrained in this way, and why people would want to protest another death in similar circumstances, since police departments continued to allow the use of neck restraints after Eric Garner's death.

There is currently little evidence (other than the secondary autopsy) that Chauvin's hold either choked or asphyxiated Floyd. The initial post mortem did not find any notable injuries to the head or neck area, indicating that the force Chauvin exerted was not excessive. For this reason, it is unlikely that the neck restraint was uniquely responsible for the triggering of Floyd's cardiopulmonary incident. Chauvin's problem is that he maintained the hold after Floyd had stopped "actively resisting" (including after Floyd's cardiac arrest). This was an unambiguous violation of the guidelines.

Even so, proving intent on Chauvin's part will be difficult - which is why the murder charge is likely to be dismissed. On the other hand, Chauvin's misuse of the neck restraint will add weight to the prosecution's attempts to show that Floyd's death was the consequence of unreasonable risks taken by Chauvin.

[Infidel144]

MPD and almost all large departments allow(ed) chokeholds and neck restraints ONLY when an officer feels their life is in danger. Hard to believe Chauvin was under such a belief.

False. From the MPD manual at the time:
"The Conscious Neck Restraint may be used against a subject who is actively resisting. (04/16/12)The Unconscious Neck Restraint shall only be applied in the following circumstances: (04/16/12)
On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or;
For life saving purposes, or;
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.
Neck restraints shall not be used against subjects who are passively resisting as defined by policy. (04/16/12)"

[wanderwegger]

I stand corrected. Most other departments use the newer terminology and rules. I didn’t realize MPD’s was so outdated at the time. Admitting when one is wrong is what separates the intelligent from the idiotic. My b.

[Cope]

I stand corrected. Most other departments use the newer terminology and rules. I didn’t realize MPD’s was so outdated at the time. Admitting when one is wrong is what separates the intelligent from the idiotic. My b.

Parading one's own alleged humility is a conspicuous act of vanity. It would be easier for you to constructively engage if you paid attention to the conversation. Infidel already cited the MPD's neck restraint guidelines at the top of the page.

[Alwyn]

There is currently little evidence (other than the secondary autopsy) that Chauvin's hold either choked or asphyxiated Floyd. The initial post mortem did not find any notable injuries to the head or neck area, indicating that the force Chauvin exerted was not excessive. For this reason, it is unlikely that the neck restraint was uniquely responsible for the triggering of Floyd's cardiopulmonary incident. Chauvin's problem is that he maintained the hold after Floyd had stopped "actively resisting" (including after Floyd's cardiac arrest). This was an unambiguous violation of the guidelines.

I wonder if, as you suggested, Chauvin's hold didn't choke or asphyxiate Floyd - and, at the same time, Floyd mistakenly believed that he was being choked? Judy Melinek (the forensic pathologist I quoted before, who wasn't involved in the investigation) wrote that:

Looking at a longer, unedited bystander video posted on Facebook, the first thing I notice is that Floyd's voice sounds gravelly, and he repeatedly says, "I can't breathe." EMS and police are sometimes trained that anyone who says "I can't breathe" is lying -- because if you can speak, you can breathe. This is not true, and there are many reasons why people might say "I can't breathe" and still be in medical distress. These reasons include increasing fatigue of respiratory muscles; blockage of pulmonary blood flow; incomplete airway obstruction; and acidosis, a buildup of acid in the blood which triggers an increased breathing rate and causes the sensation of shortness of breath.

We know what the MPD policy said and what the autopsy report said - Floyd probably didn't know the first and couldn't have known the second. He knew that Chauvin's knee was on his kneck. If he was in medical distress, he could have believed that he couldn't breath, even if he was mistaken. If Floyd believed that he was likely to die if the officer didn't remove his knee, and the officer wasn't removing his knee, then I imagine Floyd's heart would have gone faster and faster - and we know he had a heart condition. Did his belief that he was in extreme danger cause him to be terrified, putting too much pressure on his heart, leading to his death?

Even so, proving intent on Chauvin's part will be difficult - which is why the murder charge is likely to be dismissed. On the other hand, Chauvin's misuse of the neck restraint will add weight to the prosecution's attempts to show that Floyd's death was the consequence of the unreasonable risks taken by Chauvin.

I wonder how easy it is for an officer to judge whether their knee on someone's neck is stopping the person from breathing properly or not, especially in an unpredictable and stressful situation such as when they're physically restraining someone. That's why it seems odd to me that such restraints were allowed after Eric Garner's death (even for trained officer in a limited number of situations).

[Infidel144]

If you watch the longer leaked video, Floyd was saying he could not breathe while the cops were trying to get him in the car, before he started saying he wanted to be put on the ground.

[PointOfViewGun]

If you watch the longer leaked video, Floyd was saying he could not breathe while the cops were trying to get him in the car, before he started saying he wanted to be put on the ground.

That means the officer had even more reasons to not constraint him with a knee on his neck.

[Cope]

I wonder if, as you suggested, Chauvin's hold didn't choke or asphyxiate Floyd - and, at the same time, Floyd mistakenly believed that he was being choked? Judy Melinek (the forensic pathologist I quoted before, who wasn't involved in the investigation) wrote that

We know what the MPD policy said and what the autopsy report said - Floyd probably didn't know the first and couldn't have known the second. He knew that Chauvin's knee was on his kneck. If he was in medical distress, he could have believed that he couldn't breath, even if he was mistaken. If Floyd believed that he was likely to die if the officer didn't remove his knee, and the officer wasn't removing his knee, then I imagine Floyd's heart would have gone faster and faster - and we know he had a heart condition. Did his belief that he was in extreme danger cause him to be terrified, putting too much pressure on his heart, leading to his death?

Floyd had been complaining about being unable to breathe well before he was restrained on the road. This is almost certainly why the officers did not believe that their restraining methods were the cause of Floyd's shortness of breath. To the common observer, Floyd's behaviour and expressions (combined with his personal characteristics) bore the facets of a non-fatal, intoxicant-induced anxiety attack rather than a prelude to cardiopulmonary arrest (although I note the complication that the two can be linked).

Nevertheless, what Floyd himself believed and/or articulated about his condition is largely irrelevant unless it can be used to demonstrate that the officers' conduct was objectively unreasonable based on what they knew (or should have known) at the time of the incident.

Your argument that the restraint contributed to Floyd's cardiac arrest by exaggerating his sense of panic is plausible, but not something that could be used to illustrate that the officers behaved unreasonably (since they could not reasonably have known or suspected that their actions would result in Floyd's cardiac arrest).

I wonder how easy it is for an officer to judge whether their knee on someone's neck is stopping the person from breathing properly or not, especially in an unpredictable and stressful situation such as when they're physically restraining someone. That's why it seems odd to me that such restraints were allowed after Eric Garner's death (even for trained officer in a limited number of situations).

It's a complex picture. Neck restraints - like most other policing techniques/methods - have a place if they are used correctly. They can assist officers in deploying non-lethal force against agitated and/or dangerous offenders.

[swabian]

The Unconscious Neck Restraint shall only be applied in the following circumstances: (04/16/12)On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or;For life saving purposes, or;
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.
Neck restraints shall not be used against subjects who are passively resisting as defined by policy. (04/16/12)

There is a clear case to be made that Chauvin's use of the hold was improper, particularly after the cardiopulmonary incident. Whether it amounts to murder or manslaughter is a different question. I think it unlikely that the murder charge will stick, but there's a strong possibility that the manslaughter charge will.

Yes, except maybe if it can be turned into a hate crime.

I also hereby opine, that

- Chauvin might not actually be a racist and it eventually doesn't matter. He displayed excessive use of force in 17 more cases prior to the one in question and there doesn't seem to be a pattern that demonstrates he's out to abuse blacks.

- The local police forces get trained this way and over the top use of force is both, encouraged and covered up, which is the actual problem.

- Racism in and of itself is a statistically insignificant problem. The vast majority of crimes committed are of an instrumental and goal oriented nature and not motivated by racism or other irrational convictions. They are typically a consequence of bad judgment and greed. Even bad judgement under the influence of some substance is much more common than bad judgement due to some resentment.

- Systemic racism is a myth, since that would imply that racial discrimination is a declared goal of the system. Failure of individuals due to racism is not a failure of the system in and of itself, it merely represents a part of the systems general inefficiency. It's a specific 'brand' of imperfection, so to speak.

Verily, therefore i conclude onto you:

the riots are a royally obvious rationalization of vandalism and looting which, most hypocritically, is often to the pronounced detriment of the black communities.

---> national guard + popcorn

[wanderwegger]

Parading one's own alleged humility is a conspicuous act of vanity. It would be easier for you to constructively engage if you paid attention to the conversation. Infidel already cited the MPD's neck restraint guidelines at the top of the page.

I read it in an article from a solid enough source. I also read there are multiple versions. One would think on a site where even when overwhelming evidence is presented people refuse to ever admit fault it actually happening would be applauded as the miracle it is. Some people just only know how to spew hate I guess. Very sad.

[Infidel144]

I read it in an article from a solid enough source. I also read there are multiple versions.

What article and source?

[wanderwegger]

https://www.minnpost.com/greater-min...ck-restraints/

Straight up says only when an officer is in danger. And I feel these journalists have access to better sources than us searching portions of the internet thinking we have found the only truth. Thinking I wasn’t wrong. You were. I am sure you will admit it. Or you will argue he wasn’t trying to cut off air and I can’t breathe doesn’t mean I can’t breathe. Or maybe chokeholds and neck restraints are wholly different things even though anyone with experience around cops knows they use the terms interchangeably.

Prior to last week, the policy manual for Minneapolis police said officers could use chokeholds to cut off air and kill someone when deadly force is necessary because an officer fears they or others could be killed or suffer a severe injury. The same rules apply for firing a gun.

[Infidel144]

https://www.minnpost.com/greater-min...ck-restraints/

Straight up says only when an officer is in danger.

Straight up says chokeholds, for the part you quote below.

And I feel these journalists have access to better sources than us searching portions of the internet thinking we have found the only truth.

Better sources, hmmm.... Not much better a source than going directly to the MPD manual. Which is what I did. What you "feel" is of no relevance.

Thinking I wasn’t wrong. You were. I am sure you will admit it. Or you will argue he wasn’t trying to cut off air and I can’t breathe doesn’t mean I can’t breathe. Or maybe chokeholds and neck restraints are wholly different things even though anyone with experience around cops knows they use the terms interchangeably.

Chokeholds and neck restraints are (or were) specifically defined in the MPD manual. So yes, wholly different things.

Prior to last week, the policy manual for Minneapolis police said officers could use chokeholds to cut off air and kill someone when deadly force is necessary because an officer fears they or others could be killed or suffer a severe injury. The same rules apply for firing a gun.

Seems wanderwegger missed the next two paragraphs:
"An officer could also use two types of neck restraints in less severe circumstances. One is called a conscious neck restraint, in which an officer applies light to moderate pressure to the side of a person’s neck but does not intend to knock a person unconscious. That could be used against people who are “actively resisting,” according to the policy guidebook posted online.

The other neck restraint is one meant to render someone unconscious, and could be used when someone is “exhibiting active aggression” and for “life saving purposes.” Department policy said neck restraints can’t be used against people who are “passively resisting.”"