Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
He’s not in protective custody, he’s in custody charged with murder.
More police brutality than you can shake a stick at.
- Thread starter xes
- Start date
we passed that point yonks ago, if we were ever the other side of it to begin with
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
This has got a different feel about it to me. The speed of the arrest, charging, and autopsy, the way it’s being reported. I reckon a corner gets turned here and Chauvin’s going down.
fucthest8
Cool people die horrible, preventable deaths.
Nah. See the autopsy report on the previous page. As the tweet says, the fix is fucking in. Also
- speed of arrest are you fucking joking? If that video had emerged of any non-cop killing anyone at all, how fast do you think the arrest would have been? 3, or was it 4 days? Really?
- charged with 3rd degree and manslaughter only
Show trial, acquitted, or at best convicted of manslaughter with some sort of shit suspended sentence.
He'll lose his job but that will be it and none of the other cops will
fucthest8
Cool people die horrible, preventable deaths.
And this is the world we actually live in now, well maybe it has been for a while but it just seems even more blatant right now ... move on, it's all been dealt with, just move on ... no, you didn't just see a cop murder a man ... no, he wasn't lying even though it is obvious that he was ... you can't believe your own eyes, it's been dealt with, move on.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I'm less pessimistic. I predict he'll be found guilty and sent to prison, and none of the others will work as cops again.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
We’ll see but I disagree. He was charged with 3rd degree murder and manslaughter because first degree murder would almost certainly result in an acquittal. As far as the coroner’s report is concerned, how’s it a fix? It just says that he wasn’t asphyxiated or strangled to death, which it has to if true, and that the nature of the arrest DID contribute to his death. If he had drugs or booze in his system it would have to say that too. There’ll be another post mortem so all this is easily checkable. Seems like you wouldn’t be happy with it unless the coroner said the knee choked him and that was the sole cause of death, which it seems, wouldn’t have been true.
Athos
Well-Known Member
5-311 of the following is MPD force policy on the use of neck restraint.
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.
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.
- 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)
- After Care Guidelines (04/16/12)
- 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.
- An officer who has used a neck restraint or choke hold shall inform individuals accepting custody of the subject, that the technique was used on the subject.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
This seems very strange Spy, the cop sat with his knee on his neck until he died and beyond, and it only contributed to his death? I don't think an autopsy would have said that if the positions had been reversed.
This looks strangest of all to me. They've found no drugs or alcohol in his blood but they say they might have been there. Because he was black, clearly. Again, if the positions had been reversed I severely doubt it would have suggested the copper (or some white middle class bloke) would possibly been drunk or high.
And the defence will be able to say that there's clearly doubt because two experts disagree.
Not keen on this as an accusation either. If you shoot someone with a dodgy heart is that any less murder? He knelt on his neck until he died and stayed there just to make sure. Looks like fucking murder to me.
Eta: edited for clarity because I fucked up the quotes.
Last edited:
fucthest8
Cool people die horrible, preventable deaths.
I sincerely hope that you are right and I am wrong.
Athos
Well-Known Member
These provisions also relevant:
5-302 USE OF FORCE DEFINITIONS (10/16/02) (10/01/10)
Active Aggression: Behavior initiated by a subject that may or may not be in response to police efforts to bring the person into custody or control. A subject engages in active aggression when presenting behaviors that constitute an assault or the circumstances reasonably indicate that an assault or injury to any person is likely to occur at any moment. (10/01/10) (04/16/12)
Active Resistance: A response to police efforts to bring a person into custody or control for detainment or arrest. A subject engages in active resistance when engaging in physical actions (or verbal behavior reflecting an intention) to make it more difficult for officers to achieve actual physical control. (10/01/10) (04/16/12)
Deadly Force: Minn. Stat. §609.066 states that: “Force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a firearm other than a firearm loaded with less-lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force.” (10/01/10)
Flight: Is an effort by the subject to avoid arrest or capture by fleeing without the aid of a motor vehicle. (10/01/10)
Great Bodily Harm: Bodily injury which creates a high probability of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or other serious bodily harm.
Non-Deadly Force: Force that does not have the reasonable likelihood of causing or creating a substantial risk of death or great bodily harm. This includes, but is not limited to, physically subduing, controlling, capturing, restraining or physically managing any person. It also includes the actual use of any less-lethal and non-lethal weapons. (08/17/07)
Objectively Reasonable Force: The amount and type of force that would be considered rational and logical to an “objective” officer on the scene, supported by facts and circumstances known to an officer at the time force was used. (08/17/07)
Passive Resistance: A response to police efforts to bring a person into custody or control for detainment or arrest. This is behavior initiated by a subject, when the subject does not comply with verbal or physical control efforts, yet the subject does not attempt to defeat an officer’s control efforts. (10/01/10) (04/16/12)
Use of Force: Any intentional police contact involving
08/17/07) (10/01/10)
Minn. Stat. §609.06 subd. 1 states, “When authorized…except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other’s consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:
When used by a public officer or one assisting a public officer under the public officer’s direction:
The Graham vs Connor case references that:
“Because the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including:
The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”
Authorized use of force requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each case. Sworn MPD employees shall write a detailed, comprehensive report for each instance in which force was used.
5-302 USE OF FORCE DEFINITIONS (10/16/02) (10/01/10)
Active Aggression: Behavior initiated by a subject that may or may not be in response to police efforts to bring the person into custody or control. A subject engages in active aggression when presenting behaviors that constitute an assault or the circumstances reasonably indicate that an assault or injury to any person is likely to occur at any moment. (10/01/10) (04/16/12)
Active Resistance: A response to police efforts to bring a person into custody or control for detainment or arrest. A subject engages in active resistance when engaging in physical actions (or verbal behavior reflecting an intention) to make it more difficult for officers to achieve actual physical control. (10/01/10) (04/16/12)
Deadly Force: Minn. Stat. §609.066 states that: “Force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a firearm other than a firearm loaded with less-lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force.” (10/01/10)
Flight: Is an effort by the subject to avoid arrest or capture by fleeing without the aid of a motor vehicle. (10/01/10)
Great Bodily Harm: Bodily injury which creates a high probability of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or other serious bodily harm.
Non-Deadly Force: Force that does not have the reasonable likelihood of causing or creating a substantial risk of death or great bodily harm. This includes, but is not limited to, physically subduing, controlling, capturing, restraining or physically managing any person. It also includes the actual use of any less-lethal and non-lethal weapons. (08/17/07)
Objectively Reasonable Force: The amount and type of force that would be considered rational and logical to an “objective” officer on the scene, supported by facts and circumstances known to an officer at the time force was used. (08/17/07)
Passive Resistance: A response to police efforts to bring a person into custody or control for detainment or arrest. This is behavior initiated by a subject, when the subject does not comply with verbal or physical control efforts, yet the subject does not attempt to defeat an officer’s control efforts. (10/01/10) (04/16/12)
Use of Force: Any intentional police contact involving
08/17/07) (10/01/10)- The use of any weapon, substance, vehicle, equipment, tool, device or animal that inflicts pain or produces injury to another; or
- Any physical strike to any part of the body of another;
- Any physical contact with a person that inflicts pain or produces injury to another; or
- Any restraint of the physical movement of another that is applied in a manner or under circumstances likely to produce injury.
Minn. Stat. §609.06 subd. 1 states, “When authorized…except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other’s consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:
When used by a public officer or one assisting a public officer under the public officer’s direction:
- In effecting a lawful arrest; or
- In the execution of legal process; or
- In enforcing an order of the court; or
- In executing any other duty imposed upon the public officer by law.”
The Graham vs Connor case references that:
“Because the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including:
- The severity of the crime at issue,
- Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and;
- Whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”
Authorized use of force requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each case. Sworn MPD employees shall write a detailed, comprehensive report for each instance in which force was used.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
There’ll be another post mortem so all this is easily checkable. [/quote]
And the defence will be able to say that there's clearly doubt because two experts disagree.
Not keen on this as an accusation either. If you shoot someone with a dodgy heart is that any less murder? He knelt on his neck until he died and stayed there just to make sure. Looks like fucking murder to me.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not the coroner’s job to infer what charges should be brought. Kneeling on someone’s neck seems to be encouraged as a method of restraint by this police force. As such it would probably be difficult to secure a murder conviction against a cop who was doing what he was trained to do and prove that he intended to kill.
These are preliminary findings at the moment, not the actual report. If he didn’t die of asphyxiation, he didn’t die of asphyxiation! The knee to the neck contributed to his death. To what extent we’ll find out from the full report. I don’t see why you’d have a problem with that.
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
We don't know what the post mortem report says. The news report suggests it says he didn't die of "traumatic asphyxiation", but that doesn't rule out the possibility of 'positional asphyxia', which could be caused by a combination of the officer's actions and other factors e.g. the victim's underlying health, or any drugs/alcohol (which may not have been known at the time of ther initial report if toxicology results hadn't been returned). With regard to causation, many jurisdictions have a principle of 'take your victim as you find him' which prevents defendants relying on their victim's pre-existing conditions.
Last edited:
fucthest8
Cool people die horrible, preventable deaths.
No, I wouldn't have been "happy" with it being the sole cause of death, my point is that the wording is pretty carefully constructed to provide an out.
Worth saying that on closer inspection the wording on the previous page is taken from the complaint, not the coroner's report itself, but is given as being the coroner's prelimary findings.
And yes, why mention "intoxicants that may have been present"? Like saying "health conditions that we haven't detected"
E2A sorry, bit slow this morning, hadn't seen posts above, so yes, I'm agreeing that we don't know what the report actually says but I still think that wording is very deliberate
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
As you now realise, that is not the coroner’s wording. It is a news report of the preliminary findings.
fucthest8
Cool people die horrible, preventable deaths.
No, it's the wording in the actual complaint, see my link above
It quotes the coroner's prelimary findings. It is not what the newspaper said
E2A so yes, it is the coroner's wording. Read the document on the link
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
It’s a report/précis of the preliminary findings. It is not the coroner’s actual report.
it even says on it that the full report is pending.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Also not the coroner's job to prepare the defence for them. Yes we'll have to see what the final report says but the quotes so far sound like the coroner is saying that he might have died anyway and the knee on his neck wasn't responsible.
Don't you find that a strange thing to speculate that he'd been taking drugs or alcohol?
fucthest8
Cool people die horrible, preventable deaths.
It is the prelimary findings of the ME, as quoted in the complaint. I think that's material.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
They sound like nothing of the sort. They specifically say that the restraint was a contributory factor.
fucthest8
Cool people die horrible, preventable deaths.
Anyway, us arguing over the fine details don't change the fact that the man was murdered by a cop, we're agreed on that. So let's hope Spy is right and the guy goes down
Although the max sentence of 10 years on the complaint is fucking bullshit eh?
E2A nope, 25 years, sorry. 10 for manslaughter
Although the max sentence of 10 years on the complaint is fucking bullshit eh?
E2A nope, 25 years, sorry. 10 for manslaughter
Athos
Well-Known Member
I think it's more like saying the initial indications are that officer's actions were a cause, as was the victim's health. And that there may have been others e.g. alcohol and drugs (but they don't have those results yet). That doesn't necessarily seem unreasonable, and doesn't get the cop off the hook.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
I still find the phrases 'any potential intoxicants' and 'contributed' to his death strange. Speculating that he'd taken alcohol or drugs seems a standard statement when black people are killed in the US. And 'likely contributed' is very weak for what happened, rather than 'clearly caused'.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
You’re interpreting it the way you want to mate. It’s too early for them to say what “clearly caused” his death. Again this is NOT the coroner’s wording.
Athos
Well-Known Member
They'll test for intoxicants (which are a common contributory factor in positional asphyxia). But the preliminary report can't presume the results of those tests. So, whilst I accept the possibility of some racial bias on the part of the ME, until those results are back, that wording seems reasonably neutral for a preliminary report (the whole point of which isn't to reach a final conclusion).
Causation isn't a simple binary thing; it's quite possible that, but for a pre-existing condition, he wouldn't have died. But, because of the legal principle of taking your victim as you find him, that shouldn't provide this cop with a 'get out of jail free' card.
But I suspect many cops are hoping toxicology will show drugs in the system, which probably tip the balance by breaking the chain of causation.
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
This site has some relevant material about the definitions of the offences:
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.
...
609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or
...
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.
...
609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or
...
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I was reading these last night.
This "envincing a depraved mind" business sounds like malice aforethought or mens rea. What's the difference?
Similar threads
