George Floyd Autopsy: COVID death, no neck injury and drugs onboard...

[tgull]

Cop should have let the guy up when he was complaining about breathing for sure, so he likely will get a manslaughter charge.

As far as these Sloppy Joe rants, they are just comical. Just a SJW who would immediately call the cops rather than ever consider defending himself or his family. Just like AOC saying defund the police and now wants the National Guard permanently at the Capitol. Being a male and a SJW has to be the worst beat ever.

There are two types of liberals: the fantastically wealthy/actors and the poor who fuck up every step of the way in life. I have never met a person making $200,000 a year and classified themselves as a Democrat.

Charles Barkley is right, defunding the police only hurts poor inner city communities. Suburbs will always have a strong police force. Kind of like the Chicago Teachers Union still refusing to go back to in-person learning. Do you think anyone on the suburbs gives a shit? Nope. As far as I am concerned Chicago schools can stay closed forever. Does not affect me.

Surely you tell people that you don't have a kid when asked, right? How dark must it be to face reality every time someone asks you at 11pm in a bar on a Tuesday night. Easier to pretend, especially when riding high with a belly full of gut rot.

Unfortunately, the morning always comes and there's feces to dislodge. Gotta be rough staring down hung over at a bowl full of shit every morning thinking about another man pushing your kid on a swing.

Oh, yeah, the whole deadbeat Dad angle. What is really funny is you made up this story and perpetuated it for like 2 years now and it has taken up many hours of your life and it has never gone beyond you. I mean, if you want to make non-stop fictional posts about me like Tyde did in 2009 about being a plumber, go right ahead. Just try to make them interesting and funny like he did. Try not to be such a dope.

What a weird little man you are.

[nightmarefish]

People shouldn't be defending Chauvin here. The guy had a bad disciplinary record BEFORE this incident, and shouldn't have been on the force when this occurred.

Interestingly, Amy Klobuchar was accused of failing to charge Chauvin when she was DA in 2006, but it seems that she wasn't actually the one in charge of that case.

I watched the entire video. You can see that Floyd, who was both claustrophobic and on fentanyl (but only admitted the former), was freaking out about being put in the squad car. However, Chauvin told him that he'd open the window for him, which usually alleviates a lot of the claustrophobia people experienced when handcuffed and put in a squad car. (Being in handcuffs can actually bring on claustrophobia for people who normally don't experience it, and can be really unnerving for people who do regularly experience it.)

The open window offer was important because it shows that Chauvin wasn't approaching the matter in a cruel or brutal fashion. He could have been a dick and refused to open the car's windows, citing safety concerns. He didn't. He was willing to open the windows!

Unfortunately, Floyd freaked out anyway, and tried to wiggle out of the car once put in, and it all went downhill from there.

Now, at that point, Chauvin fucked up. When a guy keeps saying he can't breathe, you need to find another way to handle the situation, even if he physically can breathe. Between the fact that Floyd was able to easily talk while he "couldn't breathe" (which wouldn't be possible), and the autopsy's findings, it doesn't seem that Chauvin murdered him by cutting off his air. However, Floyd PERCEIVED he couldn't breathe, and between the fentanyl, his claustrophobia, and his anxiety about the situation, Floyd had a heart attack.

His official cause of death was "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression", which basically means that he had a heart attack because he either couldn't breathe or perceived he couldn't breathe.

Anyway, Chauvin should have seen that Floyd wasn't right in the head, and should have dealt with Floyd in some other way than the knee-on-neck method he used, or even called for more assistance to handle the situation properly. To have your knee on the guy's neck when he's repeatedly saying he can't breathe, when he hasn't directly attacked anyone, is pretty bad. Chauvin was just sick of dealing with Floyd's craziness, and basically said "Fuck him, I don't care if he panics, I'm doing what I need to do to fully restrain him."

Was this police brutality? Yes.

Was it manslaughter? In my opinion, yes.

Was it murder? I don't believe so. It definitely wasn't first degree murder or second degree murder, as it's clear Chauvin never intended to kill him. Third degree murder is defined as, "The unintentional killing of another through an eminently dangerous act committed with a depraved mind and without regard for human life." On the surface, it might seem like Chauvin committed an 'eminently dangerous act' with the knee-on-neck hold, but that's not what this charge is for. This charge is for things such as setting a building on fire without knowing if it was occupied or not, dropping a brick off a freeway overpass on a random passing car's windshield, or firing a gun randomly into a crowd. In these cases, while you didn't intentionally target a victim, you clearly did something which you obviously knew at the time had a high chance of killing someone. Chauvin thought he was performing a hold on a panicky and difficult suspect who was avoiding being put in the squad car. It wasn't obvious that it would kill Floyd, and in fact probably wouldn't have if Floyd wasn't on fentanyl at the time.

Was it racist? I don't believe so. Chauvin was just an asshole cop with a power complex, who had been in trouble before for brutality. He would have behaved the same way with a large white man acting like Floyd did. It just happened in this case that Floyd was black. There is zero evidence that this was a racist killing.

I would convict him of police brutality and manslaughter, but not murder.

My take isn't popular on either side. Many (though not all) on the right want to defend Chauvin and claim he wasn't guilty of anything. Almost all on the left believe it was a murder by a racist cop. Both of these beliefs are incorrect, from what I can see.

People also forget it's possible for both things to be true. Floyd could be a piece of shit who put himself in this situation AND the cop could be a bad seed who shouldn't even have been in the force by this point.

Maybe karma caught up with both of these pieces of shit. Chauvin will do a few years getting fucked up the ass by some dudes he put in jail. Floyd on the other hand, who once robbed a black pregnant woman at gun point and watched while his buddy pistol-whipped her got sent to an early grave. There's alot of evil people in this world but how many so evil that they can press a loaded gun to a pregnant women's belly? It's pretty fuckin sick. Maybe the only winners in the situation are Floyd's family who pocketed $27M. No way he was close to them, drug addicts that move away like that aren't the keeping in touch type.

What's really nauseating are the murals, celebrations of life, etc etc. There's people in this country wanting to take down statues of Lincoln and Washington but they want to celebrate this guy.........

[Sloppy Joe]

Surely you tell people that you don't have a kid when asked, right? How dark must it be to face reality every time someone asks you at 11pm in a bar on a Tuesday night. Easier to pretend, especially when riding high with a belly full of gut rot.

Unfortunately, the morning always comes and there's feces to dislodge. Gotta be rough staring down hung over at a bowl full of shit every morning thinking about another man pushing your kid on a swing.

Oh, yeah, the whole deadbeat Dad angle. What is really funny is you made up this story and perpetuated it for like 2 years now and it has taken up many hours of your life and it has never gone beyond you. I mean, if you want to make non-stop fictional posts about me like Tyde did in 2009 about being a plumber, go right ahead. Just try to make them interesting and funny like he did. Try not to be such a dope.

What a weird little man you are.

You once went ballistic over my doubting you had a kid and wanted to wager like 100k. No mention of him/her/them since.

You once mentioned you blocked me, guess that was another lie.

Correct my assumptions if I'm wrong. Until then, be a man and at least send money.

[dwai]

[desertrunner]

[Walter Sobchak]

Those are my only two choices? Then I'll take the one on the left.

[Sloppy Joe]

I know you don't think much but would you actually choose more police murdering if it meant the athletes will stand for a song?

[desertrunner]

[v12cl]

I know you don't think much but would you actually choose more police murdering if it meant the athletes will stand for a song?

"A OR B, PICK."

SIMPLETON ASS, TRUMP ERA THINKING.

How about less Chinese fentanyl on the streets, no shutdowns so people on the brink don't have to resort to passing fake $20s, and athletes that just play sports?

Cops that get fired for being bad at their job? Overpasses that aren't filled with homeless encampments, trash, and stolen goods? Streets that aren't covered with human shit?

In many West Coast cities all these things are assumed and accepted as a part of life, and solving them has nothing to do with George Floyd, Colin Kaepernick, or Donald Trump.

Time to aim higher, step outside of the Hegelian Dialectic.

[mulva]

popcorn ready. can't wait for rome to burn once again while biden plays his fiddle.

[desertrunner]

popcorn ready. can't wait for rome to burn once again while biden plays his fiddle.

It’s gonna be epic, sad.

[limitles]

[David USF]

The cop was acting within his department's training and state training guidelines. Cop will walk.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...id=recommended

Derek Chauvin 'absolutely' violated policy, Minneapolis police chief testifies

"Once Mr. Floyd had stopped resisting, and certainly once he was in distress and trying to verbalize that, that should have stopped," Medaria Arradondo testified.

April 5, 2021, 4:50 PM PDT / Updated April 5, 2021, 5:49 PM PDT
By Janelle Griffith

Last June, nearly a month after the death of George Floyd, the chief of the Minneapolis Police Department issued a blistering statement about the officers involved in Floyd's arrest.

Chief Medaria Arradondo, the first Black person to hold the position, described Floyd's death as "tragic" and said it "was not due to a lack of training."

"This was murder — it wasn't a lack of training," Arradondo said, adding that that was why he "took swift action" and fired the four officers involved in the incident a day after Floyd's death.

"The officers knew what was happening — one intentionally caused it, and the others failed to prevent it," Arradondo said in June.

On Monday — this time from the witness stand — Arradondo again rebuked Derek Chauvin, the former officer who prosecutors said knelt on Floyd's neck for 9 minutes, 29 seconds. It marked a rare instance of a police chief's testifying against a police officer. (Arradondo also testified in the trial of Mohamed Noor, a former police officer who was convicted of killing Justine Damond in 2017.)

Chauvin is on trial on charges of second- and third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. The three other officers who responded to the scene and were fired — J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao — are charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder and manslaughter. They are scheduled to stand trial in August.

Prosecutor Steve Schleicher asked Arradondo whether he had a belief about when Chauvin's restraint of Floyd, including kneeling on his neck, should have ended.

"Once Mr. Floyd had stopped resisting, and certainly once he was in distress and trying to verbalize that, that should have stopped," Arradondo responded.

"There's an initial reasonableness in trying to just get him under control in the first few seconds," Arradondo said. "But once there was no longer any resistance, and clearly when Mr. Floyd was no longer responsive and even motionless, to continue to apply that level of force to a person proned out, handcuffed behind their back, that in no way, shape or form is anything that is by policy. It is not part of our training, and it is certainly not part of our ethics or values."

The prosecution has said Floyd died from Chauvin's kneeling on his neck. The defense has said Floyd's death was caused by an overdose, underlying health conditions and adrenaline.

During his testimony, Arradondo explained departmental policy on when force and de-escalation tactics are necessary. He said Chauvin failed to follow policies on de-escalation, use of force and the duty to render aid to people who need it when he knelt on Floyd's neck for more than 9 minutes. Floyd, who was Black, was recorded in a widely seen bystander video repeatedly telling Chauvin, who is white, that he could not breathe.

"We have a duty of care, and so when someone's in our custody, regardless of if they are a suspect, we have an obligation to make sure that we provide for their care," Arradondo said.

Prosecutors have said that when Chauvin restrained Floyd, he violated a number of departmental policies that he had been trained in.

Police were called to Cup Foods, a convenience store, on May 25 after a cashier suspected that Floyd had used a fake $20 bill to buy cigarettes. Arradondo said Monday that the offense Floyd was alleged to have committed would not typically result in someone's being taken into custody. Arrests, he said, are typically reserved for violent crimes. The statement called into question the officers' use of force. Police body camera video played in court last week showed that Lane initially approached Floyd with his gun drawn.

Arradondo was asked whether Exhibit 17 — a photo from the bystander video that shows Chauvin looking up at bystanders while he knelt on a seemingly anguished Floyd — was within police departmental policy 5-300, authorizing the use of reasonable force, and whether Chauvin had used an authorized neck restraint.

"A conscious neck restraint by policy mentions light to moderate pressure," he said. "When I look at Exhibit 17, and when I look at the facial expression of Mr. Floyd, that does not appear in any way, shape or form that that is light to moderate pressure."

Arradondo was also asked by Schleicher whether Chauvin followed department policy 5-304 regarding de-escalation, Arradondo said: "I absolutely do not agree with that."

Arradondo's testimony was followed by that of 5th Precinct Inspector Katie Blackwell. At the time of Floyd's death, Blackwell was the commander of the training division.

Blackwell was shown the same photo from bystander video that depicts Chauvin as he knelt on Floyd's neck. She, too, said that the restraint, as depicted, violated departmental policies and that neck restraints were not taught.

"I don't know what kind of improvised position that is," Blackwell testified. "So that's not what we train."

Blackwell testified that she has known Chauvin for about 20 years.

Prosecutor Jerry Blackwell's opening statement last week forecast Arradondo's and Blackwell's testimony.

"He will not mince any words," Blackwell had said of Arradondo. "He is very clear. He'd be very decisive that this was excessive force."

Blackwell said Arradondo would testify that Chauvin's "conduct was not consistent" with the police department's training and policies.

Under cross-examination, Chauvin's attorney, Eric Nelson, asked Arradondo when was the last time he had arrested a suspect. Arradondo said it had been "many years."

Nelson also revisited a claim he made in his opening statement that the crowd of bystanders who observed Floyd's arrest — some of whom cursed at the officers and many of whom shouted at Chauvin to get off Floyd — had hampered Chauvin's ability to render aid.

Arradondo agreed with Nelson that force is sometimes necessary. He told Schleicher that training has vastly improved since he joined the force more than 30 years ago.

In his statement in June, Arradondo said one of the officers on the scene told Chauvin that Floyd should be put in a recovery position, meaning turned on his side.

Arradondo and Blackwell testified Monday that it is important not to keep handcuffed people on their stomachs for long, because the prone position can make it difficult to breathe.

Arradondo testified that he learned of the incident about 9 p.m. May 25 from a deputy chief before Floyd had been pronounced dead. After he learned that Floyd had died, he went to his office at City Hall, where he viewed the city-operated street camera, which did not have audio and was farther away. He said he could see only the backs of the officers, so he did not fully gauge what had occurred.

Not long after that, he said, he learned about the bystander video of Floyd's final moments that had been posted to Facebook.

"Close to midnight, a community member had contacted me and said, 'Chief, have you seen the video of your officer choking and killing that man at 38th and Chicago?'" Arradondo said. "And so once I heard that statement, I just knew it wasn't the same milestone camera video that I saw."

Within minutes, he said, "I saw for the first time what is now known as the bystander video."

[desertrunner]

Please post the actual department policy here, not how an employee/supervisor personally sees it and wants to virtue signal. The chief can say whatever he wants and spin his version of it, but let’s please see the actual SOP.

NO WHERE IN THAT ARTICLE IS ANY MENTION OF ANY POLICY THAT WAS BROKEN IN USE OF FORCE, only a deescalating policy.

Also please post the police academy training manual from the time the officer was attending. What was he exactly taught and the actual curriculum?

This is the second time you’ve brought up the police chief and it doesn’t really mean anything, it’s just the chief’s personal interpretation and not exactly the FACTS.

Just because a person is in charge of an organization, it doesn’t give their opinion more weight and mean they are the absolute end all authority, look at Adolf Hitler, he made statements as well, so his opinion has more weight and supersedes everything else? No.

Understand that the police chief’s testimony is pure speculation and opinion only, not the final end all. Seems like the chief is out to save his own career and use this officer to grease his own career wheels.

As far as chiefs go, I’ve worked for a lot of them and half of them were dirty and unethical. Just because they have collar brass, doesn’t make them God. Half are dirty, shady and unethical. A chief officer is a politician and no longer a civil servant.

Also, your source is NBC news, once of the most biased and liberal slanted news sources out there. I don’t believe anything they publish.

[jsearles22]

NO WHERE IN THAT ARTICLE IS ANY MENTION OF ANY POLICY THAT WAS BROKEN IN USE OF FORCE, only a deescalating policy.

No where huh?

Arradondo was asked whether Exhibit 17 — a photo from the bystander video that shows Chauvin looking up at bystanders while he knelt on a seemingly anguished Floyd — was within police departmental policy 5-300, authorizing the use of reasonable force, and whether Chauvin had used an authorized neck restraint.

"A conscious neck restraint by policy mentions light to moderate pressure," he said. "When I look at Exhibit 17, and when I look at the facial expression of Mr. Floyd, that does not appear in any way, shape or form that that is light to moderate pressure."

[desertrunner]

Again, what department policy was CONFIRM the officer broke?

Not asking the chief for an opinion. The chief’s statement is OPINION ONLY and speculation. Not a confirm and solid answer that’s seals the case.

So now we are back again to there has been NO confirmation that a department policy was broken, just one agency employee giving his personal opinion.

[Sloppy Joe]

Again, what department policy was CONFIRM the officer broke?

Not asking the chief for an opinion. The chief’s statement is OPINION ONLY and speculation. Not a confirm and solid answer that’s seals the case.

So now we are back again to there has been NO confirmation that a department policy was broken, just one agency employee giving his personal opinion.

You seem really invested in Chauvin being acquitted. Are you emotionally prepared for the opposite?

[jsearles22]

Again, what department policy was CONFIRM the officer broke?

Not asking the chief for an opinion. The chief’s statement is OPINION ONLY and speculation. Not a confirm and solid answer that’s seals the case.

So now we are back again to there has been NO confirmation that a department policy was broken, just one agency employee giving his personal opinion.

What type of proof would you possibly accept? Wouldn’t the interpretation of a policy pretty much always be one persons opinion?

LOL at being painted so far into a corner that the straw you’re grasping is “the chief of fucking polices opinion on department policy carries little to no weight at all.”

[Walter Sobchak]

Again, what department policy was CONFIRM the officer broke?

Not asking the chief for an opinion. The chief’s statement is OPINION ONLY and speculation. Not a confirm and solid answer that’s seals the case.

So now we are back again to there has been NO confirmation that a department policy was broken, just one agency employee giving his personal opinion.

Are you asking for an instrument to be on hand to measure the amount of force being used?

This trial like most trials is relying on the opinions of experts.

[desertrunner]

[QUOTE=jsearles22;969949]

Again, what department policy was CONFIRM the officer broke?

Not asking the chief for an opinion. The chief’s statement is OPINION ONLY and speculation. Not a confirm and solid answer that’s seals the case.

So now we are back again to there has been NO confirmation that a department policy was broken, just one agency employee giving his personal opinion.

What type of proof would you possibly accept? Wouldn’t the interpretation of a policy pretty much always be one persons opinion?

Take the actual policy and compare it to the actions of the accused. If his actions are in alignment of the policy OR not in alignment of the policy, then let the cards fall where they should.

LOL at being painted so far into a corner that the straw you’re grasping is “the chief of fucking polices opinion on department policy carries little to no weight at all.”

The chief is one witness only, just one. He is giving his own opinion only, its not "law" or supersedes evidence in the case. Police chiefs make mistakes all the time and they are not the "gods". Again, just because he has rank in the agency, doesnt mean his opinion only is some final word or ends the case. Department policy is the law here and whether the officer followed it or not. An opinion is just that, an opinion, not proof.