USA---Uncontrolled State Aggression.

[corsechris]

11 hours ago, Blatman said:

 

 

I agree that his lifestyle may not have been a choice and that he could have been forced in to it through circumstance.

"Very likely the suspect is armed" and "strong takedown" was part of a general point about the difficulties faced by police and was not talking about Mr Floyd specifically but re-reading it I didn't make that abundantly clear.

My choice of phrase was an attempt at avoiding hyperbole.

The rest is trying to understand the facts of the situation and I think that is important. It was the County ME who said he died of a heart attack, not me. I was relaying the facts as published at the time.

 

 I am not in any way trying justify the murder of Mr Floyd.

 

His family have suffered a tragedy and I am as appalled as anyone by the circumstances.

 

 

FWIW, that's the intent I read from your post, which was why I 'liked' it.

 

Pretty much every culture, creed and race has some dark **** in their past - it's just human nature. The sad truth is, we are often pretty brutal and cruel animals given the 'right' circumstances. The veneer of civilisation is pretty damned thin at times and you don't need to rub too hard to get through to the underlying nature.

[Steve (sdh2903)]

The thing that's troubling me over these protests is (apart from the unnecessary mindless violence from a minority) the fact we are still in the midst of a pandemic. It has been scientifically proven that certainly in this country that people of BAME origins are far more likely to contract the virus and also twice as likely to die from it. Some were wearing masks some were not.

 

Yes a good chunk were of a younger age and not in 'at risk' group, but these protesters will now be at home with their families potentially spreading a deadly virus.

 

Do these lives not matter?

[Blatman]

corsechris and jim_

 

Thanks I am glad we got that straight. 

 

[DonPeffers]

21 hours ago, Blatman said:

 

Then you are mis-interpreting them. The tragedy is his family's, that he died needlessly. That's it.

Murder requires no redefining.

 

His murder was needless.

 

George Floyd was already under the control of 4 armed officers, handcuffed behind his back, before ex-Minneapolis officer Derek Chauvin pressed his knee on George Floyd's neck for nearly nine minutes leading to his death by asphyxiation. 

 

Chauvin will make his first court appearance today charged with second-degree murder. 

 

The other three officers involved in Floyd's death -- Thomas Lane, J. Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao -- were charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder and aiding and abetting second-degree manslaughter.

[Nick Algar - Competition Secretary]

Having visited America on several occasions and also done a 1000 mile road trip last year from Chicago to Memphis late last year which shows you some interesting sights, some good, some scarey. It's a way different place to the UK or Europe and we sometimes think it's the same as the language is the same. But how they go about things and their attitude to law enforcement, makes me understand some of what went on. I visited a family of my friend I was travelling with, so that gave me a bit more insite. Guns are all to common, a lot of people use them and it's part of their culture. So I'm standing way back from it as we live in such a different world. it's America's problem and for them to deal with. Quite why in the middle of this COVID 19 anyone wants to kick off about this is beyond me. Unless of course it's the usual Rent a Mob out to cause trouble  

[Blatman]

On 08/06/2020 at 15:38, DonPeffers said:

Murder requires no redefining.

 

His murder was needless.

 

George Floyd was already under the control of 4 armed officers, handcuffed behind his back, before ex-Minneapolis officer Derek Chauvin pressed his knee on George Floyd's neck for nearly nine minutes leading to his death by asphyxiation. 

 

Chauvin will make his first court appearance today charged with second-degree murder. 

 

The other three officers involved in Floyd's death -- Thomas Lane, J. Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao -- were charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder and aiding and abetting second-degree manslaughter.

 

I wasn't trying to re-define murder. If it comes across that way then I wrote it badly, which seems to have been called out twice. 

 

All can do is repeat that I am not trying to find excuses or justifications for the police in this.

 

What I am trying to do is dispassionately examine the facts (all of them) in the same way that lawyers, courts, jurors and the justice system might do. Very few people are interested in that narrative right now but that's what comes next, like it or not. Unless the accused plead guilty the criminal justice system will conduct an examination of any relevant evidence that has been gathered. Are we sure we have seen all the relevant evidence?

The immediate impassioned answer to that is "it doesn't matter, a man was killed by the police". Unfortunately in court, whether we like it or not, these things are examined. And even if there is other relevant evidence it may not change anything. But does that mean it should be ignored?

Does that also mean we can't discuss them neutrally and dispassionately, even though it may be an uncomfortable discussion?

[Captain Colonial]

One thing George Floyd was not accused or convicted of was an offence where the penalty could possibly have been execution by the state.  That, nonetheless, was the result.  It’s entirely irrelevant what he was accused of.  The police are entitled to use reasonable force to control a subject or protect the public or themselves.  Kneeling on his neck for nine minutes while he was already restrained does not in any way meet that criteria.  I would hope the public would be rightly outraged about this regardless of the race of the suspect, but it’s entirely understandable that a race historically subjugated, victimised and oppressed in their own country would reach an inevitable breaking point when it happened to one of its members.

[DonPeffers]

A number of points Blatman.

 

My OP on Sat 06 June mentioned 2 instances of what I thought were unacceptable and needless USA Police violence; one on a 43 yr old black man who sadly died of asphyxiation and another on a 75 year old frail white man who now has a serious brain injury and might not recover.

 

You focused on one, entirely ignoring the other and I wonder why?

 

You say "I am trying to do is dispassionately examine the facts (all of them) in the same way that lawyers, courts, jurors and the justice system" yet you quoted an outdated 01 June autopsy (quoting drugs now recognised as irrelevant) in your post on Sat 06 June even though the more easily understood second autopsy stating death by asphyxiation was produced on 02 Jun 2020, so why quote an outdated autopsy?

Regarding fentanyl,  it was for a long time a legally prescribed opiod painkiller but withdrawn as a medication because of its addictiveness and many States have multi-million dollar lawsuits against drug companies over it.

To my knowledge no level of drugs has been quoted yet in reports and I believe the high on drugs suggestion to be unjustified at this stage.

 

The discussion becomes deeply uncomfortable when racial cliches are used, as well as diversions such as 'black on black' violence, when you claim to be responding to a case of extended visible police brutality.

Generalities about gang violence won't and cannot be a defence in court where the facts of the case will be examined.

 

The facts of the case will be examined by Judges and Lawyers and not barrack-room lawyers.

 

On 25 May 2020 George Floyd died over buying goods with a 'suspected counterfeit' 20 dollar note in a shop (£15).

In 2014 Eric Garner's crime was IIRC selling second hand CDs on the street without a street trader's licence.

 

I do wonder why the police respond so quickly to some low level 'white collar' crimes and why it results in death.

[Steve (sdh2903)]

When you've got a country's president publicly saying that the 75 year old man incident was a 'setup' and he was trying to jam police radios with his mobile phone then what hope has the USA got?

[Alan France]

Just something else to consider. Chicago experienced its worst day for 61 years on May 31st, with 18 killings.

[Captain Colonial]

1 hour ago, Steve (sdh2903) said:

When you've got a country's president publicly saying that the 75 year old man incident was a 'setup' and he was trying to jam police radios with his mobile phone then what hope has the USA got?

3rd November - and I hope they take that chance for hope.  
 

“The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre—the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

 

H L Mencken 1880-1956

[Blatman]

3 hours ago, DonPeffers said:

You focused on one, entirely ignoring the other and I wonder why?

 

I haven't looked at that at all other than knowing it happened. Too depressing...

 

3 hours ago, DonPeffers said:

yet you quoted an outdated 01 June autopsy (quoting drugs now recognised as irrelevant) in your post on Sat 06 June even though the more easily understood second autopsy stating death by asphyxiation was produced on 02 Jun 2020, so why quote an outdated autopsy?

 

The second autopsy was carried out "privately" and paid for by the family. The results of the second differ markedly from the county ME stating (and again this is what I have read, not MY opinion) that Mr Floyd was in generally good health with none of the "co-morbidities" found by the county ME. That question gets settled in court. People will favour whichever results fit their view of the case. Both autopsies agree the death was homicide but they agree on little else from what I have read, which was up until Tuesday. I will have another look.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/01/us/george-floyd-independent-autopsy/index.html

Turn the sound down. It being a CNN site there are videos and ads running which is distracting...

 

3 hours ago, DonPeffers said:

To my knowledge no level of drugs has been quoted yet in reports and I believe the high on drugs suggestion to be unjustified at this stage.

 

The county coroners report does go into great detail about the toxicology of Mr Floyd.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/05/read-george-floyd-autopsy-report-with-cause-of-death-and-other-factors/

Page two is the numbers.. Page 15 details the relevance of the numbers. I may have not understood it but this is where my information comes from because (at the time I posted) the private autopsy result was not available in the same detail, it had only been reported on.

Fentanyl, 11ng/ml. Somewhere beyond page 15 is where it states that death has been recorded for concentrations as low as 3ng/ml.

 

3 hours ago, DonPeffers said:

The discussion becomes deeply uncomfortable when racial cliches are used, as well as diversions such as 'black on black' violence, when you claim to be responding to a case of extended visible police brutality.

Generalities about gang violence won't and cannot be a defence in court where the facts of the case will be examined.

 

Again I am not saying these things I am looking at information published by the FBI to see if they can be understood. By adding them to the discussion I am hoping for debate, not re-interpretation as if I am pushing some sort of viewpoint.

 

3 hours ago, DonPeffers said:

The facts of the case will be examined by Judges and Lawyers and not barrack-room lawyers.

 

And a question I want an answer to. What facts will these be do you think? Lay out exactly what you would consider when hearing this case. Don't cop out behind "I'm not a judge/lawyer". What if you were called to jury service and had to weigh the evidence? The defence are duty bound to introduce mitigation, that's their job. And for your part you aren't allowed to use prejudicial (IE "insider" knowledge, not one of racial prejudice, just to be clear) knowledge because you have seen the video. Whilst the evidence may not change the outcome the risk of a prejudicial jury due to prior knowledge of the case could render any conviction unsafe and open to appeal.

The greater question for me is how will a jury be impaneled in the first place given widespread and potentially prejudicial knowledge of the case?

 

3 hours ago, Captain Colonial said:

One thing George Floyd was not accused or convicted of was an offence where the penalty could possibly have been execution by the state.  That, nonetheless, was the result.  It’s entirely irrelevant what he was accused of.  The police are entitled to use reasonable force to control a subject or protect the public or themselves.  Kneeling on his neck for nine minutes while he was already restrained does not in any way meet that criteria.  I would hope the public would be rightly outraged about this regardless of the race of the suspect, but it’s entirely understandable that a race historically subjugated, victimised and oppressed in their own country would reach an inevitable breaking point when it happened to one of its members.

 

I agree wholeheartedly and if I have made it seem otherwise then I apologise.

[DonPeffers]

Clearly I won't be called to jury service in the USA, I am not a barrack-room lawyer nor can I state with certainty what effect a certain drug level would have as that would require an expert witness (neither you or I are) taking into account the size, sex, age, health and weight of the individual as well as whether or not they used regularly and had tolerance.

 

You stated George Floyd was a known criminal. To date I have found one offence back in 2007 and time served. No further offences found.

 

You ask 'how will a jury be impaneled in the first place given widespread and potentially prejudicial knowledge of the case?' and that is for the Judge and Lawyers to decide bearing in mind that lengthy video evidence is available of the 8 minutes 46 seconds of neck restraint by the police officer's knee.

 

From what I read in the Washington Post the two autopsies apparently don't differ in the final analysis, only the wording in the first one's conclusion seems that way to the untrained. The conclusion is homicide hence the second degree murder charge.

 

You say you 'haven't looked at that at all other (case) than knowing it happened. Too depressing...'  and I find it very strange that your detailed lengthy comments on a murder don't seem too depressing but commenting on a pensioner's brain injury is.

 

An earlier expression of empathy towards the victims would have been preferable.

 

What I find incredible is if this is the level of police brutality on the main street in broad daylight, knowingly being filmed and viewed by a crowd, then goodness only knows what goes on down the 'station'.

 

I note your final sentence above and thank you for it.

[Blatman]

7 hours ago, DonPeffers said:

You stated George Floyd was a known criminal. To date I have found one offence back in 2007 and time served. No further offences found.

 

So that doesn't count as known criminal? Or does it have to be more than one count of aggravated burglary and assault with a deadly weapon (to whit, holding a gun to the belly of a pregnant woman) to pass the test of "known criminal"?

 

https://greatgameindia.com/george-floyd-criminal/

 

Longer article with more detail including video footage of a previous arrest for possession of cocaine and his attempt to dump the evidence.

https://thecourierdaily.com/george-floyd-criminal-past-record-arrest/20177/

 

7 hours ago, DonPeffers said:

 

From what I read in the Washington Post the two autopsies apparently don't differ in the final analysis, only the wording in the first one's conclusion seems that way to the untrained. The conclusion is homicide hence the second degree murder charge

And I said almost exactly that. 

10 hours ago, Blatman said:

Both autopsies agree the death was homicide

 

7 hours ago, DonPeffers said:

You say you 'haven't looked at that at all other (case) than knowing it happened. Too depressing...'  and I find it very strange that your detailed lengthy comments on a murder don't seem too depressing but commenting on a pensioner's brain injury is

Your point? 

I'm already down this rabbit hole. I don't want to go down another one and be tacitly accused of something else.

 

7 hours ago, DonPeffers said:

Clearly I won't be called to jury service in the USA, I am not a barrack-room lawyer nor can I state with certainty what effect a certain drug level would have as that would require an expert witness (neither you or I are) taking into account the size, sex, age, health and weight of the individual as well as whether or not they used regularly and had tolerance.

It was a hypothetical. I'm not making assumptions, I am asking questions to illicit answers, not a critique of the question.

I am trying to imagine the difficulties in what is yet to come. If you lack the imagination to put yourself in the position of a juror then OK. I know several people who have been jurors on seemingly easy and obvious cases including serious assault and two hefty fraud cases involving people I know very well. I am sure this case will go the way we all want it to. But it's still going to be a fight in court. It shouldn't be. It should be the easiest quickest case in history.

 

Here's a UK/Euro centric article on the potential effects of evidence appearing on social (or other) media ahead of a court case:

https://eachother.org.uk/can-social-media-damage-right-fair-trial/

And this PDF, in paragraph 2 of the introduction recognises the potential for unfair trials due to evidence appearing on social media and further recognises that the print media are well aware of sub judice evidence and generally do not publish prejudicial information before a trial..

https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/17230/juries-and-social-media_australia_a-wallace.pdf

 

Again, I am not trying to show an avenue for favouring the police, I am trying to show that BECAUSE the video is widely available the defences potential first request to the judge is to ask for the case to be dismissed because his client cannot get a fair trial. This genuinely worries me, as it should anyone else who wants to see the officers punished for their crimes. I would hope a judge would dismiss the request but we have all seen seemingly crazy decisions made by judges that seem to beggar belief. Any defence of these guys is going to be a long shot so what have the defence got to lose by asking based on a point of law? They're in court after all, and in the lawyer capital of the known universe.

And of course Mr Floyd doesn't get a fair hearing either. Jurors aren't supposed to know the history of the defendant lest it taints their ability to weigh the evidence but as has been demonstrated, his criminal record is published in lots of places. There will be plenty of people out there who, knowing this history will try to side with the police no matter how offensive that is to the rest of us. These people make it on to jury's too...

 

 

7 hours ago, DonPeffers said:

I note your final sentence above and thank you for it.

 

I have qualified my thoughts on this several times in this thread, well before showing my support for Scotts post.

But I still want to ask questions and look deeper into this than just the headlines. Usually you do too.

And (yet) again I am not trying to push any agenda or suggest for one second that there may be mitigation anywhere.

 

Anyone who thinks that the defence lawyers aren't going to try everything they can to help their client is naive in the extreme and this is what is coming when these guys come to court. As I have already said the defence may not make any headway with that and of course we all hope any defence crumbles to dust 10 seconds after the lawyers try it, but they are going to try. They're going to look for every crack they can find. it's obvious the defence will reference the county ME's autopsy, the prosecution will reference the second autopsy. And that's just the start of what is going to be (but should not be) a difficult court case. It should be five minutes and a guilty verdict. But I'm definitely not naive enough to believe that will happen, unless the police change their plea's.

 

Today it seems that the police officer and Mr Floyd were acquainted as they worked as "bouncers" at the same club. This could make a lot of difference to what happens next. If an existing feud can be proved maybe the charge gets bumped to murder 1.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-floyd-derek-chauvin-nightclub-bumped-heads/

 

[jeff oakley]

What is happening in the States now is awful and sadly all this is doing is making a Trump victory more likely not less.

 

There are 44 million black people living in the US just 13% of the population. Last year year there were just 9 black people who died at the hands of the police who were unarmed. There were allegedly more white people as one would expect with a larger % population. All deaths in these circumstances are regrettable but is it realistic to expect none given the state of the US where you have so many potentially armed?

Clearly many blacks feel harrassed by the police which you can only really get if you are in their position I feel, no matter how many time the virtue signallers take a knee.

 

The democrat big hitters fear Trump which is why they have put up Biden, who is expendable. If a big hitter went up against Trump and lost they would be finished, wait 4 years and they may well win.

Biden is being made out to be an alternative, yet last night it was revealed that as a young politician he was active in supporting segregated schools and the bussing of black students which was just as divisive then as now. 

There are also the many examples of where he is a bit too handsy with females especially younger ones and the young lady Tara Reade who alleges he sexually assaulted her in 1993.

The media will support Biden clearly which Trump will use to his advantage. So the hope of Trump being voted out is not the best one for change.

 

Interesting if you have the time is to watch some of the Youtube videos by Brandon Tatum who is an ex police officer who is black. He cuts through some of the hyperbola that is going on and brings a clarity that is devoid from the media. They are lengthy but worth seeing things from a perspective devoid of political spin and hope to out Trump.

 

Also worth a look is Ben Carson who again as the secretary of state for housing who is also black see things differently to others.

 

No one should make light of the mood of the BLM movement and the support they have at the moment but truthfully this will die down when the next important thing to change your facebook page comes up as not that many stay on a bandwagon that long these days but hopefully some lasting change will come and we can all live together better, not that I have had any trouble living with my black neighbours or my staff who are black, there are good people of all race's