for the death of George Floyd and Riots.
The odd thing is that kneeling on the back of the neck is an approved restraint, however I do not understand why it was held so long? Were they waiting for a vehicle, ambulance other?
Of course it is being portrayed as a racist action, and has triggered violent protests and looting even though cause of death has not been announced that I know of. One facebook friend even referred to it as a "lynching' though I am pretty sure the officer had no intention to suffocate Mr Floyd in front of the cameras. Or do you disagree?
I am very interested to see the body camera footage. Because at one point they were politely walking Mr Floyd to the cruiser and next he is on the ground. What happened?
MPLS Police Policy Book
The odd thing is that kneeling on the back of the neck is an approved restraint, however I do not understand why it was held so long? Were they waiting for a vehicle, ambulance other?
Of course it is being portrayed as a racist action, and has triggered violent protests and looting even though cause of death has not been announced that I know of. One facebook friend even referred to it as a "lynching' though I am pretty sure the officer had no intention to suffocate Mr Floyd in front of the cameras. Or do you disagree?
I am very interested to see the body camera footage. Because at one point they were politely walking Mr Floyd to the cruiser and next he is on the ground. What happened?
MPLS Police Policy Book
27 comments:
"One facebook friend even referred to it as a "lynching' though I am pretty sure the officer had no intention to suffocate Mr Floyd in front of the cameras."
I'm not quite sure what the officer was trying to accomplish, to be honest. Mr. Floyd was handcuffed, lying on the pavement, and surrounded by three other officers in addition to the one that choked him to death. There is no justification for what happened there. The lack of proportionality is amazing.
"Of course it is being portrayed as a racist action, and has triggered violent protests and looting even though cause of death has not been announced that I know of."
Your complete lack of outrage for the incident that killed a person seems a bit racist to me.
I used to work in a storefront charter school next to the Lake Street Target. The school has been completely destroyed.
It seemed to me that the officer was just staying there waiting for something. It did not seem like he was putting much down force into it. That is why I want to understand what killed Mr Floyd. If I am laying on my stomach with someone holding my ear down to the asphalt, I do not think I would suffocate?
Please remember that the knee was no where near the front side of the throat. As instructed in the manual.
I get a sense that Mr Floyd was drunk or high, and the officers were waiting for an ambulance?
Does anyone know how he ended up on the ground?
It seems from the various videos, it took 2 officers to get cuffs on him. Then he was sitting by the store wall. Then he has over by the store wall. Then he fell on one side of the cruiser and then was held down on the other side until the ambulance arrived.
I guess per my first link it looks like he stumbled and fell.
But it looks like he was on the street side of the cruiser.
Wow....i guess we know where John stands on murder by cop...try to find any excuse possible.
Moose
We have a video that shows a person kneeling on Floyd's neck for several minutes, during which time Floyd complains -- 14 times! -- that he can't breathe. He then goes unresponsive and stops moving. When paramedics show up, Floyd has no pulse. And you're wondering what the cause of death was?
Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Moose,
Do you think the officer wanted Mr Floyd to die?
Sean,
Yes I do want to know because from his position it looks like he should have been able to breathe.
Now I agree whole heartedly that it was a stupid way to restrain a man when there were 4 officers standing there.
Unfortunately I am sure they hear people say a lot of things to work their way out of the restraint. Whichever restraint is being used... "Please loosen my cuffs, they are hurting my wrists"
Why do you think they kept him restrained like that until the ambulance arrived?
How do you think he ended up on the grounded surrounded by 4 officers?
Or are the cops guilty in your mind because they are cops and the dead man is black?
I sure don't know the whole story from what I have seen.
5-310 USE OF UNAUTHORIZED WEAPONS (10/16/02) (08/17/07)
Sworn MPD employees shall only carry and use MPD approved weapons for which they are currently trained and authorized to use through the MPD Training Unit. If an exigent circumstance exists that poses an imminent threat to the safety of the employee or the public requiring the immediate use an improvised weapon of opportunity, the employee may use the weapon. (08/17/07)
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.
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.
5-303 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE (10/16/02) (08/17/07)
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.”
In addition to Minn. Stat. §609.06 sub. 1, MPD policies shall utilize the United States Supreme Court decision in Graham vs Connor as a guideline for reasonable force.
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 "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of the reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.
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.
5-303.01 DUTY TO INTERVENE (07/28/16)
(A-D)
A. Sworn employees have an obligation to protect the public and other employees.
B. It shall be the duty of every sworn employee present at any scene where physical force is being applied to either stop or attempt to stop another sworn employee when force is being inappropriately applied or is no longer required.
5-304 THREATENING THE USE OF FORCE AND DE-ESCALATION (10/16/02) (06/01/12) (07/28/16)
(A-D)
A. Threatening the Use of Force
As an alternative and/or the precursor to the actual use of force, MPD officers shall consider verbally announcing their intent to use force, including displaying an authorized weapon as a threat of force, when reasonable under the circumstances. The threatened use of force shall only occur in situations that an officer reasonably believes may result in the authorized use of force. This policy shall not be construed to authorize unnecessarily harsh language. (08/17/07) (07/28/16)
B. De-escalation
Whenever reasonable according to MPD policies and training, officers shall use de-escalation tactics to gain voluntary compliance and seek to avoid or minimize use of physical force. (06/01/12) (07/28/16)
1. When safe and feasible, officers shall:
a. Attempt to slow down or stabilize the situation so that more time, options and resources are available.
i. Mitigating the immediacy of threat gives officers more time to call additional officers or specialty units and to use other resources.
ii. The number of officers on scene may make more force options available and may help reduce overall force used.
b. Consider whether a subject’s lack of compliance is a deliberate attempt to resist or an inability to comply based on factors including, but not limited to:
· Medical conditions
· Mental impairment
· Developmental disability
· Physical limitation
· Language barrier
· Influence of drug or alcohol use
· Behavioral crisis
Such consideration, when time and circumstances reasonably permit, shall then be balanced against incident facts when deciding which tactical options are the most appropriate to resolve the situation safely.
2. De-escalation tactics include, but are not limited to:
· Placing barriers between an uncooperative subject and an officer.
· Containing a threat.
· Moving from a position that exposes officers to potential threats to a safer position.
· Reducing exposure to a potential threat using distance, cover or concealment.
· Communication from a safe position intended to gain the subject’s compliance, using verbal persuasion, advisements or warnings.
· Avoidance of physical confrontation, unless immediately necessary (e.g. to protect someone or stop dangerous behavior).
· Using verbal techniques to calm an agitated subject and promote rational decision making.
· Calling additional resources to assist, including more officers, CIT officers and officers equipped with less-lethal tools.
So after reading this, things certainly became less clear for me.
If Mr Floyd had been...
"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)"
In the time we have not seen, would keeping submissive on the ground have been the safest choice?
But at some point the situation changed and the officers did not catch it, maybe because of all the distractions from by standers? Ego? Stupidity?
"5-303.01 DUTY TO INTERVENE (07/28/16)
(A-D)
A. Sworn employees have an obligation to protect the public and other employees.
B. It shall be the duty of every sworn employee present at any scene where physical force is being applied to either stop or attempt to stop another sworn employee when force is being inappropriately applied or is no longer required."
"Or are the cops guilty in your mind because they are cops and the dead man is black?"
They are guilty because they choked him to death.
Source please... Or are you now a medical examiner?
Does the fact that he was using a department sanctioned "Non-Deadly Force" hold in no way impact your perspective of this terrible tragedy?
What do you want him and the other officers charged with?
This should get interesting... Bring out the troops.
Minneapolis Riots
"Does the fact that he was using a department sanctioned "Non-Deadly Force" hold in no way impact your perspective of this terrible tragedy?"
Nope.
"What do you want him and the other officers charged with?"
Chauvin should face a murder charge. Not sure exactly on the others.
"Do you think the officer wanted Mr Floyd to die?"
After a certain point, this was no long split-second decision making by the officer. He was making a conscious decision to keep George Floyd pinned to the ground, despite Mr. Floyd's pleas for help.
It meets the definition of murder...manslaughter at the VERY least.
Moose
"After a certain point, this was no long split-second decision making by the officer. He was making a conscious decision to keep George Floyd pinned to the ground, despite Mr. Floyd's pleas for help."
14 times in the video, Floyd said "I can't breathe". 16 times in the video, the female firefighter/EMT asks to be allowed to check Floyd's pulse. Yet, the knee on the neck remained in place.
It will be interesting to see what a jury says.
A jury will find him guilty of some level or murder or manslaughter
One would think so.
But I am sure the Mpls restraint policies will be discussed in the defense.
And I still want to know how Mr Floyd got from one side of the crusier to the other? (see the new picture I added if you are unsure what I am referring to)
Was there some undocumented struggle?
Were they hiding him?
Other?
"But I am sure the Mpls restraint policies will be discussed in the defense."
Oh, fer cripes sake. According to the complaint, Chauvin keeps his knee on Floyd's neck for two minutes after another one of the cops has discovered Floyd has no pulse. Even under the most generous reading of the policy, that ain't allowed.
Sean,
I agreed that he will likely will be found guilty.
Aren't you even curious about how he moved or was moved?
And yes the defense and union will do everything they can to prove that he "went by the book"... That is what they are paid to do.
Why do you think I hold unions and lawyers in such low regard? :-(
This is going to be a long bumpy ride
The NYT today has a good piece reconstructing the events based on all the available footage, and the interesting thing is that they have a view that shows the other cops loading Floyd into the curb side of the van, and then Chauvin pulling him out the other side.
NYT: 8 Minutes and 46 Seconds: How George Floyd Was Killed in Police Custody
Well that answers my question of how he moved from one side of the vehicle to the other, and will make Chauvin's defense very difficult...
"Why did you pull Mr Floyd out of the secure back seat of the crusier?"
"Because I wanted to show him who was in charge Mr Prosecutor?"
"Or I felt for him because of his claustrophobia?"
Post a Comment