Minnesota AG Keith Ellison ups charge in George Floyd case to 2nd Degree Murder (UPDATES)
Copies of New Criminal Charges and Final Autopsy Released.
When it was announced that Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison was taking over the case against Derek Chauvin in the killing of George Floyd, we immediately flagged the risk to a successful prosecution given Ellison’s political activist background.
Ellison promised that the state is “pursuing justice” and “pursuing truth” and “pursuing accountability” while asking for the community’s “trust.”
But can people trust Ellison? He has a history of political activism. Can they trust him to put aside his political wants to present the best case so George Floyd can get justice?
Only two days ago Ellison told rioters to take out their anger on the police instead of the National Guard.
Ellison is a former foot soldier for Louis Farrakhan, a regular speaker on the anti-Israel circuit, and posted a photo of himself holding The Antifa Handbook:
The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports that Ellison will be increasing the charge against Chauvin to 2nd Degree Murder, and will be charging the other officers present with being accessories:
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison answers questions about the investigation into the death of George Floyd, who died Monday while in the custody of Minneapolis police officers, during a news conference in St. Paul, Wednesday, May 27, 2020.
Attorney General Keith Ellison plans to elevate charges against the former Minneapolis police officer who knelt on George Floyd’s neck while adding charges of aiding and abetting murder against the other three officers at the scene, according to multiple law enforcement sources familiar with the case….
The other three officers at the scene — Tou Thao, J. Alexander Kueng and Thomas Lane — will also be charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder, according to the sources, who spoke on conditions of anonymity. Chauvin was arrested last Friday and charged with third-degree murder and manslaughter.
Here are the elements of Second Degree Murder in Minnesota (emphasis added):
609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subdivision 1. Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
§Subd. 2. Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or
(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, “order for protection” includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.
So there either must be an intent to kill, but without premeditation, or if unintentional, a killing in the course of committing another felony (often referred to as felony murder).
Part of what may be motivating Ellison may be that the 3rd Degree Murder charge may have been legally deficient, for the reasons explained by this Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation:
And that's why the charge is mindboggling here. We have the video of Chauvin directing every single action toward a particular person – George Floyd. His wanton indifference to life was in regard to a very particular life, and only in regard to that life. 7/
— Amy Swearer (@AmySwearer) May 29, 2020
So if Ellision didn’t up the charge to 2nd Degree murder, he may have been left with no viable murder charge, which would have large political implications given the riots.
But proving the 2nd Degree Murder charge will be more difficult. Was the knee pressure to the neck and restraint an intent to kill? And what was the separate felony being committed — the felony can’t be the killing alone.
Here is the Aiding and Abetting statute:
609.05 LIABILITY FOR CRIMES OF ANOTHER.
§Subdivision 1. Aiding, abetting; liability. A person is criminally liable for a crime committed by another if the person intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures the other to commit the crime.
Subd. 2. Expansive liability. A person liable under subdivision 1 is also liable for any other crime committed in pursuance of the intended crime if reasonably foreseeable by the person as a probable consequence of committing or attempting to commit the crime intended.
Subd. 3. Abandonment of criminal purpose. A person who intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures another to commit a crime and thereafter abandons that purpose and makes a reasonable effort to prevent the commission of the crime prior to its commission is not liable if the crime is thereafter committed.
Subd. 4. Circumstances of conviction. A person liable under this section may be charged with and convicted of the crime although the person who directly committed it has not been convicted, or has been convicted of some other degree of the crime or of some other crime based on the same act, or if the person is a juvenile who has not been found delinquent for the act.
Subd. 5. Definition. For purposes of this section, a crime also includes an act committed by a juvenile that would be a crime if committed by an adult.
The aiding and abettting charge requires proof that the other officers aided the crime. That suggests more than obeserving, actual participation. Which gets to the issue of whether the general restraint (put aside the knee) was a crime. And if the knee was the unlawful act, did they counsel or assist Chauvin in using his knee. This may not be as easy a chargte to prove as many people will expect.
We will update as more is learned about the new charges.
UPDATE – NEW CHARGES FILED
Second Degree Murder Complaint Against Derek Chauvin (pdf.)
Prosecution is going with Felony Murder for the Second Degree charge. The new complaint details that there was a struggle after Floyd initially was in the car, causing him to be pulled out.
This is the attempt to explain away the Medical Examiner’s initial findings (garbled text in original):
TheHennepinCountyMedical Examiner(M E)cond uctedMr. Floyd’sautopsyonMay26,2020. While the ME did not observe physical findings supportive of mechanical asphyxia, the ME opines that Mr. Floyd died from cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officers. The autopsy revealed that Mr. Floyd had arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease, and toxicology testing revealed the presence of fentanyl and evidence of recent methamphetamine use. The ME opined that the effects of the officers’ restraint of Mr. Floyd, his underlying health conditions, and the presence of the drugs contributed to his death. The ME listed the cause of death as “[c]ardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression,” and concluded the manner of death was homicide.
It’s not clear what the felony is that supports the Felony Murder charge. None is specified, but presumably it was the pressure from Chauvin’s knee. It needs researching, but that could present a problem legally because that also was the act alleged to be the cause of death. So it’s not a separate felony from the murder charge itself.
Having trouble downloading the aiding and abetting charges. The Tribune website must be overloaded, because the link to the documents doesn’t work. If someone finds working links, please paste in comment section.
UPDATE NO. 2 – FINAL AUTOPSY REPORT RELEASED
The Final Autopsy Report (pdf.)(full embed below) was just released.
Derek Chauvin Second Degree Murder Charge by Legal Insurrection on Scribd
George Floyd Final Autopsy Report by Legal Insurrection on Scribd
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Auntie Fey Ellison’s role is to mess this up for more riots.
Who is recruiting, moving and paying the professional anarcho-rioters?
Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/05/who_is_recruiting_moving_and_paying_the_professional_anarchorioters.html#ixzz6OKXBBP50
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
There is evidence of excessive use of force. The question then is if that force was justified. The Planned Perp (PP) charge, with a diversity motive where it is not self-evident, will depend on circumstances that led to a loss or denial of viability.
Stop the protests (warlock judgments) and follow due process. Social justice anywhere is injustice everywhere.
That said, 50 shades of diversity when Politically Profitable (PP).
No there isn’t. The neck restraint was within policy. http://web.archive.org/web/20200527130744/http://www.minneapolismn.gov/police/policy/mpdpolicy_5-300_5-300
The knee restraint is within policy, but the policies also require that the use of force has to be reasonable. The same policies state that the other officers had a duty “to either stop or attempt to stop another sworn employee when force is being inappropriately applied or is no longer required.”
I am having a hard time believing that it is reasonable to keep a knee on somebody’s neck when
1- That person is already restrained with handcuffs.
2- There are more officers available.
3- The cuffed perp has stopped moving.
4- The cuffed perp can be locked inside a patrol car.
I am no thug sympathizer, and I think the 2nd degree charge is BS, but what I see in the video is not reasonable.
Your belief that the actions were unreasoable is formed without seeing the bodycam footage of the struggle to get him secured in the car. Doesn’t such a conclusion seem premature?
I have seen enough.
I saw a POS coward with his knee on the neck of an unresponsive human being for at least 3 minutes. You can justify everything that happened until the point Floyd passed out (I don’t, not all of it), but from that moment on, there is absolutely no way to justify it.
I believe in the rule of law, so I believe the officers should be charged and have their day in court according to the law, not to politics or mob pressure. Keith Ellison is another cowardly POS and what he is doing is wrong too.
But make no mistake, if it wasn’t for my partiality towards the rule of law, I would be all for putting somebody’s knee on that officer’s neck until he dies. What he did was despicable enough to deserve it.
That of course, does not justify ANY of the disgusting violence that is happening, and it does not mean that all cops should be judge by the actions of this coward.
Floyd was handcuffed and prone. The fact that he resisted being put in the police car did not justify a knee being applied to his neck. It was reckless in the extreme. He was being punished for his resistance. This punishment was unlawful. When Floyd said I can’t breathe it was shorthand for “Please stop pressing your knee into my neck or you are going to kill me”.
Chauvin and the other three officers are at least guilty of manslaughter. Whether Chauvin is guilty of second-degree murder depends on his level of mental retardation. It’s hard to believe that he could be so stupid as not to understand what he was doing but anything is possible as some of the comments on this thread prove. If the prosecution can show that he was taught the dangers of pressing his knee on someone’s neck, which are obvious to me, then he should be convicted of 2nd degree murder.
Black Lives Matter was created based on false narratives perpetuated by Obama, Those narratives are the inversion of the truth, however an acquittal of Chauvin and the other officers would be a boon to their false narrative. It will make it impossible for the truth to be told.
Not entirely following you. If a certain level of force is “necessary,” how can it, at the same time be, “excessive”? Necessary force is the force required to attain an outcome (in this instance, submission/compliance). If the desired outcome is lawful, then the force necessary to attain the outcome is justified. This goes directly to the 2nd degree murder charge – did the officer intend to kill Floyd, or did he merely intend to make him submit to arrest? If he was trying to acquire compliance, obviously he didn’t expect the level of force he was using to be lethal, because causing a death is not gaining compliance. That is to say, only less-than-lethal force is justified to gain compliance from a suspect. Lethal force can only be used when the officer believes his life is in danger or he is in danger of grievous bodily harm. Then the object of the officer’s actions is to protect himself by halting an attack, not gaining compliance.
The charge he received was 2nd degree felony murder, the complaint available here:
So the alleged underlying felony, according to the AG, was assault on Floyd.
The moment that the victim said “I can’t breathe” the force became lethal and the cop became guilty.
An important part is that according to the criminal complaint Floyd said I can’t breath before they took him to the ground like you see in the video; this makes a viable argument that they thought Floyd was disingenuous. Further, the particular knee hold (conscious neck restraint) was actually described as non-lethal in the Minneapolis policy, and allegedly does not restrict air flow.
How do you explain that the autopsy said that his neck wasn’t damaged by the cop’s knee and there was no sign of strangulation? A more likely cause of his death was the meth and fentanyl, his poor health and the stress of struggling with the police killed him. He had a heart attack and it killed him. The news media and progressive fascists want to blame racism and society but it was Floyd’s own fault. This case is just like the death of Eric Garner.
No, Mr. Hotep… (tells me a lot)
If you knew anything about policing, you would know that anytime a suspect is cuffed or subdued, they will usually say something like, “I can’t breath” or “the cuffs are too tight”….etc…
So I recommend you go on a few ride a longs of get out more.
If it was justified then by definition it was not excessive.
There was no justification for kneeling on Floyd’’s snack. He was already restrained.
Maybe so. But in that case it wasn’t justified, so it doesn’t support the proposition that: “There is evidence of excessive use of force. The question then is if that force was justified.” Justified force, by definition, cannot be excessive.
There might have been justification for briefly kneeling on his neck. (Another cop was kneeling on his chest, which I think could have aggravated an existing cardiac condition.) But there’s no way to justify continuing to kneel on a handcuffed man who wasn’t moving for _eight_ _minutes_.
Has MPD’s Use of Force directive been made public yet? That would define if, according to their training, tactics, and policies, said force was justifiable or excessive. In law enforcement doctrine any application of force that is excessive for the circumstances is- by definition- not justifiable.
“Auntie Fey Ellison’s role is to mess this up for more riots.”
And do it fast enough that the next round of protests/riots are in October.
More difficult, but possible. As the time of the restraint increased, with increased symptoms, and people yelling “You’re killing him!” the line could have been crossed from gross negligence to realization and actual intent. Also, was another felony being committed?
People yelling “You’re killing him” carries no more legal weight than George himself repeatedly saying he can’t breathe, an act that requires he be… able to breathe.
Just keep in mind that being “able to breathe” in the way you use it can still kill you with a lack of oxygen.
Being able to push air past your vocal cords is not necessarily indicative of getting enough air.
…… just like masks………
Does’t that depend on how much oxygen the suspect is wasting resisting arrest?
Point taken. My asthma-ridden childhood may have left me with a skewed idea about such things.
No actually being able to speak does NOT imply your. Ring able to breathe adequately
He spoke for a minute or so , he was bleeding from the mouth, all signs
See? I told you he wants an acquittal. He knows better, but he will give the jury no choice but to acquit.
I agree that it’s probably his strategy: probable acquittal, then more riots. But regardless of the merits, acquittal is not a foregone conclusion. A lot depends on the jury.
If the jury convicts with insufficient evidence to sustain the charge, the conviction can be overturned. Rioting may still be in the offing at that time.
Hopefully, snipers are deployed, with a directive to take out those putting others at risk.
If there is a jury; defendant(s) may well opt for a bench trial.
He doesn’t want Chauvin convicted. If he goes to prison, the system has worked and there’s no more outrage to milk for political gain.
The jury is guaranteed to convict – not a single person in Minnesota will vote to let him go, not with the prospects of their names being leaked (it’ll happen) and mobs swarming on their houses with torches and pitchforks. Chauvin really needs a Change of Venue, to someplace like Korea, or Nepal.
without that, he’s toast.
And,if aquitted, Minneapois will burn. It is what Ellison’s people want.
My first instincts, detecting mob action mania, seem to be holding up.
The maximum liklihood estimate of what happened starts from that the cops aren’t evil. That’s the opposite of the archetype that feeds the mob and that they’ll never be dissuaded from.
First impressions – the cops standing around suggests that it’s normal procedure, and there’s been no great wave of deaths from that normality. Maybe it’s a sanctioned procedure or maybe not, but they’ve done it before. Almost certainly the pressure on the neck is only what’s needed to respond to an unsurrender, not to choke him. A pressure he knows is there but not a choking one.
There was a struggle in the car – apparently the guy surrendered and then unsurrendered.
The guy is really big and strong.
So the cops are keeping him down until it’s apparent that he’s not going to unsurrender again.
With added data from Scott Adams now:
There’s fentanyl in his system. The cops were discussing maybe he had agitated delirium, which are specific instant nonsensical mood swings owing to fentanyl. Apparently the cops know about it and were discussing it.
The way fentanyl kills is that you lose your reflex to awake if your airway is blocked, and so you simply die for not breathing.
The cops discussed how to avoid exactly this from happening – and decided that it wouldn’t happen because he was on his stomach not his back.
Maximum liklihood – the guy was caught for passing counterfeit $20 and swallowed the drugs he had on him so he wouldn’t get a possession charge. Probable overdose of fentanyl from that.
Anyway witnesses overheard cops discussing the proper way to position him exactly so he wouldn’t stop breathing. The opposite of the evil cop picking on the black guy. It’s a dispassionate cop doing his job.
So the whole protest is Travon Martin hands up don’t shoot nonsense from the start, foisted on blacks by their leaders.
Which means there will be another riot and loot round when the cop is acquitted. The narrative must be preserved, in mob world.
If you start always with thinking be best of somebody rather than the worst (cop doing his job instead of evil cop), as Augustine recommends, you may find that all the facts fit without needing to shout down stuff that ruins the narrative.
It’s a habit that black leaders don’t want blacks taking up because it would ruin the narrative and let their blacks into the adult world.
TY rhhardin.. but just as a reminder ,,, Trayvon gave us the phrase “black lives matter”, and it was Michael Brown’s shooting where we learned the cry about hands up don’t shoot, a phrase created by Anthony Shahid.
By the way, Scott Adams mentioned in one of his podcasts that he had no sympathy for anyone resisting arrest.
That was Michael “Gentle Giant” Brown. Little Saint Trayvon was the one with the hoodie and skittles. I know it’s hard to keep these fake cases apart without a scorecard. Though in this case (a) there may actually be a crime somewhere in there, and (b) the victim may actually have been innocent — if he didn’t know the money was forged, and if his resistance was involuntary, e.g. a panic attack.
Floyd’s resistance didn’t justify killing him.We don’t even know if he was guilty of a crime. He should’ve been given a citation. The excessive force used in this case is no different than the police state tactics used against General Flynn, Roger Stone and Duncan Lamp, who police shot while he was asleep in his bed.
His resistance justified restraining him. If the restraint was likely to result in his death, then he should have thought of that before resisting and making them restrain him. People in very poor cardiac health should never fight, regardless of whether it’s the police or a mugger. It’s not worth it.
There was no need to kneel on Floyd’s neck in order to restrain him. I’m surprised to see you supporting police brutality. Your position is as brain dead as Chauvin’s brutality.
A knee on the neck is an official authorized method of restraining a suspect. The autopsy showed no sign of asphyxiation and no bruising to the neck, so he couldn’t have been putting much if any pressure on the neck; therefore the choice of that particular method of restraint does not seem to be significant. If being restrained was indeed a factor in his death, as the ME said, then presumably the same outcome would have resulted no matter what method of restraint was chosen. And some method had to be chosen because he needed to be restrained.
This. But it gets a bit complicated for small minds, because what we’re being asked to do is to think the best of the victim, which means thinking the worst of the cops. And that would be correct if the victim were the accused. When considering a case against the victim we should put the best light possible on his actions, and blame the cops for everything we can. But when considering a case against the cops, as we must now do, that presumption must be reversed. And that’s what so many people seem to miss. They seem to think we must be consistent, when in fact we must not be. That’s what the presumption of innocence means.
I’m having a little trouble following the second half of that. Are you saying that in this case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, to prove that Chauvin committed a felony, or on the defense, to prove that Chauvin did not?
I’m saying the burden of proof must always be on whoever is accusing someone of wrongdoing, which means that our presumptions about the very same facts must be inconsistent depending on who is the accuser and who the accused. If Floyd were being accused we should think the best of him and the worst of the cops; now that Chauvin is the accused we should presume the best of him and the worst of Floyd (to whatever extent his behavior is relevant).
Except Scott Adams and Derek Chauvin are both wrong about the prone positioning and the officer that questioned the positioning was right. It is the prone (on stomach) positioning that is specifically warned against in cases of excited delirium.
He applied a force incorrectly and for too long in spite of 22 years and multiple trainings.
Excited delirium. This is a buzz word that means nothing in the context of this case. What danger did Floyd present to the arresting officers with his hands handcuffed behind his back and lying prone. Would excited delirium give them the energy to bounce to his feet and break his handcuffs. Four officers couldn’t have tied up his feet and rolled him over and tied him to a gurney. Seriously?
Excited delirium posed a danger to him. If he was experiencing that then he had to be restrained for his own safety.
Sure, they were concerned about Floyd’s safety. Did they call an ambulance? Even if he was in an agitated state he wasn’t going anywhere and there was no need to kneel on his neck. He wasn’t being restrained. He was being punished because he refused to get into the police car. All of that for a $20 bill? Get serious, tough guy.
Yes, they did call an ambulance! How do you not know that? They were waiting for it to arrive. And as I keep saying and you keep ignoring, the protocol for someone in excited delirium is to keep them restrained for their own safety until the medics get there and can inject a sedative. Since they thought that was what was happening (as is evidenced by their conversation) that’s what they did. They discussed whether this was the best position to have him in, and mistakenly concluded that it was as good as any other.
And now I wonder if this is an over-charge, knowing he won’t be able to prove it, the jury will acquit, and we’ll have even more riots after the trial.
Sorry, but I can’t follow Hanlon’s Razor with folks like Ellison. I have to assume they have ill intent, based on their previous and current actions and results.
Re: Hanlon’s razor
Maybe Ellison is just reliably stupid or incompetent.
Or it could be Obama’s Peter Principle…….
There is no reason to believe that Ellison is competent enough to realize that he might have trouble proving the charge. All his previous experience has been in exploiting outrage, usually successfully. Why would he consider this to be anything different?
The Neck restraint was within department policy so that complicates things even further.
5-311 USE OF NECK RESTRAINTS AND CHOKE HOLDS (10/16/02) (08/17/07) (10/01/10) (04/16/12)
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)
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.
One important note: this restraint applies to the front of the neck. It does NOT apply to a knee on the back of the neck.
(Using a leg in the fashion delineated in that policy, would be a leg choke hold, where one leg is bent over the front of the adversary’s neck, and the other leg is placed behind, to produce pressure on the airway and the artery. It’s a valid chokehold, but is difficult to accomplish effectively.)
DUE PROCESS doing what it was intended to do. No riots or Fascists needed. Now, will your knuckle-dragging useful idiots be happy with Justice if it doesn’t come out your way??
Unfortunately, they define “justice” as “the results we desire”. (“They”, in this case, being the rioters and racialists driving the unrest, along with the media.)
Your next update could explain what federal charges are possible.
With Barr on the job, unlikely
Not a lawyer but based on what the MN AG Said:
Title 18 USC. Section 242:
The Obama shadow government
Thanks first to Professor Jacobson for mentioning again the legal opinion of Amy Swearer of the Heritage Foundation. She cited a 2006 case in MN that stood for the proposition that the Murder 3 statute with which Chauvin was charged is legally deficient. That left Ellison with two choices: try Chauvin on manslaughter, or upgrade the charges.
Why do I think about Marilyn Mosby when I read about this?
Minnesota is considering changing the law so that cities can require cops to live in the city limits. This will reduce the pool of qualified applicants further. Perhaps Baltimore in a sister city to Minneapolis. Democrats in control. What could go wrong?
I told you that this would happen.
1) First, legally deficient criminal charges must be filed to guarantee a civil settlement for damages. This requires the second step.
2) A political sycophant has to be found to prosecute the legal deficient case.
3) Compliant jurists have to be found to allow the case to progress through the system to a jury.
Nothing really surprising here.
It will be harder, but if he’s already decided that 3rd degree was going to be difficult to prove he may have figured that he may as well go for broke. Either he can get a conviction without actually proving his case, or he can’t. If he can’t then he may as well lose on 2nd degree as on 3rd. And if he can then he’d rather win big.
What if some legal research team in the MN AG’s office sent Ellison a memorandum based on Amy Swearer’s legal opinion? “Boss. We may have a problem getting past a directed verdict on M-3. Apparently, it doesn’t apply in this case because all of Chauvin’s actions were directed to Floyd. M-3 Depraved applies to strangers who died due to depraved mind conduct like a DUI.”
I’m amazed at the lack of discussion by my fellow commenters here on Swearer’s opinion since Prof. Jacobson has referenced it twice.
I agree with others on this thread. If he makes the tougher charges stick he is a Hero of the Revolution. Furthermore, I think Ellison knows that even a acquittal will not damage him (being a black Muslim Communist doth have its little privileges), and the subsequent riots will be blamed on Trump in any case.
So Ellison probably sees the harder-to-prove charges as a win-win for him.
They’re charges to mollify the mob. Nothing more, nothing less. We can all be mortified by the cop’s actions, but that cannot come at the expense of mob justice.
Mortified? I would be mortified if I could somehow read Dereck’s mind and know what he was thinking, at the time.
If he intended to kill George, yes that would mortify me, if he intended to subdue him, and screwed up, not so much.
Intended is a big word here.
I am unfamiliar with Minnesota law. Is there a felony assault under color of authority charge (or something like that) that could be stretched to cover the underlying felony? (Not that I think it should; I’m just wondering what they intend to show as the underlying felony.)
In Minnesota, are lesser included offenses like Manslaughter automatically offered to the jury, or is it Murder 2 or Acquittal with nothing between?
The other night, I was spitballing here wondering if Benjamin Crump really needs a criminal conviction for a big payout by the city. I wondered if Crump could attack the Minneapolis restraint policy itself as discriminatory.
Shazam! MN Human Rights Commission is suing Minneapolis over …., wait for it,
“ Walz said the investigation into the police department’s policies, procedures and practices over the past 10 years will determine if the force has engaged in systemic discrimination toward people of color, and root it out. Lucero will lead the investigation.”
(Having issues with link. Sorry. Star-Tribune article)
The answer is no. In the Zimmerman case, all that was required was an arrest. This gained Martin’s family a seven figure settlement with the housing complex BEFORE the case ever went to trial. The point, from the civil standpoint, is to secure an ARREST. They do not really care about securing a conviction. As long as the prosecution is still active, the money just keeps rolling in.
Mac, I usually see it your way, but there was no wrongful death civil suit against George Zimmerman filed by Crump. Sure, the HOA ins co ponied up six or seven figures, but that was way before the criminal trial began.
My thoughts were what set of circumstances could ‘possibly’ ensure a payday for Crump. We both know anybody can sue anybody. Sorry you didn’t enjoy my legal fantasy. ?
Exactly right. The whole point of having Zimmerman arrested on bogus charges was to force a huge settlement from a third party, the company which owned the housing complex and its insurance company. It was neither necessary nor desirable for the civil case to wait for a conviction for it to be filed. In fact, as we saw in the Brown case, if the party being blamed for the person’s death is not charged or convicted, the settlement is greatly reduced if not denied. So, the strategy is to secure an arrest and then to force a settlement prior to the criminal trial. And, that is being followed in this case, as well.
This crime was a “white kills black” opportunity for Obama, Antifa, BLM, Soros “groups” who coordinated ATTACKS mostly on Democrat run cities – – – to keep the white-vs-black discussion going ad nauseum…
why? Because JOE BIDEN needs BLACK VOTES in November…
They had their (mostly white) minions delivering bricks and telling young angry blacks and whites to run amok…
Obama and Crump to “address the nation” today? probably to state “only Democrats can heal the nation…” BLA BLA BLAAAA….
2nd degree murder won’t stick but DEMOCRATS “demand” it…
playbook – BEING PLAYED!
It needs to be looked into any possible relationship between Chauvin and Floyd as they worked at the same night club
Rosenstein testified today. Senate Judiciary.
Rush Limbaugh (on his talk with “the Breakfast Club”) said he wanted Murder 1. So have others.
I have had trouble pointing out that premeditation, malice aforethought, or whatever else would be impossible to prove and Chauvin would be found not guilty.
An earlier case from Rochester NY (2011) with lots of audio and now a movie:
In one of the interviews on the new appeals court ruling and the movie it was noted the DA may have overcharged to murder 1 in front of the grand jury to insure there would be no criminal charges.
Wikipedia has a short article covering it, search for kenneth chamberlain.
I remember being very bothered at the time but there were no riots, nor even much coverage from the MSM. And Obama and Holder’s DoJ “investigated”
Guess who used deadly force against the cops in the form of COVID 19 likely by spitting or coughing on them
Full autopsy report
Floyd’s 11 ng/DL Fentanyl level is potentially lethal on its own
Floyd’s 11 ng/DL Fentanyl level is potentially lethal on its own
That quantity of fentanyl may have paralyzed his chest wall making it impossible to breathe not withstanding the knee to his neck. I think this guy was going to die no matter what and the cops had little to do with it.
it’s already been taken down and wayback machine isn’t pulling the cahced copy either.
“There’s plenty of money, it’s just that the government doesn’t have it” (yet added by me as I’m sure that would have been his more truthful statement).
Any fair trial would have significant doubt about who/what was responsible for the death of criminal drug user Floyd. This would result in a verdict of not guilty.
Fair trials are not possible in the communist state of Minnesota.
Ellison has a history of being an activist, FKA Keith X– he supports Louis Farrakhan and Abu Mumia Jamal, Kathleen Soliah and all manner of upstanding citizens; as shown above, he supports Antifa. His son was on record over the weekend as supporting Antifa – he represents North Minneapolis in City Council. To me, these are conflicts of interest as the City Council is supposed to support the law as is the Attorney General, and Antifa is against the system as it exists and is not willing to work within the system.
Although KE has been employed by law firms, he doesn’t have an extensive history of going to trial; in fact, his license had lapsed or he was out of status with continuing ed at the time he was elected. The Lawyer’s board just reinstated him and claimed they do that all the time. Completely untrue; former Senator Norm Coleman had let his license lapse and in order to be reinstated he had to complete 2 reporting periods of continuing ed, 90 credits so there’s disparate treatment under the color of law right there.
Here, he seems to be grandstanding, fomenting revolution if he loses at trial. Note that many Minneapolis and St Paul businesses are still boarded up; we have a 10 pm curfew until Friday and then I suppose all hell could break loose again. The National Guard is still in town.
Don’t get me started on our soy boy mayor or ineffective governor, whose daughter tweeted that the guard wouldn’t actually be there on Thurs night. Ilhan Elmi’s daughter was collecting supplies for the rioters. When the first window was broken Frey needed to clamp down. He didn’t. Had he done so there may still have been damage but much less. In addition to the low income housing in the same complex as the Aldi and a charter school, a pawn shop near me was torched.
Protesters were on the bridge outside my apartment complex and I was pleased at the Roundup at Bobby & Steve’s Corral. I attribute the lack of activity in my immediate area to a) living near the college and seeing it was a lot of college age kids congregating Sunday afternoon; b) Bobby and Steve’s being brightly lit, open all night and right across the freeway so likely anything would be noticed; c) the children living in buildings on my side of the freeway.
I was happy to see Federal charges for the idiot who was posting video flat out saying he was coming up to riot and also for the two suburbanites who tried to torch a suburban courthouse, dropped the car keys and were on a nearby road when the cops picked up the keys and found the car. They had receipts for their supplies. I hope to see more charges filed.
The rampant rioting also proves there’s no reason to restrict our activities although they publicized that some national guard members tested positive for Covid; they were doing Covid testing memorial day weekend so no idea if that’s how they got it. George Floyd also tested positive for Covid so there’s that.
Please pray for our country. St Michael, defend us in battle.
I forgot to mention that the original charges were the same as those in the Mohammed Noor trial a few years ago, the Muslim police officer who shot Justine Damond within 9 seconds of responding to her call.
She had done nothing wrong and was killed.
Here, a police officer who arguably was doing nothing save trying to control George is being charged with murder as are his fellow officers. Bystanders overheard them discussing the situation and one thing that’s overlooked is that the police are union. The initial call went to the two rookies who then called for backup. They’re absolutely not in a position to overrule a senior officer; Chauvin’s partner had less seniority than he did. I don’t remember which one was concerned about positioning and brought it up but no matter which officer it was, he wasn’t in a position to overrule Chauvin.
Is it cynical of me to think that over-charging, then losing lets him harvest the issue twice?
It’s almost like immigration, abortion, health care, infrastructure, urban economic development, criminal justice reform, education reform — the screaming D’s don’t want a solution they want the issue.
The governors of Minnesota and Texas are going to have to face an interesting decision next week. Since George tested positive for the Wuhan flu, can the Minny Gov. allow the family to travel out of state since they may have been exposed and should be in self quarantine. Did the coroner inform the family that he was Wuhan Flu positive and the family should be in self quarantine yet they have been traveling and in the public view for days. Then the Texas Gov, has to decide whether or not to allow a family into his state that should be in a state of self quarantine.
Things could get very interesting over this situation.
Sure Auntie Fey has the Wuhan Flu too.
He cannot handle the case.
I guess they had over 100,000 at the funeral when funerals are only allowed to have 10 people. I assume the lockdown must be over.
This guy was a walking test tube for street drugs, little wonder he had heart related issues
With ellison as an AG: This is America’s ‘clockwork orange’ – the criminals are now the cops.
If the drugs contributed or killed him using narcan in time might have saved him.
Until the moment he stopped struggling the knee was legal if it was necessary. After that the cop might have been so gassed he didn’t want to try getting the guy under control again.
Police are not allowed to use any more force than is necessary to restrain someone they have arrested. There was no need to kneel on Floyd’s neck. None whatsoever. It is a highly dangerous manoever. If his defense lawyer is stupid enough to make these arguments they will inflame the jury. Chauvin’s best bet is to plead that he is mentally retarded.
Andrew Branca absolutely nailed the legal issues today. Catch the June 4 edition on Thelawofselfdefense.com.
He discussed how Murder-3 did not apply, as well as discussion of the upgraded charges and the full autopsy. One of his most important points is that both autopsies did not reference as much as a bruise on Floyd’s neck.
Do not miss this one.
the ME previously stated no evidence of asphyxiation or strangulation.
the final autopsy states:
“NECK:Layer by layer dissection of the anterior strap muscles of the neck discloses no areas of contusion or hemorrhage within the musculature. The thyroid cartilage and thyroid bone are intact. The larynx is lined by intact mucosa. The thyroid is symmetric and red-brown, without cystic or nodular change.”
this means the officer used no excessive force. his knee basically just used to hold floyd’s head down.
the MPD policy manual allows for this particular technique.
floyd had 5 different drugs in his system. he was DUI simply sitting in the driver seat of his own car.
floyd had numerous medical conditions.
where is the crime here?
what happened to the fake $20 bill?
was floyd’s house seacrhed for additional conterfit money?
is the MPD investingating where floyd got the fake $20?
There are actually three crimes here. The first crime is that Chauvin knelt on a vulnerable man’s neck for nearly 9 minutes – 6 minutes until he died and nearly 3 minutes thereafter – when there was no justification whatsoever for kneeling on his neck, for even one second.
The second crime is that this is that it needs to be explained to you that this police brutality is totally unacceptable in a free and democratic society.
The third crime is that clueless comments like yours have provided a plethora of ammunition to the entity called Black Lives Matter. You certainly leave the impression that there is actually some justification for that organization to exist.
if you start with with the viral video and its accompanying narrative and assume that it tells the whole story, there is no justification.
In response to there is no justification
not asserting this is the case or a fact…
if George Floyd had inflicted an injury to his face by striking it on the pavement. Restraining him so he could not cause himself further injury would be justified and failing to do so would be dereliction of duty.
pressure with the knee to the back of the neck is completely justified in this hypotherical case.
take a look at the video. is there anything you saw Chauvin do to cause injuries to Floyds forehead and mouth reported in the autopsy?
in response to Chavin.. and 3 minutes
A petechial hemorrhage is a tiny pinpoint red mark that is an important sign of asphyxia caused by some external means of obstructing the airways. They are sometimes also called petechiae. Their presence often indicates a death by manual strangulation, hanging, or smothering. The hemorrhages occur when blood leaks from the tiny capillaries in the eyes, which can rupture due to increased pressure on the veins in the head when the airways are obstructed.
the state autopsy said none are present
the family autopsy said strangulation
it is not a matter of opinion it is a medical fact
i am not saying either side is right but there is a right side and a wrong side.
making decisions and judgements on the actions and value of a human being without a factual basis or by ignoring facts is exactly what BLM is condemning.
In response to a vulnerable man.
George Floyd was a vulnerable man he was intoxicated and irrational. He claimed he was claustrophobic and could not enter an automobile minutes after being taken out of an automobile with minimal resistance.
In response to it needs to be explained to you…
What needs to be explained is how a movement condemning the police rush to judgement and unfair practices has been associated with those that insist on rushing to judgement and unfair practices.
So long as people believe they are capable of seeing into the hearts and minds of others and dismiss reason for hate and violence… BLM has plenty of reason to exist.
I support the police. I do not support police brutality. I oppose the use of excessive police force whether it be some jerk like Chauvin who thinks it’s OK to kneel on someone’s neck or the Mueller team which thinks it’s OK to terrorize someone accused of a white-collar crime by using a large swat team to arrest him at 4:30 in the morning. The use of excessive police force will diminish support for the police and make their job that much more difficult. The police should never use more force than is necessary, especially if their lives or safety is not in any danger, as was the case here
You haven’t pointed out why kneeling on Floyd’’s neck and back when he was prone and handcuffed was justified. It was clearly not necessary to restrain him and therefore it was excessive. And this excessive use of force caused Floyd’s death as will be clear at the trial. I know many people of various political persuasions and I don’t know anyone who wasn’t horrified watching the video of those 4 morons. They acted like passing a counterfeit $20 bill was a capital crime. It is stupid to defend such stupidity.
2 Officers are called for attempting to pass counterfeit currency.
2 Officers apprehend and arrest a suspect.
2 Officers attempt to get the suspect into the police car from the sidewalk side and fail.
2 officers arrive to backup the first 2.
4 officers attempt to get the suspect into the squad car.
the suspect exits the vehicle on the street side and is secured.
An officer calls for medical assistance for injuries to the suspect sustained during the failed attempt to get him into the vehicle.
Three officers secure the suspect.
An officer upgrades the call for medical assistance to urgent and acts as crowd control.
Three officers secure the suspect until an ambulance arrives.
no action in the above is contested or unjustified.
The assumption that the knee to the neck and back caused the suspects death by suffocation would lead to the conclusion that it was unjustified.
the assumption that releasing the suspect from restraint would not have lead to further struggle and possible injury to the suspect would also make the restraint unjustified.
the assumption that the restraint was not protecting the suspect from further exertion and risk to himself makes their actions unjustified.
the assumptions that are made in viewing the whole event were not available to the officers on scene.
Once secured the prisoner verbally surrendered.
the officers then had a choice release positive control or maintain it.
the suspect initially relatively peacefully surrendered then passively and actively resisted.
the initial attempt to get the suspect into the vehicle lasted six minutes and resulted in injuries requiring medical assistance.
The prisoner was secured in the street but not obstructing traffic.
medical assistance was on the way-six minutes.
it is reasonable to assume that allowing the prisoner freedom of movement would result in the need for another struggle to regain control.
it is reasonable to assume that further struggle could lead to further injury to the prisoner.
it is reasonable to assume reasserting control would take longer than it would take to transfer control to medical personnel.
the decision to maintain positive control is justified.
reasonable use of force for a reasonable time in the execution of a duty cannot be excessive.
any attempt to demonize George Floyd is misguided and not relevant to the case at hand. Any attempt to deify George Floyd is likewise misguided and irrelevant. Perfection is not a prerequisite for life and lack of it not a call for death.
Likewise the charges leading to the arrest are irrelevant.
It is relevant that the arrest was not at the discretion of the officers. It is relevant that the suspect was correctly identified and apprehended. It is relevant that the suspect should not have been allowed to drive.
The officers acted reasonably in response to duty. They did not act correctly. Their actions did contribute to an unnecessary death.
Much as perfection is not a prerequisite for life, perfection is not a prerequisite for being a police officer.
I find fault with the outcome but not the method.
Were the officers attempting to put the prisoner in the car (as a bystander said they could have already done) the force was unnecessary. Transfer from positive control to a vehicle can be accomplished relatively quickly.
if the officers were on the sidewalk the force was unnecessary because the danger to all involved would have been substantially reduced.
if the call for an ambulance had not been made and upgraded before the prisoner lost unconsciousness it would have been callous disregard.
If the prisoner had died on scene (as asserted by a bystander)
-a defibrillator was was used and is not used on patients without a heartbeat- it would have made the officers more directly responsible.
Had an officer not mentioned possible heart attack from exertion and drug use-excited delirium- reducing control would have been a more viable option.
Had an officer not noted the possibility it would have shown disregard for life.
Had bystanders not crowded the sidewalk moving the prisoner out of the street would have been a more viable option.
Had bystanders not challenged the officers objectively reasonable actions to that point– they may have reassessed the situation. Changing tactics after criticism implies that the initial tactic was wrong and an admission of guilt.
Once a crowd had formed the officers were confronted by both a tactical and public relations situation.
Nest case: The Buffalo, NY, cops & the elderly guy, whom — for whatever reason the cops deluded themselves into believing was good and sufficient — they knock off his feet, landing him flat on his back and bleeding profusely from at least an ear, if not also his skull.
In the available video, a gold-badged officer instructs his troop-members not to help him and to leave him be as they stride past his brutally assaulted, apparently unconscious body — on, it seems, to less cumbersome tasks than to provide immediate aid to someone they hurt, inadvertently or otherwise.
A few Guardsmen, following, do stop and kneel to help him. Go, Guard.
Viewing the video for the first time, I was sincerely shocked incredulous by this, another one of The New Images of America.
Whatever he said in angry protest — and though the man, in getting in one of the front-lined officers personal space, seems also to touch something on his or her belt — can simply not be enough to legitimately warrant such an awfully improper, clearly harmful police-response.
The man is said to be in serious but stable condition in a nearby hospital. The officers in question have since been suspended without pay, pending an investigation.
More and more, because of the apparently unnecessary Rona lockdown, the loss of livelihood, and now the Floyd case, too many are understandably tired and worn out, angry, and really full of fear and angst. Nerves are frayed, people are volatile with another.
So, end already; end, before this all gets beyond repair and return. It just might, however, it just might.
the video appears to be from a news station..
–a news camera crew finding a point to take a video capturing an overreaction by riot place would seem highly unlikely by chance.
–if the person taping the encounter with the elderly man and the riot police had a relationship it is likely the event was staged.
we only know it is an elderly man. no name, political stance employment etc.
was this the elderly man’s first interaction with the riot line?
–was the man given proper prior warning and did he disregard that warning.
was the shove sufficient to change the elderly man’s position so drastically?
the man was pushed with one arm from a police officer. The police officer did not take a running start. the police officer did not shift his body to follow through. The police officer did not draw back to increase the power of the blow.
the man took four steps backwards before falling to the ground.
it is a simple F=MA equation if you are into physics. one can calculate both the force sufficient to move the elderly man`s position as well as the mass and acceleration of the shove.
the question of is the reaction of the elderly man a realistic result of a an approximately six inch shove is answerable.
Ok take it on face value. it just happened a news camera crew were in position to film what they were apparently out to film and a random elderly man innocently approached a riot line and received a blow of sufficient force to propel him back four steps resulting in an unintentional fall and injury.
Now we are left with the tactical situation of the police. They were in an apparent line moving forward at a slow pace. It would seem the duties of the first line were to disperse the crowd and there were paramedics behind the first line to treat any individuals the line passes.
walking past the injured man allowed the paramedics to treat the elderly man and maintained the integrity of the line.
You can name that as wanton disregard for human life or simply doing your job.
How to make a viral abuse in 3 easy steps.
Antagonize any individual relentlessly until they are at or near the breaking point. Include a harmless statement at the beginning of each bout of abuse.
My what a lovely day. your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries.
my what a lovely day. your momma is so fat…
my what a lovely day. do you have any naked pictures of your wife? do you want some.
it may take some time to find the particular nerve to get on but this is step one.
step two push things to a breaking point it would be best if you can get them to say If you blank then I blank.
Step three… break out a camera and say my what a lovely day.
One question: Will the former NYC medical examiner hired by Floyd’s family release a report of his own?