Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Four Former Minneapolis Police Officers, Including Derek Chauvin, Indicted by Federal Grand Jury in George Floyd Death

Four Former Minneapolis Police Officers, Including Derek Chauvin, Indicted by Federal Grand Jury in George Floyd Death

The three-count indictment names Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane, J. Kueng and Tou Thao. Chauvin was charged in a separate indictment unrelated to Floyd, for the arrest and restraint of a suspect in 2017.

All four officers on the scene and involved in the arrest of George Floyd have been indicted by a federal grand jury.

Fox News reports:

A federal grand jury in Minnesota has voted to indict the four former Minneapolis police officers involved in the May 25, 2020, arrest of George Floyd, according to indictments unsealed Friday.

The three-count indictment names Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane, J. Kueng and Tou Thao. Specifically, Chauvin, Thao and Kueng are charged with violating Floyd’s right to be free from unreasonable seizure and excessive force. All four officers are charged for their failure to provide Floyd with medical care. Chauvin was also charged in a second indictment, stemming from the arrest and neck restraint of a 14-year-old boy in 2017.

Thomas Lane, Tou Thao and J. Kueng appeared via videoconference in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis. Chauvin was not part of the court appearance.

According to CNN, the three officers (other than Chauvin) were released on $25,000 bond, while Chauvin was not released because he already is in custody after conviction on state charges in the death of Floyd.

This follows reports in late April that the Feds Planned To Arrest Derek Chauvin At State Courthouse If Found Not Guilty

You can read the two indictments below:

Here’s the key allegation in the 2017 incident:

On or about September 4, 20t7, in the State and District of Minnesota, the defendant, DEREK MICHAEL CHAUVIN, while acting under color of law, willfully deprived Juvenile I of the right, secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, to be free from an unreasonable seizure, which includes the right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by a police officer. Specifically, Defendant Chauvin, without legal justification, held Juvenile I by the throat and struck Juvenile 1 multiple times in the head with a flashlight. This offense included the use of a dangerous weapon-a flashlight-and resulted in bodily injury to Juvenile 1.

The first count in the Floyd indictment is against Chauvin for causing Floyd’s death (basically the same as the state case) in violation of Floyd’s civil rights.

Here are the key allegations against two of the other officers in Floyd’s death for failing to stop Chauvin:

On or about May 25,2020, in the State and District of Minnesota, the defendants, TOU THAO and J. ALEXANDER KUENG, while acting under color of law, willfully deprived George Floyd of the right, secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, to be free from an unreasonable seizure. Specifically, Defendants Kueng and Thao were aware that Defendant Chauvin was holding his knee across George Floyd’s neck as Floyd lay handcuffed and unresisting, and that Defendant Chauvin continued to hold Floyd to the ground even after Floyd became uffesponsive, and the defendants willfully failed to intervene to stop Defendant Chauvin’s use of unreasonable force. This offense resulted in bodily injury to, and the death of, George Floyd.

Here is the omnibus count against all four officers for failing to render medical assistance:

On or about May 25,2020, in the State and District of Minnesota, the defendants, DEREK MICHAEL CHAUVIN, TOU THAO, J. ALEXANDER KUENG, and THOMAS KIERNAN LAIIE, while acting under color of law, willfully deprived George Floyd of the right, secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, which includes an arrestee’s right to be free from a police officer’s deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Specifically, the defendants saw George Floyd lying on the ground in clear need of medical care, and willfully failed to aid Floyd, thereby acting with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm to Floyd. This offense resulted in bodily injury to, and the death of, George Floyd.

I don’t know if failing to stop another police officer, or failing to render medical aid, are federal offenses. I assume that will be challenged.

The federal charges are apart from the state charges against the three other officers for aiding and abetting the killing of Floyd.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

If you thought it was hard to hire new police officers, you have not seen anything yet.

CaliforniaJimbo | May 7, 2021 at 11:27 am

I get the feeling that when the mistrial is called out due to many factors, the federal charge is set to take Chauvin into custody. (Wanna bet they don’t grant him the same bail as the other 3?).

    henrybowman in reply to CaliforniaJimbo. | May 7, 2021 at 6:47 pm

    The Biden Administration knows the verdict against Chauvin is shaky as hell. So their next gambit is to try to get one of the other three to throw him under the bus.

Another set of bad faith nonsense charges that have no factual support whatsoever.

To establish that a defendant acted “willfully” in committing a deprivation of rights under color of law, the government must prove that the defendant “act[ed] with ‘a specific intent to deprive a person of a federal right made definite by decision or other rule of law,’ or ‘in open defiance or in reckless disregard of a constitutional requirement which has been made specific and definite.’ ” House, 684 F.3d at 1199–1200 (quoting Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 103, 105, 65 S.Ct. 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495 (1945) (plurality opinion)). A defendant need not have been “thinking in constitutional terms,” so long as his “aim was not to enforce local law but to deprive a citizen of a right and that right was protected by the Constitution.” Screws, 325 U.S. at 106, 65 S.Ct. 1031 (plurality opinion). And “the defendant’s subsequent conduct may be considered if it supports a reasonable inference as to his prior intent.” House, 684 F.3d at 1200 (alterations adopted) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

United States v. Brown (11th Cir. 2019) 934 F.3d 1278, 1296, cert. denied sub nom. Antico v. United States (2020) 140 S.Ct. 2826

    paralegal in reply to paralegal. | May 7, 2021 at 12:40 pm

    The fact that Floyd was subject to lawful arrest and actively resisting that arrest seems to be fatal to the government’s case here.

    To satisfy the element of “willful” conduct, the government must prove that the defendant acted “with the particular purpose of violating a protected right made definite by the rule of law or recklessly disregard[ed] the risk that [he] would do so.” Mohr, 318 F.3d at 619 (citation, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted). Willfulness may be shown by circumstantial evidence, provided that the defendant’s purpose reasonably may be inferred from all the connected circumstances. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 106, 65 S.Ct. 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495 (1945) (citation omitted). “[T]he punitive intent behind a defendant’s use of force may be inferred when the force is not reasonably related to a legitimate non-punitive governmental objective.” See United States v. Cobb, 905 F.2d 784, 789 (4th Cir. 1990) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

    United States v. Cowden (4th Cir. 2018) 882 F.3d 464, 474

    The fact that a prisoner is assaulted, injured, or even murdered by state officials does not necessarily mean that he is deprived of any right protected or secured by the *109 Constitution or laws of the United States.”

    Screws v. U.S. (1945) 325 U.S. 91, 108–109

      Observer in reply to paralegal. | May 7, 2021 at 1:28 pm

      The law isn’t going to matter here, anymore than it mattered in the state’s case. Did you see the interview with Juror #52, the black man who lied about attending a George Floyd rally called “Get Your Knee Off Our Necks”? (He also lied about not recalling having the rally t-shirt, which he was photographed wearing on at least two separate dates, one of which was when he was doing his own podcast). He said that the jury verdict should have been decided in 20 minutes. This is not somebody who went into the case with an open mind and listened to the evidence (as he took a sworn oath to do). This was somebody who had his mind made up long before the trial even started. And apparently 10 of the other jurors did as well. There was only one who even wanted to discuss the evidence before convicting Chauvin.

      https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/05/06/when-you-see-where-george-floyd-juror-got-his-anti-cop-t-shirt-youll-understand-why-he-lied-to-get-on-the-jury-n1445045

        Andy in reply to Observer. | May 7, 2021 at 2:28 pm

        You show a Soros prosecutor the cop, and the Soros prosecutor will show you the charges and the mob will show you the guilty verdict. The law is inconsequential to the required outcome: lynch any cop that shoots a black person.

        That is where we are now.

The Feds have their boot on the neck of these officers.

    Ben Kent in reply to Ben Kent. | May 7, 2021 at 12:44 pm

    The Feds are doing this as a political witch hunt. It is a racist prosecution. The prosecurors in the case against Chauvin presented ZERO EVIDENCE that Chauvin is a racist or that the officer’s actions were motivated by race. And thery surely would have looked for such evidence and presented it – if they had any shred of evidence.

    For Months, we were told that the riots and arson were justified by having exposed a racist cop and a systemically racist police force. In fact, of society had to be upended.

    NOW we know that entire narrative was A LIE. The cop is not racist and the police force (in one of the most liberal cities of the country) is not racist. So the Feds have t come in and try to make the case that there is racism – to keep the false narrative going.

    It’s despicable.

    Virginia42 in reply to Ben Kent. | May 7, 2021 at 1:51 pm

    And the rest of us.

Q: Would these four have been indicted in Federal court if the GF case had not been such a national story?
A: Of course not.
Conclusion: The feds are prosecuting based on publicity, not on the seriousness of actual criminal behavior. That’s one step away from entertaining the mob with sacrifices.

    daniel_ream in reply to georgfelis. | May 7, 2021 at 12:50 pm

    That’s one step away from entertaining the mob with sacrifices.

    Yeah, ask Robespierre how that tends to work out.

    You mean like if George Floyd was white and the officers were black? We never would have even heard of George Floyd.

      henrybowman in reply to UJ. | May 7, 2021 at 6:51 pm

      Still waiting for the college in the Kalunda-Rae Iwamizu incident to issue a frantic press release apologia about how her actions do not reflect the standards of the college and how she has been suspended without pay, as case after case prove they would if she had been white. Waiting, but not holding my breath.

    Kreemerz in reply to georgfelis. | May 8, 2021 at 7:18 am

    uh, one step away? they have crossed over months ago.

I couldn’t help but notice that Merrick Garland has picked up Eric Holder/Vanita Gupta’s habit of abusive so called “pattern and practice” investigations.

Fast and Furious had declared Ferguson PD guilty before any investigation had even been completed. When his own DOJ cleared Darren Wilson, he was forced to shift the narrative to jay walking tickets and traffic infractions to uphold his unilateral summary proclamation of guilt.

    Andy in reply to paralegal. | May 7, 2021 at 2:31 pm

    Both Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro have been alluding to the agenda: eliminate local (voter) control over police departments and put control at the federal level.

    Think about that agenda and let that sink in.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Andy. | May 7, 2021 at 6:12 pm

      Oh, yes. “Defund” refers only to local police. “Reform” means exactly what it says, to “re-form” the police as a body controlled by the federal government. Although it will appear to be a local body controlled by local political authorities, those authorities will answer to the feds, and the feds will dictate every training requirement, rule, code of conduct, process, and procedure. Police will be local in name only. Everything about this country is becoming smoke and mirrors all meant to deceive the electorate about where political power actually resides.

      Kreemerz in reply to Andy. | May 10, 2021 at 4:45 am

      Ben and Anne…. Oh goodness…. now there’s a couple to listen to.

      That treasonous weasel Obama let the cat out of the bag long ago:

      Obama speech on civilian security force:
      “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fO-usAlqak

      Dark days ahead, folks. Unless we secede and leave it all behind.

So freaking sad
This is not my Country?

What can we do, what concrete things can we do?

    LongTimeReader in reply to gonzotx. | May 7, 2021 at 1:17 pm

    It’s seriously disheartening.

    pedanticman in reply to gonzotx. | May 7, 2021 at 1:21 pm

    Maybe do what Antifa did all summer in Portland, but in more places. It seemed to work for them, and all their charges were dropped.

    Sisu in reply to gonzotx. | May 7, 2021 at 3:14 pm

    gonzotx Pray that G-d may intervene. Realize that the United States of America has an illegitimate federal government – the constitution and thus rule of law has been suspended in fact. And, the day may soon come when Americans may again be brutally killing each other in a struggle for survival; a lot of collateral damage and death. But human history is full of similar “dark, violent” periods. Today, preparing for the worst includes coming to terms the sad possibility that we each might have to kill others (including inadvertently innocents) to survive, protect others and give liberty to future generations – just as others have done for millennia before us.

      If G-d gets involved, perhaps he can do to D.C. what he did to Sodom and Gemmorah – while Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan etc. are out of town.

    Sisu in reply to gonzotx. | May 7, 2021 at 4:34 pm

    gonzotx After writing the above, a short while ago I saw this Jordan Peterson piece on another site; it seems applicable – “The Best Men I Know Are DANGEROUS” (https://youtu.be/zSErYhxNLX0)

Garland is a shocking disappointment. To think this political hack almost was a Supreme Court Judge is troubling. There is absolutely no sense of Justice within the man.

    Ohio Historian in reply to puhiawa. | May 12, 2021 at 8:41 pm

    Garland a disappointment? Definitely. Shocking? Not if you paid attention to his rulings from the bench.

Considering that SCOTUS has ruled at least twice that the police are not obligated to protect or serve any individual, how are the police required to provide medical service…which Federal law does not doing so violate?

    Sisu in reply to MarkS. | May 7, 2021 at 3:16 pm

    MarkS Sounds like a potential facet of a motion to dismiss.

    Milhouse in reply to MarkS. | May 7, 2021 at 3:17 pm

    The difference is that he was in their custody, so they did have a duty of care to him. I would say they fulfilled that duty by calling the ambulance. There wasn’t much else they could reasonably have done, especially when they were expecting it to arrive at any second.

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | May 7, 2021 at 7:02 pm

      Yup. Once you are under arrest, the arrester assumes all legal duty for your protection and well-being. One of the list of common arguments against making citizens’ arrests.

When narrative is more important than actual law, you have a democrat.

DOJ’s Petit Policy generally prohibits this. It might be justified if Chauvin were acquitted, but after a guilty verdict Garland is piling on

The Friendly Grizzly | May 7, 2021 at 2:18 pm

The problem with all that has been going on the past 18 months or more is: we very well could end up with our own ACTUAL Hitler.

    henrybowman in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | May 7, 2021 at 7:15 pm

    The correct phrase is, “LITERAL Hitler.”
    Having signed over 60 executive orders/actions since January, Biden has the “dictator” role down pat.
    However, to find a “spellbinding orator,” they’d have to reach into their black community, since of the top half dozen old wypipo in the pecking order are entirely incompetent… unless the spell you’re looking for is Sleeping Beauty’s.

We have very corrupt and very sick.people running the ‘Justice’ dept. Merrick Garland just alloted 85 million for ‘domestic terrorism’. That means us.

After a easy win by paying off first, and stacking the jury with ringers why not go for the quadfecta?

And we all saw this coming as soon as the appeal for mistrial looked like it might have some validity, right? Nobody is surprised.

    henrybowman in reply to GWB. | May 7, 2021 at 7:16 pm

    Oh, we saw it before the verdict was even reached. The feds publicly announced they would be refereeing round 2 if the Right Side Didn’t Win.

Were I a Minneapolis (or any city ) police office and I had even an inkling the powers that be were out to get me, my next shift would consist of killing every single bad guy I’d ever before encountered. If they’re going to jail you for a non-existent crime, might as well commit a few.

DaveGinOly | May 7, 2021 at 6:32 pm

Where are these cops able to get a fair trial now? Jury pools everywhere are completely compromised after Chauvin’s criminal trial. The guilty verdict itself is prejudicial to his defense in the civil case. Who doesn’t know about it? The threat of violence in the event of a “wrong” verdict is also known everywhere. There is no place in this country where a fair trial can be conducted for these men.

The whole point is a show trial as a show trial. If it were justice, it wouldn’t show blacks that they’re an important political voice. It would just be justice.

That political voice is important to keep up so that everybody’s at everybody else’s throat going forward.

Racial harmony could perhaps be achieved with an exchange of women. Revert to old rules.

The left isn’t going to be happy until there is a public execution, not only of Chavin but of every person who attended the protest on Jan 6th, regardless of whether or not they were actually at or in the Capitol.

The DOJ had gone rogue. It’s out on the open. No one is safe.

We knew that this was going to happen. This was a show trial. They don’t follow the rule of law. They follow the rule of politics and opinion. And this will be repeated. Having that juror come out and admit his partiality was like the whole process just laughing in our faces. laughing in the faces of the rule of law. They continue to laugh as they pervert the justice system.

WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

I guess nothing.

I feel so sorry for these poor souls. These wrongs must be made right as the repercussions of this are tremendous.

I just found out about this as I was traveling. I don’t think Chauvin will ever be able to get fairness from the American public–the narrative is too engrained–the best he can hope for is that he gets convicted by the feds and pardoned by a sane president of the future or the Supreme Court gives some relief to the defense.

Ohio Historian | May 12, 2021 at 8:35 pm

It looks to me like the Federal charges are not appropriate. If they were for denial of civil rights or similar, I might agree. But to charge essentially the same, in a different venue, smacks to me of double jeopardy.

It appears that Judge Cahill concurred with the aggravating factors in the sentencing guidelines that the state was seeking except that the victim was particularly vulnerable and also that the other 3 officers have not been found guilty yet. I believe it is based on the facts presented at trial that the jury used to find Chauvin guilty. I don’t know how much time the judge will add to the sentence with this finding.
https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/Order05112021.pdf

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend