Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
The acquital of Derek Chauvin
Sledog
Member Posts: 34,394 
in Tug Tavern
Comments
People lost their shit when the officers were acquitted in the Rodney King trial. Acquittals are good for the riot/looting/outrage game.
Sharpton will be tanned rested and ready by the time the trial is over.
1. “George Floyd was experiencing cardiopulmonary and psychological distress minutes before he was placed on the ground,” and well before he had a knee to his neck.
- This fact if true is legally irrelevant to the charges, with the possible exception of the Murder 3 charge. The Murder 2 charge will turn on whether or not Officer Chauvin intended to feloniously assault Floyd. The most important facts here will be what if any relationship Chauvin and Floyd had prior to this encounter, likely from working together at the same club for the last year. With regards to the Murder 3 charge, the question is whether Chauvin acted with a "depraved indifference or a depraved heart" to Floyd's life which will turn on three things (1) how broad "depraved indifference" is in Minnesota case law; (2) whether there was an unknown underlying health isssue occuring that the Chauvin couldn't percieve; and (3) whether a mitigating existince of an underlying condition is outweighed by the repeatedly ignored pleas of "I can't breath"
2. The Minneapolis Police Department allowed the use of neck restraint on suspects who actively resist arrest, “and George Floyd actively resisted arrest on two occasions, including immediately prior to neck restraint being used.”
- This statement includes one irrelevant fact and two relevant facts. First, any prior interactions where Floyd "resisted arrest" are irrelevant. If it's true the Minneanapolis police department approved of neck restraints/choke holds this would be the most mitigating factor available. But we must look at how it would be applied to each individual charge.
A. Murder 2 - Felonly Assault resulting in homicide - If it is an approved restraint, then the question is what was the nature of the "resistance" and as before what was the nature of Chauvin and Floyd's relationship. Officers often charge resisting as being behavior as minor as flexing your forearms against handcuffs. So, if resisting is "pulling a gun out and shooting at the officers" then the entire continuum of force is legal, including deadly force. However, if resisting is flexing against handcuffs, then no additional force is allowed then for a normal arrest. Finally, there is the possibility of extrajudicial "street justice". Cops will occasionally assault a citizen they are arresting for failure to act in the officers desired way. An analysis of the nature and timing of any alleged resistance can also lead to estabilishing the necessary intent or motive to prove the Murder 2 charge.
B. Murder 3 - Depraved Indifference or Depraved Heart Murder - If the chokehold is an approved way of gaining compliance, for this charge that still leaves a few facts in contention. Was the chokehold allowed in this situation? Was the chokehold applied an allowed amount of time, 8 minutes 46 seconds? (Legal force by police officers only remains legal as the underlying facts stay the same. So, somebody who shoots at a police officer on Monday, can be illegally shot on Tuesday attempting to surrender while naked and with their hands up) Did it show a "depraved heart" to continue the choke hold after pleas of "I can't breath."
C. Manslaughter 2 - Criminally Negligent Homicide - Negligence is doing harm when behaving outside the bounds of how a reasonably prudent person would behave. Drivers are routinely found negligent for driving the speed limit in bad weather conditions. Criminal Negligence is usually a "gross deviation" from the negligence standard. The textbook negligent homicide case is from Boston. A nightclub owner had problems with patrons opening the emergency exits for their friends as a way of avoiding the cover charge. The nightclub owner locked or barricaded the emergency exits to prevent this, as was common practice in the nightclub scene at the time. A fire broke out one night and 40+ people died. The nightclub owner was convicted on 40+ counts of negligent homicide. The much more common example would be a drunk driver who causes a fatal accident, or a hunting accident where the shooter could or should have seen a person behind/near their target. So, even if the chokehold his an approved restraint technique... was it necessary?... was it used for a proper amount of time?... and (most problematic for Chauvin's defense) how would a reasonably prudent person respond to someone saying "I can't breath" while they are choking them?
3. The officers were recorded on their body cameras recognizing George Floyd as suffering from “excited delirium,” a condition which the department considers an extreme threat to both the officers and the suspect. A white paper used by the department acknowledges that Excited Delirium suspects may die regardless of the force involved and there are only a few options for the officers to help prolong the suspect’s condition including restraining the suspect and call for paramedics. That is exactly what they were doing.
“Restraining the suspect on his or her abdomen (prone restraint) is a common tactic” in Excited Delirium situations, and the white paper used by the agency instructs the officers to control the suspect until paramedics arrive. That is exactly what the officers were doing.
- Excited Delirium is pseudoscience but may give a sympathetic jury an excuse for an acquittal. (Like when Rodney King's abusers were tried in the town where all the cops in LA County lived). More importantly... with regards to the Murder 3 charge, and the Manslaughter 2 charge... are the officers going to claim that they ignored the pleas of "I can't breath" after identifying a potentially unique vulnerability to physical safety in Mr. Floyd? It would actually be a fact pointing toward guilt rather than innocence.
4. “Floyd’s autopsy revealed a potentially lethal concoction of drugs — not just a potentially lethal dose of fentanyl, but also methamphetamine. Together with his history of drug abuse and two serious heart conditions, Floyd’s condition was exceptionally and unusually fragile.”
- This fact, if true, simply irrelevant to all three charges. Murder 2 - comitting a felony assault is a crime, if the person dies, it's murder, that's just the risk of comitting a felony assault. Murder 3 - Depraved indifference, you acted with out care for someone's life or safety, and they died in your care/by your actions. That's why depraved indifference is illegal. Manslaughter 2 - (1) You harmed someone in a negligent fashion and they died, take care not to harm people. AND, (2) if you had reason to know, or did know, of someone's unique vulnerability to physical force then you are legally required to use LESS force, because the reasonably prudent person acts to protect life. This fact, if it can be shown to be true, and knowable to the officers at the time, indicates the officer SHOULD be convicted of Manslaughter 2. Think about the Buffalo officers that pushed down the 75 year old man... would it be a defense to negligent homicide if, because of age and frailty, the 75 year old man died from being pushed down? How would a reasonably prudent person interact with a 75 year old?
While the Medical Examiner added that the “restraint” played a role in the death, this will be a huge stretch for “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” considering that the officers were following department protocol.
Chauvin’s neck restraint was highly unlikely to have exerted a dangerous amount of force to Floyd’s neck. “Floyd is shown on video able to lift his head and neck, and a robust study on double-knee restraints showed a median force exertion of approximately 105 lbs. The autopsy showed no strangulation and no asphyxiation and there have been a string of rednecks showing the tactic on each other in recent weeks. While the video looks awful, it is likely that the officers were doing all they could, fearing the 6’06” Floyd would begin fighting again, and guaranteeing his death of Excited Delirium.
- It's an argument. And as a defense attorney you usually win or lose your case in jury selection. You want someone on the jury looking to find your person innocent, who is willing to stand up to 11 other people. However, as shown by the woman on the Paul Manafort jury who said effectively, "I support the President and believe he's being attacked unfairly, but there was just so much evidence you just couldn't ignore it."
How did you get HH to give a legal opinion?
Cook it.
HTH