Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Machismo]

That's fine, but at this point in time I have one autopsy that is complete, and another autopsy that has made a claim but has not been completed (or at least not been made readily publicly available). So until that time comes, the information available is only coming from one side... that he died due to a culmination of factors directly precipitated by the actions of the officer.

If the independent inquiry wishes to contest these with a different autopsy they need to make the autopsy publicly available. The county responded to claims that they were covering it up by releasing the autopsy on June 5th.

Once again, it's not just abut the autopsy.

We have video, from at least four different angles. We see him going unconscious, we see that he appears to not be breathing at all. We see the cops still on top of him. An autopsy will not say at exactly what time he died. And, as someone who has worked (as a volunteer firefighter and EMT) on people who are already dead, you still go through the motions. Now, if those paramedics want to come out, and say he had a pulse when they got there, great. But so far, the narrative that was first pushed by the police department was shown to be a complete lie.

Now, I'm no doctor, but I've worked on enough people and bodies to know that he was almost certainly dead before the cops got off of him.

[Edge-]

Now, I'm no doctor, but I've worked on enough people and bodies to know that he was almost certainly dead before the cops got off of him.

EMT's confirmed he did not have a pulse upon arriving at the scene, and they attempted to resuscitate him on the way to the hospital.

[Kasierith]

Imagine feeling smug over a corrupt system acquitting a public servant who murdered a civilian, really.

Less being smug, and more managed expectations.

[Machismo]

EMT's confirmed he did not have a pulse upon arriving at the scene, and they attempted to resuscitate him on the way to the hospital.

I thoughts that was the case, but I never actually saw a confirmation.

I know a dead person when I see one, and he was dead when the officers finally got off of him.

[Egomaniac]

I never said your ideals will make things worse, I said their unrealistic given the nature of the beast you think you can tame. Your ideas aren't even original, people have been doing things like this for generations, but changing a system is slow, especially one with such an eclectic governance as america

So your solution is "hey, we know the situation is fucked as hell for you...but just hold on for another 150 years and you'll start to see some real changes"?

If it's gotta be one way or the other.... I think I'll side with "unrealistic idealism" over "fascism"

[-aiko-]

EMT's confirmed he did not have a pulse upon arriving at the scene, and they attempted to resuscitate him on the way to the hospital.

But how can we be really, super duper sure?

[Machismo]

Imagine feeling smug over a corrupt system acquitting a public servant who murdered a civilian, really.

I think there's a very good chance he gets acquitted of 2nd-degree murder. We saw that same shit blow up in Baltimore, and you can bet your ass a lot of cops are secretly rooting for him to be acquitted of that charge. They got to speak out and condemn him, but many are hoping the sentence is light and fluffy.

[Trassk]

So your solution is "hey, we know the situation is fucked as hell for you...but just hold on for another 150 years and you'll start to see some real changes"?

If it's gotta be one way or the other.... I think I'll side with "unrealistic idealism" over "fascism"

That's up to you. But your have to accept the way your going about it right now is just going to set progressivism back another 20 years

[Kasierith]

I think there's a very good chance he gets acquitted of 2nd-degree murder. We saw that same shit blow up in Baltimore, and you can bet your ass a lot of cops are secretly rooting for him to be acquitted of that charge. They got to speak out and condemn him, but many are hoping the sentence is light and fluffy.

Killing a human intentionally, but without premeditation (not thinking about or preparing for before)
Killing a human while committing or attempting a drive-by shooting
Causing someone’s death without intending the death of anyone, while committing a felony other than criminal sexual conduct (rape or sexual assault which would be first-degree murder) or a drive-by shooting
Causing a death unintentionally, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict great physical harm on the victim when the murderer is currently restrained by a protection order (including for domestic violence, harassment, divorce, or any similar protection order) and the victim was the protected party in that order

I am all for throwing the book at him, maximizing the sentence time at the discretion of the judge, all that... but Minnesota charges for second degree murder are pretty stringent. I'm just happy they have a fall back charge, because it would be a stretch to demonstrate 2nd beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Egomaniac]

That's up to you. But your have to accept the way your going about it right now is just going to set progressivism back another 20 years

Keep telling yourself that.

[eschatological]

I am all for throwing the book at him, maximizing the sentence time at the discretion of the judge, all that... but Minnesota charges for second degree murder are pretty stringent. I'm just happy they have a fall back charge, because it would be a stretch to demonstrate 2nd beyond a reasonable doubt.

He's a seasoned police officer. Hell, he was training two of the officers. If I was the prosecutor, I'd dig into how many trials he's been an "expert witness" (which is basically what all cops are considered in terms of law enforcement) in, and then throw the book at him re: kneeling on people's necks, whether he knew the outcomes of such a procedure, why he did it like that when standard procedure is a knee to the back between the shoulder blades or on the shoulder, etc.

He's an expert in his field, supposedly. Him deliberately ignoring his expertise, imo, is enough for intent.

Plus, keep in mind: mistake, even if reasonable, isn't a defense for criminal action. You have the onus to know correct procedures and laws to follow.

[Trassk]

Keep telling yourself that.

Scary isn't it, thinking your doing something wrong but don't want to admit it. You know when women protested for equal rights like being allowed to vote or choose to divorce or property rights decades ago, they didnt burn down buildings to get it done, they stood their ground and had intelligent arguments to get those laws changed, and kept pushing with those same arguments until they were heard. Didnt happen overnight, but fact they stood their grounds paid off.

Using violence and destruction to get your message across, all your doing is setting things back for people in the future

[Kasierith]

He's a seasoned police officer. Hell, he was training two of the officers. If I was the prosecutor, I'd dig into how many trials he's been an "expert witness" (which is basically what all cops are considered in terms of law enforcement) in, and then throw the book at him re: kneeling on people's necks, whether he knew the outcomes of such a procedure, why he did it like that when standard procedure is a knee to the back between the shoulder blades or on the shoulder, etc.

He's an expert in his field, supposedly. Him deliberately ignoring his expertise, imo, is enough for intent.

Plus, keep in mind: mistake, even if reasonable, isn't a defense for criminal action. You have the onus to know correct procedures and laws to follow.

It being a mistake is not a defense for criminal action, but it does speak to the mindset and purpose. Minnesota appears to be a state that differentiates significantly based on this, so it does play a factor. I have no doubt at all that third degree manslaughter will stick, and if it doesn't than the system is well beyond saving.... the description actually sums up my reaction when watching the video. But as a lawyer, do you really think that if you were charging this you could move beyond the hurdle of beyond any reasonable doubt that it was intentional, when the other side is pushing hard in the other direction?

that said, there's really no harm in trying. If there's a one in a thousand chance of it sticking, why not. The best defense against 2nd will be to concede to 3rd (yes he was responsible but he did it because he was a negligent POS who didn't care about the life of another human, not because he came upon the situation and decided to kill another human being)

[StillMcfuu]

He's a seasoned police officer. Hell, he was training two of the officers. If I was the prosecutor, I'd dig into how many trials he's been an "expert witness" (which is basically what all cops are considered in terms of law enforcement) in, and then throw the book at him re: kneeling on people's necks, whether he knew the outcomes of such a procedure, why he did it like that when standard procedure is a knee to the back between the shoulder blades or on the shoulder, etc.

He's an expert in his field, supposedly. Him deliberately ignoring his expertise, imo, is enough for intent.

Plus, keep in mind: mistake, even if reasonable, isn't a defense for criminal action. You have the onus to know correct procedures and laws to follow.

"Expert witnesses" provide an opinion based conclusion due to the evidence and years of experience. They are given leeway to draw conclusions. It's why expert witnesses can contradict when presenting the same established "facts".

Police provide matter of fact witness testimony that is taken closer to fact than regular witness testimony (held in low merit by courts). Police are not given the leeway to draw a conclusion (when providing testimony).

[Egomaniac]

Scary isn't it, thinking your doing something wrong but don't want to admit it. You know when women protested for equal rights like being allowed to vote or choose to divorce or property rights decades ago, they didnt burn down buildings to get it done, they stood their ground and had intelligent arguments to get those laws changed, and kept pushing with those same arguments until they were heard. Didnt happen overnight, but fact they stood their grounds paid off.

Using violence and destruction to get your message across, all your doing is setting things back for people in the future

https://time.com/3951282/riot-violen...rican-history/

Riots don't always make things better...that's true...but they also don't always make things worse...and sometimes they can enact positive change


https://time.com/3951282/riot-violen...rican-history/

From the Boston Tea Party to the Los Angeles riots to the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, violent resistance has sometimes led to positive social change. Most often, rioting has drawn attention to oppressive authoritarian rule (sometimes by kings, sometimes by police). In some cases, it has also spurred investigations into law enforcement or other government systems. Occasionally, it has even forced corrupt or incompetent leaders to surrender or resign.

[Yuujin]

Scary isn't it, thinking your doing something wrong but don't want to admit it. You know when women protested for equal rights like being allowed to vote or choose to divorce or property rights decades ago, they didnt burn down buildings to get it done, they stood their ground and had intelligent arguments to get those laws changed, and kept pushing with those same arguments until they were heard. Didnt happen overnight, but fact they stood their grounds paid off.

Using violence and destruction to get your message across, all your doing is setting things back for people in the future

[Trassk]

Wrong.

‘If men use explosives and bombs for their own purpose they call it war,’ wrote Christabel Pankhurst in 1913, ‘and the throwing of a bomb that destroys other people is then described as a glorious and heroic deed. Why should a woman not make use of the same weapons as men. It is not only war we have declared. We are fighting for a revolution!’

Christabel’s new tactics oversaw a nationwide bombing and arson campaign that the newspapers quickly dubbed the ‘Suffragette Outrages’.

---

Furthermore, this whole "violence is bad" nonsense that I've seen posted in this thread multiple times is nothing but an empty argument and another attempt to distract from the actual issue at hand: police brutality.

Back in MLK and Ghandi's days peaceful protests was extremely successful because:
a) the media was more democratic (and less corporate than it is today, so the messages sent by the people resonated more easily with the people instead of having to pass through a corporate / political filter first)
b) the government didn't have decades of experience in how to discredit peaceful protests


When the government and police actively try to instigate or encourage peaceful protests to turn into riots then complaining about riots becomes a non-argument. Evidence enough of agent provocateurs (undercover cops) starting fires or trying to hand out explosives to protesters over the past few weeks... Be angry at the government if you don't like riots and looting, not at the protesters who might have very little influence over such events happening.

I've looked up the history of the suffragettes and what they did to organise protests. They had plans formed and did even use violence but in such a way it played into plans they made. Some even sacrificed themselves to get there for the sake of women's rights.

When it's done in a constructive way using violent tactics can be beneficial. However that isn't what I'm seeing right now in what's happening in America. There is no organisation in what's happening, clearly nobody had a plan. And the ones suffering are the same people these groups claim to be fighting for.

[Edge-]

https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/vi...hing-protester

More police brutality and aggression.

[Easo]

Wait, why are you again debating about the reason why he died?
It was already ruled out in the official autopsy report (the one after both the initial and the private one) that it was homicide - he died because due to actions of another man, not because he was ill, therefore murder charge.
Internet Explorer much?

Or am I missing something?

[Elegiac]

I've looked up the history of the suffragettes and what they did to organise protests. They had plans formed and did even use violence but in such a way it played into plans they made. Some even sacrificed themselves to get there for the sake of women's rights.

When it's done in a constructive way using violent tactics can be beneficial. However that isn't what I'm seeing right now in what's happening in America. There is no organisation in what's happening, clearly nobody had a plan. And the ones suffering are the same people these groups claim to be fighting for.

"Political violence is only okay when I agree with it".

Come on, man, at least pretend to have some sort of substantive foundation. Whitewashing past political movements into some form of 'perfect protest' is just a facile way for you to talk shit about BLM.