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

[postman1782]

I won't post anymore here apparently my avatar/signature is a violation and this is baiting comments? Will leave you to your section.

LOL, so the ban evading alt account is lying, because you don't have a signature, never did. And if you had your avatar as a violation, you wouldn't still be able to use it.

And if it violated this "section" it would violate every section, and you wouldn't be able to post using either in any section.

[cubby]

Just to back up this point: https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/henn...psy-6-3-20.pdf

Literally the autopsy report.

Cause of death is literally the case title: "CARDIOPULMONARY ARREST COMPLICATING LAW ENFORCEMENT
SUBDUAL, RESTRAINT, AND NECK COMPRESSION"

Yeah - some of our ban-avoiding alt-accounts just can't help themselves.

I'm VERY curious to see how this jury comes back. I guess they won't start until Monday, at which point they will be sequestered, but they aren't sequestered NOW - which I find very interesting.

- - - Updated - - -

It really seems like people only want evidence that aligns with the outcome they have already predetermined to be true. Give what happened before and after the arrest it looks like a overdose. He was already having spasms before police involvement. When I look at everything I can't really accept that this is open and shut.

That's YOU. You are looking for any indication that aligns with your already predetermined outcome.

The rest of us are following the evidence, including the medical examiners report, which you link, showing conclusively Floyd died because a cop was sitting on his throat for 9+ minutes.

[postman1782]

snip

So, they gave you the wrong reason for the ban, big deal, but talking about moderation will get you another infraction. AND that comment was baiting, AND FALSE. Literally every person that posts that bullshit is lying.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah - some of our ban-avoiding alt-accounts just can't help themselves.

I'm VERY curious to see how this jury comes back. I guess they won't start until Monday, at which point they will be sequestered, but they aren't sequestered NOW - which I find very interesting.

- - - Updated - - -



That's YOU. You are looking for any indication that aligns with your already predetermined outcome.

The rest of us are following the evidence, including the medical examiners report, which you link, showing conclusively Floyd died because a cop was sitting on his throat for 9+ minutes.

Exactly, on both accounts. Especially your bolded statement.

I have seen lots of right winger Trump supporters with the whole "back the blue" bullshit in their FB accounts, or Youtube comments saying the same lie that that he died of a drug overdose, even though literally every other expert, INCLUDING the Medical Examiner that did the autopsy, said that he didn't.

And this pulmonologist, Dr. Tobin, was severely DEVASTATING to their claims.

[Blur4stuff]

It's 100% clear at this point that he wouldn't have died if no knee to the neck.

[Felya]

It's 100% clear at this point that he wouldn't have died if no knee to the neck.

Even if he had some sort of other medical reaction... the moment when he calls out that he can’t breath, is the moment where not lifting your knee is murder.

[Adam Jensen]

That was it. Not "robbed", no "traumatizing" of the clerk.

And the owner is on record saying he regrets the fact his clerk the cops on Floyd since it resulted in his death.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/202...cript-released

He sounds reasonable, and he'd rather work with the people who use these bills (since most aren't even aware the bills are counterfeit.)

I for one am sick of seeing people drag George Floyd's name through the mud. Like even of these allegations are true, even if he did traumatize the clerk, that STILL DOES NOT justify his death at the hands of the police.

- - - Updated - - -

Even if he had some sort of other medical reaction... the moment when he calls out that he can’t breath, is the moment where not lifting your knee is murder.

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING WINNER.

This right here. "Oh he had fentanyl!" "he overdosed on drugs!" "He was obese and had a heart attack!"

NONE OF THAT SHIT MATTERS. Derek Chauvin caused George Floyd's death by refusing to lift his knee from his neck even when Floyd was already subdued.

[eschatological]

This isn’t subjective. The exclusion of objective facts because of a procedure is bullshit... perhaps we would have more time to dedicate if we weren’t mass incarcerating

“You had your shot you can’t now show objective fact to disprove the fantasy the defence created”

The time to object to that was when they presented it. Like, literally object in court.

There's a theory among some prosecutors that you shouldn't object too much because it makes you seem unruly to a jury, and that you're trying to suppress things from them. This ain't it. If the autopsy showed no CO levels, they needed to object at the time to exclude it. Once it's "out there," it's out there.

Either way, the jury will have copies of the CO levels during the autopsy, so hopefully they can figure out it's bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet we live in a system where certain job titles come with immunities, implicit or explicit.

I don't think they should have immunities, either. It's not an either/or. Everyone should be equal under the law. That's the whole point of laws.

[Endus]

The time to object to that was when they presented it. Like, literally object in court.

There's a theory among some prosecutors that you shouldn't object too much because it makes you seem unruly to a jury, and that you're trying to suppress things from them. This ain't it. If the autopsy showed no CO levels, they needed to object at the time to exclude it. Once it's "out there," it's out there.

Either way, the jury will have copies of the CO levels during the autopsy, so hopefully they can figure out it's bullshit.

It's one thing I found interesting in the TV show "Bull", which is mostly nonsense (I'm just a sucker for legal dramas even if they're crap). They pretty regularly will have their lawyer, or the opposition's lawyer will choose to, present evidence that immediately gets objected to and the jury gets told to disregard. And what makes this show almost unique, is that Bull will say, either smarmily or with regret depending, that "no, they won't disregard".

Jury trial is not based on reason. It's fundamentally rooted in subjective emotion and opinion. If it were objective, you wouldn't need a jury; the facts would get tallied and the facts would give you your verdict. We insert a jury to allow subjective interpretation of those facts, and the application of emotion.

And that's what happens; you introduce bullshit, and some members of the jury are idiots and don't realize it's bullshit, and they hang the jury even when told to disregard because they think the judge was wrong about that and they're still considering it.

Sometimes, just objecting isn't enough. Lawyers need to be sanctioned for trying shit, sometimes. To the point of disbarment, if it's that significant or recurrent.

[Edge-]

Sometimes, just objecting isn't enough. Lawyers need to be sanctioned for trying shit, sometimes. To the point of disbarment, if it's that significant or recurrent.

Now we're getting into questions of intent, which is generally very difficult to prove. Especially when, if I understand correctly, lawyers are obligated to provide the best possible defense for their client. The unfortunate reality is you can never put that cat back in the bag once its out, and as the show/you point out "disregard X" doesn't really cancel out what the jury just heard and will likely have in their brains when discussing a verdict.

[Endus]

Now we're getting into questions of intent, which is generally very difficult to prove. Especially when, if I understand correctly, lawyers are obligated to provide the best possible defense for their client. The unfortunate reality is you can never put that cat back in the bag once its out, and as the show/you point out "disregard X" doesn't really cancel out what the jury just heard and will likely have in their brains when discussing a verdict.

Yeah, I'd pretty much only think a lawyer should face sanction when they bring up something COMPLETELY without basis, where there's a possibility it could be proven.

If you want to argue that your client could have been elsewhere rather than the crime scene committing the crime, that's valid, as it calls into question how thoroughly the evidence places them there. Here, though, we have two autopsies both mutually confirming that Floyd died from asphyxiation due to pressure on the neck. That's like having video footage of your client committing the crime. If you want to argue that it's a twin he doesn't know he has, or a clone, or someone else in disguise, you should be expected to be able to justify that with actual evidence. If not, you should be sanctioned somehow, because you're wasting the court's time and trying to push an unjust resolution to the trial.

If we didn't have two autopsies both confirming the same thing, and no autopsies suggesting otherwise, then there's no evidence either way and "maybe it was something else" is reasonable doubt. With the autopsies? Just fuck off, you're just lying.

[Edge-]

If we didn't have two autopsies both confirming the same thing, and no autopsies suggesting otherwise, then there's no evidence either way and "maybe it was something else" is reasonable doubt. With the autopsies? Just fuck off, you're just lying.

At the very least it's worth a verbal/written reprimand for the lawyer (no clue if it actually is), seems reasonable. Get enough of those on your "record" and that starts showing intent and bad faith on the part of an attorney.

[Felya]

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING WINNER.

This right here. "Oh he had fentanyl!" "he overdosed on drugs!" "He was obese and had a heart attack!"

NONE OF THAT SHIT MATTERS. Derek Chauvin caused George Floyd's death by refusing to lift his knee from his neck even when Floyd was already subdued.

It implies you can just strange people with asthma and their death wouldn’t be due to strangling.

[Edge-]

It implies you can just strange people with asthma and their death wouldn’t be due to strangling.

"Your honor, the victim died when their heart stopped. Given the victims history of heat disease and arrhythmia, we can't conclusively say that my client was responsible."

"Your client put a bullet through the heart of the victim..."

"Yes your honor, but we can't say conclusively that the bullet killed the victim, and not their underlying heart conditions. They died when their heart stopped, which could have been due to sudden cardiac arrest after being shot, which would indicate that my client did not murder the victim."

[eschatological]

It's one thing I found interesting in the TV show "Bull", which is mostly nonsense (I'm just a sucker for legal dramas even if they're crap). They pretty regularly will have their lawyer, or the opposition's lawyer will choose to, present evidence that immediately gets objected to and the jury gets told to disregard. And what makes this show almost unique, is that Bull will say, either smarmily or with regret depending, that "no, they won't disregard".

Jury trial is not based on reason. It's fundamentally rooted in subjective emotion and opinion. If it were objective, you wouldn't need a jury; the facts would get tallied and the facts would give you your verdict. We insert a jury to allow subjective interpretation of those facts, and the application of emotion.

I'm a 6' big brown man with a beard. When I was studying to be a trial lawyer, I took a class in my last year of law school called Trial Practice. It was all about practicing in-courtroom tactics and practices. We were assigned to partner up and practice direct examinations and cross examinations with your partner playing the witness. I partnered with a good friend of mine, who was a 5'1", petite blonde girl named Dawn from Dallas, Texas. The minute I approached her on the stand, our professors were like, "No, don't do that."

"Why?" I asked. And he said, "You're a big dude, she's a small blonde lady. It'll be seen as intimidating by any jury." And my friend said, "Awww, but he's a giant softie!" To which the professors said something to the effect of: it doesn't matter what I am, it matters how they'll see me. In my career, I've never approached a woman on the stand, for that reason.

And that's what happens; you introduce bullshit, and some members of the jury are idiots and don't realize it's bullshit, and they hang the jury even when told to disregard because they think the judge was wrong about that and they're still considering it.

Sometimes, just objecting isn't enough. Lawyers need to be sanctioned for trying shit, sometimes. To the point of disbarment, if it's that significant or recurrent.

U.S. law is different from Canadian and European law - we have an adversarial system, as opposed to a civil system. It's kind of a capitalist theory of justice: if the two sides go gung ho in the defense/prosecution of a defendant, this competitiveness will balance out to the "better, more valid" side winning the competition. Meanwhile, in the classical European civil system, both defense and prosecution work for the Court, and are managed by the judge. The defense is there to make sure the rights of the defendant aren't violated, but otherwise is working hand in hand to find the truth of the matter.

American jurisprudence supporters suggest the adversarial system offers more rights to defendants (because they literally do get to throw shit at the wall in order to sow reasonable doubt) and thus more protection for defendants, but it's obviously not true. Because in a competition if one side has more resources, they're gonna have a leg up in the competition. When it's a public defender vs. an ADA, the ADA has more resources, and can dictate the competition. When the defense is private, and can throw 12 paralegals at one case and bury the prosecution in paper, they have the leg up in the competition.

It's obviously broken, and should be changed - but I don't blame a defense attorney for literally playing by the rules set up by the system to get the best possible outcome for their client. The first rule of legal ethics is to be a zealous advocate for your client. The second rule is to not lie or obstruct justice. But then again, maybe I'm biased as a former public defender.

[Endus]

U.S. law is different from Canadian and European law - we have an adversarial system, as opposed to a civil system. It's kind of a capitalist theory of justice: if the two sides go gung ho in the defense/prosecution of a defendant, this competitiveness will balance out to the "better, more valid" side winning the competition. Meanwhile, in the classical European civil system, both defense and prosecution work for the Court, and are managed by the judge. The defense is there to make sure the rights of the defendant aren't violated, but otherwise is working hand in hand to find the truth of the matter.

Canadian law is a bit more adversarial than you describe; the defense still works entirely for their client, and ditto the prosecution, but the difference comes in that they're not allowed to lie to the courts. If you client confesses that they are guilty to you, you're ethically bound to pursue the best outcome you can with a plea deal. You're not allowed to enter a "not guilty" plea, because you know your client's guilty.

But the defense team still primarily works for their client's interests. When I hired my lawyer for my divorce, they were 100% on my side, not my ex-wife's. If I'd tried to pull something super shady, my lawyer would've smacked me and potentially reported me to the courts for trying that shit, but as long as I was playing ball, she was entirely focused on my interests. (The actual divorce was pretty much uncontested, but I needed to make sure we didn't overlook something).

That's the step farther the US court system takes that I really can't see the justification for; they allow lawyers to lie to the courts about the facts. That's shitty regardless of whether it's a prosecution planting evidence, or the defense team pleading "not guilty" when the lawyer knows full well their client did it. It's a lie either way, and the same kind of lie, to boot. But somehow, you recognize the former is "bad", but the latter is just a good defense lawyer? C'mon.

Same goes for prosecution teams trying to bury/ignore evidence that doesn't back them up; you're wasting the court's time to prosecute someone you know is innocent, why? That shit wouldn't fly, in Canada. And it isn't really because the lawyers work for the courts, but that they all hold to ethical principles of honesty and pursuit of justice.

Also, note that Canada mostly follows common law practices (and that's what I'm describing above). It's only Quebec, specifically, that follows civil law as the basis of their legal system. And even in Quebec, it's only civil matters; criminal and federal law and such operates by Canadian common law.

It's kind of a mess but fixing it is worse than the issues it creates.

[Themius]

I'm a 6' big brown man with a beard. When I was studying to be a trial lawyer, I took a class in my last year of law school called Trial Practice. It was all about practicing in-courtroom tactics and practices. We were assigned to partner up and practice direct examinations and cross examinations with your partner playing the witness. I partnered with a good friend of mine, who was a 5'1", petite blonde girl named Dawn from Dallas, Texas. The minute I approached her on the stand, our professors were like, "No, don't do that."

"Why?" I asked. And he said, "You're a big dude, she's a small blonde lady. It'll be seen as intimidating by any jury." And my friend said, "Awww, but he's a giant softie!" To which the professors said something to the effect of: it doesn't matter what I am, it matters how they'll see me. In my career, I've never approached a woman on the stand, for that reason.



U.S. law is different from Canadian and European law - we have an adversarial system, as opposed to a civil system. It's kind of a capitalist theory of justice: if the two sides go gung ho in the defense/prosecution of a defendant, this competitiveness will balance out to the "better, more valid" side winning the competition. Meanwhile, in the classical European civil system, both defense and prosecution work for the Court, and are managed by the judge. The defense is there to make sure the rights of the defendant aren't violated, but otherwise is working hand in hand to find the truth of the matter.

American jurisprudence supporters suggest the adversarial system offers more rights to defendants (because they literally do get to throw shit at the wall in order to sow reasonable doubt) and thus more protection for defendants, but it's obviously not true. Because in a competition if one side has more resources, they're gonna have a leg up in the competition. When it's a public defender vs. an ADA, the ADA has more resources, and can dictate the competition. When the defense is private, and can throw 12 paralegals at one case and bury the prosecution in paper, they have the leg up in the competition.

It's obviously broken, and should be changed - but I don't blame a defense attorney for literally playing by the rules set up by the system to get the best possible outcome for their client. The first rule of legal ethics is to be a zealous advocate for your client. The second rule is to not lie or obstruct justice. But then again, maybe I'm biased as a former public defender.

I really dislike it... it's just like everything is a giant game.

My mum used to work for a firm who's clients were some of the largest companies. Koch industries BP EXXON... one of the partners was the rainmaker... the celebrations over cutting down a settlement because someone had smoked at some point so the asbestos isn't totally culpable is detestable. Oh they're struggling to actually make bill payments? Great... that's the pressure needed to get them to settle. Can't have one of the largest companies on the face of the planet making a little less money... I can understand to an extent working for something detestable to make money... but being excited to do the work?

The attitude around the BP spill when it happened (I used to visit the office a lot) like... some aspects of the industry are just opportunistic.

Which I guess circles back to predatory prosecutors and misleading defence...treating shit like a game where the truth is subjective. The goal is only to win.

[Edge-]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/breon...54e81d262b?fqm

Huh, apparently you can be part of a group that murdered someone in their sleep because your entire department appears incompetent, and still get a book deal. Go figure.

[postman1782]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/breon...54e81d262b?fqm

Huh, apparently you can be part of a group that murdered someone in their sleep because your entire department appears incompetent, and still get a book deal. Go figure.

Jesus christ, he should be in jail, not making money off of this bullshit.

[cubby]

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING WINNER.

This right here. "Oh he had fentanyl!" "he overdosed on drugs!" "He was obese and had a heart attack!"

NONE OF THAT SHIT MATTERS. Derek Chauvin caused George Floyd's death by refusing to lift his knee from his neck even when Floyd was already subdued.

I agree with what you said above.


I would like offer one modest point, and humbly request that everyone doesn't kick my proverbial ass immediately (be gentle!).

One of the issues with Floyd saying "I can't breath" goes back to a fundamental problem with law enforcement and incarceration in the United States. A lot of law enforcement encounters suspects they are attempting to detain who lie to them. "I can't breath" and "I have to pee" and countless other excuses. So any experienced officer hearing that will more than likely initially doubt the statement's truth.

I'm NOT saying this is any excuse for the situation with Floyd - I want to be 100% clear on that.

What I want to point out is that our law enforcement and incarceration in the U.S. is so adversarial and punitive that it creates situations like this - where literally a cop won't believe a suspect when they say they can't breath. A number of factors play into this, institutionally speaking:
Racism
Prisons being so awful in the U.S.
Incarceration being the first punishment for most crimes in the U.S. (partially due to their profit based nature)
Law Enforcement Officers highly inadequate training.

And the entire problem is so institutionalized in the United States, that it's almost impossible to break free of the vicious cycle. I'm not trying to detract from the horror of Floyds death nor the almost obvious guilt of the officer. I'm just offering another perspective.

EDIT: Going to strikeout my comment. This isn't the right time nor the right thread for this.

[postman1782]

Also, I don't see it posted here, but a 13 year old was just killed in Chicago by police, where they claimed he had a gun.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...r-old/2487175/

A fucking 13 year old. With his hands up, shot mere seconds, with nothing in his hands. Now, they claim there was a gun that was found behind the fence where he was standing, but that STILL doesn't give the cops the right to summarily execute another black kid, with nothing in his fucking hand.