[Puffer Fish]

And no, you cannot provide video evidence that shows Mr. Floyd resisting for the whole eight minutes or so he was in the lethal restraint.

My whole argument is it was not a "lethal" restraint. It was only lethal to Floyd, due to his fragile medical condition (largely his own fault). Officer Chauvin could not really have known that.

Chauvin had arrived onto the scene later, after the initial arrest of Floyd, and from his point of view Floyd was just being hysterical and manipulative.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Puffer Fish

Since the restraint killed him, it was obviously lethal.

Also, yiu are contradicting yourself. You simultaneously argue that Nr, Floyd was a strong and powerful man who needed four cops to hold him down, and at the same time, he was a feeble nan on death’s door due to illness.

[Fasces]

You actually think that?

Tell us what part wasn't legal, in your view. (up to the point and before the application of pressure on the suspect's neck)

The part that got him convicted for illegal use of force was illegal.

[Puffer Fish]

The part that got him convicted for illegal use of force was illegal.

That is an interpretation.
There is not a law that specifically and indisputably says that is illegal, in a situation such as that.

At the risk of repeating to you over and over again, applying a pressure against a suspect's neck is considered a legitimate police tactic in some situations.

If I had been a member on the jury, the question in my mind would have been how much pressure did he apply? Was it calculated to be just enough to keep the suspect from being able to get up, or was it more pressure than that, clearly designed to choke the suspect into submission.

A middle road would have been if it were enough pressure to try to make the suspect comply and stop resisting. I think this was the most likely intention, given the circumstances. This would also have been wrong, in this situation, but somewhat understandable. (The issue isn't just whether it was wrong but to what level of wrong it was. A wrong action, just because it happens to result in death, that does not necessarily mean it is anywhere close to murder. I'll assume you can agree with that logical supposition, even if you don't believe it applies in this case)

[Fasces]

That is an interpretation.
There is not a law that specifically and indisputably says that is illegal, in a situation such as that.

There is. That's why the State's attorney office pressed charges, the Grand Jury voted to indict, a jury found him guilty, and a judge sentenced him.

[Puffer Fish]

There is.

No there isn't.

That's why the State's attorney office pressed charges, the Grand Jury voted to indict, a jury found him guilty, and a judge sentenced him.

That does not mean there is.

Laws are routinely open to interpretation all the time in many types of situations.

I've posted many stories about people receiving very long prison sentences over questionable interpretations of law.


Now, if you want to talk about how a jury could decide to convict when they shouldn't have, if given only true facts, we could discuss that.
It usually involves a couple of logical fallacies, often plenty of emotion, and issues surrounding interpretation of raw basic facts into meaningful conclusions. (For example, lots of wrongful convictions are in large part due to flawed expert testimony, even though the most basic parts of the evidence were true)

[Fasces]

Laws are routinely open to interpretation all the time in many types of situations.

Sure, but not by randos on the street. Legally: by lawyers, judges, and juries.

[Puffer Fish]

Sure, but not by randos on the street. Legally: by lawyers, judges, and juries.

Juries are composed of random people. Sadly most of society is stupid and not very capable of making logical decisions in situations that are any more complicated than simple.

And lots of judges are content to let the lawyers do all the work and thinking, and let the jury decide, not giving each case the level of thought and scrutiny that it probably deserves.

The prosecutor is actually the one who tends to be the one exercising control in most cases.

And guess what? The prosecutors who may not have thought the case should be prosecuted are likely not to end up being the prosecutor in the case. So there is some selection bias going on. In cases that could go either way, you're more likely to get a prosecutor who thinks it should be prosecuted.

[ingliz]

@Puffer Fish

What is your problem?

Chauvin has already pleaded guilty to federal charges. He admitted to civil rights violations in the Floyd case as well as violating an unnamed 14-year-old's rights in late 2017 when he held a juvenile by the throat, striking him multiple times in the head with a flashlight.

The plea bargain Chauvin agreed to in the federal case calls for Chauvin to face a prison sentence of between 20 and 25 years to be served in federal custody.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Puffer Fish

Why did the murderer continue to use the restraint even after Mr. Floyd was lying handcuffed on the ground, and did sonfor almost nine minutes?

Can you provide an evidence based reason that would justify this killing?

[Puffer Fish]

Since the restraint killed him, it was obviously lethal.

Lots of things have risks.

It was "lethal" to pass a law telling police to arrest Floyd.


I'll repeat again: The probability that restraint technique would have killed a person under normal circumstances was very low.
It is possible Chauvin may have pressed a little harder than normal since Floyd was such a big strong guy and had been acting hysterical.

[Puffer Fish]

For nearly 9 minutes you moron.

If it would have been okay or understandable for him to do it for 2 minutes, then is 9 minutes really that terrible of a mistake?

(Plus, we don't know that those 7 additional minutes are what killed him. He could have already been a dead man in the first 2 minutes)

[wat0n]

Breathing, how does it work?

[Pants-of-dog]

Lots of things have risks.

It was "lethal" to pass a law telling police to arrest Floyd.


I'll repeat again: The probability that restraint technique would have killed a person under normal circumstances was very low.
It is possible Chauvin may have pressed a little harder than normal since Floyd was such a big strong guy and had been acting hysterical.

You change arguments quickly.

The probability of this restraint being lethal probably increases with time.

Therefore, the fact that the murderer held Mr. Floyd in this restraint for over eight minutes was almost certainly significant.

[Puffer Fish]

The probability of this restraint being lethal probably increases with time.

Therefore, the fact that the murderer held Mr. Floyd in this restraint for over eight minutes was almost certainly significant.

I think you have some unrealistic expectations about government and law enforcement.

You think if government simply wishes something, it should be able to happen.

Police trying to carry out an arrest when the suspect does not want to cooperate and is resisting can be difficult.

Just face it. The suspect was (1) on drugs and not thinking rationally, (2) already in fragile health, (3) was very big and strong, and was challenging for police to be able to easily physically control, even despite already being in handcuffs.
The combination of those three factors together can often create a deadly combination for the suspect.

I'll agree this situation could have been handled better, and that, like is common with many police officers, Chauvin probably went over the line of what was reasonable, but it wasn't as big of a step over the line as you think for Chauvin to act the way he did.

You assume police must have "some way" of being able to control the suspect, but it is not always so simple or easy as that.

Look, if I paid a team of goons to kidnap you, and I told them to make sure they didn't harm you, but in the process of the kidnapping something went wrong and they accidentally killed you, I would be held responsible for that death. It would be seen as a natural risk inherent in kidnapping, and I should have known there was a small risk it could result in death.
I believe this same concept applies when police are just enforcing a law. It's unreasonable to put all the blame on the person who was trying to do their job.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think you have some unrealistic expectations about government and law enforcement.

You think if government simply wishes something, it should be able to happen.

Police trying to carry out an arrest when the suspect does not want to cooperate and is resisting can be difficult.

Just face it. The suspect was (1) on drugs and not thinking rationally,

Prove it.

Provide evidence that he was intoxicated.

(2) already in fragile health,

No. If he was in fragile,health, it would have been easy to restrain him. This directly contradicts your argument about restraint being necessary.

Also, prove it. provide evidence he was in fragile health. Note that the medical evidence already contradicts Covid as something that contributed to his death.

(3) was very big and strong, and was challenging for police to be able to easily physically control, even despite already being in handcuffs.

Prove that he was challenging the cops for the entire time he was restrained, including when he was lying face down on the ground,

The combination of those three factors together can often create a deadly combination for the suspect.

I'll agree this situation could have been handled better, and that, like is common with many police officers, Chauvin probably went over the line of what was reasonable, but it wasn't as big of a step over the line as you think for Chauvin to act the way he did.

You assume police must have "some way" of being able to control the suspect, but it is not always so simple or easy as that.

Look, if I paid a team of goons to kidnap you, and I told them to make sure they didn't harm you, but in the process of the kidnapping something went wrong and they accidentally killed you, I would be held responsible for that death. It would be seen as a natural risk inherent in kidnapping, and I should have known there was a small risk it could result in death.
I believe this same concept applies when police are just enforcing a law. It's unreasonable to put all the blame on the person who was trying to do their job.

I think that not only should his murderer be behind bars, but all the police who helped the murderer in any way on that fateful day or after.

This would include, for example, the officials of the police union.