Humm. BLM.
This seems like a good place to post a reminder that Eric Holder investigated and issued a report that found that Officer Darren Wilson DID NOT kill Big Mike Brown as he was trying to surrender. (How many crimes had BMB committed at this point? 5?) The entire basis of BLM is B/S.
From Eric Holder's report, page 78 and following:
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf
Snip..."Because none of these individuals actually witnessed the shooting incident and admitted so to law enforcement, federal prosecutors did not consider their inaccurate postings, tweets, media interviews, and the like when making a prosecutive decision.
“IV. Legal Analysis
The evidence discussed above does not meet the standards for presentation of an indictment set forth in the USAM and in the governing federal law. The evidence is insufficient to establish probable cause or to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 and would not be likely to survive a defense motion for acquittal at trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(a). This is true for all six to eight shots that struck Brown.
Witness accounts suggesting that Brown was standing still with his hands raised in an unambiguous signal of surrender when Wilson shot Brown are inconsistent with the physical evidence, are otherwise not credible because of internal inconsistencies, or are not credible because of inconsistencies with other credible evidence.
In contrast, Wilson’s account of Brown’s actions, if true, would establish that the shootings were not objectively unreasonable under the relevant Constitutional standards governing an officer’s use of deadly force. Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson’s account and are consistent with the physical evidence. Even if the evidence established that Wilson’s actions were unreasonable, the government would also have to prove that Wilson acted willfully, i.e. that he acted with a specific intent to violate the law.
As discussed above, Wilson’s stated intent for shooting Brown was in response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson under Section 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e., that Brown never punched and grabbed Wilson at the SUV, never struggled with Wilson over the gun, and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive. Not only do eyewitnesses and physical evidence corroborate Wilson’s account, but there is no credible evidence to disprove Wilson’s perception that Brown posed a threat to Wilson as Brown advanced toward him. Accordingly, seeking his indictment is not permitted by Department of Justice policy or the governing law.
(Snip--sets forth legal standard and precedents req. to prosecute Officer Wilson...) There is no dispute that Wilson, who was on duty and working as a patrol officer for the FPD, acted under color of law when he shot Brown, or that the shots resulted in Brown’s death. The determination of whether criminal prosecution is appropriate rests on whether there is sufficient evidence to establish that any of the shots fired by Wilson were unreasonable given the facts known to Wilson at the time, and if so, whether Wilson fired the shots with the requisite “willful” criminal intent, which, in this case, would require proof that Wilson shot Brown under conditions that no reasonable officer could have perceived as a threat" There we be! From Eric Holder to the reader of the report.
It's not that Floyd was innocent. He had a violent felony conviction.
It's that he was lying on his back in handcuffs, which triggers constitutional protections for the apprehending officers to be in a custodial role ("in custody") towards his safety.
This whole incident, the whole time HE WAS IN CUFFS ON THE GROUND, is on a single, uninterrupted, unedited, not-selectively-edited, 9-minutes long video taken by a bystander from 6 feet away.
Not an ambulance-chasing lawyer seeking a payout.
Not a BLM rabble-rouser showing something out of context.
The one policeman has his knee on the guy's neck for 9 straight minutes.
The guy on the ground says he can't breathe.
OK, lots of people lie about that.
He passes out.
He might have been faking that.
Except that an eyewitness who identifies herself as a first responder starts begging the cop to get off of him and check for a pulse.
He keeps the knee on the neck.
A puddle runs out from under the car. He's let go his bowels or bladder or both.
The now-ex-cop keeps the knee on the neck.
(At this point we are WELL into civil rights violations for continuing to use potentially deadly force, on an unconscious, handcuffed man. He is openly unable to resist.)
One of the other officers holding the guy down, checks for a pulse, and tells Mr. Kneecap, hey, he doesn't have a pulse.
("Not having a pulse" is what laypeople, not trained law enforcement officials, call "dead.")
HE KEEPS HIS KNEE ON THE NECK FOR ANOTHER TWO MINUTES.
This is not a Zombie Movie. Men without a pulse don't suddenly grab your gun and shoot bystanders.
This is way the Hell over the line on unreasonable force.
It is also a blatant civil rights violation. Once you are in custody, the police have the legal responsibility for your bodily safety.
Keeping your knee on the neck of a man, who one of your fellow officers just told you doesn't have a pulse, and not even pretending to check for a pulse yourself, let alone performing CPR, FOR TWO FULL MINUTES, is a violation of civil rights. IT takes four minutes for brain death, you know.
He even at one point, brandishes a can of mace at a bystander who tries to approach to help.
As well as being an exact fit for what is called "Depraved Indifference." It is the key element in 3rd degree murder in Minnesota state law.
And it's all captured live on uncut video as it happens in real time, on a busy street, fro six feet away, in front of several (white) witnesses, too.
So blather all you want about Mike Brown, all you trolls on this and other threads.
This situation, and the evidence for it, are TOTALLY different.