Posted on 06/01/2020 4:19:54 PM PDT by NautiNurse
Where did you get this crap that Mr. Floyd overdosed on anything? You’re just making that up since the actual facts aren’t supporting your predetermined opinions.
____________________________________________________
I have not read the FULL autopsy—neither have you or the media. What has been released stated that Floyd died from “cardiac arrest.” In other words, he did NOT die from “I can’t breathe.” Further, it has been released that Floyd had “fentanyl intoxication.” That’s a polite way of saying he was over-dosing on fentanyl. Fentanyl has probably killed 200,000 people in this country, and it kills by stopping the heart, i.e., “cardiac arrest.” When you combine fentanyl “intoxication” with pre-existing heart conditions, you can understand why Floyd died. Again, whether the officers’ actions contributed to his death in some way is above my pay grade. I’m not making facts up. You just don’t want to hear the facts. Two things can be true: The officer used excessive force, but this force did not contribute to Floyd’s death. The ME was cited in the criminal complaint as saying that it was “likely” that the officers’ actions contributed to the death. “Likely” isn’t the standard we convict on. We convict on “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Stay tuned.
See, in your case, the guy shot himself in the leg.
There was no relationship established between them and the officer.
And that is a question of "qualified immunity" -- everyone knows, and I've pointed it out myself on FR, that if you call 911, the police have zero, none, nada, duty whatsoever to respond in a timely fashion, or even to respond at all.
There is even an infamous case where a policeman showed up, at a drowning scene, ordered (I think) at gunpoint, that a trained professional giving CPR stop and go home and produce credentials, before being allowed to proceed, and of course the guy died, and the cop had qualified immunity.
But if you are in custody they have the literal legal responsibility for you at that point.
You are very good at cutting and pasting, and you're attempting proof by intimidation, but you remain utterly incorrect.
That is the 1st I had heard so thank you
The proof that you're a troll,. I found in a DuckDuckGo search in 30 seconds that Traumatic Asphyxiation refres to compression of the thorax (chest) until the blood flows the wrong way out of the heart.
it has nothing to do with a knee on the neck.
Other more informed posters have cited professional literature dealing with first responders, which note that it is quite rare, and happens in industrial accidents with people getting caught in machinery and stuff.
You are desperately blowing smoke and it won't work.
For the misdemeanor? Laughing in your face.
WE have the policeman with his knee on the neck of a man begging to breathe, then passing out, then going into cardiac arrest, with first responders begging him to take a pulse.
He didn't "have to allow a first responder".
Because he had the man in HIS custody.
Which makes HIM responsible.
All on live video.
Blathering about v-fib isn't going to cut it.
Once the cop was told by another cop, the guy has no pulse, he didn't even pretend to go through the motions.
Depraved indifference.
3rd degree murder.
Justy said the same to my wife. What exactly are these people still protesting still. He has been arrested charged and now we have to let the system take its course.
Most of these people want the cop lynched in public, then shot in the street and still most of these rioters and protestors will not be happy.
[Woodpusher] No physical findings to support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.[grey_whiskers] The proof that you're a troll,. I found in a DuckDuckGo search in 30 seconds that Traumatic Asphyxiation refres to compression of the thorax (chest) until the blood flows the wrong way out of the heart.
it has nothing to do with a knee on the neck.
Well, good your ignorant butt. You found DuckDuckGo. Now go find the Statement of Probable Cause. It states, "The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation."
Does that look familiar, troll? A troll ain't so bad, but such an incompetent troll is a bit much.
You're completely wrong.
Blather is not an argument
See, in your case, the guy shot himself in the leg.
Irrelevant, but that is hardly surprising.
There was no relationship established between them and the officer.
Lunacy.
And that is a question of "qualified immunity" -- everyone knows, and I've pointed it out myself on FR, that if you call 911, the police have zero, none, nada, duty whatsoever to respond in a timely fashion, or even to respond at all.
Madness. Qualified immunity only applies to CIVIL actions. We have not been discussing a George Floyd CIVIL action. Whatever you're babbling about is irrelevant to a criminal case. You do not know what you are talking about. "qualified immunity. (1877) Immunity from civil liability for a public official who is performing a discretionary function, as long as the conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights." Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed. Before slinging legal terminology around, look it up in a legal dictionary so you have a clue about what it means.
There is even an infamous case where a policeman showed up, at a drowning scene, ordered (I think) at gunpoint, that a trained professional giving CPR stop and go home and produce credentials, before being allowed to proceed, and of course the guy died, and the cop had qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity still only applies to CIVIL actions. It has nothing to do with criminal actions.
But if you are in custody they have the literal legal responsibility for you at that point.
"Downs kept his gun trained on Drummond while Downs left to retrace Drummond's path in search of the weapon." Do you think Drummond was free to leave?
The requirement that an arresting officer provide medical care varies by jurisdiction, depending on statute law, if any. In the absence of statute law, there is no common law requirement to render assistance. Minnesota has a Good Samaritan statute. "604A.01 GOOD SAMARITAN LAW. Subdivision 1. Duty to assist. A person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person. Reasonable assistance may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel. A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a petty misdemeanor."
Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or a substantial risk of harm to a person in custody can be prosecuted as a constitutional violation of rights.
The federal criminal statute that enforces Constitutional limits on conduct by law enforcement officers is 18 U.S.C. § 242. Section 242 provides in relevant part:
"Whoever, under color of any law, …willfully subjects any person…to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States [shall be guilty of a crime]."Section 242 is intended to "protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication." Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 98 (1945) (quoting legislative history).
To prove a violation of § 242, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant deprived a victim of a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, (2) that the defendant acted willfully, and (3) that the defendant was acting under color of law. A violation of § 242 is a felony if one of the following conditions is met: the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use a dangerous weapon, explosive or fire; the victim suffered bodily injury; the defendant's actions included attempted murder, kidnapping or attempted kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or attempted aggravated sexual abuse, or the crime resulted in death. Otherwise, the violation is a misdemeanor.
Establishing the intent behind a Constitutional violation requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the law enforcement officer knew what he/she was doing was wrong and against the law and decided to do it anyway. Therefore, even if the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual's Constitutional right was violated, § 242 requires that the government prove that the law enforcement officer intended to engage in the unlawful conduct and that he/she did so knowing that it was wrong or unlawful. See Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 101-107 (1945). Mistake, fear, misperception, or even poor judgment does not constitute willful conduct prosecutable under the statute.
- - - - - - - - - -
You are very good at cutting and pasting, and you're attempting proof by intimidation, but you remain utterly incorrect.
I wouldn't intimidate rude old curmudgeon such as you. I would just demonstrate that he is full of bluster but supremely incompetent and unable to actually discuss the law without acting the fool.
You’re projecting your dishonesty onto me.
You brought up qualified immunity.
You said a case about qualified immunity had a bearing on the duty to care for a suspect in custody.
When I rightly called you out for lying, you doubled down.
And projected your own flies onto ME, pretending I said qualified immunity was relevant.
You said it was relevant, not me.
And I proved you wrong.
You are trolling.
Establishing the intent behind a Constitutional violation requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the law enforcement officer knew what he/she was doing was wrong and against the law and decided to do it anyway. Therefore, even if the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual's Constitutional right was violated, § 242 requires that the government prove that the law enforcement officer intended to engage in the unlawful conduct and that he/she did so knowing that it was wrong or unlawful. See Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 101-107 (1945). Mistake, fear, misperception, or even poor judgment does not constitute willful conduct prosecutable under the statute.
Uh huh. Nice.
Too bad he's been nailed on murder 3 and going down for that.
Qualified immunity doctrine does not protect you from a separate homicide rap.
Liar.
"The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis ofTRAUMATIC ASPHYXIA or strangulation.".
Right. The coroner says he DIDN'T die of it.
But we already knew that.
Traumatic asphyxia is getting your chest crushed by a giant press like the Terminator in the first movie.
Not a knee on the neck.
So the only reason for the coroner to mention that, is he's either incompetent and doesn't know the difference, or he's throwing out impressive sounding words to fool people like you into thinking it exonerated the policeman rightly charged with 3rd degree murder.
Sounds like it worked like a charm.
Intoxication is not the same as an overdose. Had the man been overdosed he would have been unconscious and the police would have had to call an ambulance instead of killing him.
My parents were meth addicts and I do know what an overdose looks like.
I think we witnessed him going unconscious.
Oh, FFS, he went unconscious because HE DIED!
The police had already called an ambulance before they were on top of him. Yes, he obviously was going into an overdose. When a person overdoses on fentanyl, it causes cardiac arrest.
“When you are given a check and told what to say, such an “autopsy” is pretty fast and easy. Probably moonlighting “climate scientists” who excel at that.”
Baden has a perfect record of producing the result he’s paid to produce.
I would immediately respond where is the evidence he DID resist arrest? So far I ain't seen nuthin.......
Now they are saying that he appeared to be having a medical event and if that were true, that wouldn't explain why he was cuffed on his stomach, face down with the cop's knee on his neck........
At this point, it isn't a matter of guilt, it's how much time the cop is going to spend in prison..........
I bet you right now he does not spend any time in prison. This is just like the michel brown saga, the cop was demonized only to find out in the end he was justified. Wait and see.
Sorry, nothing like Ferguson.
1)1 cop in Ferguson vs. 4 cops in Minnesota
2)Ferguson officer attacked. Floyd already in custody and handcuffed.
3)Ferguson officer made a split second correct decision to use deadly force. MSP cops continued to assault their handcuffed & unconscious prisoner for nearly 3 minutes
4)Video of Floyd.
I could go on but that should be enough. No jury is going to acquit after watching that video. Guaranteed.
I trained to be a paralegal several years ago but never took the certification exam. However, I learned so much about approaching a case, such as taking my emotions out of the situation and just looking at the cold hard facts. So many posters here seem to have trouble doing that.
Thank you for your clear legal expertise and logic in explaining such a fresh and sensationalized case.
You are spot on here. Similarly, the medical examiner statement "recent meth use" does not mean meth intoxication. Residual metabolites of meth may be identified up to three days after use.
The progression of severity with intoxicants:
1. Use/Abuse/Dependence (recent history, chronic use may be ongoing or in remission)
2. Intoxication (under current effect(s) with diminished capacity)
3. Overdose (excessive or dangerous dose=emergency)
I am very sorry to learn that your parents had meth addictions. I can't imagine the pain you experienced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.