Floyd attorneys blast claim that he died of overdose

Attorneys for George Floyd’s family refuted defense claims that Floyd died of a drug overdose while in the custody of Minneapolis police officers.

Attorney Ben Crump said it was the four criminally charged former officers who caused Floyd’s death.

“They are trying to say that the knee on [Floyd’s] neck for eight minutes and 46 seconds was reasonable,” Crump said. “They are trying to claim some asinine theory about an overdose. America saw what happened. And so, who are you going to believe, your eyes or these killer cops?”

Floyd died in police custody after officers responded to a report of a counterfeit $20 bill used at a convenience store. Video showed a handcuffed Floyd being restrained on the ground by Chauvin. Floyd repeatedly told the officers he couldn’t breathe, according to the video.

Attorneys for officers Chauvin, Lane, Kueng and Thao all appeared in court Friday, seeking separate trials for their clients as each tries to distance himself from his co-defendants and Floyd’s death.

Attorney Thomas Plunkett, who represents Kueng, argued last month that Floyd had fentanyl in his system at the time of his death and had recently taken methamphetamine. The drugs, coupled with Floyd’s health issues, caused his death, Plunkett argued, citing toxicology reports.

The claims that Floyd contributed to his own death more than the actions of the officers did outraged Floyd’s family and his supporters.

“It’s really a desperate defense,” Chicago attorney Antonio Romanucci, Crump’s co-counsel, said. “They want to coincidentally say that whatever drugs were in his system killed him at the same time that the knee on the neck and the pressure on his back killed him. When you look at this from a legal perspective, those drugs did nothing to him because we know that he had situational awareness. He was cooperative.”

The cause of death is a question of fact that must be addressed by the court.

There are some major problems to securing a conviction in this case -

The fatal dose of fentanyl along with other drugs in his system. I think any rational doctor would say that there was a chance that George Floyd would have died no matter the actions of the officers. The media and public opinion can overlook this, but it will be much different in a court.

There was no trauma inflicted by the officers. Yes, you can restrict a persons breathing by weight upon them, but even being “handcuffed” creates this effect. The officers knee is placed exactly where the instructor has his positioned on the training materials for MPD. The close-up view from the video DOES NOT show the officer with his knee directly on the neck.

The enlarged heart and alleged recovery from Covid (decrease of lung capacity) are also factors. We are learning that the China virus can do significant damage to the lungs - even among healthy football players from what I have read. I would expect this to be referenced heavily by the defense along with the lethal dose of fentanyl.

There is nothing that I have seen or heard that actually indicates a racial bias or even intent on the part of the officers. Sure, the media and public opinion have made this claim, but in a court you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Perhaps the biggest one is “qualified immunity.” For those who took the time to view the training presentation of MPD, it appears that the officer followed the policy to the letter for “excited delirium”. We can all argue about changes to the policy, but do not forget that the officer is judged on the policy in effect on the date of the event.

This case was overcharged. The two rookies have no authority over the senior officers. The other more experienced officer was not even engaged with Floyd. He was in front of the onlookers. I believe the charges require them to show intent. The exchanges between the officers and Floyd were generally courteous and did not demonstrate any malice for those who viewed it in its entirety.

The courtroom is far more antiseptic than the media and public mobs so you can throw much of the “noise” out the window.

Regardless of the verdicts, there will be riots again. Minneapolis cannot afford any further economic destruction, but it appears they are doomed either way.

One obvious change that may come out of this case as far as national policy will be the administration of narcan in all such cases. One might make a reasonable argument that this might have changed the outcome (reversed the opiate depression), but again, it was not the policy on the date this occurred and I am not aware of any department that does this currently?

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a difficult bar for a jury and in this case there are several issues that would have to be decided to this standard in order to secure a conviction. There will be overwhelming pressure on the jury in this case due to the overwhelming public opinion and yes, without a doubt, the last few minutes of that video are hard to watch.

However, the jury will hear and see the entire event multiple times within the courtroom and they will have FAR MORE data upon which to decide the case including significant information that has been largely ignored in the media reports and the public discussion.

All of us are largely reliant on the media narrative regarding this event, but juries always hear and see far more than we will ever get via the media. There are a lot of significant hurdles for the prosecution in this case, but like the Ferguson case, most people have made up their mind.

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.