Most senior Officer in Minnedishu PD says that it is lethal force to put your knee on someone's neck. They have never been trained to do this with someone handcuffed behind their back while in the prone position.
He further states that simply being handcuffed with your hands behind your back makes it hard to breathe, and being in the prone position would make it even harder to breathe. For this reason once someone is handcuffed with their hands behind their back you get their chest off the ground. (GF's chest was on the ground the whole time) He said you usually get them on their side or sitting.
This came before the break at 10:45 local time, probably after 10:15.
He further states that of the 5 levels of force, once you have someone handcuffed behind their back you immediately drop to the lowest level of force and threat, the perp can't really hurt you, while they can still kick you can get out of the way.
Cross-examination should be interesting!
He also establishes that the Officer who handcuffs a perp immediately becomes responsible for their well being. I point out that if Chauvin didn't handcuff GF, this adds a wrinkle to the case.
This senior officer hasn't worked a beat since 1993. 28 years. They still had night sticks in 1993.
Nelson is going to shred this guy to pieces.
Faggots on reddit still haven't figured out that if you're a cop with a white shirt on, you're a politician.
deddit is irrelevant. This guy didn't come across as a politician, and answered all questions put before him directly.
Oh? He blew his credibility when he repeatedly struggled to admit the possibility of things that were clearly visible on camera, such as a handcuffed person still posing a threat. Or that a hostile crowd could possibly ever influence his actions unless they were actively attacking him. Basically, he did the prosecution few favors and like many of the other witnesses may have had negative value.
How do you see GF after being handcuffed still posing a threat? If defense could attack that notion, why didn't he do so in cross-examination? Seems important to me.
The idea of a hostile crowd influencing actions without actually attacking I'll agree with, but you have clear evidence that merely pointing out cops have pepper spray effectively controlled this "crowd." There were only 3 young men there. Chauvin and Tao made threatening motions with their spray and everybody backed off as told. This makes it hard to claim the crowd was a big factor, other than needing to keep an eye on them. Tao did that while the other 3 stayed on top of GF.
If you want to challenge this Lieutenant's credibility, show in the manual where this position is taught in the manual. That's what we've heard. Why didn't defense do that?
The statement about not posing a threat was made in cross examination and the LT looked like a fucking idiot denying that George could still kick and thrash when that is what we see on video. George continued to pose a threat to himself and everyone around him and that threat would have escalated had he been taken off the ground.
The fact that two officers had to escalate to showing spray establishes that the crowd was a threat, not the opposite. The crowd then became increasingly hostile, not more compliant, even if they did back up onto the sidewalk (an action they could undo in an instant).
The fact that EMS decided to a "scoop and go" further reinforces this continued threat to safety from the crowd.
Because the defense cant crossexamine on facts that have not yet been introduced to the jury. Thata not how court works. When the prosecution rests their case in a week or so the defense will be able to discuss this training and show their proof for it (which has already been entered into evidence if you care to look for it).
He didn't claim that.
Based on what?
It's easy to assert that until GF stopped struggling. It might even be allowed as hypothetically true for the first 4 minutes. Since GF was for all practical purposes dead when paramedics showed up, how was GF a threat for the final 4:44 when he was clearly unconscious?
If defense can show in the manual that cops are in fact trained to use this hold, then this LT is irrelevant! I think it helps the defense to raise this point closer to when they have to decide a verdict.
People experiencing overdoses can regain consciousness and become violent. It's so common that it is something to watch out for when administering Narcan. Based on Floyd's prior behavior it makes the most sense to keep him immobilized.
And they will.
I went back and watch the video and he sarcastically states that "once they're cuffed the threat level goes all the way down...I mean how can they hurt you?" @17:30 https://youtu.be/S9GGZCooTUc
Under cross had to be forced to concede the point that everyone could see one video: a person in cuffs can still thrash and kick. But he was reluctant to do so and a little petulant in his responses.
Call that what you want but it made him look like a retard.
Did you see Nelson shred him? I saw Nelson finish his questioning. I saw him concede that certain questions are best addressed by a defense trainer.
Nobody suggested 35 years of experience somehow makes him less qualified.
Nightsticks aren't involved.
Serious question., are you autistic?
You should answer the question rather than getting personal.
I have worked giving support to autistic people. Clearly you don't understand what autism is, and misusing the word is a big problem that leads to people dying.
If I were on the spectrum I wouldn't be qualified to work with those that are.
Misgendering transexuals leads to transexuals dying too, right?
A simple "yes, I'm autistic" would have sufficed, but I appreciate you going the extra mile to demonstrate it.
Answer to question: no he didn't. See how easy that was instead of getting defensive and trying to impress people who don't get a fuck about your backstory?
Now you're saying Nelson didn't shred the Lieutenant who testified today?
Why the rest of your nonsense?
The police were also fending off other people. It wasn't just George so yeah, if George kicks while the officer is fending off other people he can not get out of the way since he is focused on another threat.
That idea has been addressed in the trial, but perhaps not as thoroughly as possible. The defense has an uphill battle establishing that line of reasoning, but might still be able to do so.
I think they have a better chance with the hospital is only 2 blocks away so they should wait for the paramedics, and holding GF still is the only thing they're trained to do for EXD. Other than calling for the ambulance which had already been done.
I expect the defense to do their best with every angle. I haven't seen them deliberately "throw it" yet, which is one of the things I'm watching for like a hawk.
How dare this guy throw his coworker under the bus like that. And isn’t that position in the police training manual? He tried to get Floyd in the car sitting up but he didn’t want to go. He was not only protecting himself but protecting everyone around watching. They thought he may have been on PCP, which makes people extremely erratic. Just cause he was “knocked out” doesn’t mean he couldn’t suddenly get up and run. And he still had a pulse.
We've been told all that time this position is in their manual, yes. If it is, the last 35 years of publications can't be changed for political theater and this guy's credibility is shot.
That's not the case - one of the paramedic testified that Floyd was on his side when he arrived. In other words, he had been moved from a prone position into a recovery position as per Minnesota Police Department policy.
Nobody said GF was in "the recovery position." That hasn't been defined in the trial, which I think is a mistake by one attorney or the other.
The Lieutenant today didn't use that term at all. Maybe cops don't use it but paramedics do?
The lieutenant seemed keen to get his former employee convicted.
Testimony from more competent officers the previous day explicitly included the policy to put someone into the recovery position. That's police policy.
As I said, the paramedic said he was on his side. Not prone. On his side. Maybe it was the recovery position, maybe it was not but it sure as fuck counts for a lot more than the cunt of a lieutenant that wasn't at the scene making shit up.
At no point did either paramedic clarify that GF's chest had not been on the ground, nor that he was on his side as opposed to prone.
If you can find any video to support your idea here that would help the defense immensely.
I never saw even a brief moment similar to what you're suggesting, beginning from when Chauvin pinned him.
-- https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/04/chauvin-trial-day-4-wrap-up-another-poor-day-for-prosecution-advantage-defense/
Video footage is below that, I'll let you watch through to see where the defence asked and received that response.
Nice write-up! The driver had said something about being on the left side previously to investigators, but didn't remember seeing that in trial. The person who did the actual work on GF didn't say anything about that. I don't see anything like that on any video. Neither has "the recovery position" been defined in trial yet.
That neither counsel pressed this issue is interesting, as important as it might be to the whole thing. It suggests to me that there's nothing definitive, which might help the defense? (Sewing doubt)
Good thing the knee was on dude's back then.
Everybody else sees Chauvin's left knee across GF's shoulder and on the base of GF's neck. If you see it anywhere else during the 9:29 in question, I'd love to see what you're looking at with a link and a timestamp.
From the trial: https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1377380718406291457
That shows nothing different.
Chauvin's left knee was across GF's shoulder and the base of his neck, which also pressed his face against the pavement. That basic position never changed. The placement of his right knee does seem to change, and nobody seems to be paying attention to that knee which is a mistake.
What many are willing to assume is that they know how much weight is on any area at any given time. We don't. You can shift your weight around between your toes, knees, etc. with nothing really detectable to anyone else. Chauvin's testimony about this might not carry much weight, for a lot of reasons; including over a 9 minute period you can't really tell how much force is on your toes vs your knee because you tire.
There are times you can tell Chauvin wasn't deliberately propping himself up on his feet, but allowing his weight to be on his knees. Yet he's only 140# so how much effect that has is unknown. It's possible that his right knee in the middle of the back caused more problem, and when it was lower it might cause more pain but contribute less to death. It'll be interesting to see if they even try to go into these things.
Dunno, it's the defense argument. Of course its biased towards that. People made it seem like chauvin crushed floyd's wind pipe and that's not the case. Yea, you can still make it harder to breathe by riding someone's lungs.
Problem is I've never seen this angle until the trial and it makes one think it was more opioid than chauvin.. like 80% OD and 20% restricting breathing.
No way he is getting murder 1. The slow roll medic response and exactly when they were called has potential to get dude a manslaughter or negligent homicide charge, I can see that sticking.
Not the biggest cop fan but from my interactions they are more interested in getting you into the system to farm you for money than hurting you and causing trouble for themselves.
Murder 1 isn't charged. The most serious crime the jury could convict for is murder 2. So far I'm just trying to sort out if Chauvin really did anything criminal or not.
If it's determined that drugs and police action both contributed to death Idk how the law is supposed to work. Should that be enough to create doubt = innocence?
Ambulance was called before the first video we saw had started. Hard to claim negligence about that. Continuing the restraint instead of starting CPR about 4:30 before paramedics arrived might be found negligent? Right now that seems like the worst case scenario for Chauvin, assuming justice means anything.
Anybody thinking GF's windpipe was crushed, the autopsy proved otherwise. I don't think you can do that through the back of the neck, people aren't so easy to kill. From the front? The throat is certainly a weak spot but flat pavement doesn't reach up and grab you.
Autopsy shows the condition of the heart such that death from not breathing CAN cause it, but do we know his heart didn't fail first? This might prove to be really important in determining criminal culpability.