George Floyd, Logical Reasoning, and Deductive Conclusions.
The law when looking at an individual’s mental state of mind does not define when origination of intent begins or time duration of intent, it looks at what point a specific intent is detected and the effect of that intent that can be proven or demonstrated. In other words, not how long before committing the crime, but just what intent can be proven before or during the commission of the crime and contributed to the crime.
Establishing intent can be determined from when it shifted from obvious lawful actions to illegal or criminal actions. Intent that is consistent with the observed actions and behavior individually and collectively, considered while applying the standard of knowing or should have known the outcome or risk of those actions and behavior. The intent is the key element in determining which statute was broken and to what degree. The elements of the crime by statute is the first part and the second part is the degree. First degree, second degree, manslaughter, etc. The levels of intent are what establishes the degrees as purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently.
Mens rea is defined as the guilty mind. Mens rea accounts for a person’s mental intentions to commit a crime, or knowledge that one’s actions or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. Actus rea is the action taken to perform the criminal act or the physical action taken behind the crime. Intent and the elements of that specific statute determine criminal charges and although there may be a murder that has occurred the intent is what establishes what degree of murder.
Complicity is any part of the planning, execution, concealment, or escape designed to facilitate or participate in a crime. Any tools or methods used to further that crime can be viewed as evidence of complicity and/or a criminal tool. Complicity is the same degree crime as the crime being aided and abetted, the commission of the crime of complicity does not require direct physical involvement. For example, if the charge or crime is murder 1 then the complicity is to the same degree as murder 1. If it is a misdemeanor then the complicity is a misdemeanor of the same degree.
Kidnapping is to remove someone from the place found without authority to do so or restrict their movements without consent or authority to do so. Detaining a suspect is different from the arrest of an individual. To detain someone a policeman must have the right to do so and it must be reasonable in duration and circumstances. Was Mr. Floyd placed under arrest and at what point was he placed under arrest? Was he being lawfully and reasonably detained?
Falsifying tour of duty reports, deadly force reports, false and misleading statements made or given, and excited utterances during the incident points to a mental state of mind at the time or a need to conceal it. What is the police department’s protocol when dealing with counterfeit money of such a low denomination and quantity? Do they routinely arrest and do arrest records reflect the protocol of these routine arrests?
The RICO Act is a federal statute regarding ongoing criminal enterprises involving murder, kidnapping, and other patterns of crime or corruption. It has been used against police personnel and police departments before when a wide-spread and systemic commission or tolerance of excessive force and other crimes existed within a police department. The RICO Act is specifically designed to prosecute organizations that operate as a cooperative pattern of criminal activity with centralized leadership. The Department of Justice sanctions organizations with a Consent Decree to monitor and alter how departments operate. Hate crimes are a separate set of considerations and probably unlikely in this instance. It should be noted that any firearm carried during the commission of a crime is an automatic felony by statute even if that crime is a misdemeanor. Theft of a candy bar is a misdemeanor but a theft of a candy bar while armed is a robbery. All four policemen were armed at the time of the critical incident.
The above legal considerations and deductions have been explained as a jury might consider reaching a verdict by applying the law to the circumstances. We understand that Mr. Floyd was alleged to have paid for items with a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill and the store requested a police response. Upon the police responding Mr. Floyd was found to be in his vehicle. Mr. Floyd had ample time to flee the scene if he wanted or if he had a reason to such as knowledge of the counterfeit bill. His actions were not supportive of someone of knowingly passing bad money nor did he flee the area immediately in a way that reflects a guilty mind. When and how did the clerk know that the bill was counterfeit? Is it not widely practiced to light or pen check bills of a certain denomination and was this done? If Mr. Floyd was not rejected or confronted in the store is there any evidence that he knew of his crime? How much time lapse from the transfer of the fake bill and was it placed in the cash register at all? Were there other people in the store at the time making purchases and could there be a mistake? Were there other people in the store at the time when the crime was discovered by the clerk?
Let us assume that Mr. Floyd did indeed know that he passed bad money. He was not immediately placed under arrest so he could not be resisting arrest. From the officer’s initial contact with Mr. Floyd, he was resistant to questioning. He was removed from the vehicle, placed in cuffs, escorted to the sidewalk where he was seated. Any acts of resistance from initial contact to being seated had been deescalated and Mr. Floyd was not combative verbally or physically. Mr. Floyd was escorted across the street without incident or struggle. The view was obscured by a squad car, he was assisted to the ground, and Chauvin was then observed to have his knee and shin across Mr. Floyd’s neck area when the view was regained.
Mr. Floyd’s mental state was also reflected by his physical state. He was within the policeman’s control and physically compliant. He was also verbally compliant pleading for his life and stating his physical condition of distress. At times two other officers assisted in restraining Mr. Floyd’s mid-torso area and legs while Chauvin had already established his position on Mr. Floyd’s neck area. Mr. Floyd’s only resistance was in response to the pain being inflicted upon him and not aggressive, combative, or evasive at all; he was secured. But was he in custody, had he been advised that he was under arrest?
After several minutes of the sustained weight of approximately two hundred pounds on his neck, Mr. Floyd not only showed no signs of resistance, he showed no signs of life. Mr. Floyd provided no resistance from the point of being unconscious or dead although Chauvin continued the neck pressure with his hands casually in his pockets. Mr. Floyd was dead and never able to account for the bad money transaction where a fake twenty-dollar bill turned into a homicide. Before dying, Mr. Floyd had to pass out first, meaning he was still alive but unconscious. Chauvin’s continued pressure in addition to rendering Mr. Floyd unconscious he ensured that he had no chance at life. This is Mr. Floyd’s culpability and no corpus delicti or proof of guilt was ever established since the intent was not established that he knewn it was bad money.
Now let us examine the policemen’s actions to establish any culpability. No culpability means that they had nothing to do with it and probably it would have happened anyway. They did not send four policemen for a counterfeit-twenty, so who received the call and who were they assisting? Was radio notified that they were assisting, and should they have even been there? If Chauvin was assisting on the run then he should have remained secondary and let the assigned car handle it to their discretion.
Two policemen arrived and shortly thereafter another two policemen arrived. The first two to arrive on the scene engaged Mr. Floyd, and he was placed in cuffs. He was subsequently seated on the sidewalk. Nothing extraneous so far as excessive physical force except perhaps the way he was approached could have been handled better. Next Mr. Floyd was escorted across the street towards the store. Prior to being escorted across the street at least one officer stated that Mr. Floyd was noticeably in distress. What actions did he take as a result?
If he was in distress; it should have changed from a possible arrest into a providing medical assistance situation. The main reason is if he was having a heart attack and was under arrest then the city would be liable for his medical care, hospital stay, and would have to assign an officer in his room around the clock to guard him. Aside from that, it is your legal and sworn obligation to provide assistance and not continue pursuing arrest. The policeman who first noticed the distress had the most obligation to notify the others of Mr. Floyd’s suspected condition and why he thought so. His suspected medical distress and only having the ability to arrest with prior authorization from the Secret Service for permission should have made you get him medical help and be on your way.
It has been determined that Mr. Floyd succumbed to excited asphyxiation also known as excited delirium by compression of his neck and chest restricting his breathing. Elevated heart rate, excited breathing, prone position on the stomach with his hands behind back, excessive weight on his back, and definitely his neck are elements of this phenomenon well known to law enforcement with heart failure usually the cause of death. Breathing restriction is always the main trigger and can clearly be determined to have played a significant role in Mr. Floyd’s death. The key was the weight being forced down on his neck, the amount of time it was continuously applied with force, with the full intent of its application never considering that it was enough even when he was unconscious and dead.
Once assisted to the ground on his stomach alongside the squad car with hands cuffed behind his back, he posed no threat to the four policemen or a threat to escape. It is hard to get up quickly or otherwise from that position or launch an assault. If it was necessary to place him prone on the ground then there is no policy, procedures, or training that allows for any force which is not necessary to bring a person under control. Minimal force required is the standard to justify force, when it is no longer necessary or was not justified in the beginning there is no allowance for it legally. What is the justification for kneeling on a dead man’s neck for over two minutes after his death?
The application of the knee to the neck area is where the criminality begins, and his intent begins to be exposed. It is also at this point that the complicity of the other policemen started regardless of if they had participated or not in the restraint, their intent also became apparent. Two did knowingly, purposefully, and willingly, physically participate to some degree in exerting force and providing assistance to Chauvin to further his criminal excessive use of force with no justification why. With Mr. Floyd fully compromised there was no need for force.
Chauvin did knowingly, willfully, purposefully, recklessly, and negligently apply his knee to Mr. Floyd neck area which resulted in his death. If argued that Chauvin’s intent was not to kill Mr. Floyd but to restrain him, at what point did he no longer need restraining. What cannot be argued is that Chauvin’s knee was intentionally placed there for that duration of the time knowingly, willfully, purposefully, recklessly, and negligently without regard for the outcome. Chauvin’s actions revealed a mindset of punishment, not restraint, with his hands in his pocket to disguise the downward force and balancing of his full weight on Mr. Floyd’s neck.
Thurston K. Atlas
Creating A Buzz
This is just a brief inquiry into the facts known to the public with a logical examination that will be needed for the highest level of conviction for those whose actions warrant it. Now when it is examined moving forward, we can form a logical theory of the policemen’s actions to better determine the justification, truthfulness, and intent revealing fault as exhibited by their actions. Remember that inaction is an action too, for what you have done and for what you have failed to do. Examining the chronological sequence of the policemen’s actions will demonstrate their mental state of mind and when it shifted to become criminal. We will also in full review demonstrate Mr. Floyd’s actions and mental state of mind contributing to or causing his death.