George Floyd Part 2 of 3- Logical Reasoning

Facts & Questions

Sometimes you must go backwards to retrace and unravel an incident, then proceed forward to a place of clarity. A review or reenactment from the end of the critical incident that claimed Mr. George Floyd’s life analyzed in retrospect will reveal the points incriminating to all parties involved based on the visual evidence and factual inference of the application of the law.

An examination from the end to the beginning of the encounter is a very distinct way to isolate the mental State of mind, the Mens Rea, or intent, so it is legally established. The criminality, the mea culpa or fault, can be best demonstrated by everyone’s actual actions or inactions at critical times according to legal standards.

Were these actions justifiable based upon what was known at the time, what should have been known, or what was being observed throughout that time? Was it within the law and police procedure or a violation? Does the action’s justification rise to the level of its application to the circumstances? Was it legally necessary and permissible? The answers all serve as actual testimony to the facts.

According to the law, inaction can also be an action when there was a duty to act. If there was inaction, was there a duty to act? What action should have been taken, and how could that action have affected the outcome? As a fluid evolving situation, the timing and chronological sequence matter greatly to the incident’s legality and outcome. Diligent analysis of the timing and sequence will reveal crucial determinations of criminality and culpability.

 Our method will state the facts as we believe them to be accurate and then ask the pertinent questions raised. Finally, in Part 3, we will examine the answers by deductive reasoning of the legal application of the law and police departmental policy and procedures, analyzing and suggesting the obvious logical resolutions and interpretations.

Facts: Mr. Floyd, while in handcuffs, was surrounded by four policemen and physically restrained by at least three of them at different times during the incident. He was removed from the scene by responding EMTs on a stretcher, presumably lifeless by all appearances. He was then transported to the hospital by the EMT unit.

Questions: Who radioed in for medical assistance, and at what point during the incident? How many policemen involved spoke with radio regarding medical aid, the reason for the request for EMT, and if requests were made to step up their arrival due to Mr. Floyd’s physical decline? When stating Mr. Floyd’s condition, was there any mention of Chauvin on his neck restricting his breathing? Was that due to an omission or concealment? What was said during the radio transmission? What do the dispatcher recordings and separate notes reflect?

When was a supervisor notified, and by whom did any policemen involved make notifications to advise command? Were there recorded specialized channels that communicated more sensitive information? Did that happen, by whom, and at what time? Were they recorded and reviewed if such secure channel communications took place and reviewed as they most likely should have been pursued by discovery or duces tecum?

What were EMT’s dispatched communications? At what point did the EMTs determine that Mr. Floyd had no vital signs indicating death? Was it before transport, during transport, or at the hospital by medical personnel? What life-saving steps did the EMT’s take, and how did Mr. Floyd respond? Once at the hospital, what life-saving steps were taken, for how long, and by who. What was the information given by the EMTs, are their paperwork and interviews complete and consistent with this information, and when was Mr. Floyd’s actual pronouncement of death?

Were there real-time 911 calls from the public as the critical incident occurred, and how many? What was the content of the policemen’s excited utterances as excited utterances by any party are generally admissible in court as evidence of knowledge or intent? When was the location secured and treated as a crime scene with the Use of Deadly Force Team or Homicide Unit notified to respond on the scene? Was deadly force protocol initiated and maintained, specifically the separation of policemen and preventing collaboration of statements before interviews? Was witness identification and statements gathered?

Facts: The primary policeman later been identified as Chauvin, an 18-year veteran of the force and the senior officer on the scene. Mr. Floyd was pinned to the ground by his neck by Chauvin’s left knee and left front shin area applied to the carotid nerve or artery area of the neck traversing the windpipe, trachea, and larynx.

The carotid artery is located on both sides of the neck. It does not matter which way Mr. Floyd’s head was turned. It would still be exposed. Also, the greater torque or twist of the head, the greater the vulnerability of this neck artery to causing unconsciousness or a fatal outcome. It restricts oxygen and blood flow simultaneously. This restriction occurred for an estimated 8 minutes and 46 seconds, of which approximately 2 minutes and 53 seconds Mr. Floyd was unresponsive, presumably unconscious, and probably deceased.

Despite public outcry, repeated warnings expressing concern from fellow officers, and Mr. Floyd’s very own plea Chauvin continued to apply pressure with his total body weight on Mr. Floyd’s neck. The force continuum scale governs police use of force and justifies what type of force is permitted. Code red is the highest level of threat and response category. Any neck restraint classifies as a code red on the force continuum scale, which categorizes the severity of its use as deadly force.

With code red being the highest threat level assessment, the resulting response can only be to preserve life or avoid serious bodily harm but not gain compliance. Any neck restraint is considered deadly force whether used against a policeman or used by a policeman. Due to the deadly force used on Mr. Floyd, it is very likely to have caused or contributed to his death and inflicted serious physical harm upon him. Thus, the necessity or articulation for its use is a problematic violation from its initiation and certainly its continuation.  

Reiterating that he was handcuffed hands behind his back, prone on the ground with four policemen surrounding him already searched and determined to be free of weapons. These circumstances do not support a code red response and neck restraint regardless of however applied. Therefore, it is not and cannot be justified according to the force continuum scale. 

There is, however, no dispute that Mr. Floyd’s death was caused on the scene before EMT arrived, with Chauvin’s neck restraint a factor. Without Chauvin’s knee as a factor, it would suggest that whatever other factors that contributed to Mr. Floyd’s death, he would have succumbed to them at that very moment anyway without Chauvin’s use of excessive force. 

The State certifies the Police Academy and dictates the training criteria and curriculum, which extensively covers the use of force. The City swears in the cadets to become officers, they have the ultimate legal liability and extensively covers the use of force. Technically, the use of force can be shots fired down to as minor as placing someone in handcuffs without incident voluntarily and with utmost cooperation.

The City gives the authority to arrest for misdemeanors and issue citations. The State gives the authority for deadly force and felony arrest, which is why you go to County Court for State charges. Although the State gives you the authority to use deadly force, the City is responsible for that force and subsequent training once the police are sworn in.

 By all standards applied both State and City, force of any kind must be the minimal force necessary to effect an arrest. Thus, force should discontinue proportionately as resistance lessens or it is no longer necessary. But in this instance, it becomes clear it was unnecessary to effect an arrest or gain compliance when Chauvin has his hand in his pocket, and there was no need to use his hands to control Mr. Floyd.

Questions: The question then becomes, was the knee justified in the first place based on the criteria for its use? If he had been a code red threat at any point, what level of threat did he present once he was unresponsive and feared unconscious or deceased?

Once Chauvin’s knee was on his neck constituting deadly force, at what point was Mr. Floyd not a code red threat or actively resisting with the threat of death or serious bodily harm to anyone? Was there any discernable level of threat or fear of any kind with four officers present, and Chauvin’s hands in his pockets while his knee was on Mr. Floyd’s neck? 

Would the threat level seem under control and become suspect when policemen feel comfortable enough to turn their back and not be engage otherwise if any threat existed? Was Mr. Floyd allowed to comply, and were there verbal commands and instructions issued for compliance? Had compliance and control already effectively been achieved when three officers had only secondary participation? 

Were Mr. Floyd’s pleadings not an opportunity to ease the use of deadly force. Maybe issue orders to comply following a clear indication of his willingness to comply. But, instead, they disregarded their responsibility and duty to discontinue or cause to be discontinued the use of force absent his resistance or its necessity.

Despite all the concerns about Mr. Floyd’s medical condition expressed before Mr. Floyd laid lifeless, what threat to four policemen’s life or limb was Floyd with his hands cuffed behind his back prone on the ground on his stomach? If we believe their concern for Mr. Floyd’s medical condition, wouldn’t their actions be even more baffling?

With Chauvin on his neck, when did Chauvin order him to comply, or more importantly, what chance did Chauvin give him to comply? Even unresponsive with no pulse, the use of deadly force was not altered to the level of Mr. Floyd’s lack of ability to resist or actual resistance, nor was there any possibly life-saving officer intervention. 

Was a taser, pepper spray, verbal persuasion, or other compliance techniques or less-lethal option available? Why did Chauvin eventually take his knee off Mr. Floyd’s neck? Was it because Mr. Floyd was unresponsive, or Chauvin had killed him? No, that is unlikely because that had already apparently happened minutes before. It was confirmed by no pulse being felt by another policeman. Was the EMT’s arrival the only thing that finally prompted him to remove himself off of Mr. Floyd’s neck?

Aren’t illegal orders and criminal actions to be disobeyed and not participated in or furthered in addition to expectations to be prevented? Isn’t it understood and enforced in any military or quasi-military organization, including the police?

Is it not your vow and commitment to uphold the law and not break it? The movie A Few Good Men is a prime example. You should have done something and had a duty to stop it but did not. If you had intervened, maybe even after Mr. Floyd was unresponsive, could he have been still alive or potentially revived?

 

 

 

Would Mr. Floyd more likely have survived if not for his encounter with Chauvin’s knee? If we cannot say yes for sure that Chauvin was the cause of Mr. Floyd’s death, then we cannot say no either for sure? Can it be denied that the fact is three officers had a duty to step in and stop it, but they did nothing? Instead of intervening at various life-saving points, did they not aid and abet in the murder by either actively assisting or providing protection and crowd neutralization to deter citizen intervention?

Facts: Mr. Floyd is stretched out prone on the ground, handcuffed with hands behind his back face down after being placed there. Prior to being placed on the ground, Mr. Floyd was resistant to being placed in the squad car.

Questions: Were the duration and events which occurred while placed face down on the ground the best course of action or option available, or an indication of indifference to unnecessary use of force? 

Was standing him alongside the squad car or maintaining the position of him being partially in the squad car more preferable given his level of resistance?

What were all policemen’s roles in attempting to get him into the squad car and removing him, placing him on the ground? Whose decision was it to place him prone, and why if he was almost entirely in the squad car?

At what point did they each participate in the chronological order of events and why? Was there a detectable amount of frustration or agitation from the policemen towards Mr. Floyd? Was the reasonableness and level of force used lawful and necessary? 

Facts: The foundation of the law is what was known or reasonably suspected at the time. It governs probable cause and reasonable suspicion from the Constitution and Bill of Rights down to municipal law enforcement and policemen conduct. The history of the policemen involved was not known at the time, just as Mr. Floyd’s history presumably was not known at the time either.

Their histories have no bearing on considering the facts and motivations known at that time, not overriding any action that occurred then. The prevailing influence of histories consistently demonstrates a propensity to act according to a previous pattern, a reluctance exhibited to refrain from an activity, or implied tendencies during an incident. Histories are indications of conduct consistency and by no means restrictive of any number of actions or responses, both positive or negative, demonstrated which are inconsistent with that history.  

Mr. Floyd’s criminal history reveals no prior consistency of code red behavior towards police personnel. Also, after the fact consideration for the two rookie policemen’s lack of history bears no mitigating circumstances to avoid accountability but may indicate their experience but not their lack of knowledge regarding appropriate force. Histories are indicators but not always relevant implications that can be related to a current incident. It also has to be presumed that Chauvin’s alleged previous racial undertones must be considered equally as Mr. Floyd’s run-ins with the law if histories are a factor.

Questions: Why would Mr. Floyd’s history be unfavorable for him, but the history of the four officers not be unfavorable for them if so revealed? So are we to assume the history of the two veteran policemen is disregarded, the history of the two rookie policemen taken into consideration for clemency, but Mr. Floyd’s history held against him?

How could the unknown history at the time somehow indicate that Mr. Floyd needed treatment as a code red level threat in this incident? 

If Mr. Floyd’s history were unknown at the time of the encounter, what bearing could it have on the incident? If he were a priest, what relevance would that have on the incident if unknown, none? How could the incident not be a judgment on the actions of the participants at the time, which would render histories after the fact as irrelevancies?

Facts: The policemen walked Mr. Floyd across the street without incident, and he seemed to have some minor passive resistance but not actively aggressive behavior. He was handcuffed with minimal resistance and without incident or struggle. Mr. Floyd’s action upon being removed from the vehicle would not constitute resisting arrest or being combative. Therefore, it did not meet the physical standard or required warnings to cease and desist or placed under arrest for resisting.

It appeared he was confused and more verbally resistant, attempting to have explained to him what was going on and turning to talk but definitely not combative. Officers said that they noticed a concerning level of distress upon handcuffing Mr. Floyd.

Questions: Before being removed from the car, was Mr. Floyd adequately advised as to what the encounter was concerning? After showing signs of distress during handcuffing, why was Mr. Floyd even taken across the street at all? If Mr. Floyd was showing signs of distress, why was he placed on the ground face down? If Mr. Floyd showed signs of distress, why did Chauvin place his knee on his neck, further complicating his distress? What was observed, and what physical signs and indications conveyed that was concerning? What, how, and when were the signs escalating, indicating decline? 

If Mr. Floyd showed signs of distress, at what point was this radioed in, and with four officers present, what assistance was he given? Is it prudent or customary to further restrict someone’s breathing if distress is suspected? Was there a belief that Chauvin’s weight on Mr. Floyd’s neck was in any way assisting him and a benefit to his distress? Was the delay in requesting medical attention from the initial suspicion before bringing him across the street justified, or the whole distress story a fabrication to cover the cause of his death?

What should have been the policemen’s response? Was there any reason for any delay in offering assistance, requesting EMT, or removing Chauvin off the neck of what you have stated was an obviously medically distressed person? If Mr. Floyd showed signs of distress, what distress signs were radio notified of to better inform the EMT dispatcher of the progression of his symptoms other than a grown man being on his neck? 

Imagine suspecting he was having a heart attack. Would you place him on his stomach with an over 200-pound man on his neck? Why was no aid rendered or attempted during his distress after he displayed no pulse? After displaying no pulse, did the other officers feel it was a lawful and necessary use of force for Chauvin to remain on Mr. Floyd’s neck?

Facts: The policemen responded to a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill passed at the store and received information that directed them to Mr. Floyd across the street. Almost immediately upon approach, the policeman escalates the situation by unnecessarily pulling his gun, revealing his disposition that Mr. Floyd knew it was a counterfeit bill. His demeanor was to prevent an escape or assume a threat level fearful enough to pull his service weapon, but why? You cannot just draw your gun on someone for a conversation. Was there a visible threat, or what justified this approach?

Questions: Was the twenty-dollar bill marked and taken as evidence prior to approaching Mr. Floyd? Did they know the counterfeit protocol of notifying the Secret Service and recording the individual’s information to be forwarded in a report? Should they have known counterfeiting is a federal crime and is only arrestable by a federal agent or by prior federal authorization? Finally, did they know that they lacked the authority to arrest him without providing he knew that it was counterfeit? 

Subsequently, was the counterfeit money found to have Mr. Floyd’s DNA or prints on it confirming after his death that he had indeed possessed the fake? Could they or did they know if Mr. Floyd had knowledge that it was counterfeit or how he obtained it?

Aren’t the Secret Service only interested in printing operations and patterns, not random twenty-dollar bills in which they cannot prove knowledge or intent? With authority to investigate but not arrest, why was any force at all used? Is it common knowledge that counterfeit money is in public circulation and could conceivably fall into the unsuspecting hand of any law-abiding citizen unbeknownst to them?  

Is there a point where the crime does not justify the force used or even handcuffing for a nonviolent cold stand or questioning? Can the actions leading to his death be justified compared to the nature of the crime, the public danger posed, or threats posed endangering the policemen’s safety? Was Mr. Floyd’s race a factor in the handling of this incident? Were the other policemen in fear of Chauvin or his reputation? Would a conversation, patience, or verbal persuasion have been more suitable, and is it also taught as a tool for law enforcement?

Reverse engineering of the circumstance and events reveals the highest contrast in logical continuity between what actually happened and what is said to have happened. Often when constructing a fabrication, it cannot pass the scrutiny of reverse analysis. It is constructed to make the pieces fit conceptually in a progression that only lends itself to conventional rationale, not in-depth questioning. The contemplation of why something would be necessary if the previous assertion is true becomes an evident contradiction. If it were true, it would be no need for the subsequent action.

For example, if they had honestly thought Mr. Floyd was experiencing distress before his death, why would Chauvin continue his behavior, or they allow it. It stands more to reason that they needed to conceal something and quickly falsified an implausible explaination that contradicts their prior assertions, actions, and the chronological sequence of events.

Their explanation leaves them exposed in too many areas lacking justification to be accurate. Moreover, it blatantly illuminates that if what they said were true, then countermeasures would not have been necessary, or otherwise, their action could not have been consistent with their initial assertion.

All indications are that their concern was for exposure from Chauvin’s reckless and willful misconduct, which left them assessing what they were part and parcel of was improper. Mr. Floyd needing medical attention could only be exacerbated by the distress inflicted upon him by Chauvin and their inaction. 

Now that the illumination of contradictions has been identified by the questions raised, then deductive conclusions of guilt can be examined and proven. Furthermore, did the punishment fit the crime or did the tactics fit the situation? Keep in mind even self-defense only allows for the force that neutralizes a threat and not beyond the danger posed.     

 

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

George Floyd Part 1 of 3– Your Applied Judgment

Procedural Legalities for those who might not know.

 

First, I would like to say respect and blessings to the Floyd family for me speaking on their loss.

Here in part 1, I will attempt to explain the legal aspects and implications of the case to provide a better understanding of the charges and trial considerations. Unfortunately, many assumptions from a civilian or layperson perspective deviate from the intricacies and nuances of the law.

Consequently, to make a better determination requires that we first establish the pertinent laws, criteria, and instructions needed to make an informed legal judgment. The distinctions of the law rely strictly on what can be proven, while what appears to be obvious evidence of proof can often differ from the letter of the law.

The first consideration did you actually commit the crime, and the primary element of proving you did commit the crime requires meeting the statutory legal standard for that crime. Then the mental state of mind and sanity are the following two main elements to be established.

The mental state of mind of knowingly is generally the most difficult mental state of mind to prove but usually carries the harshest penalty. The more serious the crime committed, the more precise the elements of the mental state of mind are to determine. This determination makes specific mental distinctions more challenging to prove.  

When ascertaining an individual’s mental state of mind, the law does not define when the origination of intent begins or the duration of that intent. Instead, the law only considers at what point a specific intent is detectable and its effect proven or demonstrated to substantiate that level of intent. In other words, not the duration of intent before or during the commission of the crime, but the intent present before or during contributing to the commission of that crime.

Proving intent is determined from the point it transitioned from obvious lawful actions to illegal or criminal acts. The intent comprises the observable actions and behavior individually or collectively exhibited, then applying the level of knowledge or should have known the outcome or risk of those actions and behavior. It is further judged by indifference or remorse for the outcome. The intent is the critical element in determining which statute was broken and to what degree.

The elements of a crime by statute are the first consideration, and the second is the degree relative to a mental state of mind. Thus, for example, murder is defined as the act of causing the death of another and has specific specifications and conditions, including elements that refer to various states of mind and jail terms. 

Murder classifications by degree are first-degree involving premeditation with intent. Meanwhile, second-degree is intentional killing lacking any malicious intent. Third-degree is with a depraved heart or mind disregarding human life. Lesser degrees involve manslaughter, etc. Third-degree murder is a charge only available in three states: Minnesota, Florida, and Pennsylvania being the three.

Third-degree murder is classified as the mental state of mind that displays depraved indifference but is not intentional; first and second degrees are deemed intentional. The enhanced specification of the felony murder rule is when during the commission of another felony, for example, felony assault in the first degree. Assault is generally defined as a physical attack inflicting physical harm or causing the fear of harm or threatening harm. 

Pursuant to the felony murder rule, an assault leading to death would be a first-degree felony assault. Elements of assault of a felonious nature should apply since the use of excessive or unnecessary force contributing to death is definitely a criminal act meeting the criteria. Assault can also be a lesser included crime or violation of the primary charge. 

The second criteria refer to Mens Rea, 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 cause a crime to be committed.

The elements and intent of that specific statute determine which criminal charges are brought. Although there may be a murder, the intent is what establishes what degree of murder. The levels of intent that establish degrees are purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, negligently, or as it applies to this case, depravity.

Actus Rea is the action taken to perform the criminal act or the physical action taken supporting the criminal act. The elements and intent derived from these illegal actions determine the number of violations charged from the same actions or incident.

Multiple charges can emerge from a single incident based upon how many statutes can be verified violated along with the accompanying jurisdiction to prosecute the violations. When multiple persons are involved, each role is ascertained as either having not participated or prevented, assisted in committing the offense, or being complicit in its commission.

Complicity is any part of the planning, execution, concealment, or escape designed to facilitate or participate in a crime. Any tools or methods to further that crime is viewed as evidence of complicity and a criminal tool. Complicity is the same degree of crime as the crime being aided and abetted.

The commission of the crime of complicity does not require direct physical involvement, just furtherance of the crime. For example, if the charge or crime is first-degree murder, then the complicity is to the same degree. If it is a misdemeanor, then complicity is a misdemeanor of the same degree.

It should be noted that any firearm carried during the commission or furtherance of a crime is an automatic felony by statute, even if that crime is a misdemeanor. The theft of a candy bar is a misdemeanor but a theft of a candy bar while armed is a robbery, constituting theft by use or implication of force. All four policemen were armed at the time of the critical incident making whatever violating actions automatic felonies.

Hate crimes are a separate set of considerations and probably unlikely in this instance to be proven. Kidnapping is defined as removing someone from the place found without authority to do so or restrict their movements without consent or authority to do so.

Kidnapping would apply in a very narrow sense if interpreted as any lawful custody ended when the criminality of excessive force began. Thus, unlawful restriction of his movements without legal right to do so by the excessive physical force negated any lawful authority. 

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. Thus, at the point of Chauvin’s knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck, it is mandatory that he had been placed under arrest and informed of such but well beyond being detained.

Adherence to state law, departmental policy and procedures, and observance of his Constitutional and Civil Rights require that prior to that degree of force that it must be necessary to have had placed him under arrest.

Assuming a pattern of tolerance exposing systemic violations of excessive force or violation of Civil Rights is also found, in that case, a federal consent decree and oversight is pursued by the DOJ. DOJ inquiry is entirely separate from any state charges.

The RICO Act is the DOJ federal statute regarding ongoing criminal enterprises involving murder, kidnapping, and other patterns of crime or corruption. Thus, previously used against police personnel and police departments when a widespread and systemic commission or tolerance of excessive force and other crimes existed within a police department.

It targets any law enforcement coordination, tolerance, or collaboration of crime or unlawful conduct. The RICO Act was designed to specifically 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. A Consent Decree is to prevent unlawful conduct and violations of Constitutional and Civil Rights. Violations of lawful procedural processes and prescribed sequences of actions become highlighted in situations like this to examine the legality of actions or any violations of rights specific to the proper execution of police duties and use of force.

 

 

 

One should also be aware that specific evidence that may be considered overwhelmingly prejudicial may not be allowed to be presented at trial, avoiding the appearance of bias affecting a defendant’s due process to a fair trial. The presiding judge and presumed law will determine rules of courtroom procedures to prevent improprieties or appeals.

Motions to suppress evidence or testimony will undoubtedly affect the perspective of those questioning the proceeding or desiring a particular outcome. After jury selection, the jury will be charged with their responsibilities and instruction and maybe sequestered for the trial. As always, a defendant has the right not to take the stand and testify on their own behalf without prejudice against their innocence. 

It is also essential to keep in mind not to become too consumed by the charges but instead the totality of the sentence if found guilty. The number of counts with a finding of guilty can be substantial if ran consecutively instead of concurrently.

Consecutive meaning one sentence of time after another, while concurrent means the time of all sentences will be served simultaneously. For example, ten years on two counts consecutive is twenty years, while ten years on two counts concurrent is a ten-year sentence.

Part 2 will examine the logical questions raised by the facts known or should have known at that time. Some of these questions are not as obvious but have a technical legal bearing on the legality of actions based on their justification and timing of enactment. However, it will also raise many of the obvious questions that come to mind.

Was Mr. Floyd placed under arrest, and at what point was he placed under arrest? Who placed him under or informed him that he was under arrest, and for what reason? Was he otherwise being lawfully and reasonably detained? Was the search of his person lawful according to the chronological order of events or his arrest?

The above legal considerations and presumptions were explained as a jury would impartially consider them to reach a verdict by applying the law to the circumstances. The above-detailed explanation of the law is to expand the comprehension of the novice to provide a relevant basis of understanding for an informed judgment.

I am not a lawyer, and the above is my general understanding and experience applied to this incident. With that said, the above legal references may differ slightly in different jurisdictions but are basically as stated. Thus, providing a foundation for those who are unfamiliar with the law, we can begin to scrutinize the actions taken by all parties.

Part 3 will explain the observations, deductive conclusions, and the application of the law as it relates to the encounter for the legal justification and culpability of each party. For example, 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? What actions are taken when suspected medical distress is presumed? Should not force discontinue when no longer necessary for an arrest?

If excessive force is used to restrict breathing and blood flow, does that not constitute a contributory cause to affect Mr. Floyd’s death? We will also examine procedural and protocol stipulations resulting from abuses to consider how support for these policing abuses diminishes law enforcement credibility and incites more restrictive policy changes.

Furthermore, procedures and protocols must be followed and reasonably executed with factual accounts given. Contradictory accounts are signs of coverup and deceit. Falsifying tour of duty reports, deadly force reports, false and misleading statements made or given are crimes.

Usually admissible in court is all excited utterances during the incident pointing to the mental state of mind at the time or a need to conceal it. We will attempt to clearly surmise the displayed mental state at the time of any observed actions or inactions with a duty to act. Some other influences and implications will be considered to contextualize the perceptions that explain the varying responses which attempt to condone Chauvin’s misconduct.

A brief cursory synopsis of the event as they chronologically occurred provides the basis on which any determination can be made by first establishing the assumptions under which we can evaluate the deadly incident. Accordingly, the facts and circumstances that I am aware of are as follows to clarify the foundation of my understanding to apply my observations.

 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 located in the driver’s seat of his vehicle. 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 on the sidewalk were de-escalated. Mr. Floyd was not combative verbally or physically. Mr. Floyd was escorted across the street without incident or struggle, although minor resistance.

The video view was then obscured by a squad car briefly. Mr. Floyd was assisted to the ground, and Chauvin was observed to have his knee and shin across Mr. Floyd’s neck area when the view was regained. The subsequent video did show Mr. Floyd objecting and resisting being placed in the squad car, claiming claustrophobia.

While prone on the ground 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. After several minutes of the sustained weight of approximately over two hundred pounds on his neck, Mr. Floyd not only showed no signs of resistance, but he also showed no signs of life.

They were legally responsible for his safety while under their control, custody, or detention. They had a legal obligation to discontinue any force when Mr. Floyd was no longer resistant or combative, and it became no longer necessary.

It has been determined that Mr. Floyd is suspected of succumbing 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 hands behind his back, excessive weight on his back, and definitely neck pressure 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. Every possible risk factor for this condition was present, and the risk of this condition was suspected by other policemen and brought to Chauvin’s attention, expressing concern.

This is a brief inquiry into the facts known to the public with a detailed logical examination of them. We are examining the facts for the highest level of conviction for those whose actions deserve it.

When examined chronologically, we can form a logical theory of the policemen’s actions. Actions supporting their justification, truthfulness, and intent; or actions exposing their culpability as exhibited by their conduct.

To meticulously examine their actions, Part 2 regarding facts and questions will reverse engineer the incident and assertions alleged, unveiling glaring discrepancies, immoral judgments, and skeptical justifications.

Remember that inaction is an action also. It is duel accountability for what you have done and for what you have failed to do. Examining the police’s reverse chronological sequence should demonstrate their mental state of mind and when it transitioned to become criminal. In a full review, we will also present Mr. Floyd’s actions and mental state of mind until his death.

First and foremost, Mr. Floyd, his toxicology or his actions are not on trial, and racism is not on trial. What is on trial is was the policemen’s conduct and actions, specifically Chauvin’s, within the realm of law and if that was a demonstration that we can condone as legitimate police procedures and conduct applied across the board against men, women, and juveniles.

Was it acceptable to remain on someone’s neck for nearly nine minutes even after they demonstrated no pulse and the other policemen to allow it, as well as dismiss the contributory consequences to Mr. Floyd’s death by doing so? That is the only question the jury needs to answer. But, first, we need to answer what precedence is set. And, secondly, what does that say about anyone who supports it and why?

 

Let me ask you a question, hypothetically speaking, if Mr. Floyd was one hundred percent wrong on all accounts, does that make Chauvin’s actions suitable or legal on all accounts?

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz