Candid Video Part 3

George Floyd, Logical Reasoning.

Part 3

Deductive Conclusions

The force used on Mr. Floyd by any officer once he was on the ground on his stomach was a criminal act and felony assault by virtue of the policemen being armed. As a policeman, if you see a crime you are sworn to intervene, and it does not specify who is committing the crime. At the point when he was believed to have been in distress before crossing the street, at the point when he complained of breathing difficulties with Chauvin on his neck, at the point when he had no pulse when checked, at the point when an officer suggested to sit him up to avoid the known concern of death which was the outcome, at the point when an officer explicitly mention excited delirium concerns, at the point when Mr. Floyd was unresponsive, and at the point when the public begged for his life were all points when and where intervention should have occurred legally.

During these times, Chauvin verbally responded disregarding all concerns and information which he knew or should have known being an 18-year veteran on the job, a field training officer, and the senior man on the scene. The senior man is always held to a higher standard because it is assumed he should know what to do or more importantly what not to do. Chauvin knowingly continued his felony assault and discouraged other courses of action of mitigation or intervention. He knowingly and purposefully having placed his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck and maintained it there fully aware of the risk and without justification. The other policemen’s actions were to do nothing to end this excessive use of force and were to actively hold witnesses at bay using the authority of their uniforms and weapons. Had it not been uniformed policemen involved there is a more likely chance a civilian would have intervened preventing Mr. Floyd’s death. They provided protection while Chauvin committed his crime using the collective power of the uniform they represented as a criminal tool to further allow Chauvin’s actions.

Sometimes it becomes necessary to relinquish the part for the good of the whole. Good decent Officers must be cast under a cloak of scorn with the elevated hazard under hostile working conditions to defend the indefensible. The police union dues, morale, and resources will be spent despite their dissent for actions they disagree with and know to be wrong. Defending obviously egregious acts greatly diminishes public respect for law enforcement and encourage resistance to avoid this outcome. Public trust which took many good deeds and years to establish can be destroyed instantly but swiftly regained when the law is enforced equally including against law enforcement personnel that violate their sworn duty.

The two rookie policemen knew that their actions permitted Chauvin to further his physical felony assault thereby consenting to his actions and sharing his Mens rea. That state of mind was to willfully, purposely, recklessly, and negligently with full knowledge against all risk consented to excessive force. It is clear, they did not oppose it. People with no time on the job or academy training knew the risk. Mr. Floyd and the public were trying to tell the policemen repeatedly. All four policemen were fully aware that their actions or inaction posed a significant risk to Mr. Floyd’s life even insinuating it themselves. The consequences of their actions or inactions were known or should have been known that serious bodily harm and/or death would be the result.

Due to the 8 minutes and 46-second duration of the homicide beginning when Mr. Floyd was handcuffed on his stomach on the ground, all four policemen displayed knowing, willful, purposeful, reckless, and negligent conduct at various intervals while Mr. Floyd was the victim of excessive force that lead to his death. It is obvious that Chauvin’s intent was to disregard the risk of death to Mr. Floyd continuing even when Mr. Floyd was dead and continued until the EMTs arrived. None of the policemen did anything to stop Chauvin or aid Mr. Floyd. All four policemen displayed each of the required mindsets during the duration of the lengthy deadly incident. This was a homicide committed by a policeman that was aided and abetted by other policemen. Citizen video, police bodycam, their own radio transmissions, and multiple witnesses in broad daylight in full view of the public were not deterrents. Now within the world view and scrutiny, the malicious murder was seen and the people have spoken loudly, voicing their disgust, a moral indictment has been rendered. How can anyone defend these actions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Mr. Floyd was previously known to Chauvin then that could reveal additional intent or premeditation. The courtroom drama will now most likely play out attempting to justify the indefensible. The success of the conviction is not in imposing the highest charges but in dispensing the most prison time to be served. At the Judge’s discretion sentences can run consecutive meaning one after another which is generally more prison time than the total of separate charges ran concurrent or at the same time. I have seen a five-million-dollar cash bond or no bond due to certain crimes, a threat to public safety, and a threat to public peace. If they did not fear for their actions, then they should not fear to have it called for what it is and suffer the consequences. To the core, it appears to meet murder 1 standards for all involved.

Obvious and blatant violations of the law, of duty, and public trust cannot be condoned and tolerated especially when it is this egregious and erodes the public trust. Such egregious acts make it hard for good Officers to maintain public trust when this kind of policemen are creating problems for them. Everyone who has worked any place for any extended time knows who ain’t about nothing and will make the shoes tight for everyone causing their problem to be everybody else’s. They will put you in the jackpot along with themselves, but this jackpot comes with extended stay, room, and board. Free amenities, free utilities, and plenty of company, and lifetime memberships are also available.

The first rule of policing is to go home every night from the job, the will to overcome, and to survive encounters. The second is do not let someone send you to the penitentiary and jackpot you by their actions. I am not going to do your time for you or with you, I will not let you jackpot me. The police union has an obligation to defend officers but not to waste the union dues of members by publicly and arrogantly condoning unquestionably damaging behavior which compromises the whole department’s credibility. A policeman has a fiduciary duty to supply the union with actions they can defend but not to the detriment of the union members, the police department, and the whole legal structure.

What manner of twisted articulation can justify these four policemen’s actions? Why the extraordinary efforts to justify this behavior and claim that these actions were necessary and legal? Why lose all credibility to represent the other members you represent by supporting these actions? Refusing obvious accountability as anyone else doing something similar would face, exposes your principles and by association, and the principles of the members can paint good officers with a bloody brush. When these policemen’s actions do not give you anything to work with you must save the ship instead of circling the wagons. The need of the many outweighs the need of the few. If they blow it so bad then you must step away and condemn their actions even if by absentee, removing your support.

How many of your members agree with having their dues spent for this? How many good OFFICERS have to suffer as a whole nationally with the public perception that you promote? When you all, good and bad, dress alike and wear the uniform it is hard to tell who is who from the outside looking in but you know from the inside. The decision must be made among the ranks, the bosses, the prosecutors, and the Judges but mostly the street cops on the front line to not allow someone to endanger them by their criminal behavior because you become complicit by aiding and abetting that as well. When the union sees no evil, and the union staunchly proclaims with righteous indignation their support in critical incidents such as this, then by demonstration and proclamation the only logical conclusion left is that this is a RICO violation of an ongoing criminal enterprise with known collaborators and tolerance of criminal activity and corruption. It is a poor demonstration of leadership that endangers us all.

P.S. All four policemen’s assets and homeowner’s insurance should remain susceptible to claim until all adjudications and proceedings are complete and they are determined to not be subject to claim. Also once divorced the husband/wife confidentiality clause remains intact covering the period of the marriage which may be a maneuver to protect and transfer assets. The assets are a vicarious liability to the wife by their marital union which has been known to encourage in this case the husband to take full responsibility for his actions agreeing to absolve her of joint financial liability.

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

 

Please follow and like us:

Candid Video Part 2

George Floyd, Logical Reasoning, and Deductive Conclusions.

Part 2

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.

Please follow and like us: