George Floyd Part 3 of 3-Deductive Conclusions and Forfeited Integrity

When Playtime is Over.

George Floyd Part 3 of 3Deductive Conclusions and Forfeited Integrity

 

Welcome to when playtime is over, our goal is to stimulate thought and conversation, not to convert your perspective. Any persuasion is solely at your discretion and deliberation. For your consideration, we would like to offer  and as always for those who are easily offended, emotions will not be needed so please before entering check your feelings at the door.

 Uncompromising Evaluation

An objective examination has to be detached from the desired outcome or emotional inclination and should only examine the facts and actions as they were observed to have occurred. Then compared to any explanations given when evaluated against these observations will yield the clearest determination of guilt or innocence. Strictly an uncompromising assessment of the deeds alone removed from the identity of the person performing the deed will objectively reveal if the deed was justified regardless of who the doer of the deed may have been.

For the exact purposes of guilt or justification of actions, it is practically irrelevant who committed the act but only if they had a legal right to do so in the manner in which they did. It comes down to right or wrong, proper or improper no matter who did it, friend or foe. Impartiality demands that if that same set of circumstances existed with you it would be considered fair and just. This is the ultimate perspective of neutrality of judgment required with respect to the application of the law. With this lens of detachment, the incident can begin to be clarified.

The encounter was initiated by the clerk requesting a police response in c/w Mr. Floyd passing a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill. The police responded to find Mr. Floyd was located in the driver’s seat of his vehicle. He was removed from the vehicle, placed in cuffs, and escorted to the sidewalk where he was seated. He was then escorted across the street without incident but resisted being placed in the rear of the squad car. He claimed to be claustrophobic, a recognized mental disorder of anxiety, but no exclusion from being placed in a squad car or arrested.

A brief struggle of control ensued with Mr. Floyd being resistant to being placed in the rear of the squad car but not actively combative or aggressive toward the policemen. His observed intent was to not be placed in the squad car but it was not to inflict injury upon the policemen. Being placed on the ground prone is a judgment call and at the policemen’s discretion but would seem to contradict any claims of their concern for his previously displayed distress. There was oddly no verbal attempt to deescalate the situation or attempt to calm his anxiety especially since it was not a violent crime or exigent circumstances. 

If possible verbal de-escalation is the first tactic on the force continuum scale and would have seemed preferable considering the investigation into the details of the counterfeit twenty had not begun in earnest and they still had not determined what their course of action would or could be. Enforcement of the law dictates that restraint be used comparatively to the crime committed unless escalating circumstances command a more intensive response. Just as you would not use swat for a jaywalker, the response given has to be in accordance with the crime committed and the response received.

That notwithstanding, once prone on the ground Mr. Floyd’s mental state was also reflected by his physical state, he was submitted. He was within the policemen’s control and physically compliant. He was also verbally compliant pleading for his life and stating his physical condition of respiratory distress, and that he could not breathe. Mr. Floyd offered no further resistance to being placed in the car because he was prone on the ground 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?

Chauvin demonstrated his total control of Mr. Floyd by virtue of Chauvin’s hands being in his pockets indicating that whatever resistance that had been present Mr. Floyd was well under control at that point. Furthermore, Mr. Floyd provided no resistance from the point of being unconscious or deceased although Chauvin continued the neck pressure with his hands casually in his pockets. Suspect control or threat of harm was never a concern. Chauvin’s casual placement of his hands in his pocket from the start reveals that any threat had been subdued.

Mr. Floyd was 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 survival or revival. No corpus delicti or proof of guilt was ever established since the intent was not established that he knew it was bad money.

It should be noted that if Mr. Floyd had been one hundred percent compliant the incident would have unfolded differently however did his non-compliance rise to the level of force that was used and sustained on him. Cooperation with law enforcement is always preferable but the force used for non-compliance must be measured to the circumstances. It should also be noted that so callous was Chauvin’s indifference that even Mr. Floyd’s plea for his deceased mother or his unconscious state elicited no compassion from Chauvin’s demented implementation of the ”law”. 

Now let us examine the policemen’s actions individually and collectively to establish any culpability. No culpability means that they had no effect on his death and it probably would have happened anyway at that exact particular time. They did not send four policemen for a counterfeit-twenty assignment, so who received the call and who was 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. Was there a procedural discrepancy with the response to the assignment?

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 of this observed distress and when? What were the signs?

If he was in fact believed to be in distress, it should have changed from a possible arrest situation into providing medical assistance. The main reason is city liability, if he were 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 to his room around the clock to guard him. To avoid their liability and the city’s he should have been passed off to medical personal. He could have then been made a named suspect for future charges.

Aside from that, it is their legal and sworn obligation to provide assistance and not continue pursuing arrest when medical attention is needed while under their control. 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. Considering his suspected medical distress and only having the ability to arrest with prior authorization from the Secret Service for permission, that should have made them get him medical help and be on their way. It becomes problematic with the suspected medical complication and lack of jurisdictional authority to arrest.

Once taken to the ground on his stomach alongside the squad car with his hands cuffed behind his back, he posed no threat to the four policemen or no threat to escape. It is nearly impossible 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 no longer necessary to bring a person under control. Once unresponsive he was incapable of any resistance or threat.

Minimal force required to effect an arrest is the standard to justify force, but when it is no longer necessary there is no justification for its use and no allowance for it legally. What is the justification for kneeling on a deceased man’s neck for over two minutes and 46 seconds after his suspected expiration?  The application of the knee to the neck area is where the criminality begins, and Chauvin’s mental state of mind begins to be detectable and exposed.

It is also at this point that the complicity of the other policemen’s state of mind can be determined, regardless of if they had participated or not in the restraint, their intent also became apparent. Two policemen did knowingly, purposefully, willingly, and physically participate to some degree in exerting force and providing assistance to Chauvin to further his criminal excessive use of force with no legal justification.  They essentially participated in the assault of Mr. Floyd since there was no legal justification for force. The third policeman served as a deterrent and threat to discourage anyone who would intervene. With Mr. Floyd fully compromised there was no need for any continued force or support of it.

Chauvin did knowingly, willfully, purposefully, recklessly, and negligently steadfastly hold his knee to Mr. Floyd’s neck area which resulted in his death even if only a contributory factor. If argued that Chauvin’s intent was not to kill Mr. Floyd but to restrain him, at what point did Mr. Floyd no longer need restraining? Additionally, Chauvin’s excessive force was knowingly and purposefully applied resulting in Mr. Floyd’s death rendering the force intentional and the death consequential to that force. It is expected that an 18-year veteran reasonably would have known the possible consequences, especially when warned and concerns were stated by other policemen.

What cannot be argued is that certainly Chauvin’s knee was intentionally placed there for nearly a nine-minute duration of time and he knowingly, willfully, purposefully, recklessly, and negligently without regard for the outcome because he replied to concerns acknowledging his disregard. 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 fully displaying the ease of his depravity, arrogance, and control. The force used on Mr. Floyd by any officer once he was on the ground on his stomach handcuffed was a criminal act and felony assault by virtue of the policemen being armed as well as the assault resulting in Mr. Floyd’s death.

Excited delirium by compression is asphyxiation defined as suffocation or a smothering effect. Breathing restriction and compression by weight is always the main trigger and can clearly be determined to have played a significant role in Mr. Floyd’s death. As a policeman, you cannot facilitate a crime or if you observe a crime you are sworn to intervene, and it does not specify who is committing the crime. Any unlawful act you are sworn to intervene and prevent. There were multiple failures to intervene or pursue an alternative action that could have saved Mr. Floyd’s life.  

At the point when Mr. Floyd 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 eventual 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 the assault, 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 has the most experience and discernment knowing what to do or more importantly what not to do.

Chauvin knowingly continued his felony assault and discouraged other courses of mitigation or intervention. He knowingly and purposefully did hold his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck and maintained it there fully aware of the risk and without legal justification. The other policemen’s actions were to do nothing to end this excessive use of force and were actively complicit in holding witnesses at bay using the authority of their uniforms and weapons, arguably as criminal tools.

The issue of crowd control is separate from the excessive use of force on Mr. Floyd and no way is he responsible for the crowd which he did not incite which reveals that a separate response regarding that concern should have been directed toward the crowd. No obstruction charges or otherwise has been levied against any member of the crowd just as no additional force on Mr. Floyd should have been levied against Mr. Floyd for the crowds’ actions. Their fear from the crowd was due to Chauvin’s use of excessive force, not a menacing crowd threatening violence but a rebuking crowd.

They used their uniforms and intimidation of their authority in the furtherance of Chauvin’s crime. Had it not been armed 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 displaying their complicity and willful approval of Chauvin’s actions by their inaction or support of his actions. The two rookie policemen knowingly acted to support Chauvin to further his felony physical assault thereby consenting to his actions and sharing his Mens rea, intentional infliction of unnecessary force. Their state of mind was to willfully, purposely, recklessly, and negligently with full knowledge against all perceived risk consent to excessive force by at one point physically assisting. It is very clear; they did not oppose it or intervene to prevent it but did assist in it.

Citizens and bystanders 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 led 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 deceased. Chauvin 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 at various times. This was a homicide committed by a policeman that was aided and abetted by three 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 to their crime but present overwhelming evidence against their actions. The question of intent or guilt for Mr. Floyd’s death would seem undeniable but due process of law and possible plea bargain or sentencing arrangements could be the only reason to claim innocence certainly not the legal justification of their actions. How can anyone defend their actions?

Mr. Floyd was a human being who was treated inhumanely well below any standard which should be acceptable from law enforcement. The law has no accommodation for such actions. Mr. Floyd’s Constitutional and Civil Rights were trampled and suffocated from his body without compassion by policemen who now hide behind their own rights seeking compassion.

Their Constitutional Rights will be upheld and due process assured them where defense attorneys will attempt to blame Mr. Floyd for his own death while being handcuffed on the ground. Despite the force continuum, display of excessive force on a deceased man, discrepancies in observable actions, and their implausible explanations they will try to justify the reprehensible by claiming no laws were broken by them. Perhaps along with some form of qualified immunity will be claimed.

Aside from the verdict still to be rendered from the courtroom, the City of Minneapolis has rendered their own with a historic settlement of 27 million dollars to settle the wrongful death lawsuit regarding this incident. The size of the settlement reflects the horrific depravity beyond reason, vindication, protection of the law, or moral standards. It was an honorable action by the City to not attempt to justify or minimize the colossal injustice which caused Mr. Floyd’s death. It should be an exemplary example of admission of blatant guilt to preserve the integrity of government and law enforcement.    

Defending obviously egregious acts greatly diminishes public respect for and compliance with law enforcement and encourages resistance to unfairness. The public trust which took many good deeds and years to establish can be nationally destroyed instantly by one act such as Chauvin’s. It can only be regained when the law is enforced equally including against law enforcement personnel that violate their sworn duty.

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 policing is creating problems for them and eroding their protections. The negative consequences are suffered by the law enforcement community even more so than the public. Everyone in the public does not interact with law enforcement but all law enforcement must adhere to a code of conduct imposed on them as a result of the repercussions of Chauvin-like behavior.

The implementation of body cameras, the loss of credibility, the attrition of public perception, the increased propensity for resistance and aggression against personnel, the funding issues, the decrease of union and bargaining power, the restrictions on equipment for fear it may be abused against the public, creation of more hazardous working conditions, decrease public cooperation, GPS on vehicles, restricting search warrant criteria, use of force and contact documentation, federal oversite, qualified immunity protections removed for honest mistakes, morale decline, dissension among the ranks, and many more are directly related to law enforcement not being willing to police themselves. When law enforcement cannot self-regulate themselves then more restrictive levels of accountability are placed upon them.

Law enforcement must evolve beyond the pathology and culture which it traditionally has operated under to change its method of operation progressing beyond the rugged physically tough beat cop authoritatively demanding unconditional absolute submission to their authority. No longer exempt from judgment being protected by their arrogant elite status as the law or by the repressive intimidation of ominous consequences separated from the people they should serve. Coercion by a quasi-military occupying force which civilians must categorically comply with or force will be justified is no longer tolerated.

Being law-abiding should not require a humbling and submission to authority even when unlawful acts reminiscent of vigilantism are imposed by law enforcement. You must simply enforce the law not become the law. Police have historically been the enforcement arm of racism, immigration, minority control, as well as labor and union disputes at the direction of those with undue influence over policy or preference. As a result, they have enjoyed a royal centurion discretion accountable only to their superiors to whom they answer relegating the commoners beneath the power invested in them creating fearful respect.

The regulation of authority, punishment, and freedom instills a reflexive apprehension when dealing with law enforcement. We all know the feeling when a police car activates its lights behind us. The perception and projected expectation of behavior during these encounters are generally uneasiness until relieved by their demeanor or the reason for the encounter. It is usually magnified to a conditioned anxiety if you are a member of a demographic where abuses have been normalized or expected. Racism has always been entrenched in law enforcement and the military with a culture of tolerance and a lack of condemnation implying a tacit if not often explicit approval endorsing that authoritative abusive mentality when no action is taken or it is condoned.

This tendency towards an adversarial mentality must be modified and admonished when inappropriate. An us versus them mentality reinforces a war-like perspective where the opposition is dehumanized to justify abuses and violations of their dignity and humanity insisting their rights and treatment is an inconsequential consideration and rationalization for lack of accountability regarding your treatment of them. War or law enforcement displayed at its worst should have regulations regarding the rules of engagement, treatment, and capture that must be followed. Law enforcement must follow the guidelines established and when blatantly in violation should concede error instead of the righteous indignation of defiance to being judged.

If you will not listen or display reason you are essentially providing no other option except to not be reasoned with thereby encouraging noncompliance further justifying a response in a self-fulfilling hazard of your own creation. Evolution is preferable to revolution when reflecting or pursuing social changes, and cooperation by persuasion to convince rather than rugged physicality or force seems a better alternative. To accept surrender is preferred to forceable submission and if fair surrender will not be accepted then resistance is forced. The goal is not a calibration of machismo but the easiest obtainment of an objective.

Let force be the response to conflict and not the cause of it. Influences of the history of policing by implication, ideology, and methodology must reflect the future of societal tolerances to preserve the most respect and support for law enforcement. The job is not for everyone, maybe not the faint of heart or brutally inclined with limited people skills. For the maximum support for law enforcement to be maintained there has to be admissions of obvious wrongdoing and misconduct. It is counterproductive for law enforcement to support violations of wrongdoing; it exposes that the system is broken and they will not fix it without further restriction of their authority. Law enforcement must be subjected to the same laws they are sworn to enforce, not above them.

It is sometimes necessary and always better to relinquish the part for the good of the whole. Good decent Officers must not be cast under a cloak of scorn with elevated hazards under hostile working conditions to defend the indefensible. The police union dues, morale, and resources should not be spent despite members’ dissent for actions they disagree with and know to be wrong. 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 not to 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 and send me to prison for your actions. This is understood.

The police union has an obligation to defend officers but not to waste the resources 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. The real thin blue line and honor among officers is to not ruin or let a fellow officer get jackpotted on your dime. United we stand separately we fall so that others are left standing. The primary offender should accept the brunt of the burden to alleviate as much as possible on the remaining policemen. That is the real code.

The union has a responsibility to protect the union body above an individual member understanding that one must sometimes answer so that others may serve without contempt. Refusing the obvious accountability disparages the union’s principles and by association the principles of your union members that paints the 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 righteous needs of the many outweigh the detrimental actions of the few. If they blow it so badly then you must step away and condemn their actions even if by absentee proxy by removing your unwavering defense, if not your conditional 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, good and bad, wear the same respected uniform it is hard to tell from the outside looking in but you know from the inside, the good from the bad. The decision must be made among the ranks, the bosses, the prosecutors, and the judges but mostly the street cops on the front line who are the most vulnerable to not allow members to tarnish them by criminal behavior because you become silently complicit by aiding and abetting that as well. The street cops surely suffer the consequences most.

When the union sees no evil and the union staunchly proclaims with arrogant indifference their support for crimes such as this, then by demonstration and proclamation the only logical conclusion left is that this could be an undetected RICO violation of an ongoing culture of a criminal enterprise with known collaborators and tolerance for criminal activity and corruption. It invites investigations and attention. At the very least it is a poor demonstration of leadership that endangers law enforcement and promotes an insidious culture waiting to implode again.

We know what it should say about Chauvin but what does it really say about those who would defend this public assassination. Who can be proud of this abomination or defend its despicable representation as good policing? 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 by supporting these actions? Did these actions meet departmental expectations and are they representative of what a police union and police department can be proud of?

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. At its core, it is murder by all standards for all involved which should come with extended stay, room, and board, free amenities, free utilities, plenty of company, and lifetime membership for Chauvin should also be included.  More specifically extensive prison time for all four, levels of accountability, and deterrents must be set. The success of any conviction is not in imposing the highest charges but in dispensing the most prison time to be served. At the Judge’s discretion sentences should run consecutive meaning one after another which means maximum prison time.

Local, national, and global outrage has been agitated to condemn this vile murder while some would defend this evil at enormous cost claiming support of law enforcement or Mr. Floyd’s non-compliance. This not racial, black or white but human, he was a human being with a family and loved ones whose actions did not rise to the level of what we all witnessed. It should never be witnessed or suffered again. If this were done to an animal the depravity would be obvious and the outrage universal or would you prefer that this happen to other men, women, and juveniles as justified standard police operating procedures especially over minor offenses.

Police procedure and conduct are what is on trial. Why hasn’t the ongoing protest, property destruction, billions of dollars in resources and lost productivity, racial division, and decay of law enforcement respect, safety, and morale not been enough to admonish the actions of one man’s barbaric casual act of murder? Remember, this is all over a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill and the question must be asked was it worth it?. If you need any further guidance on if it was worth it the City of Minneapolis just gave 27 million reasons why it wasn’t.

 

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

George Floyd Part 2 of 3- Logical Reasoning

When Playtime is Over.

George Floyd Part 2 of 3– Logical Reasoning

Welcome to when playtime is over, our goal is to stimulate thought and conversation, not to convert your perspective. Any persuasion is solely at your discretion and deliberation. For your consideration, we would like to offer George Floyd Part 2 of 3Logical Reasoning and as always for those who are easily offended, emotions will not be needed so please before entering check your feelings at the door.

 

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 that were 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 that it can be 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 at the time, 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. A diligent analysis of the timing and sequence will reveal crucial determinations of criminality and culpability. Our method will be to state the facts as we believe them to be true and then ask the pertinent questions raised. 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 along with 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 a 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 of the policemen involved make notifications to advise command? Were there recorded specialized channels that more sensitive information was communicated over? Did that happen, by whom, and at what time? If such secure channel communications took place were they recorded 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 prevention of collaboration of statements prior to interviews? Was witness identification and statements gathered?

Facts: The primary policeman at this point has later been identified as Chauvin, an 18-year veteran of the force and the senior officer on 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. The greater the 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 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 full body weight on Mr. Floyd’s neck. The force continuum scale governs police use of force and the justification for what type of force is permitted to be used. Code red is the highest level of threat and response category. Any neck restraint is classified as a code red on the force continuum scale which categorizes the severity of its use as deadly force.

With code red being the very highest threat level assessment, the resulting response can only be to preserve life or avoid serious bodily harm but not to 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 which is understood to likely have caused or contributed to his death or inflicted serious physical harm upon him, the necessity or articulation for its use is a problematic violation from its initiation and certainly its continuation.   

It must be reiterated 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 it was applied. 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 Mr. Floyd would have succumbed to them at that very moment anyway without Chauvin’s use of excessive force.  

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

The City gives the authority to arrest for misdemeanors and issue citations. The State gives the authority for deadly force and to arrest for felonies and that 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 and should be discontinued as resistance lessens or it is no longer necessary. But in this instance, it becomes clear it was not necessary to effect an arrest or gain compliance when Chauvin has in hand in his pocket and there was no need to even 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 at any point he had been a code red threat, 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 were 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’s given the opportunity to comply and were there verbal commands and instructions issued for compliance? Had compliance and control already effectively been achieved when basically three officers had only secondary participation? 

Were Mr. Floyd pleadings, not an opportunity to ease the use of deadly force, issue orders to comply, a clear indication of his willingness to comply, as well as their responsibility and duty to discontinue or cause to be discontinued the use of force absent his resistance or the 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 are to believe their concern for Mr. Floyd’s medical condition then 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 and 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 certainly 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 could 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 as a deterrent to 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 fully 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 the consideration of the facts and motivations known at that time, not overriding the action which occurred then. The prevailing influence of histories is consistently demonstrating 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 be an indication of 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 to be 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 should be disregarded, the history of the two rookie policemen should be 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 to be treated 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 bearing would that have on the incident at the time 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 because it did not meet the physical standard or required warnings to cease and desist or be 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: Prior to being removed from the car was Mr. Floyd properly advised as to what the encounter was about? If at the point of handcuffing Mr. Floyd, he was showing signs of distress why was he 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 was showing signs of distress why did Chauvin place his knee on his neck further complicating his distress? What was observed and what conveyed physical signs and indications that were concerning? What, how, and when were the signs escalating indicating decline?  

If Mr. Floyd was showing 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 time of suspicion before he was brought 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 was showing 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?  Suppose if he were suspected of 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 being 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 pull 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? Did they know that they lacked the authority to arrest him without providing he had knowledge 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 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 to policemen’s safety being endangered? 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. Many times when a fabrication is constructed it cannot stand the scrutiny of reverse analysis because it was constructed to make the pieces fit conceptually in a progression that only lends itself to conventional rationale. The contemplation of why would something 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 truly thought Mr. Floyd was experiencing distress prior to his death why would Chauvin continue his behavior or they allow it. It stands more to reason that they had the need to conceal something and quickly falsified an implausible explain 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 true and blatantly illuminates that if what they said were true then countermeasures would not have been necessary or otherwise their action would 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 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 which is posed.      

 

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

 

George Floyd Part 1 of 3– Your Applied Judgment

When Playtime is Over.

George Floyd Part 1 of 3– Your Applied Judgment

 

Welcome to when playtime is over, our goal is to stimulate thought and conversation, not to convert your perspective. Any persuasion is solely at your discretion and deliberation. For your consideration, we would like to offer George Floyd Part 1 of 3– Your Applied Judgment and as always for those who are easily offended, emotions will not be needed so please before entering check your feelings at the door.

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

Procedural Legalities for those who might not know.

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. 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 which will be 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 is 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 next 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 makes specific mental distinctions more difficult to prove.   

The law when is 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. The law only considers at what point a specific intent is detected and its effect that can be proven or demonstrated to substantiate that level of intent. In other words, not how long the intent existed before or during the commission of the crime, but just what intent can be proven before or during that contributed to the commission of that crime.

Proving intent is determined from the point it transitioned from obvious lawful actions to illegal or criminal actions. The intent is comprised of 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 key 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 mental state of mind. The crime of murder is defined as the act of causing the death of another and has certain 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, second-degree intentional killing lacking any malicious intent, third-degree is with a depraved heart or mind disregarding human life, and lesser degrees involve manslaughter, etc. Third-degree murder is a charge only available in three states in the country Minnesota, Florida, and Pennsylvania being the three.

Third-degree murder is classified by the mental state of mind being considered to display depraved indifference but not intentional, first and second degree are considered 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 would cause a crime to be committed. The elements and intent of that specific statute determine which criminal charges are brought forward and 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 criminal actions determine which and how many violations can be charged from the same actions or incident. Multiple charges can emerge from a single incident based upon how many statutes can be verified to have been violated along with the accompanying jurisdiction to prosecute the violations. When multiple persons are involved it must be ascertained each person’s role as either having not participated nor 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 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 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. 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 able 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. Unlawful restriction of his movements without legal right to do so by virtue of the excessive physical force used 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. 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 being used that it must be necessary to have had placed him under arrest. If a pattern of tolerance exposing systemic violations of excessive use of force or violation of Civil Rights are found then a federal consent decree and oversight is pursued by the DOJ. DOJ inquiry is totally 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. It has been used against police personnel and police departments before when a widespread and systemic commission or tolerance of the use of excessive force and other crimes existed within a police department. Any law enforcement coordination, tolerance, or collaboration of crime or unlawful conduct is targeted. 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. 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 certain evidence which 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. Rules of courtroom procedures will be determined by the presiding judge and presumed law to prevent improprieties or appeals. Motions to suppress evidence or testimony will certainly affect the perspective of those questioning the proceeding or desiring a certain outcome. After jury selection, the jury will be charged with their responsibilities and instruction followed by sequestered before opening arguments. As always a defendant has the right to not take the stand and testify on their own behalf without prejudice against their innocence.  

It is also important 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 consecutive as opposed to concurrent. 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 count concurrent is a ten-year sentence.

Part 2 will examine the logical questions raised by the facts known or should have been 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. 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 have been 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 clearly 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. With that as 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. 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 to be taken when suspected medical distress is presumed? Should not force be discontinued when no longer necessary for an arrest? If excessive force was used to restrict the 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. All excited utterances during the incident point to the mental state of mind at the time or a need to conceal it but are usually admissible in court. 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. The facts and circumstances that I am aware of are as follows to clarify the foundation of my understanding in which I am applying 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 to be 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 had been de-escalated and 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, 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.  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 and 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 to have 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 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 just a brief inquiry into the facts known to the public with a detailed logical examination of them which is needed for the highest level of conviction for those whose actions deserve it. Now that it has been examined chronologically, we can form a logical theory of the policemen’s actions to better determine the justification, truthfulness, and intent disclosing their culpability as exhibited by their actions. 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 reverse chronological sequence of the policemen’s actions should demonstrate their mental state of mind and when it transitioned to become criminal. We will also in full review demonstrate 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. What we need to answer is what precedence does that set and what does that say about anyone who supports it and why?

 

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

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 right or legal on all accounts?