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: