Leaked, by a British news agency, after 2 months. Now how's that for transparency?
In partial footage obtained by the Daily Mail from the body cameras worn by two of the now-former Minneapolis police officers involved in the arrest of George Floyd, a panicked Floyd can be seen struggling with officers while in the back of a squad car in the minutes before his death, saying, "I can't breathe."
The Daily Mail, based in London, does not say how it obtained the footage of the police body cameras.
Footage from the police body-worn cameras of Thomas Lane and J. Alexander Kueng was filed with the court July 7 by Lane's attorney as evidence supporting his motion to dismiss the charges against the former officer, but only the written transcripts were made public by the court at the time.
Judge Peter Cahill, who is presiding over the cases, made the body camera footage from Lane and Kueng available for limited in-person viewing at the court July 15.
Cahill had declined to allow news organizations to publish the footage. A coalition of local and national media companies, including CNN, filed a motion in July calling for the immediate release of the two body-worn camera videos.
This video illustrates very well how this incident could have had a very different outcome if the police had been trained to de-escalate tense situations rather than simply to apply force. Couple...
This video illustrates very well how this incident could have had a very different outcome if the police had been trained to de-escalate tense situations rather than simply to apply force. Couple the force-first response along with systemic racism in (some) police departments, and you have a self-perpetuating cycle: individuals panic and resist arrest because they know they are at risk, and the police then “confirm” to themselves that more force is necessary. This video is raw evidence of a broken system.
I imagine this video will go a long way towards clearing the officer of murder. Seems like it would be pretty easy for a good attorney to demonstrate that there was no willful murder based on the...
I imagine this video will go a long way towards clearing the officer of murder. Seems like it would be pretty easy for a good attorney to demonstrate that there was no willful murder based on the fact that Floyd is seen saying "I can't breathe" long before they even start touching his neck, therefore the officer didn't know he really couldn't breathe when he later truly couldn't. It will be interesting to see the mayhem once he's declared innocent.
I can't really imagine this will change the outcome. This doesn't change the fact that Chauvin kneelt on his neck for close to 9 minutes, against protocol, which resulted in his death. That Floyd...
I can't really imagine this will change the outcome. This doesn't change the fact that Chauvin kneelt on his neck for close to 9 minutes, against protocol, which resulted in his death. That Floyd was saying he couldn't breath beforehand doesn't really matter. It would be similar to if someone was saying "ouch that hurts" before being repeatedly tazed, and then the officers claiming they couldn't tell if he was really in pain while being tazed. I could perhaps see the other officers being exonerated somewhat from this video.
This will of course allow people to interpret the arrest in a different way, and I expect that people on the right will be much less hesitant about defending these officers than they were before, as well as much more willing to portray George Floyd in a negative light.
For me, this honestly doesn't change much (and even less so keeping in mind all the cases of brutality we have seen documented since protests began). I also expect that the majority of the population already has their mind made up and a narrative set about what happened, and I don't think this video is enough of a 'bombshell' to really shake that up.
I found out about this on Reddit yesterday where tons of people had already started saying this exonerates the cops, they can't understand why people don't follow instructions, and if he had...
I found out about this on Reddit yesterday where tons of people had already started saying this exonerates the cops, they can't understand why people don't follow instructions, and if he had everything would have been fine. Eventually I worked out the overwhelming support for that view was probably due to the sub it was posted in, but it never ceases to amaze me how folks can twist evidence to support their worldview.
To get him for murder, they have to prove he intended to kill Floyd. The defense seems pretty straightforward. "He was claiming he couldn't breathe long before we even touched him. I didn't know...
To get him for murder, they have to prove he intended to kill Floyd. The defense seems pretty straightforward.
"He was claiming he couldn't breathe long before we even touched him. I didn't know he really couldn't breathe later on."
"I've performed these neck restraints X number of times and no one has ever died before. I didn't know he would die this time."
"He had drugs X, Y, and Z in his system that likely led to or exacerbated his death. I didn't know he was on these drugs."
I think they could get him for manslaughter, but murder seems like a stretch. I don't think the video changes much either except for giving Chauvin 1 more arrow in his defense quiver (item #1 above).
I find all the other videos of police brutality towards protesters much more compelling.
"So, he was already complaining about having difficulties breathing, he told you as much, and you still decided to kneel on his throat?" No, I can't see that helping, whether his complaints were...
"He was claiming he couldn't breathe long before we even touched him. I didn't know he really couldn't breathe later on."
"So, he was already complaining about having difficulties breathing, he told you as much, and you still decided to kneel on his throat?"
No, I can't see that helping, whether his complaints were because he was on drugs or because he was having an asthma attack.
Except after the homicide of Eric Garner, 'hands up don't shoot' and 'I can't breathe' have become mantras rather than statements of fact. A few months back here In Columbus, this guy stole a...
Except after the homicide of Eric Garner, 'hands up don't shoot' and 'I can't breathe' have become mantras rather than statements of fact. A few months back here In Columbus, this guy stole a purse and a cop arrived on the scene. He sprinted off and she tackled him down, and as soon as she made contact, as he's falling to the ground he says I can't breathe. He then immediately gets up and starts posturing towards her, and yells at her for several minutes to shoot him.
I've also seen the civil liberties audit folks say I can't breathe as soon as police or security present any force, so I don't think this is a problem for the defense. Of course, there is also tons of I can't breathe merch online, and videos of protestors prior to the George Floyd killing showing people chanting I can't breathe, on behalf of Eric Garner. I think the prosecution would need to show that it was evident to the officers that the first utterances were legitimate, which seems like a hard thing to prove.
The definition of second degree murder in the state of Minnesota (as it applies to this case) is intentional killing without premeditation or causing someone’s death without intending the death of...
The definition of second degree murder in the state of Minnesota (as it applies to this case) is intentional killing without premeditation or causing someone’s death without intending the death of anyone, while committing a felony. I think it goes without saying that it wasn't premeditated, but there will be arguments that standing on someone's neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds was intentional or at least a felony in itself.
Also worth noting that prior to being downgraded to manslaughter it can be downgraded to third degree murder which is defined as a murder, which places others in eminent danger of death and disregards human life.
Second degree is max penalty of 40 years, third is 25 years.
George Floyd was also stating he was claustrophobic and "had COVID" prior to this incident, so his "I can't breath" before the murder can be attributed to the panic induced by the claustrophobia.
Wasn't he initially charged with third-degree? By the definition that Wikipedia gives ("without intent to effect the death of any person, caus[ing] the death of another by perpetrating an act...
Wasn't he initially charged with third-degree? By the definition that Wikipedia gives ("without intent to effect the death of any person, caus[ing] the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life") it seems pretty much spot on, at least to my non-lawyer and secondhand understanding of the events.
Not sure what the initial charge was, however I'd be wary of quoting wiki about law definitions, every state in the US, has different definitions of murder/manslaughter and degrees.
Not sure what the initial charge was, however I'd be wary of quoting wiki about law definitions, every state in the US, has different definitions of murder/manslaughter and degrees.
Why would you ever need to touch someone's neck? And if you are putting someone in a choke, you really ought to know better than to expect someone's whose airway is constricted to be able to...
long before they even start touching his neck
Why would you ever need to touch someone's neck? And if you are putting someone in a choke, you really ought to know better than to expect someone's whose airway is constricted to be able to articulate that they can't breathe as your cue to stop choking them (for reasons that ought to be obvious).
I, as a private citizen, would expect to be held to account if I accidentally killed someone like this owing to the fact that I'm trained in jiu jitsu. Even in self-defense, if the law decides I sufficiently outclassed the person that I should have been able to exercise restraint I could expect to be punished. I don't see why a police officer should be offered more leeway.
He was articulating that he couldn't breathe, which is sort of the right-wing argument for why the officer didn't know that Floyd really couldn't breathe. That's why he should've been charged with...
..., you really ought to know better than to expect someone's whose airway is constricted to be able to articulate that they can't breathe ...
He was articulating that he couldn't breathe, which is sort of the right-wing argument for why the officer didn't know that Floyd really couldn't breathe.
... if I accidentally killed someone ...
That's why he should've been charged with manslaughter. Even second-degree murder was an overreach. According to Ellison, "According to Minnesota law, you have to have premeditation and deliberation to charge first-degree murder. Second-degree murder, you have to intend for death to be the result. For second-degree felony murder, you have to intend the felony and then death be the result — without necessarily having it be the intent." Proving Chauvin intended to commit a felony is an incredibly tall order.
Chauvin should absolutely be held accountable. Overreaching with the charges won't result in being held accountable.
I'll also note that the prosecutor almost definitely had seen this video before upgrading the charges to 2nd degree murder, so for whatever reason they at least think they have a case here....
I'll also note that the prosecutor almost definitely had seen this video before upgrading the charges to 2nd degree murder, so for whatever reason they at least think they have a case here. Obviously overreach is a real risk but I'm not a lawyer so for the time being I'll assume that the Ellison has good reason to think they can get him on 2nd degree.
The interesting thing here is that the courts already had this evidence, so the outcome of the jury would have likely been the same. What this actually affects is public perception, and...
The interesting thing here is that the courts already had this evidence, so the outcome of the jury would have likely been the same. What this actually affects is public perception, and furthermore, the meta-narratives that start to get spun. Is Cahill some kind of conspirator trying to cover for the protest movement at large? Was the daily mail cradling this evidence until they could most effectively exploit the story and again fan the flames? I think it's a net good that people have access to the information, and most information in general, but folks will read what they want to out of it.
Leaked, by a British news agency, after 2 months.
Now how's that for transparency?
This video illustrates very well how this incident could have had a very different outcome if the police had been trained to de-escalate tense situations rather than simply to apply force. Couple the force-first response along with systemic racism in (some) police departments, and you have a self-perpetuating cycle: individuals panic and resist arrest because they know they are at risk, and the police then “confirm” to themselves that more force is necessary. This video is raw evidence of a broken system.
I imagine this video will go a long way towards clearing the officer of murder. Seems like it would be pretty easy for a good attorney to demonstrate that there was no willful murder based on the fact that Floyd is seen saying "I can't breathe" long before they even start touching his neck, therefore the officer didn't know he really couldn't breathe when he later truly couldn't. It will be interesting to see the mayhem once he's declared innocent.
Hopefully I'm wrong.
I can't really imagine this will change the outcome. This doesn't change the fact that Chauvin kneelt on his neck for close to 9 minutes, against protocol, which resulted in his death. That Floyd was saying he couldn't breath beforehand doesn't really matter. It would be similar to if someone was saying "ouch that hurts" before being repeatedly tazed, and then the officers claiming they couldn't tell if he was really in pain while being tazed. I could perhaps see the other officers being exonerated somewhat from this video.
This will of course allow people to interpret the arrest in a different way, and I expect that people on the right will be much less hesitant about defending these officers than they were before, as well as much more willing to portray George Floyd in a negative light.
For me, this honestly doesn't change much (and even less so keeping in mind all the cases of brutality we have seen documented since protests began). I also expect that the majority of the population already has their mind made up and a narrative set about what happened, and I don't think this video is enough of a 'bombshell' to really shake that up.
I found out about this on Reddit yesterday where tons of people had already started saying this exonerates the cops, they can't understand why people don't follow instructions, and if he had everything would have been fine. Eventually I worked out the overwhelming support for that view was probably due to the sub it was posted in, but it never ceases to amaze me how folks can twist evidence to support their worldview.
To get him for murder, they have to prove he intended to kill Floyd. The defense seems pretty straightforward.
"He was claiming he couldn't breathe long before we even touched him. I didn't know he really couldn't breathe later on."
"I've performed these neck restraints X number of times and no one has ever died before. I didn't know he would die this time."
"He had drugs X, Y, and Z in his system that likely led to or exacerbated his death. I didn't know he was on these drugs."
I think they could get him for manslaughter, but murder seems like a stretch. I don't think the video changes much either except for giving Chauvin 1 more arrow in his defense quiver (item #1 above).
I find all the other videos of police brutality towards protesters much more compelling.
"So, he was already complaining about having difficulties breathing, he told you as much, and you still decided to kneel on his throat?"
No, I can't see that helping, whether his complaints were because he was on drugs or because he was having an asthma attack.
Except after the homicide of Eric Garner, 'hands up don't shoot' and 'I can't breathe' have become mantras rather than statements of fact. A few months back here In Columbus, this guy stole a purse and a cop arrived on the scene. He sprinted off and she tackled him down, and as soon as she made contact, as he's falling to the ground he says I can't breathe. He then immediately gets up and starts posturing towards her, and yells at her for several minutes to shoot him.
I've also seen the civil liberties audit folks say I can't breathe as soon as police or security present any force, so I don't think this is a problem for the defense. Of course, there is also tons of I can't breathe merch online, and videos of protestors prior to the George Floyd killing showing people chanting I can't breathe, on behalf of Eric Garner. I think the prosecution would need to show that it was evident to the officers that the first utterances were legitimate, which seems like a hard thing to prove.
The definition of second degree murder in the state of Minnesota (as it applies to this case) is intentional killing without premeditation or causing someone’s death without intending the death of anyone, while committing a felony. I think it goes without saying that it wasn't premeditated, but there will be arguments that standing on someone's neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds was intentional or at least a felony in itself.
Also worth noting that prior to being downgraded to manslaughter it can be downgraded to third degree murder which is defined as a murder, which places others in eminent danger of death and disregards human life.
Second degree is max penalty of 40 years, third is 25 years.
George Floyd was also stating he was claustrophobic and "had COVID" prior to this incident, so his "I can't breath" before the murder can be attributed to the panic induced by the claustrophobia.
Wasn't he initially charged with third-degree? By the definition that Wikipedia gives ("without intent to effect the death of any person, caus[ing] the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life") it seems pretty much spot on, at least to my non-lawyer and secondhand understanding of the events.
Not sure what the initial charge was, however I'd be wary of quoting wiki about law definitions, every state in the US, has different definitions of murder/manslaughter and degrees.
In this case, the citation provided is from mn.gov: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195
Why would you ever need to touch someone's neck? And if you are putting someone in a choke, you really ought to know better than to expect someone's whose airway is constricted to be able to articulate that they can't breathe as your cue to stop choking them (for reasons that ought to be obvious).
I, as a private citizen, would expect to be held to account if I accidentally killed someone like this owing to the fact that I'm trained in jiu jitsu. Even in self-defense, if the law decides I sufficiently outclassed the person that I should have been able to exercise restraint I could expect to be punished. I don't see why a police officer should be offered more leeway.
He was articulating that he couldn't breathe, which is sort of the right-wing argument for why the officer didn't know that Floyd really couldn't breathe.
That's why he should've been charged with manslaughter. Even second-degree murder was an overreach. According to Ellison, "According to Minnesota law, you have to have premeditation and deliberation to charge first-degree murder. Second-degree murder, you have to intend for death to be the result. For second-degree felony murder, you have to intend the felony and then death be the result — without necessarily having it be the intent." Proving Chauvin intended to commit a felony is an incredibly tall order.
Chauvin should absolutely be held accountable. Overreaching with the charges won't result in being held accountable.
I'll also note that the prosecutor almost definitely had seen this video before upgrading the charges to 2nd degree murder, so for whatever reason they at least think they have a case here. Obviously overreach is a real risk but I'm not a lawyer so for the time being I'll assume that the Ellison has good reason to think they can get him on 2nd degree.
I hope you're correct.
The interesting thing here is that the courts already had this evidence, so the outcome of the jury would have likely been the same. What this actually affects is public perception, and furthermore, the meta-narratives that start to get spun. Is Cahill some kind of conspirator trying to cover for the protest movement at large? Was the daily mail cradling this evidence until they could most effectively exploit the story and again fan the flames? I think it's a net good that people have access to the information, and most information in general, but folks will read what they want to out of it.