… about the mess in Minneapolis, based on past experience.
“The system” will err on the side of protecting the cops.
We’ll discover that there’s another side to this story. Early reports are always so one-sided in cases like this. (“Judge in haste, repent at leisure.”)
Nevertheless, the video seems so damning, it’s hard to imagine a situation where the officer’s behavior was justified.
When I see that video, I keep asking myself what I would have done. It’s tempting to think that you’d rush forward and push the cop off George Floyd. But … you’d probably be shot doing it.
I find it hard to understand why another cop didn’t do something.
Me too.
A few possible explanations come to mind.
All the cops hated George Floyd.
The cop with his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck was not someone you interfered with.
(Unlikely, but worth mentioning) The other cops were so distracted by controlling the crowd they didn’t know what was going on with Mr. Floyd.
And I’m sure there are other possibilities. Which is why we have trials and don’t rush to judgement based on YouTube videos.
(Unlikely, but worth mentioning) The other cops were so distracted by controlling the crowd they didn’t know what was going on with Mr. Floyd.
Per video, at least for a part of the time, three cops where holding Floyd down while one was watching/crowd control. Why it required 3 cops (with one having a knee on his neck for nearly 9 minutes) to hold down a handcuffed, subdued man is beyond me.
QUOTE: And I’m sure there are other possibilities. Which is why we have trials and don’t rush to judgement based on YouTube videos.
There isn’t always a trial because police/perpetrators aren’t consistently charged (even with damning evidence) in situations of this nature.
From what I hear, most cases don’t go to trial. Most are settled by a plea. I don’t like that.
@Crowhill: It follows that when you’re called up for jury duty, you’re more than happy to serve!
Jury duty can be interesting, depending on the case. I was once on a murder trial. That was an experience I’ll never forget.
Unfortunately, I will never get to serve on a jury, because the screening questions weed out people who believe in jury nullification.
The videos seem to deliver solid evidence of a murder, especially given the more recent visual documentation that the man did not resist arrest.
Of course there should be a trial. That goes without saying.
I suspect that there is an informal code of solidarity among the police. The murderer will most likely get a light sentence for the mere charge of murder of the third degree.
From what I have read, shockingly the Minneapolis Police actually allow officers to use the sort of chokehold that was employed to kill George Floyd. That means the officer will almost certainly get off with a lesser charge since technically he wasn’t violating police policy.
It is disheartening to see the riots that have now spread to many other cities. Still, the rage at this situation is understandable. This country needs serious criminal justice reform.
QUOTE: From what I have read, shockingly the Minneapolis Police actually allow officers to use the sort of chokehold that was employed to kill George Floyd. That means the officer will almost certainly get off with a lesser charge since technically he wasn’t violating police policy.
How in the world could a policy like that be authorized in the first place…it’s a disaster waiting to happen. Despite it being an approved policy, when its used (abused) and ends in death (when deadly force is unnecessary), they should throw the book at the officer (not lessen the charges). You can be sure if the roles were reversed, the perpetrator would be facing serious charges, sure conviction and a lengthy sentence. I’m with you, this country needs serious criminal justice reform.
I obviously don’t understand all the details of American criminal law, but to my TV-procedural-trained eyes it’s pretty clear involuntary manslaughter.
I tend to be a strongly law-and-order type, and give the police wide discretion in messy situations. Lots of airy ivory tower advice people give wouldn’t cut it in a fight on a high school football team, much less among criminals in a tense situation– it’s like they don’t understand how men act, or have only lived around the most milquetoast of personalities. Plus, a whole lot of people are like Chris Palmer (https://twitter.com/danielc4liberty/status/1267128266843922432) when it comes right down to it.
I’m also biased because there are personal connections: I have family who serve as peace officers, and grew up with a friendly kid who to my surprise became a cop and was killed on duty in 2005.
But for that broad discretion not to be a license for abuse by the powers that be — the same powers who seem more put out by drive-in religious services than by widespread arson, and whose judgment we should doubt — we have an obligation to limit the circumstances in which things can go wrong, and to ensure that when they do justice can be served.
Many suggestions people have had make sense to me, such as:
Ending the judge-created doctrine of qualified immunity, so that government officials and police can’t argue that there was no clearly established rule against a new and innovative abuse. Reynolds has written a fair bit about this.
Increasing the use of dash- and body-cams by officers– if it weren’t for the external video here, I suspect a story would have been written afterwards which, shall we say, edited the history a bit. This would include looking very dubiously at cases where the cameras just happened to fail, or the video just happened to have been deleted due to technical difficulties. Cameras have already proved useful in catching corrupt officers, as well as in clearing innocent offers of fraudulent charges of abuse. Moreover, recording officers in the performance of their duties needs to be recognized as allowable– they shouldn’t be confiscating people’s phones who are recording from across the street. That’s not interfering with their duties.
Reserving SWAT-style attacks and no-knock warrant service for cases involving imminent harm, e.g. kidnapped children, not cases where to find some drugs you “knock” on someone’s door in the middle of the morning, terrify the sleeping family, destroy the house, and then object when someone half-awake who justifiably thinks his family’s in danger shoots back.
For this particular case, I’m not sure what would have helped. I don’t understand the steps that led to this outcome, and somehow I doubt that the officers thought what was happening was appropriate. And apparently the officer had a record. IIRC there were definitely a lot of fishy things regarding the aftermath of Justine Damond’s death (which I don’t know if I’d have even heard of if not for the fact that some of the Powerline guys are from the Twin Cities), the less-admirable side of blue solidarity. [Aside: I remember no associated riots.]
IMO policy decisions about when police powers of violence should be invoked are more instances of “vertical” balancing in government — scope against duration/frequency — which I think are as important as “horizontal” balancing, like executive/legislative/judicial.
If you’re going to give a part of your system great power, especially the power to use violence on their own initiative in a situation, you need to simultaneously limit the exercise of it, for everyone’s protection.
I think the other side of the story is that the cop knew George Floyd. I saw testimony on TV where a bar owner said she used both the cop and George Floyd as security/bouncers at some point. If he knew the victim and had a grudge, they might be able to bump up the charge to 2nd degree murder.
If what happened in Tulsa with Lawrence Crutcher is any predictor, the cop(s) will get off and continue to work in law enforcement. Here, the Rogers County sheriff hired Betty Selby after she was let go by Tulsa PD.
QUOTE: I obviously don’t understand all the details of American criminal law, but to my TV-procedural-trained eyes it’s pretty clear involuntary manslaughter.
This seems to be the difference between what we see via video and what can be proven in a court of law. Based on the charges (3rd degree murder and manslaughter), it seems the prosecutor believes he cannot prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt and doesn’t want to risk the cop getting off totally free.
Frankly, I believe (based on actions captured in the videos) that the officer had some level of intent in killing Mr. Floyd. This was beyond just an unfortunate accident. He choose to use a method that police training indicated was reserved for eminent danger or active resistance (neither were the case with Mr. Floyd). He willfully ignored input from others as they informed him that Mr. Floyd was experiencing some level of distress and passed out. Even when noting Mr. Floyd was unconscious, he continued to press his knee in his neck. Why would any reasonable officer, concerned about human life, choose to keep a knee on someone’s neck for over 8 minutes, given Mr. Floyd wasn’t a threat (handcuffed and two other officers pinning him down) and his condition noticeably declining? As well, why wouldn’t his fellow officers somehow intervene, given they too knew Mr. Floyd wasn’t a treat. As the Minneapolis police chief stated, their silence made them complicit in the killing of Mr. Floyd.
Here’s something ironic, the US justice system convicted and imprisoned Michael Vick for animal abuse. This has followed him even after being released from prison. Yet, cops are rarely charged or convicted for unnecessary killings. If history follows, the “system” will protect the cops and ultimately their lives will go on. Some will be hired by other jurisdictions where they will have an opportunity to repeat their offenses.