Looters ransack Target store

[Yttrium]

You seem to forget that the officer will be investigated. He is getting his dues. Justice takes time.

They don't have to finish investigating him before arresting him. They could have arrested him the day Floyd died. Charge him with manslaughter or murder 3 or whatever is appropriate for Minnesota.

 

[Radagast]

They don't have to finish investigating him before arresting him.

But they do; they need to identify a charge that will stick.

I quoted the relevant Minnesota murder statutes earlier; I think making a case for murder 1, 2, or 3 would be difficult. Manslaughter 2 might be easier:

A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree ... (1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.

However, a charge of manslaughter 2 would generate complaints from people who thought a more serious charge should be laid.

 

[Zoness]

Tough being an employee now out of work or a franchise owner without a business and with debts to pay, but hey - corporate assets right?

It sucks but like....isn't this literally how capitalism works? If I were being snide I'd say life isn't fair and they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps but you don't need me to do that because that's what loads of people actually believe. I don't want people's livelihoods destroyed but if you think I'm going to shed tears over Target replacing their stock, sorry. And before you ask; I support radical improvements to the safety net to help the people affected by the riots and rioting is bad. I just won't rush to the defense of easily replaceable, insured property.

 

[Radagast]

I just won't rush to the defense of easily replaceable, insured property.

And you seriously believe that the low-income housing that was burned down falls into that category?

 

[Zoness]

And you seriously believe that the low-income housing that was burned down falls into that category?

It better; it would be ridiculously irresponsible otherwise to have it uninsured. Everyone was losing the heads over the Target coming under siege though, that's what I'm laughing about. People get more incensed over corporate property destruction and use that as an excuse to ignore the police brutality and system sanctioned murder.

 

[Nithavela]

It better; it would be ridiculously irresponsible otherwise to have it uninsured. Everyone was losing the heads over the Target coming under siege though, that's what I'm laughing about. People get more incensed over corporate property destruction and use that as an excuse to ignore the police brutality and system sanctioned murder.

I bet it's insured and I bet the insurance company will do their best to wiggle out of paying. Probably say that arson isn't covered or something like that.

After all, the people living there probably can't afford a protracted legal battle.

 

[IceJad]

They don't have to finish investigating him before arresting him. They could have arrested him the day Floyd died. Charge him with manslaughter or murder 3 or whatever is appropriate for Minnesota.

So bypass all procedures and satisfy the mob? Do you know that if you botched an investigation phase you risk letting the suspect loose on technicality in court?

A quick punishment is not justice. When we charge someone we want to make sure that all bases are covered. The suspect must be also given his due rights. That's what justice is.

Being emotional and making rash judgement always lead to more misery later down the line.

 

[Yttrium]

So bypass all procedures and satisfy the mob? Do you know that if you botched an investigation phase you risk letting the suspect loose on technicality in court?

Arresting a suspect is a perfectly common police procedure. No bypass necessary.

 

[IceJad]

It better; it would be ridiculously irresponsible otherwise to have it uninsured. Everyone was losing the heads over the Target coming under siege though, that's what I'm laughing about. People get more incensed over corporate property destruction and use that as an excuse to ignore the police brutality and system sanctioned murder.

It's the other way around. You try to excuse destroying and looting other people's property with calling for justice for Floyd.

Everyone wants justice done including getting the rioters to pay for the damages and looting.

Two wrongs don't make a right. That's what everyone is talking about.

No amount of mental gymnastics are you going to convince a sane and rational individual that it's fine to destroy and steal as long as you're angry at something.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Alleged murder. Like I said, I want to know what actually happened.

Then go watch the video.

They sat on his neck for at least 8 minutes.

 

[IceJad]

Arresting a suspect is a perfectly common police procedure. No bypass necessary.

No it's not. Example if you're suspected of stealing something the police first have to investigate the crime scene, maybe make a case to a judge to get a warrant to search your property for signs of the stolen item then when there is enough evidence book you. Each case is unique.

How about you let the investigation run its course.

 

[Radagast]

Then go watch the video.

I've seen the video. However, that doesn't tell me how George Floyd wound up in that position, nor what the policemen thought they were doing restraining him in that way. Collecting up the various kinds of footage that have been released, there's a very large gap between the initial police contact and Floyd's death.

Nor, if I was the prosecutor, would the video on its own give me sufficient evidence to make one of these charges under Minnesota law stick:

Murder in the first degree if they "caused the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another."

Murder in the second degree if they "caused the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation."

Murder in the third degree if they "without intent to effect the death of any person, caused the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life."

They sat on his neck for at least 8 minutes.

They didn't "sit on his neck," they applied a controversial restraint technique that seems to be banned in several jurisdictions but not in Minnesota.

One might ask if they had any justification for doing that; whether the use of that technique is routine in Minneapolis; whether they had received any training in that technique; whether there is any police department policy on it that might have been breached by what they did; and a bunch of other questions.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I've seen the video. However, that doesn't tell me how George Floyd wound up in that position, nor what on earth the policemen thought they were doing restraining him in that way.
"

It doesn’t matter how he got there. It’s clear from the video that they held him in a dangerous position long after he’d stopped resisting (assuming he’d ever resisted in the first place). They were still on his neck as the paramedics were unloading the gurney, at which point he was already unconscious. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that the guy under you isn’t fighting back.

 

[Radagast]

assuming he’d ever resisted in the first place

That is in fact one of the important questions. The interpretation of the scene we have seen will depend on what kind of struggle (if any) had taken place before.

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that the guy under you isn’t fighting back.

Whatever else they might or might not be, (1) these men are not geniuses, and (2) for very good reasons they are no longer policemen.

And I think we have enough information to justify saying that the Minneapolis police department needs to take a serious look at, among other things, how they train their people.

 

[iluvatar5150]

That is in fact one of the important questions.

That's only an important question if we're judging them on their employing of that particular hold (or perhaps any hold) in the first place. Yes, that is a good question to ask, but it's not all that relevant to the killing. They could've held him in that position for some amount of time without causing any permanent harm. Heck, you can hold somebody in a choke hold for some (short) amount of time without causing any damage - that may not be a good idea in most cases, but it's possible. The primary issue is that the police held Floyd in that position for far too long. Whatever justification they may have had for arriving in that position, they didn't let up when they should have.

 

[Yttrium]

No it's not. Example if you're suspected of stealing something the police first have to investigate the crime scene, maybe make a case to a judge to get a warrant to search your property for signs of the stolen item then when there is enough evidence book you. Each case is unique.

How about you let the investigation run its course.

We don't commonly arrest suspects? Wow, I did not know that. Here I thought that we wouldn't want suspects to flee, or commit more crimes while a more thorough investigation was ongoing. Especially concerning violent crimes. But what do I know? Thanks for clearing up my misconception.

 

[Johnboy60]

Yes, looting and arson are outrageous.

And lives have been lost in the riots as well.

This reminds me of Watts CA.

 

[Sparagmos]

And I'd like to know exactly what happened. It certainly wasn't correct police procedure, and so the policemen losing their jobs was obviously justified.

But was it more than that? Was George Floyd on drugs, as has been claimed? If so, which drugs? Was this an unfortunate outcome after a lengthy struggle to restrain him, or was it a crime? What's the "other evidence" that the Hennepin County Attorney was talking about? What was the sequence of events that took place before the video that everybody has seen? Did George Floyd actually resist arrest at all, or did he comply with police instructions?

On Reddit (where ppl can post anonymously) there are a ton of cops and military saying this was murder, because they are trained 1) not to leave someone in that position for any longer than necessary since it is medically dangerous and 2) you NEVER use pressure or force around the neck, it is the easiest way to kill someone.

They are saying that this guy was blatantly breaking protocol and had to know he was risking the guy’s life, and at a certain point, had to know he was killing him.

 

[Radagast]

We don't commonly arrest suspects?

Yes, but "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

 

[HannahT]

Arresting a suspect is a perfectly common police procedure. No bypass necessary.

I watched part of the briefing yesterday, and they said they must do this right...or they could be cut loose like they were in Baltimore because they rushed and blew it.

Delay of arresting a suspect (s) is also perfectly common police practice.

No one is justifying what happened to Mr. Floyd. The fact they fired these officers shows charges are coming.