Forgery suspect killed by cop restricting his airway

[Derec]

MSNBC “legal analyst” claims the knee on the neck is not an authorized restraint. I would expect charges would be filed soon.

For what crime?

 

[Toni]

I just listened to an NPR piece: the officers have been fired for using a not approved method of restraint and for not coming to the assistance of the man who was complaining of distressed breathing.

MSNBC “legal analyst” claims the knee on the neck is not an authorized restraint. I would expect charges would be filed soon.

So did Frey. I heard the interview on NPR—not on MNBC.

 

[Toni]

MSNBC “legal analyst” claims the knee on the neck is not an authorized restraint. I would expect charges would be filed soon.

For what crime?

I would think for assault. One is not allowed to kneel on another person’s neck to restrain them. If it is not an allowed method of restraint, it’s assault, at a minimum.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Wrongful application of deadly force.
That force which an officer knows, or should know, or could reasonably be expected to know, has the risk of causing death or serious bodily harm. It's use is justified only in cases of extreme necessity.

 

[Toni]

Or, the mayor and the first station got it wrong.

Well sue me for thinking that the mayor should verify claims before tweeting them. Who does Jacob Frey think he is? The President of the United States?

This is not Trump. And unfortunately this is not Minneapolis’s first time at this particular rodeo.

Of course he very died the contract terms.

 

[laughing dog]

We don't. The video starts when it is already there.

The officer placed it there. And the officer kept it there for over 4 minutes. There is no mystery at all.

We don't know why the knee was there nor do we know why it was kept there.

There is a big difference between the restraint restricting his airway (as the thread title claims) and that not being the case.

If it is not an authorized method of restraint, then it does not matter.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don’t say this often, but in this instance I really do think this is a pretty clear case for saying ‘don’t feed the troll’.

 

[Derec]

I would think for assault. One is not allowed to kneel on another person’s neck to restrain them. If it is not an allowed method of restraint, it’s assault, at a minimum.

Good luck with that. Since he resisted a lawful arrest, they had the right to use force to effect the arrest. And besides, only one of the four did it.
Even firing them is a gross overreaction at this juncture. However, the powers that be in Minneapolis are anti-police. They proved that in February when they approved an almost $900k settlement for the family of a burglar who was shot to death after she shot and wounded two police officers.

 

[Derec]

I don’t say this often, but in this instance I really do think this is a pretty clear case for saying ‘don’t feed the troll’.

I know, but I can't resist engaging with laughing dog.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Needless to say, he was black.

Pretty much all the information #BLM and many on here need.

I wonder if the Interstate will be blockaded again or will #BLMers not do it because of COVID ...

Poor Derec.

People should be having a revolution over this shit and you're upset because someone else is inconvenienced.

Get your priorities in order.

 

[Derec]

The officer placed it there. And the officer kept it there for over 4 minutes. There is no mystery at all.

We don't know why the knee was there nor do we know why it was kept there.

Ah, I see. More of your silly semantic games. "Why" then, if you prefer. That's the important question.

If it is not an authorized method of restraint, then it does not matter.

Police officers are human beings, not RoboCop (and even he was part human). Human beings are not perfect all the time. Even if they did not follow police manual 100% does not mean they are guilty of this man's death. Or that they should be fired.

 

[Derec]

People should be having a revolution over this shit

You really think a death of a suspect where we don't even know the cause of death justifies, let alone mandates, the overthrow of the present order?
Really?

 

[Derec]

And unfortunately this is not Minneapolis’s first time at this particular rodeo.

No. For example, when a burglar shot and wounded two police officers, Minneapolis decided to give his family almost $900k. Just goes to show how anti-police Frey and the city council are.

 

[Toni]

I would think for assault. One is not allowed to kneel on another person’s neck to restrain them. If it is not an allowed method of restraint, it’s assault, at a minimum.

Good luck with that. Since he resisted a lawful arrest, they had the right to use force to effect the arrest. And besides, only one of the four did it.
Even firing them is a gross overreaction at this juncture. However, the powers that be in Minneapolis are anti-police. They proved that in February when they approved an almost $900k settlement for the family of a burglar who was shot to death after she shot and wounded two police officers.

He allegedly resisted arrest. We don’t know that. That’s what the officer responsible for his death claims.

Regardless, the officers had a right to use force to compel him to be cuffed and placed into the squad car. But the police officers MUST follow police procedures in securing the suspect. This procedure’ of placing a knee on the neck of a suspect is expressly forbidden. Because such procedure has resulted in the death of suspects before.

THAT is why the officers were fired: using a forbidden technique and failing to come to the side of a suspect in medical distress.

 

[Derec]

He allegedly resisted arrest. We don’t know that. That’s what the officer responsible for his death claims.

You are assuming facts not in evidence. We do not even have the cause of death yet, and you are already jumping to conclusions as to who is responsible.

Regardless, the officers had a right to use force to compel him to be cuffed and placed into the squad car. But the police officers MUST follow police procedures in securing the suspect. This procedure’ of placing a knee on the neck of a suspect is expressly forbidden.

Can you show where they are "expressly forbidden"? And if it is "forbidden", is that by law or policy? If only policy, then no law is actually broken. Which is for example why the police officer in the Eric Garner case wasn't prosecuted - choke holds were forbidden by policy, not law, which means the officer never broke any laws.

Because such procedure has resulted in the death of suspects before.

So have tasers and yet they continue to be used. Pretty much anything can cause death under right (or rather wrong) circumstances. Police officer runs after suspect, tackles them, suspect falls and hits head on a sharp curb stone and splits his head open. Ban tackling of suspects?

THAT is why the officers were fired: using a forbidden technique and failing to come to the side of a suspect in medical distress.

There is proper procedure to fire officers who violate policy, if firing is appropriate in this case and not some other disciplinary measure.
Firing without an investigation is highly political. But what do you expect from a city whose rulers hate police so much they reward the family of a dead burglar who shot and wounded two police officers with almost $900k!?

 

[TV and credit cards]

MSNBC “legal analyst” claims the knee on the neck is not an authorized restraint. I would expect charges would be filed soon.

For what crime?

With the information at hand, it looks like involuntary manslaughter would qualify. An intentionally harmful act that resulted in an unintentional death.
A reasonable person should know kneeling on another person’s neck can be fatal. But here we have a trained officer using it. If the officer has been trained not to use this specific restraint, it could be second degree murder.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We don't know what precipitated him being restrained. We do not even know the cause of death. Can't we wait for the autopsy and tox screen to be completed before we assign blame?

Even if the autopsy shows this man died from something like intoxication, the man was clearly in a lot of distress screaming about how he was having difficulty breathing. There was no need to keep leaning on his neck after he was handcuffed.

Someone screaming about breathing difficulty isn't really having breathing difficulty, which is no doubt why the cops didn't care. However, that doesn't justify what happened.

What I think we are looking at is a case of the police trying to inflict a bit of extra punishment on someone who was causing trouble--which is decidedly not legal but generally hard to prove. If his actions were a felony then felony murder would apply, otherwise all I see here is negligent homicide. I do not believe there was any intent to do more than inflict pain.

 

[Toni]

You are assuming facts not in evidence. We do not even have the cause of death yet, and you are already jumping to conclusions as to who is responsible.


Can you show where they are "expressly forbidden"? And if it is "forbidden", is that by law or policy? If only policy, then no law is actually broken. Which is for example why the police officer in the Eric Garner case wasn't prosecuted - choke holds were forbidden by policy, not law, which means the officer never broke any laws.

Because such procedure has resulted in the death of suspects before.

So have tasers and yet they continue to be used. Pretty much anything can cause death under right (or rather wrong) circumstances. Police officer runs after suspect, tackles them, suspect falls and hits head on a sharp curb stone and splits his head open. Ban tackling of suspects?

THAT is why the officers were fired: using a forbidden technique and failing to come to the side of a suspect in medical distress.

There is proper procedure to fire officers who violate policy, if firing is appropriate in this case and not some other disciplinary measure.
Firing without an investigation is highly political. But what do you expect from a city whose rulers hate police so much they reward the family of a dead burglar who shot and wounded two police officers with almost $900k!?

https://m.startribune.com/law-enfor...use-of-force-in-george-floyd-death/570787132/

 

[laughing dog]

The officer placed it there. And the officer kept it there for over 4 minutes. There is no mystery at all.

We don't know why the knee was there nor do we know why it was kept there.

Ah, I see. More of your silly semantic games.

Clarity is not a silly game.

"Why" then, if you prefer. That's the important question.

Actually, it is not, if it is an unauthorized or forbidden tactic.

Police officers are human beings, not RoboCop (and even he was part human). Human beings are not perfect all the time. Even if they did not follow police manual 100% does not mean they are guilty of this man's death. Or that they should be fired.

The victim was a human being, and the officers did not treat him like one. And if they do not follow procedure, then firing is an option. The police union can fight the firing if they choose and hope to persuade an arbitrator of your position.

 

[laughing dog]

And unfortunately this is not Minneapolis’s first time at this particular rodeo.

No. For example, when a burglar shot and wounded two police officers, Minneapolis decided to give his family almost $900k. Just goes to show how anti-police Frey and the city council are.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. The settlement has nothing to do with being pro or anti police.