Quote:
Too much to type and discuss on a thread
Again, peace to you, dear C&DLs! I have to agree with the dear Sher'f (thank you and peace to you, my dear friend!)): too much to type and discuss on a thread... but not too much to put a position like that out there and NOT include facts to support it? Please forgive me, but I consider that lazy at best and disingenuous, possibly even hubris. And smacking of JW tactics ("Listen to what WE say/believe, but don't ask us to prove or even discuss it!"), at worse.
I realize there may be some background to "why" you feel as you do and it is precisely for that reason that I have asked you to explain. You see, MANY people believe they know the law; and yet, they don't, really. Or they think that others, who make comments such as yours, know... and these don't. Both know what they THINK the law "is"... but such thoughts are not necessarily what the law IS.
That was one reason why I was sent to Law School - the Master told me to do so because most, including myself, didn't really know the TRUE language of the USA. It is not English - it is legalese. And while it can be tricky, say, in contract-speak (and some WANT to make it so in US Constitution-speak), it's not that tricky at all in criminal law-speak. As the mother of two black children, I needed to know (so that I could teach them and help them avoid problems).
Since you shared your position unequivocally here, I humbly ask that you explain it. Provide the basis and at least
some support. It really shouldn't be that complicated OR that long, really. If it is, then perhaps you truly DON'T understand the law.
To help you start, though, I offer:
If you base your position on all of the media attention costing Mr. Chauvin a "fair" trial, I would counter that this is 2021 and so, given all that is available media-wise, including cell phone cameras, well, Mr. Chauvin alone is responsible for that. Because he could, at ANY time, have stopped what he was doing and return to police protocol for how to handle someone who is subdued and no longer a threat, as well as his duty to give emergency care.
If you base your position that the Minneapolis Police Department policy allows the kind of maneuver Mr. Chauvin used, well, let's look at that policy (from Section 5-311 "USE OF NECK RESTRAINTS AND CHOKEHOLDS" of the Minneapolis Police Department "Use of Force" Policy (page 7, published 2/27/2017 -
http://sfgov.org/policecommission/sites/default/files/Documents/PoliceCommission/minneapolis%20ced%20policy.pdf):
Quote:
5-311 USE OF NECK RESTRAINTS AND CHOKE HOLDS (10/16/02) (08/17/07) (10/01/10) (04/16/12)
DEFINITIONS I.
Choke Hold: Deadly force option. Defined as applying direct pressure on a person's trachea or airway (front of the neck), blocking or obstructing the airway (04/16/12)
Neck Restraint: Non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person's neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck). Only sworn employees who have received training from the MPD Training Unit are authorized to use neck restraints. The MPD authorizes two types of neck restraints: Conscious Neck Restraint and Unconscious Neck Restraint. (04/16/12)
Conscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with intent to control, and not to render the subject unconscious, by only applying light to moderate pressure. (04/16/12)
Unconscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure. (04/16/12)
PROCEDURES/REGULATIONS II.
A. The Conscious Neck Restraint may be used against a subject who is actively resisting. (04/16/12)
B. The Unconscious Neck Restraint shall only be applied in the following circumstances: (04/16/12)
1. On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or;
2. For life saving purposes, or;
3. On a subject who is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject; and if lesser attempts at control
have been or would likely be ineffective.
C. Neck restraints shall not be used against subjects who are passively resisting as defined by policy. (04/16/12)
D. After Care Guidelines (04/16/12)
1. After a neck restraint or choke hold has been used on a subject, sworn MPD employees shall keep them under close
observation until they are released to medical or other law enforcement personnel.
2. An officer who has used a neck restraint or choke hold shall inform individuals accepting custody of the subject, that the
technique was used on the subject.
You will notice the wording I set out Sections A, B, and C.
As to
Section A., Mr. Floyd was not "actively resisting." He was TRYING to explain his claustrophobia and asking them to give him time to get in the car. I know this is possible... because my own son had this very same experience when he was 18 and the police pulled him over, dragged him out of the car, put rifles to his head, handcuffed him, and then TRIED to stuff him into the back seat of a patrol car... because a robbery had been committed in the vicinity. Never mind that the suspect was said to be "about 5'10" and weighing about 160 pounds." You have SEEN my son - LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Well, you can imagine HE might, at age 18, have tried to tell the officers that HE was claustrophobic (as well as terrified out of his mind!). THANKFULLY, another officer arriving on the scene intervened - NOT to stop them from putting him in the car, no, but to tell them HE DIDN'T EVEN FIT THE PROFILE. Well, of course they let him go... but not before they completely destroyed the inside of MY car, as well as scaring my son half to death. And no, they didn't pay for the damage they did, even though I filed a claim.
As to
Section B. and
Section C., from everything I could see (and there was quite a lot, from citizen's cameras as well as the officers' body cams... and not even all of the latter needed to be shown), Mr. Floyd was not "exhibiting active aggression", Mr. Chauvin wasn't trying to save his life, and Mr. Floyd was no longer "exhibiting
active resistance" (once they took him out of the car due to his distress from claustrophobia) so that they needed to "gain control of" him. He
thanked them (you can hear him
saying "Thank you! Thank you!"). If he WAS... they should have called for additional backup. But in reality, at that point, they simply needed to call for a larger vehicle/van, having him sit on the ground handcuffed with his back to the police vehicle... as they often do... and wait for such vehicle to arrive. One officer even asked "Should we turn him over?" because that would have been the correct protocol in the situation AND that officer KNEW they/Chauvin had gone beyond Department policy.
But it didn't even stop there. At NO time did Mr. Chauvin END the restraint so that "After-Care Guidelines" could be applied.
So, I ask you, please, to state the support for your position. I would LOVE to hear it.
Again, peace to you, truly, and to your dear, dear household!
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
