RiverDog wrote:I haven't seen all the evidence, and I doubt that you have, either. But the evidence that we have seen is compelling: A hold applied by Chauvin that no police department that I know of has recommended or taught. IMO the only way Chauvin is going to be able to rationalize that hold is to find a trainer that will testify that kneeling on the side of neck for 8 minutes, including several minutes that the suspect was completely motionless, is a recommended technique to subdue a suspect laying face down on the pavement and handcuffed behind his back.
Speaking from a purely legal perspective as I find what Chauvin did inhumane and unacceptable police behavior, but you haven't followed this much it seems. There is new video footage showing Floyd clearly breathing and active. There is a toxicology report indicating Floyd had dangerous levels of fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system. Do you know what those do? If you know what both of those drugs do, then you will know that raising reasonable doubt as to the cause of Floyd's death is a high possibility. It was Floyd whose toxicology report showed meth and fentanyl in his system. Not Jacob Blake.
This is not about the right or wrong actions of the police. This is about what can a defense lawyer use to show reasonable doubt in court. I hope you're not of the mind that the law will be ignored to put Chauvin in jail regardless of a trial.
Those officers are going to have to show how they could believe that their lives or the lives of others were in immediate danger to the point that the only recourse was the use of deadly force.
Shooting an unarmed suspect 7 times in the back as what happened in Wisconsin is damn hard to justify no matter what the toxicology report says.
The tox report was from Floyd, not Blake.
The cop in Wisconsin is unlikely to face any charges. He may be fired as a sacrificial lamb, but Jacob Blake brought that pain on himself. If they try to manufacture charges against the cop, a defense lawyer will have an easy time raising reasonable doubt.
That case is pretty clear:
1. Cop was called to a domestic dispute. Found a suspect who had a warrant for his arrest.
2. They attempted to arrest Blake using non-lethal means tasing him twice and attempted to physically subdue him.
3. Blake fought back physically attacking the cop is the current report.
4. Police officer pulled his weapon and told Blake to cease resisting arrest and not to move.
5. Jacob Blake turned his back on the police and went to his car for unknown reasons.
6. Police officer made a decision to fire because he did not know what Jacob Blake was doing.
A police officer does not need to see a weapon before they fire as long as they have a reason to believe the suspect is dangerous and may be going for a weapon. If you are uncooperative and resist arrest, you force a police officer to make this kind of decision. That is what Jacob Blake did.
We will see if any info comes out to contradict the current info. Given what we know, this leans pretty heavily as a justified, though tragic use of lethal force.
What would be your standard for a cop to use lethal force? Does the cop have to wait for the guy to get a weapon out of his car and try to use it on the cop? Where do you draw that line? Do citizens have standards of behavior they have to follow so police aren't forced into these types of decisions? Do you believe this should become a situation where police can't use deadly force unless they see the weapon? What are the standards for a cop or a citizen?
If you're telling me that as long as I don't have a weapon,I get to fight a cop off and tell him to go screw himself if he can't physically arrest me, then make it a law. Even at the ripe age of 50, I'm still a big dude who can fight off quite a few cops. If I can get off being bothered by cops by just not being armed and being able to beat them in a physical contest, then I'm all for it. Then the biggest ass kickers can avoid getting arrested by just kicking a cop's butt while unarmed and walk away because that's what it seems people in the Wisconsin situation seem to be supporting. I'm hoping you don't think that's ok, but maybe that's the point you're at.