None of us think it should be, but we all know it will be, becuase we’ve seen this song and dance before… Not with these exact circumstances, just in general.
Cop kills black man… delay.
Protests turn to riots… they arrest and charge.
Something exculpatory comes up - “he was no angel” or “he resisted aggressively” or “the officer feared for his life”… acquitted.
I’m not seeing the whole report, just that one selection, however if you’ve got an expert who will testify that “being restrained by the police” was a cause of his death, coupled with the video evidence you have of what that restraint consisted of and how depraved it was, seems fine to me.
Tox results. Coke, Meth, etc. take a while to come back. Alcohol you can get in a couple of hours.
My mom passed away 20 years ago with what was probably a bad heart rhythm - bit of a drinker but nothing other in terms of bad habits - took us 2+ weeks to have the Dallas ME sign off on the case and release her body
It’s still gibberish. “potential intoxicants likely contributed to his death?” It’s ludicrous to say drugs were a likely contributing factor if the drug tests haven’t even come back yet.
I mean, maybe you could say “potential intoxicants were a possible contributing factor,” but that’s still an absurd, prejudicial way to put it.
At some point I remember reading about him seeming to be altered/intoxicated BEFORE he had his neck compressed - but 1) I can’t remember the specifics and 2) Doubt that it will make a difference - although police lawyers will try to spin it, I’m sure.
About 35 minutes of video in San Jose. I skipped around a bit, definitely at least hundreds of people. I don’t see them blocking the full highway here, MSNBC just showed it on a live shot.
Minnesota law says second-degree murder includes causing “the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation” while third-degree murder involves “without intent to effect the death of any person”, so the difference is intent. Under this definition, it seems that killing someone while only intending to cause pain, injure, or maim would be third-degree murder.
How do you prove intent? If he has a pattern of similar behavior where he has only hurt and not killed people, that would suggest he is depraved individual but not an intentional killer. If you can show that comorbidities made George Floyd vulnerable to certain actions that would not have killed a normal person, if you can show that Derek Chauvin has actually used these tactics against other people who lived, then you probably have reasonable doubt as to Chauvin’s intent and can only convict him of third-degree murder. On the other hand, if you can demonstrate that he knew these actions would result in death, then it limits the intent one can have in doing these actions and you might be able to charge him with a higher degree of murder.
4 is above the average in the UK. It’s 2.66 a year since 2004, which includes killing the three people involved in the London Bridge attacks.
I don’t particularly want to defend the British police or the ability to prosecute them, though. Just one example, there was a case several years back where a man was clearly trying to mind his own business walking through a protest and a policeman stepped out, clubbed him to the ground and he died. It was filmed but he was acquitted at trial. Probably a red herring for this thread, but that case was muddied by the autopsy evidence. That and that the police tried to deny that the clubbing took place, invented stories about him falling etc. and so on.
The institutional stupidity in these things never ceases to surprise me. They’ve really decided they’re going to try to muddy the waters with “underlying conditions” and “maybe he was on the reefer”. They’ve made these decisions after seeing 3 days of riots.
If they are hoping the riots stop/greatly diminish tonight, writing/releasing the ME report this way will not help. It actually is quite infuriating as others have pointed out above.