That's the claim. His Sargeant testified between 3:30 and 4:15 today that "positional asphyxiation" is a thing, and everyone in the force has been trained on it for 10 or 15 years. This means that if you've got somebody in a prone position, you get them into "the recovery position" once they stop resisting.
The recovery position hasn't been defined, but it's on your side to assist breathing. We don't know if the tilt GF was held at counts as "the recovery position."
Chauvin's Sargeant also said that "positional asphyxiation" could occur with NO pressure applied while in the prone position. It was not followed up yet to establish if adding pressure might accelerate asphyxiation. Either way, this does away with the autopsy finding no damage to the windpipe being a slam dunk that Police activity made no contribution to GF's death.
The Sargeant testified that after GF stopped resisting in the maximal restraint, all restraint could have ceased. The hearing did not establish if restraint SHOULD have ceased.
Lots of tense moments, determining what questions would be allowed.
Everybody seems to think guilt or innocence is a foregone conclusion, which makes a mockery of the very concept of justice. Medical experts may or may not be able to establish cause of death or how much drugs contributed, medical conditions, or Police use of force. That's always what this case has been about.
The idea that "the trial is over" has no merit. The verdict will be up to 15 Jurors; hopefully they want to hear all the evidence and use good judgment. They can override political theater, or perpetuate it. Either way, this is NOT under the control of the elites.
Didn't they add a lower charge last month? 3rd degree murder.
In MN every lesser charge is automatic in a murder case. So the Jury gets free reign. They just can't convict of a higher crime than has been charged.
But yes, 3rd degree manslaughter was the last crime formally charged. So 2nd and 3rd degree, for both murder and manslaughter. I don't think the idea is to convict of more than 1 of these, I think the idea is just to get a conviction.
I'm not sure if any lesser crimes might be convicted? It would seem strange to slide all the way down to assault.
"Overcharging" isn't a thing in MN. Every lesser charge is automatic. Jury can decide any level of culpability they want, and produce a guilty verdict for the appropriate charge. They can also decide there is no criminal culpability at all, and find him innocent.
I don't think "mildly negligent" is a charge or has a crime connected to it. Idk.
The level of negligence goes towards the manslaughter charge if the jury finds the knee was a substantial cause in the death of Floyd.
2nd or 3rd degree?
It's standard procedure to call an ambulance for a detainee who claims to be having trouble breathing or any other significant medical problem, even if the officer is 99.999% sure the perp is faking. Calling for an ambulance certainly doesn't prove they "knew George was in trouble".
The cops suspected EXD, excited delirium. Not sure that it's been established this is why they called an ambulance, if it was just standard procedure like you suggest, or some other reason.
Pretty sure all police departments standard protocol for anyone being detained or arrested is to call for an ambulance if the person says "I can't breathe", unless they burst out laughing immediately afterward and say they were just kidding. Sure a majority of them are faking, but heart attacks, asthma attacks, and the onset of anaphylaxis are all reasonably common (and the first two are often triggered by exertion and/or psychological agitation, both of which are super-common in someone just bein detained or arrested) and all consistent with someone saying "I can't breathe". The potential liability associated with not calling for an ambulance when that claim is made, is just way too high.
You could be right.
The liability for not giving care may prove to be several years behind bars + loss of career.
We'll see ...
But Chauvin (or his partner) did call for an ambulance, though apparently the initial call didn't indicate that it needed to be top priority (lights and sirens), presumably because they didn't believe Floyd was in that bad condition at the time. I'm not clear on whether the follow-up call, which did push it up to lights-and-sirens priority) was made by Chauvin or his partner, or by someone else on the scene. The liability to a city/county and its law enforcement department if it did not have a policy in place of officers calling for an ambulance if a detainee says "I can't breathe" would be measured in millions of dollars, not prison time (the latter being for an officer not following the policy).
From what I've read, Chauvin was not exactly an exemplary officer, but I don't believe for a second that he is in any way responsible for Floyd's death.
Calling for an ambulance is not giving care.
Who exactly placed the call may come out, but I don't see how it matters since the call was placed. Level 2 vs 3 shouldn't matter, they were 2 blocks away from the hospital.
If Chauvin's found guilty of anything, it'll be based on continuing to restrain rather than giving care. Just my hunch. It'll be interesting to see the rest of it play out
Remember cops video cams show them worried about the crowd and the paramedics also testified that the crowd appeared hostile and that they thought the scene was dangerous. That’s why they did a load and go. Defense appears to be making a case that maintaining control over the crowd and keeping themselves in a safe position was how they justified their actions.
LOL move the goalposts much? No one part of the autopsy is a slam dunk by itself but taken as a whole it is. And if I were to pick the strongest point this wouldn't be it; it would be that the overexertion that eventually killed him happened before he was even on the ground.
The overall consensus across .win has been that the autopsy makes this an open and shut case.
It isn't.
I expect your idea here to be diligently pursued by the defense. GF was definitely in physiological trouble before he was on the ground. Probably before he was handcuffed. I haven't seen the defense raise this issue yet, but I think he could with cops as well as medical experts.
You seem to think this testimony from the LT somehow negates the autopsy findings. It doesn't.
Literally the only opinion that actually matters is the medical examiner as stated in his autopsy report. Everything else is just show.
Whether the jury recognizes that remains to be seen but the autopsy does in fact make this a "slam dunk".
I never said anything "negates the autopsy report."
If the ME was all that mattered there wouldn't be a trial.
Ok and if you want to be pedantic not every slam dunk ends up going in the basket.
The LT is not a medical expert and looks like an idiot on the stand with his statements.