Incorrect. The debate is regarding whether all of these officers were aware a homicide was occurring. That is a significant factor in determining their level of negligence, obviously.
George Floyd trial #2 - Kueng, Lane, Thao
- Thread starter crescent
- Start date
Incorrect. The debate is regarding whether all of these officers were aware a homicide was occurring. That is a significant factor in determining their level of negligence, obviously.
//Slight hijack//
I have an uncle who to this day if the topic is even tangentially mentioned will go off for a good 20 minutes on how Rodney King was obviously moments away from, to hear him say it, basically Hulking up, ripping the Staples Center from its foundation, and beating the entire city of Los Angeles to death with it the second the police paused their sustained beating of him.
plague311
Great minds think...
Which is? The actual argument. A link to a specific post would be better as I would like to avoid you strawmanning an argument.
Uhm, I don't think the level of negligence really matters. Though I may be wrong and would be open to being corrected by an actual lawyer.
I also don't know why you keep setting "were aware a homicide was occurring" as a benchmark. Where are you getting that from? Is there a statute or something? They were, literally, participating in the homicide by holding down his limbs, etc. for that full 9 minutes.
The question, despite what you're saying, is "did these officers aid and abet Chauvin's crime of second-degree homicide or second-degree manslaughter that he has been found guilty of". That's the question the jury is facing.
It's the same as with Chauvin. If you, Warp12, claim that Chauvin didn't know he was murdering Floyd, it doesn't really matter, does it? He was charged and convicted of Floyd's murder. So, again, did these men's actions aid or abet that crime? Yes. They did.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
As a matter of technicality, this federal trial has nothing to do with felony murder.
Our three accomplices are charged with illegally depriving Floyd of his civil right's under color of law.
Two of the pigs for failing to intervene to protect a person under their custody from the killer Chauvin, and all three for deliberate indifference to Floyd's medical needs.
A cop owes a person under their arrest a duty to protect their civil rights. These cops failed to do so and are criminally culpable.
Indictment here:
documentcloud.org/documents/20700166-indictment-derek-chauvin-thomas-lane-j-kueng-and-tou-thao
Our three accomplices are charged with illegally depriving Floyd of his civil right's under color of law.
Two of the pigs for failing to intervene to protect a person under their custody from the killer Chauvin, and all three for deliberate indifference to Floyd's medical needs.
A cop owes a person under their arrest a duty to protect their civil rights. These cops failed to do so and are criminally culpable.
Indictment here:
documentcloud.org/documents/20700166-indictment-derek-chauvin-thomas-lane-j-kueng-and-tou-thao
plague311
Great minds think...
Ok, I had confused an article then. I thought this was for the aiding and abetting. I haven't been keeping up on this one as much.
Obviously it does matter. Or else they wouldn't have a specific charge of unintentional second-degree murder, of which he was convicted.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
I believe they also have state charges that more directly charges them for the homicide, but that's a different court and trial.
Chauvin has already plead guilty to his federal charges, so it seems like a layup for the prosecution to prove that Chauvin was using unreasonable force. With that in hand, it's hard to see how a failure to act wasn't a crime here.
plague311
Great minds think...
You kind of cherry picked the context out of it. I was saying whether intentional or not Chauvin was convicted of murdering Floyd. Correct? Is there something in that statement that is wrong?
As ST has pointed out, this is about depriving Floyd of his civil rights. Per ABC:
Is anything in the hilited statements untrue? If so, how?
Last edited:
plague311
Great minds think...
From what I've learned from other news articles, after ST pointed out my flaw, is that they don't even have to improve intent. Did they see Floyd needed medical attention? That would be hard not to see since he was unconscious, not breathing and they were all touching\leaning on him.
Did they intervene to stop Chauvin? Obviously not. As ST said, seems like a slam dunk, especially since Chauvin has already said, "yeah, I did that ****" in his own plea bargain.
Now we have changed the debate, haven't we? My entire debate revolves around the ridiculous idea that these officers knew a homicide was taking place, and failed to intervene.
Do you believe that narrative?
It's not a narrative it's what happened. And it's not ridiculous. Sadly it's not even surprising or all that unique.
Your faux-shocked "Oh my I just can't believe anyone thinks this is true, it's just SOOOOOO outragoues" routine changes nothing.
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
As a side note, "deprivation of civil rights" is a tool the feds could use a lot more as a catch-all to deal with out of control cops, especially in areas where local DAs refuse to hold them accountable.
Use of excessive force and/or neglecting the well being of an arrestee is arguably a federal crime every single time it happens, which is a lot. It's great that the feds are bouncing the rubble of these pigs' destroyed lives, but it would be better employed as a means of going after cops where local DAs refuse to do their duty.
Last edited:
plague311
Great minds think...
I said I changed my end of the debate, clearly and openly. I was arguing the wrong charges as I mistook an article I had read. ST corrected me, and so I changed my statement.
Which means absolutely **** all to this trial. Which is why I didn't address it further.
Do I believe the idea that the officers knew a homicide was taking place? At some point, yes. Especially Lane. That's why his words and actions started to show concern the longer Chauvin was on his neck. He knew Floyd was dying, he knew Chauvin was killing him.
Did they fail to intervene? Yes. Obviously.
I don't think the officers thought that Chauvin originally intended to kill Floyd, but it would be pretty hard to believe that at some point during the 9 minutes they didn't realize what was happening. You seem to be looking for a yes\no answer. That's not how the law, or this case, works. At all.
That is exactly how the law works. Yes or no, guilty or not.
It is pretty obvious that you, on some level, agree with my notion that it is unreasonable to assume that these officers were knowingly witnessing a homicide and ignoring it. There is literally nothing to support that. Including the fact that Chauvin was convicted of an unintentional homicide.
Last edited:
plague311
Great minds think...
If that's how you see it, then who am I to argue with you? Having been through the legal process as much as I have, we obviously see it differently. It's never been this cut and dry for me.
It should be obvious since I've said that Lane was trying to prevent the homicide from happening, meaning he didn't ignore it. I think I said that. Other than that, we don't agree at all.
I have also said that there is a point that the other 2 and Chauvin knew that Floyd was dying and did nothing. So they did knowingly witness a homicide and did nothing to prevent it. Which means they aided and abetted that homicide. It became entirely too obvious to say they didn't know he was dying\dead.
You keep saying this and I'm not sure why. Just because he didn't intend to kill Floyd has nothing to do with the fact that he a) killed Floyd and b) the others watched and did nothing to stop it. I don't understand what you're not getting about that.
Less assumption would work in your favor. You know nothing of my legal history. What I do know is, unless we are talking about PBJ misdemeanors, is that verdicts are how we define outcomes.
So, I tend to look at things in that manner. Guilty, or not. Throwing out ambiguous accusations is not helpful, in this case. I'm not saying that is your tendency, but it definitely is going on in this thread.
plague311
Great minds think...
I don't care about your legal history. I didn't make an assumption about it. I only spoke to my experience in the system and how that formed my opinion. I said we obviously see it different, I'm not sure what you're arguing with.
Again, you can view it however you would like, but we see it differently.
There is no doubt in my mind that at least 2 of the officers committed the crimes they're charged with and will be found guilty. Lane is a bit of a wild card for me given that he took some action, his newbie status, and his efforts to resuscitate Floyd.
Your implication was that you have more experience with the legal process than I do. This may or may not be true. I am not inclined to reference such details on a regular basis, nor use them to validate my position on matters.
plague311
Great minds think...
No, it wasn't. You can't read minds.
Yet you'll willingly throw out that you recorded some girl being violated with vegetables.
Good for you, is this relevant to anything at all?
I understand why the other cops didn't draw down on Chauvin. But one of them could have called a supervisor. That's what bosses are for. Despite this seniority, Chauvin was just another patrolman, not even a sergeant. I doubt he could have seriously harmed an honest cop.
Last edited:
autumn1971
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,538
If a person is wearing a law enforcement uniform there’s at least a twenty-five percent chance of “nefarious intent.”
Cat Not Included
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2016
- Messages
- 477
Well...
1) Did he know that Chauvin was kneeling on Floyd's neck?
He was standing a few feet away and apparently suggested that Chauvin shouldn't do this, so its hard to see how he could not have know this.
2) Did he know that pressure to the neck can prevent a person form breathing?
Maybe I'm just way overestimating people's general knowledge, but I think most people should know that.
3) Did he know that people who can't breathe will die from lack of oxygen?
Well, to be fair, I'm not sure this was ever specifically covered in biology classes, but again...seems pretty common sense.
So, which of these do you think seems in question for Lane here and how he could not know a murder was taking place?
Just in case some were in question though, the victim helpfully repeatedly said "I can't breathe", and bystanders said "Get off him, you're killing him". Do you think officer Lane was unclear on who was being killed?
(That all said, not sure how I feel about Lane's criminal guilt...insufficiently failing to stop a murder is not generally a crime as far as I'm aware...)
That isn’t required for a charge of felony murder, indeed it is pretty much the definition of felony murder.
You have confused some issues, here. First, my debate is with those in this thread who are making the ridiculous case that these officers knew a homicide was taking place. But clearly, even with Chauvin being convicted of unintentional 2nd-degree murder, nobody is willing to accept that it wasn't a conspiracy of evil cops knowingly watching a homicide occur.
Second, as ST pointed out, the officers in question are not being charged with felony murder here; these are civil rights violations.
rockinkt
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,342
Accomplice liability arises when a two or more people have conspired to commit a felony, and a second felony that was not part of the original plan - but was a reasonable and foreseeable possibility - occurs.
In your example - the original felony was agreed to by the getaway driver and the secondary felony - the death of someone - was a foreseeable possibility.
I would suggest that proving that the officers were knowingly part of a conspiracy to commit some sort of felony (not his death) against Mr. Floyd before Chauvin murdered Floyd would have been extremely difficult to prove.
To be clear - I think they were all complicit in the death of Mr. Floyd.
bobdroege7
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,348
Does it help to point out that Chauvin was convicted of Third Degree Murder?
"non-premeditated killing that is committed with the intent to cause bodily harm rather than death."
A reasonable person would conclude that the three officers should have known that Chauvin was causing bodily harm to a person they had under arrest and in their custody.
And it is not unreasonable to conclude that that bodily harm could result in death.
plague311
Great minds think...
I don't know why you're so hung up on the "unintentional" part with all of this. Chauvin was negligent and the others didn't stop his negligence. They knew Chauvin was killing Floyd, it was clear as day to literally ******* everyone. It was clear to Lane, it was clear to the bystanders and it was clear to a jury.
The fact they didn't stop what was clearly excessive force that ended in the murder of Floyd is precisely why they're on trial. They all knew he was dying and did nothing but watch.
Right, in this trial they're not. They're still going to go to court, again, for aiding and abetting.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
In sympathy to Lane, I get how the rosy-cheeked newbie might be thinking "oh, it looks different in real life than it did in training". I mean, who the hell expects to go out on your first day of work with a psycho who makes world news for murdering some guy in broad daylight?
Anecdote: the first time I went out for paragliding flight training, we met at a dead flat airfield. I asked what I was supposed to jump off from. The instructors said, "oh, you get towed up. How the hell do you think this works, noob?" Then they hooked my harness to a cable contraption and the other end to a quad. I thought "whelp I guess this is how it works" and they damn near killed me.
You trust people entrusted to know what they are doing. Maybe the Denzel/Slater movie Training Day should be part of police academy required viewing?
Anecdote: the first time I went out for paragliding flight training, we met at a dead flat airfield. I asked what I was supposed to jump off from. The instructors said, "oh, you get towed up. How the hell do you think this works, noob?" Then they hooked my harness to a cable contraption and the other end to a quad. I thought "whelp I guess this is how it works" and they damn near killed me.
You trust people entrusted to know what they are doing. Maybe the Denzel/Slater movie Training Day should be part of police academy required viewing?
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
Plenty of people rotting in prison because they naively got into a car with someone they didn't realize was a total psycho.
I don't mean this as a rhetorical flourish. Many big city police departments are little more than organized criminal gangs. People joining these are putting themselves in positions where they will be expected to be participate in or be accessories to criminal behavior. Usually the cops are not in much danger of actually being punished for their crimes, but in this case Chauvin's brazen murder was too much for the public to stomach.
I have as much sympathy for these cops as I do for newbie gang-bangers who got dragged unknowingly into a murder. Less even, because cops generally have better life options than the average gang recruit.
Last edited:
Venom
Philosopher
There's evidence that people lose some sense of agency when someone else is barking all the orders.
If the idea is to attempt to overcome this tendency by making an example of people who fail to act, threatening 40+ years for these three, or even worse, as ST is framing it, that they "knew what they were getting into", I think that's worth questioning to say the least.
It'll be a shame if these three just go free, but I think most people, cops included, are unprepared to sufficiently act to stop someone who unexpectedly reveals himself as a monstrous psycho, especially if he was supposedly on your side up to that point.
If the idea is to attempt to overcome this tendency by making an example of people who fail to act, threatening 40+ years for these three, or even worse, as ST is framing it, that they "knew what they were getting into", I think that's worth questioning to say the least.
It'll be a shame if these three just go free, but I think most people, cops included, are unprepared to sufficiently act to stop someone who unexpectedly reveals himself as a monstrous psycho, especially if he was supposedly on your side up to that point.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,259
The idea that it is hard to not follow orders is legitimate but it has little legal standing when one is assisting someone else commit murder. They didn't have any obligation to stop him in general, hence why the bystanders are not charged with murder when they just stood by and watched a cop crush a man to death. But they assisted and the individual was under their authority and care as they had detained him.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
#1 workplace safety rule comes in handy yet again:
If it sucks, hit the bricks.
If it sucks, hit the bricks.
Last edited:
plague311
Great minds think...
That meme is a ******* mess.
My understanding is that in the US a LEO is not required to protect a person from harm.
https://www.barneslawllp.com/blog/police-not-required-protect
So standing by and doing nothing whilst someone is murdered is not a crime even if you are a LEO.
I think that the prosecution will have to prove that the other officers actively contributed to the murder or were part of a conspiracy.
ETA
Ninja'd
But the civil rights issue is very different. Somewhat similarly in the UK the human rights act has been very powerful in holding police to account for bad acts.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
I think there are some law thingys about a duty to care while actually in police custody, as Floyd was. They don't have to protect citizens from every crime on the street, but they kind of do have obligations to not murdering a suspect once the cuffs are on.
Last edited:
Yes I agree. The 'once detained they have a duty of care' is obviously where they are coming from.
Thermal
August Member
So then if Lane et al were entrusted with this duty to care, the "no obligation to protect" angle you proposed is eclipsed.
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,676
In your example, the getaway driver was in the act of committing a felony when a murder (or even the killing of one of his associates by a cop) occurred. The other three officers were not in the process of committing a felony when Chauvin killed Floyd. See the difference? That's why felony murder does not apply here.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
Felony murder doesn't apply here because it's a federal court, and murder is handled in state courts.