Does it matter to you that George Floyd had a long, violent criminal history? (terror, party)

[BigCityDreamer]

Originally Posted by Mikala43

That is how our system works. You serve your time, you start anew. The officer probably didn't even know he had a past record. This is the same rationale why you usually cannot bring up prior acts (crimes) in court. Having done something wrong, does not mean you did something wrong in the current case.

Having the same rights is pretty much one of the pillars of our judicial system.

Exceptions exist, like 3 strikes and such, but that is a court issue, not within the officers determination of treatment

If there was justice, then George Floyd would’ve been locked up for life. There should be no such thing as third chances.

Repeat violent criminals should not be out on the streets.

[Mikala43]

Originally Posted by Howest2008

Who has any evidence of George Floyd resisting arrest , that would be on the police officer body cam wouldn't it?

Some has been released heavily redacted and audio cut through most of it. Does not seem to show anything.

[Neuling]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

If there was justice, then George Floyd would’ve been locked up for life.

Repeat violent criminals should not be out on the streets.

Depends on which violent crimes we are talking about.

I mean, if A already gets life for battery, what is B to get for rape or murder?

[Ringo1]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

IF THE GUY IS RESISTING ARREST - IT IS OKAY.
He's committing assault and battery (a felony) on the officer. What else is he supposed to do?
Wheedle, "pretty please with sugar on top?"

Even other COPS are speaking out against this killing. Why are you defending it?

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Mikala43

Something being a felony doesn't mean you get to kill the suspect. That just not how our system works.

Apparently you do not comprehend what "assault and battery" means. . . that the suspect ceased to be compliant and cooperative, and became a threat to the officers.

They were dealing with a man, obviously larger and stronger, who may have been intoxicated with drugs, acting out to RESIST going to jail... struggling to avoid being put in the squad car and taken to jail.
While trying to restrain him, he died, and not by asphyxiation... if he said "I cannot breathe" how could he talk? Someone who really cannot breathe, can't say a word.

. . .
The MSM fed slanted reports and deliberately pushed disinformation to gull the masses into assuming that the officers were monsters and the felonious Mr Floyd was a harmless victim.

SHAME ON THEM ALL.
And shame on the lynch mobs and rioters who did far more destruction and killing in the name of a felon.

[Mikala43]

Dude, he was no threat when hand cuffed and face down on the sidewalk.

My husband is ret. PD, and served as an expert witness in cases, and even he says there was no need for what the officer did. There were also 3 other officers present.... doing nothing. Why? Because George Floyd was doing nothing but laying there.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Ringo1

Even other COPS are speaking out against this killing. Why are you defending it?

Because the thought police want you to jump to the wrong conclusion, and the real police are afraid to stand up... their politicians in power certainly are wimping out.

I'm no fan of the totalitarian police state tactics (ex: tossing grenades into baby playpens) but when disinformation is peddled to spark riots, I draw the line.

FLOYD was wrong, and no one reported that. FLOYD was a felon the instant he resisted arrest. He knew he was going to be convicted - again - and tried every trick - feigned claustrophobia - refused to get into the squad car - struggled with the officers. Perhaps he thought he could trick them into acting in such a way to get his charges dropped or get a civil lawsuit. But it didn't work... his own medical condition terminated him.

Yes, suspects have rights - when they comply with the officers arresting them. But the instant the suspect hinders that arrest BAM - no more Mr Nice Guy.

I expect the officers to be exonerated at trial, but it will be too late, because they've been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, created by REAL MONSTERS in the mass media.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Mikala43

Dude, he was no threat when hand cuffed and face down on the sidewalk. [His side of his face was down]

My husband is ret. PD, and served as an expert witness in cases, and even he says there was no need for what the officer did. There were also 3 other officers present.... doing nothing. Why? Because George Floyd was doing nothing but laying there.

And you could sense how tense his body was by what you saw.
You could determine he wasn't resisting the officer.
Yup. I'm impressed.
You should be an expert witness at the trial.


HOWEVER, based on this - Floyd was in trouble just for resisting arrest.


http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...ing-Arrest.htm
Felony Resisting Arrest: What Does the Prosecutor Have to Prove?

In order to secure a conviction for resisting arrest, the prosecutor must produce evidence on the following issues, called the “elements” of the offense, and the judge or jury must decide that the prosecutor has proved each one of them beyond a reasonable doubt. While the elements of the crime may vary from state to state, usually all of the following must be true:

● The defendant intentionally resisted or obstructed a law enforcement officer. This means the defendant intentionally acted in a way to hinder the arrest. However, the person need not have intended the result or harm that his actions caused.
● The defendant acted violently toward the law enforcement officer or threatened to act violently. For example, striking or pushing the officer would satisfy this requirement. Similarly, a defendant’s threat to strike an officer with an object in the defendant’s hand would also satisfy this requirement.
● The law enforcement officer was lawfully discharging his official duties. This means the law enforcement officer was properly engaged in the performance of official duties, such as investigating a crime or making a traffic stop. A law enforcement officer can be acting lawfully even when arresting the wrong person and even if the charges are dropped or the defendant secures an acquittal at trial.


- - - - -
NOT MURDER

If the officer is attempting to arrest, and the suspect resists, that is assault and battery, a felony, and the officer can escalate accordingly.

● MURDER : (Law) the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
● MANSLAUGHTER : (Law) The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury.
● HOMICIDE : (Law) the killing of a human being by another person.
● RESISTING ARREST : (Law) physical efforts to oppose a lawful arrest; the resistance is classified as assault and battery upon the person of the police officer attempting to make the arrest.
● SELF DEFENSE : (Law) The right to protect oneself against violence or threatened violence with whatever force or means are reasonably necessary.
● AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE : An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct. In criminal prosecutions, examples of affirmative defenses are self defense, insanity, and the statute of limitations.

. . .
It's not the initial crime that is the problem, it's the subsequent behavior.
Once a suspect is resisting arrest, he is engaged in a FELONY. He is engaged in assault and battery on the police officer(s). Their response can escalate accordingly, which is an affirmative defense against any charge of murder, manslaughter or homicide. . . .

FLOYD was certainly a danger, handcuffed or not. He refused to get into the car. Can you guess HOW he did that?
He STRUGGLED - as in FIGHT - PUSH - SHOVE - BUTT.
He was a threat to the officers.

And from the photographs a knee to the SIDE of the neck won't crush the trachea / windpipe and choke him.

[Mikala43]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

And you could sense how tense his body was by what you saw.
You could determine he wasn't resisting the officer.
Yup. I'm impressed.
You should be an expert witness at the trial.

No, I won't even watch the video. I have no desire to watch a man dying. I can be a sensitive soul.

I take DH's word for it, this is his area of expertise.

I think they determined that he held him down a minute or so past his death, so I am pretty sure he wasn't tense then.

BUT, I still reserve judgement until more facts come out. So I keep an open mind.

I agree with you on the media and some politicians, they have a responsibilty to stay neutral, and they really haven't. As I mentioned, that was angering me, so I stopped listening to the news. I will wait until there is more information without the emotional buzz. I am not a fan of convicting people via the public and media, it is unfair, and can ruin someone's life even if they are found innocent.

[tamajane]

It doesn't matter in this case but it certainly makes me less sympathetic to the guy. He committed an armed home invasion with a group of men, getting in by wearing a fake uniform, holding a gun against a woman's body and terrorizing those poor people in the home. I think he was an evil person, so I don't actually feel sad watching what happened to him anymore.

I see two men whose lives are over because they were both bad people who committed evil acts.