Also in the news

[Zear0]

4 minutes ago, brucey said:

 

Yes!  Bring me my patio furniture!!!

[yorkie1999]

26 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Maybe.  I don't think there is any doubt about that point.  I think it will come down to 1) whether he was allowed to do what he did under police procedure, 2) whether it was reasonable to be concerned enough by the threat that GF posed to not get off, and 3) Wether if GF had been fit and healthy it was reasonable to think his actions would not end in death.

Not condoning the police actions because it appears to the outsider that the US is a bit of a fvcked up nation when it comes to law and order, but 

 

1, Minneapolis  police were allowed to restrain suspects' necks if they're aggressive or resisting arrest

2, Given the problem with guns in America, i would have thought the police there are always concerned that a suspect is carrying one.

3, Due to number 2, i think it all boils down to act first, ask later.

[leicsmac]

47 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Maybe.  I don't think there is any doubt about that point.  I think it will come down to 1) whether he was allowed to do what he did under police procedure, 2) whether it was reasonable to be concerned enough by the threat that GF posed to not get off, and 3) Wether if GF had been fit and healthy it was reasonable to think his actions would not end in death.

That's pretty much what the defence will argue, aye.

 

I'm no legal eagle, but looking at those points one at a time...

 

1.) If someone dies while "standard police procedure" is being executed, I'd say the party executing that procedure stands a fair amount of responsibility unless it can be shown that the cause of death meant the person could have copped it at any time and in any place.

 

2.) GF didn't pose a direct capital threat to the officers at the time of his death. If Chauvin had gotten off his neck and he'd then posed a capital threat then fine, but AFAIC (and I think it is in law) a copper killing someone who doesn't pose a capital threat to you (even if such a threat might be implied rather than direct) is still a no-no.

 

3.) This ties into point 1 - unless GF had a pre-existing condition that could have dropped him under any circumstances, it logically follows that the trauma inflicted upon him either directly resulted in his death or exacerbated a pre-existing condition that killed him. Either way, the conditions that Chauvin put him under are responsible.

 

I honestly can't see how a death under these circumstances can be simply ruled as accidental unless there was a definitive medical problem with GF that could have struck him at any point.

[yorkie1999]

32 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Yes!  Bring me my patio furniture!!!

What, the patio set next to the Suez canal that those egyptian digger drivers are sat at scoffing a few dates and sucking on a few shisha pipes.

[nnfox]

10 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Not condoning the police actions because it appears to the outsider that the US is a bit of a fvcked up nation when it comes to law and order, but 

 

1, Minneapolis  police were allowed to restrain suspects' necks if they're aggressive or resisting arrest

2, Given the problem with guns in America, i would have thought the police there are always concerned that a suspect is carrying one.

3, Due to number 2, i think it all boils down to act first, ask later.

These are all fair considerations.

 

It boils down to whether the actions of Chauvin (and the other officers present) are deemed reasonable and proportionate (taking the end result out of the equation for now).

 

- Why did the officers deem it necessary to use force? - I would think they'll be OK on that.

 

- Was the level of force used proportionate to the circumstances? What was the level of threat posed to the officers or other members of the public?  Were their weapons that heightened that risk?  Was there something that GF said, that indicated he would use force? Did he show signs that he would be likely to resist arrest?  Did he have a history of being violent towards police on arrest? - Lots of unknowns in here that will come out in the trial.

 

- If the use of force was justified in the circumstances, at what point, if at all, did it become unjustified? - It will probably be accepted that a detained person saying "I can't breathe" isn't enough on it's own to majorly alter the way GF was being treated as it will be common for people to feign illness to stop the arrest process/gain an opportunity to be violent/escape, BUT, what other symptoms could have been identified and what alternative tactics did the officers have at their disposal, which leads finally, to...

 

- What was the content of the training that officers received and how recent was Chauvin's latest training? - I suspect this will be very important.  On one hand it might be that Chauvin received training the previous week that went into great detail on a number of medical emergencies that he could reasonably expect to come across in execution of his duty, in which case he will almost certainly be found guilty.  On the other hand, the training given might actually be pretty sketchy and Chauvin hadn't been refreshed on any such matters for a number of years, in which case things will get much more complicated.

 

Either he followed procedure or he didn't.  Minneapolis PD will almost certainly pin the blame on Chauvin in order to distance themselves from his actions, but you could bet your mortgage that their training programmes will now have been significantly updated.

 

One thing is for sure, there'll be no winners and whatever the outcome there certainly will be more riots.

[leicsmac]

47 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Not condoning the police actions because it appears to the outsider that the US is a bit of a fvcked up nation when it comes to law and order, but 

 

1, Minneapolis  police were allowed to restrain suspects' necks if they're aggressive or resisting arrest

2, Given the problem with guns in America, i would have thought the police there are always concerned that a suspect is carrying one.

3, Due to number 2, i think it all boils down to act first, ask later.

I would think (and hope) that even though acting first and thinking later is a maxim to go by, when that acting results in bodies on the ground then there are consequences for that action.

 

Otherwise any corrupt copper can extrajudicially execute someone they didn't like the look of and then say that they were justified in doing so because they somehow feared for their life.

 

8 minutes ago, nnfox said:

These are all fair considerations.

 

It boils down to whether the actions of Chauvin (and the other officers present) are deemed reasonable and proportionate (taking the end result out of the equation for now).

 

- Why did the officers deem it necessary to use force? - I would think they'll be OK on that.

 

- Was the level of force used proportionate to the circumstances? What was the level of threat posed to the officers or other members of the public?  Were their weapons that heightened that risk?  Was there something that GF said, that indicated he would use force? Did he show signs that he would be likely to resist arrest?  Did he have a history of being violent towards police on arrest? - Lots of unknowns in here that will come out in the trial.

 

- If the use of force was justified in the circumstances, at what point, if at all, did it become unjustified? - It will probably be accepted that a detained person saying "I can't breathe" isn't enough on it's own to majorly alter the way GF was being treated as it will be common for people to feign illness to stop the arrest process/gain an opportunity to be violent/escape, BUT, what other symptoms could have been identified and what alternative tactics did the officers have at their disposal, which leads finally, to...

 

- What was the content of the training that officers received and how recent was Chauvin's latest training? - I suspect this will be very important.  On one hand it might be that Chauvin received training the previous week that went into great detail on a number of medical emergencies that he could reasonably expect to come across in execution of his duty, in which case he will almost certainly be found guilty.  On the other hand, the training given might actually be pretty sketchy and Chauvin hadn't been refreshed on any such matters for a number of years, in which case things will get much more complicated.

 

Either he followed procedure or he didn't.  Minneapolis PD will almost certainly pin the blame on Chauvin in order to distance themselves from his actions, but you could bet your mortgage that their training programmes will now have been significantly updated.

 

One thing is for sure, there'll be no winners and whatever the outcome there certainly will be more riots.

The last point in particular is very interesting here.

 

But honestly I don't think you can just take the end result out of the equation here unless the guy had something wrong with him that could have dropped him at any moment. Also as per above, there has to be some serious questions asked about the nature of answering potentially lethal threats with definitively lethal force, because that is a course of action absolutely ripe for abuse in my eyes. And history proves as much.

[nnfox]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I would think (and hope) that even though acting first and thinking later is a maxim to go by, when that acting results in bodies on the ground then there are consequences for that action.

 

Otherwise any corrupt copper can extrajudicially execute someone they didn't like the look of and then say that they were justified in doing so because they somehow feared for their life.

 

The last point in particular is very interesting here.

 

But honestly I don't think you can just take the end result out of the equation here unless the guy had something wrong with him that could have dropped him at any moment. Also as per above, there has to be some serious questions asked about the nature of answering potentially lethal threats with definitively lethal force, because that is a course of action absolutely ripe for abuse in my eyes. And history proves as much.

What I mean is that there are two issues.  One is that GF died - of that there is no dispute.  There will be questions relating to precise cause of death and like you say, it should be taken into consideration if GF had pre-existing medical conditions that Chauvin and his colleagues couldn't have known about which contributed to the outcome.  The other issue is the actions of the officer and trying to pinpoint exactly where it went wrong so every aspect will be scrutinised.  If Chauvin responding to the call of the crime was 'action A' and GF dying was 'outcome Z', where, if anywhere, did Chauvin's actions become criminal?  I suspect there will be a point somewhere in between on our imaginary scale where it will be deemed 'Officer Chauvin should have identified the dangers and should have taken steps to minimise those dangers' and as he didn't, most of what followed departed from his training and could then be deemed criminally negligent.  Obviously, if the prosecution can prove that his actions (or inactions) amounted to intent to inflict serious harm or death then that significantly makes matters even more serious.

 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, nnfox said:

What I mean is that there are two issues.  One is that GF died - of that there is no dispute.  There will be questions relating to precise cause of death and like you say, it should be taken into consideration if GF had pre-existing medical conditions that Chauvin and his colleagues couldn't have known about which contributed to the outcome.  The other issue is the actions of the officer and trying to pinpoint exactly where it went wrong so every aspect will be scrutinised.  If Chauvin responding to the call of the crime was 'action A' and GF dying was 'outcome Z', where, if anywhere, did Chauvin's actions become criminal?  I suspect there will be a point somewhere in between on our imaginary scale where it will be deemed 'Officer Chauvin should have identified the dangers and should have taken steps to minimise those dangers' and as he didn't, most of what followed departed from his training and could then be deemed criminally negligent.  Obviously, if the prosecution can prove that his actions (or inactions) amounted to intent to inflict serious harm or death then that significantly makes matters even more serious.

 

If that is true, my own take, as above, is that only exonerates Chauvin if that condition could have affected him at any time - if not, the logical conclusion is that what Chauvin did contributed to it killing him, which makes him liable, even if he didn't know about it IMO.

 

I don't think the prosecutors have to prove intent at all - of course they would for a murder charge, but manslaughter exists and that would be an option that's rather easily accessible given the circumstances that we know about it all.

[yorkie1999]

26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If that is true, my own take, as above, is that only exonerates Chauvin if that condition could have affected him at any time - if not, the logical conclusion is that what Chauvin did contributed to it killing him, which makes him liable, even if he didn't know about it IMO.

 

I don't think the prosecutors have to prove intent at all - of course they would for a murder charge, but manslaughter exists and that would be an option that's rather easily accessible given the circumstances that we know about it all.

According to wiki, he had heart disease as well as fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use, and had also had covid-19 a few weeks prior, but whatever may have added to the likelihood of him dying, Chauvin is going to end up getting banged up because of the probable resulting aftermath. 

[surrifox]

4 hours ago, Countryfox said:

Bout bloody time ! 

I bet that sentiment is shared by the 9000 live sheep and 200 cattle  trapped on the livestock carrier behind this heap of crap without water or food in 40 degrees for just under a week 

[Parafox]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

That's pretty much what the defence will argue, aye.

 

I'm no legal eagle, but looking at those points one at a time...

 

1.) If someone dies while "standard police procedure" is being executed, I'd say the party executing that procedure stands a fair amount of responsibility unless it can be shown that the cause of death meant the person could have copped it at any time and in any place.

 

2.) GF didn't pose a direct capital threat to the officers at the time of his death. If Chauvin had gotten off his neck and he'd then posed a capital threat then fine, but AFAIC (and I think it is in law) a copper killing someone who doesn't pose a capital threat to you (even if such a threat might be implied rather than direct) is still a no-no.

 

3.) This ties into point 1 - unless GF had a pre-existing condition that could have dropped him under any circumstances, it logically follows that the trauma inflicted upon him either directly resulted in his death or exacerbated a pre-existing condition that killed him. Either way, the conditions that Chauvin put him under are responsible.

 

I honestly can't see how a death under these circumstances can be simply ruled as accidental unless there was a definitive medical problem with GF that could have struck him at any point.

Thank you, Judge Rinder 

 

Things will become clearer during the trial. No one, except those that were there at the time, know the actual sequence of events and GF's medical history is probably known only to him, his doctors and his closest friends and family.

Witnesses will be called, evidence will be shown, arguments will be put forward by defence and prosecution and hopefully, the truth will out.

Speculation is never helpful nor is it relevant a lot of the time.

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

According to wiki, he had heart disease as well as fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use, and had also had covid-19 a few weeks prior, but whatever may have added to the likelihood of him dying, Chauvin is going to end up getting banged up because of the probable resulting aftermath. 

Wiki? Is that your go-to source of factual information?

[yorkie1999]

4 hours ago, Parafox said:

Wiki? Is that your go-to source of factual information?

What you trying to say? If you read any of the court arguments  today, both the defence and prosecutions cases were centred around GF’s use of opiates and whether or whether not they were a contributory factor in his death. They obviously must have got their info from wiki as well. And another thing, a few posters on a provincial football clubs forum is hardly going to influence a jury  4000 miles away in another country in a case that’s being broadcast on a world wide stage which has obviously been designed to create speculation.

Edited 29 March 2021 by yorkie1999

[urban.spaceman]

10 hours ago, brucey said:

 

That’s annoying, I had the perfect gag for it still being stuck. 
 

Guess that ship has sailed now. 

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, Parafox said:

Thank you, Judge Rinder 

 

Things will become clearer during the trial. No one, except those that were there at the time, know the actual sequence of events and GF's medical history is probably known only to him, his doctors and his closest friends and family.

Witnesses will be called, evidence will be shown, arguments will be put forward by defence and prosecution and hopefully, the truth will out.

Speculation is never helpful nor is it relevant a lot of the time.

 

But in all seriousness, I can't disagree here and I hope that what I wrote was clear as being speculative. I just hope that this case, whatever the result, helps play into a larger change in the way people of colour are treated by law enforcement across the US - because it's reasonably self-evident (and not speculative) that there is a problem there that requires addressing, and soon.

[leicsmac]

On the above topic, this is a really good read about the situation at large:

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-achieve-mental-health-equity-dismantle-social-injustice/

[Bellend Sebastian]

Probably won't register with many on here but to me this is genuinely sad news:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2021/mar/29/bbc-four-to-become-archive-only-as-cost-cutting-drive-continues

[Strokes]

26 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Probably won't register with many on here but to me this is genuinely sad news:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2021/mar/29/bbc-four-to-become-archive-only-as-cost-cutting-drive-continues

It’s a massive shame, hopefully the shows still find a platform to come through.

[Bellend Sebastian]

18 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It’s a massive shame, hopefully the shows still find a platform to come through.

I'm probably going to sound like a complete knob for this, but this is the sort of thing that makes me feel that the British cultural identity IS being eroded.

 

A union flag flying from my house like it's a layby cafe and a Netflix subscription are a piss poor substitute.

 

This is the sort of snobbery that FT needs more of

 

Edited 30 March 2021 by Bellend Sebastian

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56560829

 

Chinese government working very hard to live up to their reputation, then.

[Jattdogg]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56560829

 

Chinese government working very hard to live up to their reputation, then.

The w a n k e r   reputation? Lol yes.

[Buce]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56560829

 

Chinese government working very hard to live up to their reputation, then.

 

Tbf, they're not the only country doing this, just more brazenly.

[String fellow]

Surely the 1997 agreement giving Hong Kong 50 years of greater freedoms than the rest of China was never going to work in practice. Imagine if the UK had an enclave where the laws were more relaxed than elsewhere, there'd be chaos.

[leicsmac]

On 28/03/2021 at 23:31, leicsmac said:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/arkansas-governor-signs-bill-allowing-medical-workers-to-refuse-treatment-to-lgbtq-people

 

"Opponents have said types of health care that could be cut off include maintaining hormone treatments for transgender patients needing in-patient care for an infection, or grief counseling for a same-sex couple. They’ve also said it could also be used to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control, or by physicians assistants to override patient directives on end of life care."

 

If this does make it through to become law and isn't challenged successfully, does anyone really think it will end there?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/29/arkansas-transgender-healthcare-ban-minors

 

Oh hey, it didn't end there!

 

Probably won't end here, either.

[Innovindil]

19 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56560829

 

Chinese government working very hard to live up to their reputation, then.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-56563449

 

The more you read about China the more cvnty they sound. Sigh.