Yesterday, a friend
called me and asked me for my opinion on everything going on in
Minneapolis, and the very tragic death of Mr. George Floyd. He often
likes to pick my brain for opinions on all things true crime, knowing
that it’s a major passion of mine, just as I often pick the brains of
those in my family who are retired officers, and friends of mine
currently serving on the force. When speaking to him, I often take for
granted the access to information and insight I’ve been given over the years,
and remember that knowledge I think is so often common, in fact often is
not. In this post I’m going to give my personal analysis on some of the
questions he asked me and some of the questions and statements I’ve
seen on social media regarding this ongoing case.
**Edit added at the end with new autopsy information being reported**
**Edit added at the end with new autopsy information being reported**
Will the officer or officers in question be charged?
I
think so. At the very least, the acting officer who used excessive
force(officer Chauvin) will most likely be. That is obviously only my opinion, I can't say
for sure. I don't think it is much of a question that he used unnecessarily aggressive and excessive force on an individual who was already restrained and posed no type of threat. Officers do have the legal right to take a life if they deem their lives or the lives of others are under significant or immediate threat. This was not the case here. Right now the public outcry is too great and the heat being
put on the District Attorney’s office is significant.
When will he/they be charged and why haven’t they yet?
In
short: I don’t know. Apparently, the death of Mr. Floyd occurred on
Monday, per reports. Filing charges can take time. The
DA doesn’t file charges unless they believe they have enough to get a
conviction. I’ve followed cases that have taken decades to file charges
against brutal sadistic murderers where law enforcement was 100% sure
they had the killer, but simply didn’t have the evidence to convince a
jury. With the Double Jeopardy law, a person can’t be tried for the same
crime twice as long as they’re acquitted or convicted(they can be in
mistrials), so the DA always wants to have its ducks in a row before
filing charges and ultimately going to trial. If arrested, law
enforcement can only hold you for 72 hours and if charges are not filed
they have to let you go. In this case, they may either not feel like they currently have enough to convict, have been dragging their feet systematically, or don't feel the officer or officers are flight risks.
There
could also be politics playing a part. The officer in question could
have connections in the police force or in the DA’s office causing them
to drag their feet on any investigation. It’s impossible to say without
knowing more details. Every time a life is taken by an officer, it is
required by law to be investigated. How the investigation was conducted
and how thorough, whether or not internal affairs took a look at it and
deemed it necessary use of force, if the officer lied and
mischaracterized events, or if it wasn’t investigated at all, I don’t
know. All we know right now is per Donald Trump’s tweet, the FBI and DOJ
are being brought in to assist the investigation.
If the department(and/or FBI) is currently investigating, my guess is they are going back to the scene of the crime, canvassing nearby businesses and gathering CCTV footage from a variety of angles to ensure that the original leaked videos on social media are as accurate as originally portrayed. You can never have too much evidence in any case. Also, eye witnesses are likely being tracked down and question to provide even more context to the incident. They may or may not be asked to testify in court.
Why bring the FBI in? What are they going to do?
Usually, when the FBI gets involved in a murder, it was a crime that crossed state lines, making it FBI jurisdiction. Meaning, for example, if someone was kidnapped in Pennsylvania, and driven to Ohio and murdered there, the FBI would now have jurisdiction over that case. That doesn't mean the FBI can't get involved in other cases. Sometimes when all efforts are exhausted and a case can't be solved because they're unable to find the killer, and/or a case is being investigated by a small town department, the FBI will be brought in to provide their resources in trying to bring a resolution to a case and jump start it when it has stalled. In this particular case, I can only speculate.
Who killed Mr. Floyd is not in question here. They could have been brought in as a PR stunt by the White House. They could have been brought in legitimately, because there is believe to be a systematic or political roadblock within the department or DA's office delaying a thorough investigation. The FBI and DOJ could be looking into officer Chauvin's past and determine how many incidents have previously occurred and the extent of those incidents if the department is not trusted to investigate one of their own. It could be a number of reasons, but the FBI using their resources in a case can only help.
Who killed Mr. Floyd is not in question here. They could have been brought in as a PR stunt by the White House. They could have been brought in legitimately, because there is believe to be a systematic or political roadblock within the department or DA's office delaying a thorough investigation. The FBI and DOJ could be looking into officer Chauvin's past and determine how many incidents have previously occurred and the extent of those incidents if the department is not trusted to investigate one of their own. It could be a number of reasons, but the FBI using their resources in a case can only help.
What type of charges are to be expected, assuming that ends up being the case?
This incident involved several officers. Officer Chauvin, the officer in this case who used the excessive force resulting in the death of Mr. Floyd is likely to face different charges than the other officers. The state of Minnesota has First Degree, Second Degree, and Third Degree Murder, like the state of Pennsylvania. The punishments vary by the state. Third Degree Murder is essentially Voluntary Manslaughter. In Minnesota, First Degree Murder carries either a life sentence, or life with the possibility of parole after 30 years. Second Degree carries up to 40 years in prison and Third Degree carries a maximum of 25 years. In this case, my guess is the officer if charged, will be charged with Second or Third Degree Murder, most likely the latter. Second Degree Murder is basically someone intently killing the individual without premeditation. Like in a fight or spur of the moment outburst. Third Degree Murder basically means that an individual willfully committed an act of some sort on another person, but didn't expect it would lead to a fatality.
If the state wants to charge for Second Degree Murder, it would need to try and prove deliberate intent to kill. This may depend on the officer's track record. If the officer has an exemplary record, this will be a more difficult case to make. If the officer has a spotty history of police misconduct or an abuse of power, the state might be able to argue that the officer has a history of trying to inflict violence on others, depending on what the officer's prior incidents were.
Personally, I find First Degree Murder extremely unlikely. First Degree Murder requires premeditation and malice aforethought. In this instance that would almost be impossible to prove to a jury.
Personally, I find First Degree Murder extremely unlikely. First Degree Murder requires premeditation and malice aforethought. In this instance that would almost be impossible to prove to a jury.
What also may happen is the state may file Second Degree Murder charges and the officer could plead to a lesser charge of Third Degree Murder to avoid a trial, though I consider that unlikely. Especially if the officer's defense team feels like they will have a strong defense, and character witnesses that can back him up on his track record as an officer.
I've seen some mention the possibility of the death penalty. That I know for certain will not happen. The state of Minnesota doesn't have the death penalty. In fact, they're one of the most adamantly opposed death penalty states. They haven't executed anyone in over 100 years.
The Floyd family could also file a Civil suit or Wrongful Death suit on the department. I've read unconfirmed reports that officer Chauvin had a history of complaints of police misconduct. If it can be proven that he was unfit to be an officer and his badge should have been taken long before Mr. Floyd's death, there might be a case that the department was responsible and the Floyd family could be awarded damages.
As for the other officers in this case, it's hard to say. A lot of it depends on their track record as well. I think at most they would be charged with Negligent Homicide, as they did not directly cause the death of Mr. Floyd, but were neglected in stopping a fellow officer from acting unnecessarily aggressive, ultimately leading to his death.
It's impossible to say right now, if charged, tried, and convicted(or taking a plea), what type of sentence he will serve. It depends on the charges filed, the evidence against him, and the track record of the officer.
UPDATE:
There are new reports that the autopsy of Mr. Floyd's body "didn't find anything to support a diagnosis of traumatic strangulation or asphyxiation." This will be big for the defense team of officer Chauvin for a couple of reasons. For one, it will allow them to argue if this case does indeed go to trial, that the officer did not directly cause the death of Mr. Floyd or intend to cause bodily harm, giving more credence to the lesser charge, Involuntary Manslaughter. I assume the state will still argue the extreme nature of his actions are evidence of intent to cause bodily harm, and if officer Chauvin has a history of being physical with civilians, that could help the state's case for Third Degree Murder. If the autopsy found evidence of a broken windpipe or asphyxiation, it would have been huge for the prosecution's case to show that the officer's actions clearly and directly killed Mr. Floyd. I don't think a jury would buy that the actions have nothing to do with it, but a strong defense team will try and sell that underlying health issues contributed.
Secondly, the autopsy was performed by the state, and the findings already aid the defense of a lesser charge. What often happens when a case goes to trial is the defense team will hire someone to perform an independent autopsy to potentially look for more favorable findings. They likely will not feel the need to do this, as the state's autopsy has already found nothing to support the death being caused by asphyxiation.
The defense could also strike a deal for him to avoid trial and not risk a higher sentence that could potentially come with a Third Degree Murder conviction and just plead to Involuntary Manslaughter, if the prosecution doesn't feel confident it can make Third Degree Murder charges stick.
UPDATE #2:
The latest update is that the Floyd family hired respected coroner Dr. Michael Baden to perform an independent autopsy. Michael Baden has been hired for his expertise on countless cases. His findings were asphyxiation was the cause of death. A couple things here. Asphyxiation is different from strangulation and both are determined differently during an autopsy. Asphyxiation is just a general term for deprivation of oxygen. You can die of asphyxiation a number of ways. Via choking, strangulation, drowning, etc. Strangulation is generally determined by damage of muscles or tissue in the neck, potentially fracture of the hyoid bone, ligature marks on the neck, and sometimes ruptured blood vessels in the eyes.
Asphyxiation is determined by other means and is more subjective. It has to be determined what physically caused asphyxia, typically broken down into categories. Things like analyzing blood, lungs, necrosis in tissue, hemorrhages in the body. A medical examiner has the luxury of being able to extrapolate evidence to determine cause of death if the autopsy leaves room for subjectivity. A finding is an opinion, after all. It's taking in information and translating it, essentially.
I'm sure both findings will be heavily scrutinized by the defense and prosecution at trial, and the examiners will be called to testify on their findings and subject to cross examination. Regardless, I don't think there's any question officer Chauvin significantly contributed to the death of Mr. Floyd, but the capacity could mean the difference between Third Degree Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter.
UPDATE #3:
I think this is going to be my final update, as this case is going to continue to add layers up until the date of trial. The most recent update is that officer Chauvin's charges have been upgraded to Second Degree Murder. Ultimately this doesn't change that much other than the maximum sentence he can receive, which was anywhere from 12 months to 25 years and now is anywhere from 12 months to 40 years. This does not mean if a jury can't find him guilty of Second Degree Murder, which in my opinion is going to be a tall task for the prosecution, he will walk free. The lesser included charges of Third Degree Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter are still expected to be on the table. For Second Degree Murder they are going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to kill Mr. Floyd. The prosecution will likely make the claim that the excessively long duration of officer Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck is proof of that, the defense will likely counter with that maneuver being part of the department's police training. This is where the officer's history will come into question. Has he taken a life before on the job? Has he severely injured someone using the same tactic? Floyd's autopsies will come into question as well, if he in fact was directly killed by the maneuver. It the defense can make the case it was an indirect result rather than a direct result, that would likely exclude Second Degree Murder. If the prosecution can sell the jury based on autopsy testimony that the kneeling maneuver directly caused his death, it will increase their chances for Second Degree Murder. All things included, I still think Third Degree Murder is more likely.
Another piece of news is that the accompanying officers were all charged with aiding and abetting. This is trickier. For one, these charges carry significantly lighter sentences, potentially no jail time at all. The maximum sentences for these crimes usually are focused around the individuals having prior knowledge of said crime. The logic is that prior knowledge of said crime gives you more time to report the crime or prevent it from happening, and the longer it goes on the more responsible you are. This being a spur of the moment action, I think it's a tougher sell for the prosecution. Also, was officer Chauvin the senior officer? Was he their superior? This will all be argued by both sides at trial. If the prosecution can sell a jury on these individuals being guilty of these charges, I wouldn't expect a maximum sentence handed down, though anything is possible, and an example could always be made out of these officers.
UPDATE:
There are new reports that the autopsy of Mr. Floyd's body "didn't find anything to support a diagnosis of traumatic strangulation or asphyxiation." This will be big for the defense team of officer Chauvin for a couple of reasons. For one, it will allow them to argue if this case does indeed go to trial, that the officer did not directly cause the death of Mr. Floyd or intend to cause bodily harm, giving more credence to the lesser charge, Involuntary Manslaughter. I assume the state will still argue the extreme nature of his actions are evidence of intent to cause bodily harm, and if officer Chauvin has a history of being physical with civilians, that could help the state's case for Third Degree Murder. If the autopsy found evidence of a broken windpipe or asphyxiation, it would have been huge for the prosecution's case to show that the officer's actions clearly and directly killed Mr. Floyd. I don't think a jury would buy that the actions have nothing to do with it, but a strong defense team will try and sell that underlying health issues contributed.
Secondly, the autopsy was performed by the state, and the findings already aid the defense of a lesser charge. What often happens when a case goes to trial is the defense team will hire someone to perform an independent autopsy to potentially look for more favorable findings. They likely will not feel the need to do this, as the state's autopsy has already found nothing to support the death being caused by asphyxiation.
The defense could also strike a deal for him to avoid trial and not risk a higher sentence that could potentially come with a Third Degree Murder conviction and just plead to Involuntary Manslaughter, if the prosecution doesn't feel confident it can make Third Degree Murder charges stick.
UPDATE #2:
The latest update is that the Floyd family hired respected coroner Dr. Michael Baden to perform an independent autopsy. Michael Baden has been hired for his expertise on countless cases. His findings were asphyxiation was the cause of death. A couple things here. Asphyxiation is different from strangulation and both are determined differently during an autopsy. Asphyxiation is just a general term for deprivation of oxygen. You can die of asphyxiation a number of ways. Via choking, strangulation, drowning, etc. Strangulation is generally determined by damage of muscles or tissue in the neck, potentially fracture of the hyoid bone, ligature marks on the neck, and sometimes ruptured blood vessels in the eyes.
Asphyxiation is determined by other means and is more subjective. It has to be determined what physically caused asphyxia, typically broken down into categories. Things like analyzing blood, lungs, necrosis in tissue, hemorrhages in the body. A medical examiner has the luxury of being able to extrapolate evidence to determine cause of death if the autopsy leaves room for subjectivity. A finding is an opinion, after all. It's taking in information and translating it, essentially.
I'm sure both findings will be heavily scrutinized by the defense and prosecution at trial, and the examiners will be called to testify on their findings and subject to cross examination. Regardless, I don't think there's any question officer Chauvin significantly contributed to the death of Mr. Floyd, but the capacity could mean the difference between Third Degree Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter.
UPDATE #3:
I think this is going to be my final update, as this case is going to continue to add layers up until the date of trial. The most recent update is that officer Chauvin's charges have been upgraded to Second Degree Murder. Ultimately this doesn't change that much other than the maximum sentence he can receive, which was anywhere from 12 months to 25 years and now is anywhere from 12 months to 40 years. This does not mean if a jury can't find him guilty of Second Degree Murder, which in my opinion is going to be a tall task for the prosecution, he will walk free. The lesser included charges of Third Degree Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter are still expected to be on the table. For Second Degree Murder they are going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to kill Mr. Floyd. The prosecution will likely make the claim that the excessively long duration of officer Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck is proof of that, the defense will likely counter with that maneuver being part of the department's police training. This is where the officer's history will come into question. Has he taken a life before on the job? Has he severely injured someone using the same tactic? Floyd's autopsies will come into question as well, if he in fact was directly killed by the maneuver. It the defense can make the case it was an indirect result rather than a direct result, that would likely exclude Second Degree Murder. If the prosecution can sell the jury based on autopsy testimony that the kneeling maneuver directly caused his death, it will increase their chances for Second Degree Murder. All things included, I still think Third Degree Murder is more likely.
Another piece of news is that the accompanying officers were all charged with aiding and abetting. This is trickier. For one, these charges carry significantly lighter sentences, potentially no jail time at all. The maximum sentences for these crimes usually are focused around the individuals having prior knowledge of said crime. The logic is that prior knowledge of said crime gives you more time to report the crime or prevent it from happening, and the longer it goes on the more responsible you are. This being a spur of the moment action, I think it's a tougher sell for the prosecution. Also, was officer Chauvin the senior officer? Was he their superior? This will all be argued by both sides at trial. If the prosecution can sell a jury on these individuals being guilty of these charges, I wouldn't expect a maximum sentence handed down, though anything is possible, and an example could always be made out of these officers.
Final Thoughts
I come from a cop family. One of my best friends in the world is a cop. They are all very saddened by this. The actions of bad cops makes things difficult for good cops who want to make their cities a better place. A divide grows because of the actions of those unfit to protect and serve. At some point in the future I may write a piece on some ideas I have to improve things. I've blueprinted some of it, it is extremely nuanced and detailed, and frankly, I don't have a lot of time to write. I hope the Floyd family can get justice for their loved one they deserve, and the city of Minneapolis can heal and recover.
No comments:
Post a Comment