By N.S.
new york post operative Ben Kesslen: “Three former Minneapolis cops were found guilty of violating George Floyd’s civil rights in a federal trial Thursday when they failed to intervene as Derek Chauvin fatally leaned on Floyd’s neck for almost 10 minutes.”
First it was “seven minutes and 46 seconds.” Then it was “over eight minutes.” Then it was “nine minutes.”
And of course, Kesslen lied, in asserting that Officer Chauvin “fatally leaned on Floyd’s neck.”
“Three Former Minneapolis Cops Found Guilty of Violating George Floyd’s Civil Rights”
https://nypost.com/2022/02/24/three-former-minneapolis-cops-found-guilty-of-violating-george-floyds-civil-rights/
8 comments:
Arresting blacks is now a violation of their civil rights.
--GRA
With a potential sentence of life in prison.
Shaquille Brewster--a new nig nnn reporter--said the three will next face trial of "aiding and abetting a murder".
No hate crimes charges yet--like it matters anymore--but I'll bet the prosecutors are working hard to find a way to do it.
I repeat--if no one(Whites)don't protest--this will continue.
--GRA
Those officers always defer to the senior man on the scene. They did nothing wrong. The Floyd boy killed himself with a drug overdose. He complained he could not breathe even before he was on the ground. I heard the video recording for myself. The Floyd boy said to Chauvin he was "hooping" earlier in the day. Go look up "hooping" in the Urban Dictionary if you dare.
>guilty of violating George Floyd’s civil rights
What 'civil rights' were violated?
If this sounds odd to you, you are not alone: it sounds odd to me too -- because it is odd.
Actually if you look into the prosecution of these 3, they were specifically accused of failure to intervene -- they failed to intervene in order to stop improper or unlawful conduct of another law enforcement officer.
Note they were prosecuted by the federal government/DoJ, not the state of MN -- it is difficult to find info re what specific federal statute they violated -- after a brief search, the best I could find is the following link, which provides some background, including precedent-setting cases, one from 1972, to this sort of prosecution:
Duty to Intervene Duty to Render Aid
In June of 2020, following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, activist groups, state and federal law makers, and local mayors have sought to create a duty on the part of law enforcement officers to intervene when they observe excessive force. There is little challenge to creating such a duty since all officers have had a Constitutional Duty to Intervene for decades.
Some stupid rhetoric about 'unconstitutional conduct' follows, as if a police officer involved in a stressful, possibly violent incident is supposed to be able to decide, in real-time, what behavior is 'constitutional' and what isn't:
The duty to intervene under the Constitution is broader than just use of force cases since it extends to the duty to intervene in any unconstitutional conduct.
This sentence seems key:
As such, the courts have held for nearly a half century, that officers have a duty to intervene in excessive force cases.
Apparently, this 'duty to intervene' has been (somewhat dishonestly) dumped into the catch-all category of 'civil rights'.
Anyway, the several precedents cited may be helpful in understanding why they were prosecuted.
>They did nothing wrong.
In one sense, you're right -- in another sense, you're wrong: according to what appears to be fairly/very well-established legal precedent, officers have a specific 'duty to intervene'.
A fair question would be: What is the standard, or what should the standard be, for recognizing, in real-time, unlawful conduct requiring intervention?
To me, this 'duty to intervene' seems to impose an unreasonable burden on cops -- but you may find some clarification of this question in the precedent cases cited in link I provided in another comment.
" duty to intervene in any unconstitutional conduct."
NO duty to intervene in Constitutional conduct. That is what it was. Constitutional conduct all along, the arrest of a non-cooperating bad guy. The Floyd boy.
" duty to intervene in any unconstitutional conduct."
NO duty to intervene in Constitutional conduct. That is what it was. Constitutional conduct all along, the arrest of a non-cooperating bad guy. The Floyd boy.
Post a Comment