Yeah, agree his actions killed him, but is that murder?

he didnt kneel on his neck by accident

A critical factor for jurors to consider at a former Minneapolis police officer's trial in George Floyd's death is whether he violated the department's policy on neck restraints when he knelt on Floyd's neck.

The Minneapolis Police Department banned all forms of neck restraints and chokeholds weeks after Floyd's death, but at the time of his May 25 arrest by Derek Chauvin and other officers, certain neck restraints were permitted — provided certain guidelines and conditions were followed.

Here is a look at the policy, which was a focus of testimony Monday, and how it could factor into a verdict for Chauvin, who is charged with murder and manslaughter:

WHAT NECK RESTRAINTS DID MINNEAPOLIS POLICE AUTHORIZE?

The department policy, in place for at least eight years at the time, divided permissible neck restraints into two categories, according to court filings and testimony Monday by the city police chief, Medaria Arradondo. Neck restraints were defined in the policy as a "non-deadly force option."

One, called a "conscious neck restraint," was for light pressure applied to the neck to help control a person without rendering unconsciousness. It was permitted for a person actively resisting.

The other was an "unconscious neck restraint," in which officers could use their arms or legs to knock out a person by pressing carotid arteries on either side of the neck, blocking blood flow to the brain. The policy called for it to be used only for a person "exhibiting active aggression" or actively resisting when lesser attempts to control the person had failed or were likely to fail.

DEREK CHAUVIN TRIAL TO PIVOT IN SECOND WEEK TO EX-MINNEAPOLIS OFFICER'S TRAINING BEFORE GEORGE FLOYD DEATH

Police guidelines also instructed officers, at the first possible opportunity, to turn people on their sides once they were handcuffed and under control to avoid "positional asphyxia," in which breathing becomes labored in a prone position and can lead to death. The city had pledged to emphasize to officers the dangers of positional asphyxia as part of a $3 million settlement in the 2010 death of David Smith. Minneapolis officers subdued Smith with a Taser and pinned him face down on the floor for several minutes with their knees on his back.

Training manuals also instructed officers to be attentive to whether a suspect was having difficulty breathing. Chauvin and the other officers never turned Floyd on his side, even as he said he couldn’t breathe 27 times before his body went limp.

WHAT DO ATTORNEYS SAY?

Chauvin attorney Eric Nelson, in a pretrial filing, said Chauvin followed policy and "did exactly as he was trained to do." The filing included a photo in department training materials of a trainer with a knee on the neck of an instructor playing a suspect.

Prosecutors have already put supervisory officers on the stand to testify that, even if Chauvin pinning Floyd with his knee fell within policy, doing so for 9 minutes, 29 seconds did not. In their pretrial filing, they said Chauvin and two other officers held their positions for four minutes after Floyd lost consciousness — and two minutes beyond when he no longer had a pulse.

So.... I dunno.

prosecutors have had the officer who trained Chauvin, the head of the Minneapolis homicide department, a police force consultant, and even the chief of police on stand to testify that the method of restraint he applied was against department policy and was inappropriate. They're demonstrating that Chauvin engaged in an act of forcible restraint that was without justification, against an individual who was recognizably endangered by it.

agree his actions caused Floyd's death, but is that murder?

He engaged in a use of force that was against department policy and therefore can not be professionally justified.

He engaged in this not-professionally-justified use of force for a length of many minutes, against a person who was recognizably in medical distress and was at times unresponsive.

Because his use of force is not professionally justified (and especially as time goes on and Floyd stops responding), its only immediately evident purpose is to harm.

Isn't one of the definitions for second degree murder getting quoted about this case "causes the death of a human being without intent, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim?"

I don't know details about any of that. Do you have links I can read to inform myself before commenting? Particularly "ts only immediately evident purpose is to harm"

I don't know details about any of that. Do you have links I can read to inform myself before commenting? Particularly "ts only immediately evident purpose is to harm"

It's informed by the two prior sentences which are themselves supported by actual testimony.

I don't know details about any of that. Do you have links I can read to inform myself before commenting? Particularly "ts only immediately evident purpose is to harm"

prosecutors have had the officer who trained Chauvin, the head of the Minneapolis homicide department, a police force consultant, and even the chief of police on stand to testify that the method of restraint he applied was against department policy and was inappropriate.

Hansen, who is a trained emergency medical technician and Minneapolis firefighter, testified that upon taking in the scene, she moved closer to the officers who were pinning Floyd on the asphalt and identified herself as a first responder.

In video footage played for the court, Hansen could be heard demanding that the officers check his pulse.

"I had already assessed that [Floyd] was in an altered state of consciousness. What I needed to know was if he had a pulse."

She described how Floyd was lying motionless: "He wasn't moving, and he was cuffed. And three grown men putting all of their weight on somebody is too much," she said. "I got there and I could have given medical assistance. That's exactly what I should have done."

She broke down moments later when describing how she felt "totally distressed."

When asked about her shifting tone on the video taken on the day of the killing, she explained that she initially addressed the officers in a calm and reasonable manner. But that as the minutes slipped away, and she realized that Floyd may have released his bladder as a result of becoming unconscious or possibly dead, she began raising her voice and using foul language.

I don't know details about any of that...Particularly "Its only immediately evident purpose is to harm"

Reading aloud from the police manual’s policy on the use of force, Arradondo said: “Sanctity of life and the protection of the public shall be the cornerstone of the MPD’s use-of-force policy.”

“There is an initial reasonableness in trying to get him under control in the first few seconds,” Arradondo said, “but once there was no longer any resistance, and clearly when Mr. Floyd was no longer responsive and even motionless, to continue to apply that level of force to a person proned out, handcuffed behind their back – that in no way, shape or form is anything that is by policy, is not part of our training and is certainly not part of our ethics or our values.”

No disagreeing friend, but links? Just so I can read it in context.

The second-degree murder charge requires prosecutors to prove Chauvin caused Floyd’s death while committing or trying to commit a felony — in this case, third-degree assault. Prosecutors don’t have to prove that Chauvin was the sole cause of Floyd’s death — only that his conduct was a “substantial causal factor.”

3rd Degree Assault: Reckless infliction of fear of serious bodily injury, or recklessly causing a fear of injury through the use of a deadly weapon.

I know this isn't what you're looking for, BI_3, but I do wonder what it is you want to see. I get that you're taking a technical approach & focusing on the charge(s) at hand, but even his peers & superiors seem to feel he's in violation. Cops are usually pretty good about defending each other, no? These quotes are from the police chief of Minneapolis.

Ever wonder how someone in America can be arrested if they really are presumed innocent, why a defendant is found not guilty instead of innocent, or why Americans put up with a justice system which sometimes allows criminals to go free on technicalities? These questions can be understood by examining the similarity of the American justice system to hypothesis testing in statistics and the two types of errors it can produce. (This discussion assumes that the reader has at least been introduced to the normal distribution and its use in hypothesis testing. Also please note that the American justice system is used for convenience. Others are similar in nature such as the British system which inspired the American system)

True, the trial process does not use numerical values while hypothesis testing in statistics does, but both share at least four common elements (other than a lot of jargon that sounds like double talk):

The alternative hypothesis - This is the reason a criminal is arrested. Obviously the police don't think the arrested person is innocent or they wouldn't arrest him. In statistics the alternative hypothesis is the hypothesis the researchers wish to evaluate.

The null hypothesis - In the criminal justice system this is the presumption of innocence. In both the judicial system and statistics the null hypothesis indicates that the suspect or treatment didn't do anything. In other words, nothing out of the ordinary happened The null is the logical opposite of the alternative. For example "not white" is the logical opposite of white. Colors such as red, blue and green as well as black all qualify as "not white".

A standard of judgment - In the justice system and statistics there is no possibility of absolute proof and so a standard has to be set for rejecting the null hypothesis. In the justice system the standard is "a reasonable doubt". The null hypothesis has to be rejected beyond a reasonable doubt. In statistics the standard is the maximum acceptable probability that the effect is due to random variability in the data rather than the potential cause being investigated. This standard is often set at 5% which is called the alpha level.

A data sample - This is the information evaluated in order to reach a conclusion. As mentioned earlier, the data is usually in numerical form for statistical analysis while it may be in a wide diversity of forms--eye-witness, fiber analysis, fingerprints, DNA analysis, etc.--for the justice system. However in both cases there are standards for how the data must be collected and for what is admissible. Both statistical analysis and the justice system operate on samples of data or in other words partial information because, let's face it, getting the whole truth and nothing but the truth is not possible in the real world.

It only takes one good piece of evidence to send a hypothesis down in flames but an endless amount to prove it correct. If the null is rejected then logically the alternative hypothesis is accepted. This is why both the justice system and statistics concentrate on disproving or rejecting the null hypothesis rather than proving the alternative. It's much easier to do. If a jury rejects the presumption of innocence, the defendant is pronounced guilty.

Pre trial reform has added to the whole wild west atmosphere in policing. Every traffic stop made there is now an increasing chance that the driver is some asshole who committed a crime that wasn't murder, was given a notice to appear, inevitably blew off the court appearance, which resulted in a warrant. Warrants make routine traffic stops pretty dicey for cops, who are usually flawed morons.