12-04-2020, 03:46 PM
(12-04-2020, 03:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I always give clear answers to your questions. You are the one who refuses to answer questions.
Sure, Fred.
Quote:I suppose the only defense would be that my client was just following the orders of the training officer.
Wow, thank god I'll never have to rely on you for my legal defense. The "I was following orders" defense was put to permenent rest during the Nuremburg Trials.
Quote:Some people have tried to argue that he died because of the drugs in his system. I might try to use something like that, but there have been two autopsies and both attribute the cause of death to "law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression".
Then you'll forgive me for questioning why you might use that defense.
Quote:The one thing I would not try to argue is that no "reasonable person" would think that a man being choked and unable to breath would die. Everyone who saw it knew he was dying. And they were 100% correct. It would be an insult to the intelligence of the jury to to try and make that argument. The jury is not going to be a blindly biased as you and your law enforcement friends.
How about this? My client was under the clear impression that his FTO knew what he was doing. While it is certainly true that bystanders stated what was happening would kill the victim it is difficult to determine what expertise would allow them to come to that determination. Additionally, the FTO, who is known to have experience in this matter, is rightfully assumed to be aware of his actions and their potential lethality.
You put a lot of stock in the statements of those witnessing the event. I cannot tell you how many times I've heard statements from bystanders that are 100% erroneous. While it is certainly true that the man died after this incident that lends the witnesses no more expertise in this matter than those who say the exact same thing during an arrest in which the person being arrested did not die. Outcome does not grant expertise.
For those of you out there eager to twist the above statement (which, of course includes yourself) I am in no way excusing the officer's actions. I've consistently condemned them from the moment they were known. What I am pointing out is that, for those other officers, it is very reasonable for them to assume, as a reasonable person, that their FTO, who has considerably more experience than them (hence his position), is not engaging in behavior likely to end Floyd's life. IIRC one of the officers was a recent academy graduate. Statements from bystanders would have zero bearing on my position. I can't tell you how many people I've seen arrested with a crowd of people shouting that they didn't do anything wrong or that the person's rights were being violated. Were they right simply because they all stated it? Or are the statements of a crowd of people watching an arrest not necessarily the most compelling evidence?
