New Paragraph

The murder of George Floyd
May 31, 2020

The death of an African-American man at the hands of Minneapolis police on May 25th has once again spawned numerous violent protests across the U.S. over what was obviously a criminal act by at least some of the four involved officers. One of the officers quite calmly knelt on the neck of George Floyd – who had been arrested for suspicion of a minor criminal offence, for just shy of nine minutes. Floyd was clearly in distress for about six of those minutes and totally unresponsive for almost three, however that knee remained planted on his neck throughout.

 

Carotid artery restraints by police have led to a number of unintentional deaths across North America in the past and as a result most police departments have eliminated them from officer safety training and educate officers about the dangers involved in that practice. “Positional asphyxia” is another concern when an arrested subject is restrained in a position that causes breathing challenges.

 

Having said that, when an officer is fighting for his or her life, anything goes, including the use of techniques that may result in the death of the attacker. But we didn’t see such a threat in the George Floyd case. On the video we did see a large man who was handcuffed behind his back mildly resisting police, but largely under control by the three officers holding him down while a fourth stood and watched the concerned crowd. Floyd continued to say that he couldn’t breathe. I’d be trying to wrestle my way out of that position too if I struggled to breathe, which begs the question, was he resisting arrest or resisting death?

 

Derek Chauvin, the officer that knelt on Mr. Floyd’s neck and is now charged with 3rd Degree Murder, did not appear to be afraid for his safety at all. In fact he actually had his left hand in his pants pocket throughout most of the incident. His posture was not at all indicative of fear of serious injury.

 

All four officers were immediately fired from the police department. Good. Then Chauvin was arrested four days later. The fact that his arrest took so long understandably concerns Mr. Floyd’s family and the public. I appreciate that the investigators and prosecutor wanted to get it right. Police do have the legal authority to take lives when fearing for their lives or the lives of others, so confirming or negating such justification would be key in determining charges, as would clarifying whether the death was intentional (1st or 2nd Degree murder) or conscious recklessness (3rd Degree).

 

Examining the legality of the arrest of Mr. Floyd would be essential, but not onerous. Determining cause of death including conducting toxicological tests always takes a day or two. Interviewing witnesses takes time. Viewing different videos from various angles including body camera footage requires some work. Investigating potential relationship issues between Chauvin and Mr. Floyd – given that they apparently worked at the same club for a number of years, would be important in terms of any conflict that may have pre-existed between them. But is four days acceptable for all of this concurrent effort? Not in my view, but I admit I don’t know all the factors and challenges they faced.

 

So what happens now for the other three former officers? Did any of them try to stop Chauvin? Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman suggested Friday that he anticipates charges. It has been reported that one of the officers expressed concern about Floyd’s position and suggested rolling him over. A subsequent check for Floyd’s pulse appeared futile. Why wouldn’t they then remove the handcuffs and start CPR even if they had to arrest Chauvin to do so? Thin blue line be damned, the out of control officer needed to be stopped.

 

In my view, Chauvin’s actions are inexcusable and undoubtedly criminal. The apparent inaction by the other officers to stop him is unacceptable and perhaps criminal. All in all it was a horrifying event that taints police across North America. It made me ill to watch it and I haven’t talked to a single serving or retired police officer that isn’t sick over what they saw in the video of the last nine minutes of the life of George Floyd. I can only imagine how his family felt.

 

Was it racism, just police brutality or both? I don’t know, but I can understand why African-American people all over the continent would view it as yet another example of police racism. There are racists in policing. It’s simply not enough to point out – as I often do, that thankfully the numbers are minimal and that the vast majority of officers are not. Even one racist officer is beyond acceptable and the public deserves better. African-American people have been experiencing racism and socio-economic inequity for centuries. They have also repeatedly heard from elected leaders that “something has to change”, but it doesn’t. It’s very similar in many ways to the concerns of Canada’s Indigenous people which has led to protracted and sometimes violent protests across this country. The FBI is now tasked with investigating the civil rights aspect of Mr. Floyd’s death and if there was a racist facet, the former officers will have even bigger legal fish to fry.

 

The horrendous criminal actions of a bully cop in Minneapolis or anywhere for that matter is intolerable, and such blemishes on the police community must be excised quickly and decisively through due process. We haven’t always seen that in the past which is a total failure by some elected officials and some police agencies, which furthers levels of emotion and frustration.

 

But violence begets violence, so cooler heads need to prevail before the current tension spirals downward into civil war. I don’t see the current divisive and inflammatory U.S. President up to the challenge of leading the country through that hell. Something indeed has to change – once and for all, in policing and beyond.

By Chris Lewis February 4, 2025
Is there any meat to this or is it more of the same?
By Chris Lewis January 4, 2025
Police know how to conduct major investigations and find bad guys. Although several specific factors change from case to case, their general investigative playbook remains the same. Once some ungodly multi-victim attack occurs, in very simplistic terms: the scene is protected, and the health of the living victims is looked after. Forensic experts begin processing the crime scene. Witnesses are located and interviewed. Physical evidence is gathered. Area and witness video recordings are collected and analyzed. Victims are identified. An off-site reunification centre is established where there are multiple victims. Next of kin notifications begin. At any point – if a suspect or suspects become known, their background is gathered, and the hunt begins. They need to be apprehended before anyone else is hurt. Area law enforcement officers need to know suspect details ASAP. “Motive” is at top of mind as investigators are synthesizing all this information, whether the suspect is identified or not. Of course, establishing motive often leads to identifying the suspect, but at other times identifying the suspect helps fill in the blanks on motive. What was the initial basis of what became a murder? Was it a robbery? Could it have been a street fight gone bad? Was it simply a want or need to kill someone specific or maybe anyone at all? That’s for investigators to sort out. There is an onus to warn the public or at least tell them something, i.e. “ongoing threat”, “stay indoors”, or “no threat to public safety”. There are reporting protocols to follow. Senior officers need to be advised up the food chain as do their political masters, so everyone knows what is happening. None of that should detract investigators from doing what they do best – catching killers. But that’s when the ravenous “thirst for knowledge” and political grandstanding often take over and completely interfere with police work. The only knowledge the investigators are thirsty for in those early hours is evidence and then identifying, locating and capturing bad people. They do not need politics monopolizing their time or efforts. The New Years Day massacre in New Orleans was big. Fourteen innocent party goers were killed and dozens injured. The world wanted to know what happened and the community wanted to know if they were in danger. I absolutely get that. However, what sometimes comes with such tragedies is everyone wanting to know everything. We see it in most mass murder cases, but this was an exceptional example of the insanity surrounding such a high-profile incident. Whatever blanks weren’t immediately filled in by police officials and verified mainstream media reports, were filled in by social media. In such cases police totally lose control of the narrative as rumours, theories, falsities, conspiracy theories and “hey look at me” games take over. The political party and individual positioning in this case was nauseating. In any multi-agency response, having the leaders of those agencies at press conferences in a united front makes sense. The public needs to have confidence that the situation is in the best of hands. But where did these massive press conferences where police officials are flanked by numerous politicians come from? I can see some elected leaders being present when a new program is launched or government funding is being announced, but it should never be in the early hours of a mass murder. Having a bunch of partisan wonks peacocking on stage and in follow-up interviews, helps no one at the operational level. As some of them were speaking, I was responding to their dumb questions in my mind: Was it a terror attack? Maybe, but let the experts figure that out. In the meantime, it’s a mass murder. Was the killer an illegal immigrant? Let’s worry about that when the dust settles. What political party is to blame for allowing him into the country? We don’t care. Maybe he was born here. Let’s sort that out if he turns out to be an illegal immigrant. Why wasn’t the area more secure? Good question for a future debrief. We need to get the FBI and HSI leaders before a government committee right away so we can find out who failed! Shut up. We have police work to do. There are always enough social media theories, private citizens’ investigations into suspects, outright lies and misinformation being spread to the public, without silly partisan games sidetracking investigators who are fighting to stay ahead of legitimate theories and tips. In the early hours of a mass murder case investigators are probably the busiest they have ever been, and don’t need any of this interference. Controlling the social media fever is next to impossible. It would take a sudden level of maturity across the populace that may be unattainable. But politicians at all levels need to get the message that they are not welcome on stage at operational press conferences and their comments to the media – if asked for them – aside from expressing sadness, thoughts, prayers and confidence in the police, should be “Our law enforcement agencies are investigating, and we need to let them do what they do.” Adding any theories, raising questions or passing blame is totally wrong. If elected officials truly care about their electorate and feel the need to say more, they should have some prior dialogue with the police leaders or their Public Information Officers to ensure that what they say is helpful as opposed to harmful. Otherwise, be quiet.
By Chris Lewis December 28, 2024
Violent Crime Remains High
Share by: