Pulling out a can of mace to prevent bystanders from giving aid?
Inform the federal court.
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/13-3720/13-3720-2014-04-11.pdf?ts=1411029623
Before: MERRITT, BOGGS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Cordell Drummond shot himself in the leg and lay bleeding off a public street. Two Springfield Township police officers called paramedics and then stood by with guns drawn, reasonably believing that Drummond may have been armed and dangerous. Sharon Pierce, individually and as administratrix of Drummond’s estate, sued the Township under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Township’s police officers violated Drummond’s due-process rights by failing to provide medical aid and by preventing civilian bystanders from providing aid. The district court granted summary judgment for the Township. Because the Township did not deprive Drummond of a constitutional right, we affirm.
I am sure you researched your post thoroughly beforehand and had some court opinion in mind, but what was it? I have not seen a law or opinion that requires a cop to allow a bystander to provide aid to a suspect.
Subdivision 1. Duty to assist. A person at the scene of an emergency who knows that another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person. Reasonable assistance may include obtaining or attempting to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel. A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
The duty to assist law would not kick in until Chauvin knew Floyd had suffered a grave physical harm. Then it could garner a petty misdemeanor.
AND not doing CPR on a handcuffed guy in your custody, after one of your fellow cops has just told you (on video and in front of witnesses) that he doesn't have a pulse?
They really needed a defibrillator, and very quickly, possibly more quickly than Floyd's unresponsiveness was detected. Even had Floyd been in a hospital, and not been full of drugs, he would have had poor chances of surviving a cardiac arrest.
That's depraved indifference right there, regardless of what caused the heart to stop beating. You are irretrievably utterly and forever wrong.
While standing up, George Floyd complained about difficulty breathing. His airways were unobstructed. His carotids were not being pinched. He was describing the early undiagnosed symptoms of his looming cardiac event. His erratic manner caused someone to report him to the police. George Floyd had heart disease and led a dangerous lifestle that included cocaine, fentanyl and methamphetamine. George Floyd was high on drugs, semi-delusional, and uncooperative. His actions led to him being restrained by the police while awaiting transport. During the restraint, George Floyd's cardiac condition progressed to cardiac arrest. Blood flow stopped as his heart spasmed. Almost instantly he went unconscious. Once George Floyd entered cardiac arrest, his chances of survival were slim to none. In order to show that Officer Chauvin is guilty or murder or manslaughter, the prosecution must show that this would not have happened but for the acts or omissions of Officer Chauvin. As it cannot be shown that the acts or omissions of Officer Chauvin led to the death of George Floyd, depraved indifference is not an issue. George Floyd was on the precipice of a cardiac event before Officer Chauvin entered the scene. George Floyd could have fallen asleep in his car and suffered the same cardiac event that happened. George Floyd created his own danger when he mixed heart disease with fentanyl and meth. He succumbed to his own reckless behavior.
There is a case for the defense. The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Chauvin killed Floyd. Until it can prove the killing, a look into Chauvin's heart will not matter. First, the prosecution must show that Chauvin killed Floyd by arresting his heart.
Read the Probable Cause.
I am sure I have read that more than you. It is exonerating. Multiple likely contributing factors to the cause of death means none is certain. The prosecution cannot argue likely. He might as well move to stipulate reasonable doubt. The Statement of Probable Cause strongly indicated the cause of death would be found as heart attack or ventricular fibrillation, and now we have cardio-pulmonary arrrest. With no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation, it is just about impossible to prove neck compression as the cause of cardio-pulmonary arrest, especially with a drugged up career druggie with multiple drug convictions for cocaine. It appears unknown and unknowable if Chauvin caused Floyd's unconsciousness, but beyond all doubt, for the several minutes before that, his actions did not cause unconsciousness. When a person goes into ventricular arrythmia, they have no blood circulation and can face plant without resistance. With a heart attack, blood flow diminishes but keeps flowing. With cardiac arrest, blood flow stops.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150630135103.htm
Cardiac arrest strikes almost 600,000 people each year, killing the vast majority of those individuals, says a new report from the Institute of Medicine. Every year in the U.S., approximately 395,000 cases of cardiac arrest occur outside of a hospital setting, in which less than 6 percent survive. Approximately 200,000 cardiac arrests occur each year in hospitals, and 24 percent of those patients survive. Estimates suggest that cardiac arrest is the third leading cause of death in the U.S. behind cancer and heart disease.
When George Floyd suffered a cardiac arrest, he had a less than 6% chance of survival, and with the drugs in his system, probably significantly less, maybe none at all.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6933246/Derek-Chauvin-Complaint.pdf
CHAUVIN Derek, COMPLAINT
STATEMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE (excerpt)
The defendant pulled Mr. Floyd out of the passenger side of the squad car at 8:19:38 p.m. and Mr. Floyd went to the ground face down and still handcuffed. Kueng held Mr. Floyd’s back and Lane held his legs. The defendant placed his left knee in the area of Mr. Floyd’s head and neck. Mr. Floyd said, “I can’t breathe” multiple times and repeatedly said, “Mama” and “please,” as well. The defendant and the other two officers stayed in their positions.The officers said, “You are talking fine” to Mr. Floyd as he continued to move back and forth. Lane asked, “should we roll him on his side?” and the defendant said, “No, staying put where we got him.” Officer Lane said, “I am worried about excited delirium or whatever.” The defendant said, “That’s why we have him on his stomach.” None of the three officers moved from their positions.
BWC video shows Mr. Floyd continue to move and breathe. At 8:24:24, Mr. Floyd stopped moving. At 8:25:31 the video appears to show Mr. Floyd ceasing to breathe or speak. Lane said, “want to roll him on his side.” Kueng checked Mr. Floyd’s right wrist for a pulse and said, “I couldn’t find one.” None of the officers moved from their positions.
At 8:27:24, the defendant removed his knee from Mr. Floyd’s neck. An ambulance and emergency medical personnel arrived, the officers placed Mr. Floyd on a gurney, and the ambulance left the scene. Mr. Floyd was pronounced dead at Hennepin County Medical Center.
The Hennepin County Medical Examiner (ME) conducted Mr. Floyd’s autopsy on May 26, 2020. The full report of the ME is pending but the ME has made the following preliminary findings. The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation. Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death.
The defendant had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds in total. Two minutes and 53 seconds of this was after Mr. Floyd was non-responsive. Police are trained that this type of restraint with a subject in a prone position is inherently dangerous.
No physical findings to support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation. The heart stopped and he stopped breathing. He likely suffered ventricular fibrillation. He showed fentanyl intoxication, and recent methamphetamine use. As the court noted approvingly in Price, "Defendants' expert on methamphetamine abuse, Joseph Shannon, M.D., stated: "The only factor that can explain his death in and of itself was acute methamphetamine intoxication or excited delirium .... This is a highly lethal illness which may well have caused his death regardless of where he was, the restraints used or the struggle involved."
Also, as was noted in Price, "First, Price had methamphetamine in his system when Dr. Eisele conducted the autopsy, which means that he had recently used it.[20] Second, methamphetamine irritates the heart and makes it more prone to a cardiac arrest. (Eisele Excerpt of Trial Tr. at 25, 27.) Third, Price had "internal derangements" within his heart that chronic methamphetamine abuse could have caused. (Id.) Fourth, methamphetamine can cause the body to release catecholamines (adrenaline) which also can irritate the heart. Dr. Eisele found catecholamines in Price's body. Fifth, Price had been acting in a bizarre fashion, which indicates that he was suffering from a methamphetamine-induced psychosis. (Neuman Excerpt of Trial Tr. at 34-35.)
Meth can mess the heart up and cause psychosis. And George Floyd was calling for his dead mother. And George Floyd died from cardio-pulmonary arrest, not asphyxia or strangulation. Likely contributing factors to cardio-pulmonary arrest were coronary artery disease, and hypertensive heart disease, and Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police, and fentanyl intoxication, and recent methamphetamine use.
Any or all of the factors could have contributed. It is also possible that one or more of the factors did not contribute to Floyd's cardio-pulmonary arrest. Unless they can get more specific, it could have been the drugs, and not the neck. Beyond a reasonable doubt, whatever pressure was applied to the neck or elsewhere did not cause unconsciousness for about five minutes. Shuttng off the carotids causes unconsciousness in a few seconds. A cardiac arrest causes almost instant unconsciousness. The time from unconsciousness to death is relevant. If Floyd could have been dead within 30 seconds (20? 10? 0?) of unconsciousness, then the rest of the time Chauvin was putting pressure on a dead man. To a degree of scientific certainty, at what point was he dead and unrecoverable? If Floyd could have been unrecoverable upon unconsciousness due to drugs, and mixing fentanyl and meth can do that, Chauvin could not have killed a dead man by prolonged pressure.
You're a long way from proving the actions of Chauvin even rendered Floyd unconscious or dead. The prosecution must prove every element of its theory beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense need only have a reasonable alternate theory on any element.
See, in your case, the guy shot himself in the leg.
There was no relationship established between them and the officer.
And that is a question of "qualified immunity" -- everyone knows, and I've pointed it out myself on FR, that if you call 911, the police have zero, none, nada, duty whatsoever to respond in a timely fashion, or even to respond at all.
There is even an infamous case where a policeman showed up, at a drowning scene, ordered (I think) at gunpoint, that a trained professional giving CPR stop and go home and produce credentials, before being allowed to proceed, and of course the guy died, and the cop had qualified immunity.
But if you are in custody they have the literal legal responsibility for you at that point.
You are very good at cutting and pasting, and you're attempting proof by intimidation, but you remain utterly incorrect.
The proof that you're a troll,. I found in a DuckDuckGo search in 30 seconds that Traumatic Asphyxiation refres to compression of the thorax (chest) until the blood flows the wrong way out of the heart.
it has nothing to do with a knee on the neck.
Other more informed posters have cited professional literature dealing with first responders, which note that it is quite rare, and happens in industrial accidents with people getting caught in machinery and stuff.
You are desperately blowing smoke and it won't work.
For the misdemeanor? Laughing in your face.
WE have the policeman with his knee on the neck of a man begging to breathe, then passing out, then going into cardiac arrest, with first responders begging him to take a pulse.
He didn't "have to allow a first responder".
Because he had the man in HIS custody.
Which makes HIM responsible.
All on live video.
Blathering about v-fib isn't going to cut it.
Once the cop was told by another cop, the guy has no pulse, he didn't even pretend to go through the motions.
Depraved indifference.
3rd degree murder.
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/13-3720/13-3720-2014-04-11.pdf?ts=1411029623
Before: MERRITT, BOGGS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Cordell Drummond shot himself in the leg and lay bleeding off a public street. Two Springfield Township police officers called paramedics and then stood by with guns drawn, reasonably believing that Drummond may have been armed and dangerous. Sharon Pierce, individually and as administratrix of Drummond’s estate, sued the Township under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Township’s police officers violated Drummond’s due-process rights by failing to provide medical aid and by preventing civilian bystanders from providing aid. The district court granted summary judgment for the Township. Because the Township did not deprive Drummond of a constitutional right, we affirm.
A man lying on his stomach on the ground, with two police officers holding down his legs, and one kneeling on his neck, who first passes out, and then goes into cardiac arrest, cannot reasonably be believed to be armed and dangerous, wouldn't you say?
And, of course, you left out the details of the case, which say :
"In the five minutes intervening, Powers and Downs did not touch Drummond, handcuff him, or restrain him in any way. They observed that Drummond was bleeding and had blood on his hands and pants, but they could not observe the severity of Drummond’s injury or the extent of his blood loss. "
That's a wee bit different, you know, then one of the POLICEMEN, himself, trying to take George Floyd's pulse, not finding any, and telling a fellow policemen, who not only does not try to verify, does not attempt CPR, but KEEPS KNEELING ON HIS NECK.
As to the brandishing the mace?
From your own link above:
After the officers radioed dispatch, Jason Drummond, Cordell’s uncle and a resident of Birchridge Drive, approached the scene. Jason Drummond did not speak, and the officers did not know his identity, intentions, or whether he was armed. Downs held Jason Drummond at gunpoint momentarily and ordered him not to walk closer.
Whereas in the George Floyd case, at least one of the bystanders identifies on video as a first responder and begs Mr. Kneecap to get up and check for a pulse. Not the same thing at all. Not even close.
You've been caught lying again.
And, just to make the rubble bounce.
Your own case, repeats the discussion of the denial of due-process violations, as it is an appeals court, following the original court ruling.
The original court followed the logic of DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 195 (1989).
That was a case where a turd of a social worker didn't intervene in a case where a kid got beat up to the point of permanent brain damage.
To read from this appeal verbatim:
Pierce’s first theory of liability is that the Township assumed a special responsibility to assist Drummond because they placed him in custody. It is true that the DeShaney doctrine contains what has been called a “custody exception” in which “the State’s affirmative act of restraining the individual’s freedom to act on his own behalf . . . trigger[s] the protections of the Due Process Clause.” Id. at 200. Different standards apply to determining whether an individual is in “custody” for Fourth Amendment purposes and for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment and DeShaney’s custody exception.
For Fourth Amendment purposes, individuals are in custody when a police officer restrains their liberty in such a way that reasonable persons would believe that they were not free to leave. Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 573 (1988); Ewolski v. City of Brunswick, 287 F.3d 492, 506 (6th Cir. 2002).
For purposes, however, of the Fourteenth Amendment and of DeShaney’s custody exception, custody requires that the state restrain an individual “through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint.” DeShaney, 498 U.S. at 200. DeShaney’s custody exception requires, “at a minimum—actual, physical restraint of the suspect by the police.” Cutlip v. City of Toledo, 488 F. App’x 107, 114 (6th Cir. 2012). DeShaney’s custody standard is a “difficult and more exacting standard than for a Fourth Amendment seizure.”
Id. The essential point is that, although both standards involve determining whether an individual is in “custody,” they are “legally different concepts.” Id. The mother brought suit under § 1983, alleging that the police acted recklessly and with wanton disregard to her civil rights. Id. The Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause does not confer a right to have the State enforce a restraining order. Id. at 767–68. 9 In this case, even viewing the facts in Pierce’s favor, Drummond was not in custody for DeShaney purposes.3
He was not incarcerated, institutionalized, or subjected to “other similar restraint.” Id. Nor was he handcuffed, arrested, restrained, or even touched by the police. Drummond was incapacitated by a self-inflicted gunshot wound, and he collapsed to the ground before the officers reached him. Under these circumstances, Drummond was not in custody for DeShaney purposes
So in your case, the lawyer sued under the violation of the wrong Constitutional amendment for the circumstance.
But, in the case of George Floyd, the case of DeShaney's custody exception IS FULFILLED. "actual, physical restraint of the suspect by the police." Including ALL of the conditions spelled out by your appellate court: handcuffed, arrested, restrained, AND touched.
So, you pulled a case out of your ass, which applied to utterly different circumstances, and you are utterly, irretrievably, and forever WRONG.
Liar.