commenter-thread

Where is this new video? I’m looking and not finding it anywhere. Have a link?

Derek Chauvin did not know that Floyd had fentanyl in his system. A knee to the neck and a face shoved into pavement is not seizure prevention protocol. And if he was already complaining of breathing difficulties, Chauvin's actions and disregard for that are only more egregious.

I don't think that makes much sense. The other three could have easily been charged with aiding and abetting third degree murder too, or even the second degree manslaughter charge. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.05

I did a write up on the charging statutes, but didn't want to get into the weeds on lesser included offenses because I am not up to speed on Minnesota law. I might try to see what I can find out.
In the meantime here's my piece on the various murder/manslaughter charges against them and their differences.
https://ordinary-times.com/2020/06/05/derek-chauvins-charges-explained/

He could possibly sue the cops in their individual, not professional, capacity; i.e., not under color of law. (That would be an interesting situation if the defendants then argue that they were in deed acting as agents of the government when they stole...)

That's why I called it a self-defeating loop: They invoke QI because there is no case calling it unconstitutional, and there is no case calling it unconstitutional because they invoke QI, which is granted because there is no case holding that it is unconstitutional... etc etc.
(Keeping in mind things can be determined to be unconstitutional in ways other than via 1983 suits.)

I tend to agree. It's part of what I meant when I said there are plenty of other ways to get a case tossed without claiming QI. But a judge or jury accepting the government version of events is definitely a concern in these cases. Just like the case I mentioned here with the pistol whipping. The events were basically undisputed. Even though the Court decided that QI covered the officer, they also sort of said even if it didn't, that force was justified under the circumstances, so there was no constitutional violation anyway.

It's illegal, but no case law has deemed it unconstitutional. If I recall the 9th circuit acknowledged the officers could be prosecuted criminally for it. They just can't sue under 1983 because they say there is no precedent for those actions being a violation of civil rights.
I don't agree. The constitution says government cannot deprive you of your property without due process and clearly, they are depriving him of his property. When it was seized it was via legal search and seizure, as far as I know, so there was due process there... but then they kept it. Which has apparently never been taken up and decided by a court to be a constitutional violation...
And there is an argument that while the seizure was in the course of official duties, the theft was not, which would eliminate the "under color of law" element.