George floyd part 2 of 3 logical reasoning

George Floyd Part 2 of 3- Logical Reasoning
Facts & Questions
Sometimes you must go backwards to retrace and unravel an incident, then proceed
forward to a place of clarity. A review or reenactment from the end of the critical incident
that claimed Mr. George Floyd’s life analyzed in retrospect will reveal the points
incriminating to all parties involved based on the visual evidence and factual inference of
the application of the law.
An examination from the end to the beginning of the encounter is a very distinct way to
isolate the mental State of mind, the Mens Rea, or intent, so it is legally established. The
criminality, the mea culpa or fault, can be best demonstrated by everyone’s actual actions
or inactions at critical times according to legal standards.
Were these actions justifiable based upon what was known at the time, what should have
been known, or what was being observed throughout that time? Was it within the law and
police procedure or a violation? Does the action’s justification rise to the level of its
application to the circumstances? Was it legally necessary and permissible? The answers
all serve as actual testimony to the facts.
According to the law, inaction can also be an action when there was a duty to act. If there
was inaction, was there a duty to act? What action should have been taken, and how
could that action have affected the outcome? As a fluid evolving situation, the timing and
chronological sequence matter greatly to the incident’s legality and outcome. Diligent
analysis of the timing and sequence will reveal crucial determinations of criminality and
culpability.
Our method will state the facts as we believe them to be accurate and then ask the
pertinent questions raised. Finally, in Part 3, we will examine the answers by deductive
reasoning of the legal application of the law and police departmental policy and
procedures, analyzing and suggesting the obvious logical resolutions and interpretations.

Facts: Mr. Floyd, while in handcuffs, was surrounded by four policemen and physically
restrained by at least three of them at different times during the incident. He was removed
from the scene by responding EMTs on a stretcher, presumably lifeless by all
appearances. He was then transported to the hospital by the EMT unit.
Questions: Who radioed in for medical assistance, and at what point during the incident?
How many policemen involved spoke with radio regarding medical aid, the reason for the
request for EMT, and if requests were made to step up their arrival due to Mr. Floyd’s
physical decline? When stating Mr. Floyd’s condition, was there any mention of Chauvin
on his neck restricting his breathing? Was that due to an omission or concealment? What
was said during the radio transmission? What do the dispatcher recordings and separate
notes reflect?
When was a supervisor notified, and by whom did any policemen involved make
notifications to advise command? Were there recorded specialized channels that
communicated more sensitive information? Did that happen, by whom, and at what time?
Were they recorded and reviewed if such secure channel communications took place and
reviewed as they most likely should have been pursued by discovery or duces tecum?
What were EMT’s dispatched communications? At what point did the EMTs determine
that Mr. Floyd had no vital signs indicating death? Was it before transport, during
transport, or at the hospital by medical personnel? What life-saving steps did the EMT’s
take, and how did Mr. Floyd respond? Once at the hospital, what life-saving steps were
taken, for how long, and by who. What was the information given by the EMTs, are their
paperwork and interviews complete and consistent with this information, and when was
Mr. Floyd’s actual pronouncement of death?
Were there real-time 911 calls from the public as the critical incident occurred, and how
many? What was the content of the policemen’s excited utterances as excited utterances
by any party are generally admissible in court as evidence of knowledge or intent? When
was the location secured and treated as a crime scene with the Use of Deadly Force Team
or Homicide Unit notified to respond on the scene? Was deadly force protocol initiated
and maintained, specifically the separation of policemen and preventing collaboration of
statements before interviews? Was witness identification and statements gathered?
Facts: The primary policeman later been identified as Chauvin, an 18-year veteran of the
force and the senior officer on the scene. Mr. Floyd was pinned to the ground by his neck
by Chauvin’s left knee and left front shin area applied to the carotid nerve or artery area
of the neck traversing the windpipe, trachea, and larynx.
The carotid artery is located on both sides of the neck. It does not matter which way Mr.
Floyd’s head was turned. It would still be exposed. Also, the greater torque or twist of the

head, the greater the vulnerability of this neck artery to causing unconsciousness or a
fatal outcome. It restricts oxygen and blood flow simultaneously. This restriction
occurred for an estimated 8 minutes and 46 seconds, of which approximately 2 minutes
and 53 seconds Mr. Floyd was unresponsive, presumably unconscious, and probably
deceased.
Despite public outcry, repeated warnings expressing concern from fellow officers, and
Mr. Floyd’s very own plea Chauvin continued to apply pressure with his total body
weight on Mr. Floyd’s neck. The force continuum scale governs police use of force and
justifies what type of force is permitted. Code red is the highest level of threat and
response category. Any neck restraint classifies as a code red on the force continuum
scale, which categorizes the severity of its use as deadly force.
With code red being the highest threat level assessment, the resulting response can only
be to preserve life or avoid serious bodily harm but not gain compliance. Any neck
restraint is considered deadly force whether used against a policeman or used by a
policeman. Due to the deadly force used on Mr. Floyd, it is very likely to have caused or
contributed to his death and inflicted serious physical harm upon him. Thus, the necessity
or articulation for its use is a problematic violation from its initiation and certainly its
continuation.
Reiterating that he was handcuffed hands behind his back, prone on the ground with four
policemen surrounding him already searched and determined to be free of weapons.
These circumstances do not support a code red response and neck restraint regardless of
however applied. Therefore, it is not and cannot be justified according to the force
continuum scale.
There is, however, no dispute that Mr. Floyd’s death was caused on the scene before
EMT arrived, with Chauvin’s neck restraint a factor. Without Chauvin’s knee as a factor,
it would suggest that whatever other factors that contributed to Mr. Floyd’s death, he
would have succumbed to them at that very moment anyway without Chauvin’s use of
excessive force.
The State certifies the Police Academy and dictates the training criteriaand curriculum,
which extensively covers the use of force. The City swears in the cadets to become
officers, they have the ultimate legal liability and extensively covers the use of force.
Technically, the use of force can be shots fired down to as minor as placing someone in
handcuffs without incident voluntarily and with utmost cooperation.
The City gives the authority to arrest for misdemeanors and issue citations. The State
gives the authority for deadly force and felony arrest, which is why you go to County

Court for State charges. Although the State gives you the authority to use deadly force,
the City is responsible for that force and subsequent training once the police are sworn in.
By all standards applied both State and City, force of any kind must be the minimal force
necessary to effect an arrest. Thus, force should discontinue proportionately as resistance
lessens or it is no longer necessary. But in this instance, it becomes clear it was
unnecessary to effect an arrest or gain compliance when Chauvin has his hand in his
pocket, and there was no need to use his hands to control Mr. Floyd.
Questions: The question then becomes, was the knee justified in the first place based on
the criteriafor its use? If he had been a code red threat at any point, what level of threat
did he present once he was unresponsive and feared unconscious or deceased?
Once Chauvin’s knee was on his neck constituting deadly force, at what point was Mr.
Floyd not a code red threat or actively resisting with the threat of death or serious bodily
harm to anyone? Was there any discernable level of threat or fear of any kind with four
officers present, and Chauvin’s hands in his pockets while his knee was on Mr. Floyd’s
neck?
Would the threat level seem under control and become suspect when policemen feel
comfortable enough to turn their back and not be engage otherwise if any threat existed?
Was Mr. Floyd allowed to comply, and were there verbal commands and instructions
issued for compliance? Had compliance and control already effectively been achieved
when three officers had only secondary participation?
Were Mr. Floyd’s pleadings not an opportunity to ease the use of deadly force. Maybe
issue orders to comply following a clear indication of his willingness to comply. But,
instead, they disregarded their responsibility and duty to discontinue or cause to be
discontinued the use of force absent his resistance or its necessity.
Despite all the concerns about Mr. Floyd’s medical condition expressed before Mr. Floyd
laid lifeless, what threat to four policemen’s life or limb was Floyd with his hands cuffed
behind his back prone on the ground on his stomach? If we believe their concern for Mr.
Floyd’s medical condition, wouldn’t their actions be even more baffling?
With Chauvin on his neck, when did Chauvin order him to comply, or more importantly,
what chance did Chauvin give him to comply? Even unresponsive with no pulse, the use
of deadly force was not altered to the level of Mr. Floyd’s lack of ability to resist or
actual resistance, nor was there any possibly life-saving officer intervention.

Was a taser, pepper spray, verbal persuasion, or other compliance techniques or less-
lethal option available? Why did Chauvin eventually take his knee off Mr. Floyd’s neck?
Was it because Mr. Floyd was unresponsive, or Chauvin had killed him? No, that is
unlikely because that had already apparently happened minutes before. It was confirmed
by no pulse being felt by another policeman. Was the EMT’s arrival the only thing that
finally prompted him to remove himself off of Mr. Floyd’s neck?
Aren’t illegal orders and criminal actions to be disobeyed and not participated in or
furthered in addition to expectations to be prevented? Isn’t it understood and enforced in
any military or quasi-military organization, including the police?
Is it not your vow and commitment to uphold the law and not break it? The movie A Few
Good Men is a prime example. You should have done something and had a duty to stop it
but did not. If you had intervened, maybe even after Mr. Floyd was unresponsive, could
he have been still alive or potentially revived?
Would Mr. Floyd more likely have survived if not for his encounter with Chauvin’s
knee? If we cannot say yes for sure that Chauvin was the cause of Mr. Floyd’s death, then
we cannot say no either for sure? Can it be denied that the fact is three officers had a duty
to step in and stop it, but they did nothing? Instead of intervening at various life-saving
points, did they not aid and abet in the murder by either actively assisting or providing
protection and crowd neutralization to deter citizen intervention?
Facts: Mr. Floyd is stretched out prone on the ground, handcuffed with hands behind his
back face down after being placed there. Prior to being placed on the ground, Mr. Floyd
was resistant to being placed in the squad car.
Questions: Were the duration and events which occurred while placed face down on the
ground the best course of action or option available, or an indication of indifference to
unnecessary use of force?
Was standing him alongside the squad car or maintaining the position of him being
partially in the squad car more preferable given his level of resistance?

What were all policemen’s roles in attempting to get him into the squad car and removing
him, placing him on the ground? Whose decision was it to place him prone, and why if he
was almost entirely in the squad car?
At what point did they each participate in the chronological order of events and why?
Was there a detectable amount of frustration or agitation from the policemen towards Mr.
Floyd? Was the reasonableness and level of force used lawful and necessary?
Facts: The foundation of the law is what was known or reasonably suspected at the time.
It governs probable cause and reasonable suspicion from the Constitution and Bill of
Rights down to municipal law enforcement and policemen conduct. The history of the
policemen involved was not known at the time, just as Mr. Floyd’s history presumably
was not known at the time either.
Their histories have no bearing on considering the facts and motivations known at that
time, not overriding any action that occurred then. The prevailing influence of histories
consistently demonstrates a propensity to act according to a previous pattern, a reluctance
exhibited to refrain from an activity, or implied tendencies during an incident. Histories
are indications of conduct consistency and by no means restrictive of any number of
actions or responses, both positive or negative, demonstrated which are inconsistent with
that history.
Mr. Floyd’s criminal history reveals no prior consistency of code red behavior towards
police personnel. Also, after the fact consideration for the two rookie policemen’s lack of
history bears no mitigating circumstances to avoid accountability but may indicate their
experience but not their lack of knowledge regarding appropriate force. Histories are
indicators but not always relevant implications that can be related to a current incident. It
also has to be presumed that Chauvin’s alleged previous racial undertones must be
considered equally as Mr. Floyd’s run-ins with the law if histories are a factor.
Questions: Why would Mr. Floyd’s history be unfavorable for him, but the history of the
four officers not be unfavorable for them if so revealed? So are we to assume the history
of the two veteran policemen is disregarded, the history of the two rookie policemen
taken into consideration for clemency, but Mr. Floyd’s history held against him?
How could the unknown history at the time somehow indicate that Mr. Floyd needed
treatment as a code red level threat in this incident?
If Mr. Floyd’s history were unknown at the time of the encounter, what bearing could it
have on the incident? If he were a priest, what relevance would that have on the incident

if unknown, none? How could the incident not be a judgment on the actions of the
participants at the time, which would render histories after the fact as irrelevancies?
Facts: The policemen walked Mr. Floyd across the street without incident, and he
seemed to have some minor passive resistance but not actively aggressive behavior. He
was handcuffed with minimal resistance and without incident or struggle. Mr. Floyd’s
action upon being removed from the vehicle would not constitute resisting arrest or being
combative. Therefore, it did not meet the physical standard or required warnings to cease
and desist or placed under arrest for resisting.
It appeared he was confused and more verbally resistant, attempting to have explained to
him what was going on and turning to talk but definitely not combative. Officers said that
they noticed a concerning level of distress upon handcuffing Mr. Floyd.
Questions: Before being removed from the car, was Mr. Floyd adequately advised as to
what the encounter was concerning? After showing signs of distress during handcuffing,
why was Mr. Floyd even taken across the street at all? If Mr. Floyd was showing signs of
distress, why was he placed on the ground face down? If Mr. Floyd showed signs of
distress, why did Chauvin place his knee on his neck, further complicating his distress?
What was observed, and what physical signs and indications conveyed that was
concerning? What, how, and when were the signs escalating, indicating decline?
If Mr. Floyd showed signs of distress, at what point was this radioed in, and with four
officers present, what assistance was he given? Is it prudent or customary to further
restrict someone’s breathing if distress is suspected? Was there a belief that Chauvin’s
weight on Mr. Floyd’s neck was in any way assisting him and a benefit to his distress?
Was the delay in requesting medical attention from the initial suspicion before bringing
him across the street justified, or the whole distress story a fabrication to cover the cause
of his death?
What should have been the policemen’s response? Was there any reason for any delay in
offering assistance, requesting EMT, or removing Chauvin off the neck of what you have
stated was an obviously medically distressed person? If Mr. Floyd showed signs of
distress, what distress signs were radio notified of to better inform the EMT dispatcher of
the progression of his symptoms other than a grown man being on his neck?
Imagine suspecting he was having a heart attack. Would you place him on his stomach
with an over 200-pound man on his neck? Why was no aid rendered or attempted during
his distress after he displayed no pulse? After displaying no pulse, did the other officers
feel it was a lawful and necessary use of force for Chauvin to remain on Mr. Floyd’s
neck?

Facts: The policemen responded to a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill passed at the store and
received information that directed them to Mr. Floyd across the street. Almost
immediately upon approach, the policeman escalates the situation by unnecessarily
pulling his gun, revealing his disposition that Mr. Floyd knew it was a counterfeit bill.
His demeanor was to prevent an escape or assume a threat level fearful enough to pull his
service weapon, but why? You cannot just draw your gun on someone for a conversation.
Was there a visible threat, or what justified this approach?
Questions: Was the twenty-dollar bill marked and taken as evidence prior to approaching
Mr. Floyd? Did they know the counterfeit protocol of notifying the Secret Service and
recording the individual’s information to be forwarded in a report? Should they have
known counterfeiting is a federal crime and is only arrestable by a federal agent or by
prior federal authorization? Finally, did they know that they lacked the authority to arrest
him without providing he knew that it was counterfeit?
Subsequently, was the counterfeit money found to have Mr. Floyd’s DNA or prints on it
confirming after his death that he had indeed possessed the fake? Could they or did they
know if Mr. Floyd had knowledge that it was counterfeit or how he obtained it?
Aren’t the Secret Service only interested in printing operations and patterns, not random
twenty-dollar bills in which they cannot prove knowledge or intent? With authority to
investigate but not arrest, why was any force at all used? Is it common knowledge that
counterfeit money is in public circulation and could conceivably fall into the
unsuspecting hand of any law-abiding citizen unbeknownst to them?
Is there a point where the crime does not justify the force used or even handcuffing for a
nonviolent cold stand or questioning? Can the actions leading to his death be justified
compared to the nature of the crime, the public danger posed, or threats posed
endangering the policemen’s safety? Was Mr. Floyd’s race a factor in the handling of this
incident? Were the other policemen in fear of Chauvin or his reputation? Would a
conversation, patience, or verbal persuasion have been more suitable, and is it also taught
as a tool for law enforcement?
Reverse engineering of the circumstance and events reveals the highest contrast in logical
continuity between what actually happened and what is said to have happened. Often
when constructing a fabrication, it cannot pass the scrutiny of reverse analysis. It is
constructed to make the pieces fit conceptually in a progression that only lends itself to
conventional rationale, not in-depth questioning. The contemplation of why something
would be necessary if the previous assertion is true becomes an evident contradiction. If
it were true, it would be no need for the subsequent action.

For example, if they had honestly thought Mr. Floyd was experiencing distress before his
death, why would Chauvin continue his behavior, or they allow it. It stands more to
reason that they needed to conceal something and quickly falsified an implausible
explaination that contradicts their prior assertions, actions, and the chronological
sequence of events.
Their explanation leaves them exposed in too many areas lacking justification to be
accurate. Moreover, it blatantly illuminates that if what they said were true, then
countermeasures would not have been necessary, or otherwise, their action could not
have been consistent with their initial assertion.
All indications are that their concern was for exposure from Chauvin’s reckless and
willful misconduct, which left them assessing what they were part and parcel of was
improper. Mr. Floyd needing medical attention could only be exacerbated by the distress
inflicted upon him by Chauvin and their inaction.
Now that the illumination of contradictions has been identified by the questions raised,
then deductive conclusions of guilt can be examined and proven. Furthermore, did the
punishment fit the crime or did the tactics fit the situation? Keep in mind even self-
defense only allows for the force that neutralizes a threat and not beyond the danger
posed.
Thurston K. Atlas
Creating A Buzz

George floyd part 2 of 3 logical reasoning

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

More from Thurston K. Atlas (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

George floyd part 2 of 3 logical reasoning