Terrible moderation. They begin with the female moderator gushing praise in Balko. Nothing whatsoever is said in praise of Hughes. They then let Balko begin, and give hime a very long time to speak uninterrupted. As soon as Hughes begins, she starts interrupting him. This continues throughout the interview. Balko also gets the last word, which he uses to arrogantly denigrate Hughes, saying “I’d hoped we’d see a little contrition here, but we didn’t”. Balko and the moderators essentially ganged up on Hughes, who calmly and graciously refuted their criticism of him. Balko doesn’t even seem to grasp he has been made a fool of.
I don’t like how the hosts from Reason handled this. They weren’t mediating the debate; they were actively participating with Bradley to prove that Chauvin killed Floyd. Colman ended up debating all three of them, who seemed to have their minds made up.
Anyone who had seen the body cam footage (all of it, not just Chauvin's), and have some rudimentary understanding of drugs, know they were witnessing an opioid overdose, with Floyd complaining about not being able to breath *long* before he was put on the floor (where Floyd *asked* to be put). The hold Chauvin had him in is used here in the UK too.... I know because *I've* been held that way by rhe police, and I could *still* breathe.
@@bigfish92672 I highly fpubt that. Frankly, I'm almost inclined to definitively state that you wouldn't. Even if you were debating a simple fact like bananas have sugar, debating 100 people would take forever and the likelihood that you'd willingly waste that amount of time is exceedingly slim.
The problem with focusing so much on how Chauvin restrained Floyd and whether or not it was authorized or proper, is, it's a completely different question. If the answer to that question is "yes it was improper and dangerous, and no he was not authorized to pin someone that way," then he deserves to be reprimanded or to lose his job. SEPARATELY the question then needs to be asked "Was Chauvin the only potential cause of Floyd's death, or could there have been other factors?" If Chauvin's actions were the only reasonable cause, beyond a shadow of a doubt, then he's guilty of either manslaughter or murder, depending on whether or not you can establish intent. If there were other reasonable causes- like a potentially lethal amount of fentanyl in his system- that constitutes "doubt" in Chauvin being the cause. So it's entirely possible that he acted inappropriately and should lose his job, but still wasn't the cause of Floyd's death.
@@thinker185 a) I didn't say anything like that, I said "did Chauvin's actions kill him or not?" is a question that needs to be answered separately from "was he authorized to use the methods he used?" and b) if you can SAY "I can't breathe" you can breathe. That's "choking victim" 101. But regardless, the time is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what was the actual cause. If the cause was something like airway restriction leading to asphyxiation and cardiac arrest, then fine, Chauvin deserved the guilty verdict. But if it was cardiac arrest due to a fentanyl overdose, then AT WORST Chauvin's actions might be aggravating factors, but still wouldn't qualify as homicide
19:34 Coleman already pointed out that applying a hobble takes roughly 2 minutes, EMS is expected to arrive around 3 minutes, the hobble must be removed before medical treatment is applied, and thus applying the hobble at that time is unreasonable. So her saying "well it's only an unsafe place because the knee was on so long!" while not refuting Coleman's point as to why the knee was justly on so long, is just silly. She's making a point that had already been refuted. If you want to make that point again then you need to refute Coleman's refutation as well.
1. The knee was not in the proper location. 2. Given the situation, it became improper once the hobble was not going to be used (even if it was employed properly, which it wasn't) 3. It is never proper to put that much weight on a human being's neck. Momentarily and accidentally, with no/minimal injuries? Perhaps you get a pass. This is 9 minutes of the slow murder of a human being with the power of the state being used to prevent intervention from saving Floyd's life. He was trained, he ignored his training, a person is dead. You go to prison on either intentional manslaughter or murder under those circumstances.
He did a good job considering that Liz Wolfe was no moderator. She was another person he had to debate also who didn't seem to question Balko's 30,000 word essay and probably never read it.
@@rshinn8776 Yeah but it did take some balls to upload the video regardless, despite the fact that both of their moderators and their (clearly) preferred guest were gracefully used by Coleman to wipe the fkn floor. Libertarians used to say they were "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" but these guys followed the Overton window all the way to "socially progressive, fiscally conservative". No me gusta
I generally like the Reason crew and am mostly a libertarian. But the guy in the upper right made them look silly here in a 3 against 1. They should be embarrassed. I can't believe they posted it. That's kind of a libertarian thing. I guess that's why I like them.
Reason is can barely be considered libertarian. They're leftists with a few (very few) open market views. You'll see the same Don Lemonesque views and debate style in many of their videos
We have a person who filtered through this trial and all the relevant information without shaking a pitchfork, appealing to emotion, or voicing the relevance of the opinions of the crowd… and then we have everyone else.
We have a bunch of so-called libertarians which obstensibly argue for limits on state power being ok with a cop kneeing a man to his end. Because... i dunno...he's different from them. Almost as if most libertarians are full of shyt.
He was convicted of 2nd degree murder right - intentional killing right? Im all the way with manslaughter ie. Inappropriate technique of the restraint. But how does this support a murder charge?
If I indicate to you I am having difficulty breathing because of something you are doing and I then I asphyxiate, then you have intentionally murdered me. I wager you still do not understand.
@bigfish92672 do you know how many thousands of times arresting officers have heard "I can't breathe" or something similar from people who are struggling to avoid arrest? I would have ignored it too. They will say ANYTHING.
@@bigfish92672 I wager you havent seen any police arrest videos. When this happened I started watching arrests to see exactly what goes down. Its educational. After about the 8th video seeing a struggling, uncopperative crimminal lying about not being able to breath or pull a knife or gun I started to realise its just a tiny bit more complicated. In fact one guy who hadnt been breathing as was revived with narcane after having explianed to him the effects of the narcane were temporary and thus needed to go to hospital and the officer spend 20 minutes trying to negotiate a search obly to have the guy draw a gun shoot him shoot and kill the medic and then hold a hostage who got shot in the gun fight i realised it was just a tiny bit more complicated a job. You csn be unconsious be revived and still need restraining because America is a gun mad country with crappy health care and bugger all social welfare. The cops wear the brunt if this and its far more complicated than bystanders think. Ive also seen dreadful cops who range from incompenent to hostle a holes. So im afraid merely telling you you cant breath doesnt mean he murders him that requires intent. Unless you want the cops to release every criminal potentially armed or not who says they cant breath then you will end up with situations like this. Personally it raises the questions was he taught if they can talk they xsn breath. Now while this is likely a myth whats revevant to his murder charge is that what he was trained in. If so it may be trainers fault. Was he incorrectly applying the technique inspite of excellent training. Quite possibly in which cass that still could be manslaughter not murder. For it to be murder theprosexution needs to prove intent. I dont think they were. BTW he was saying he couldnt breath while no one was on him. Abother possibilty is the feyntenol was stopping his respirarion before he was restrained.
He was (correctly in my opinion) convicted of "unintentional murder". Wikipedia has a good description of the law: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_Minnesota_law#Second-degree_murder
@@gordonstrause4075 i disagree just based on the other possibilities. Possibly manslaughter. I dont think they met the burden of eliminsting all reasonable doubt. But reasonable people can disagree though.
Such an ugly incident. From earlier body cam footage Floyd was freaking out and kicking the inside of the patrol car apart. Floyd pleaded with the cops to let him out of the car as he was "claustrophobic". This is a 6'4" 220lb known violent felon, fresh out of a 12 year prison sentence who was clearly under the influence of an unknown substance. He was considered highly dangerous to both officers and the public and they didn't want him loose on the street. Hindsight they should have just kept him contained in the patrol car and allow him to destroy the interior until paramedics arrived. Instead they got him out onto the ground and then applied far greater than usual force to keep him restrained. This created the entire police brutality narrative by conducting this neck move in full view of the public to be recorded, and doubling down as the crowd pleaded to get off of him. A series of bad decisions by Chauvin led to his conviction in court but we will never know to what degree the fentanyl dose, existing heart conditions, covid infection, or neck restraint played in his death. There is simply no evidence that race was ever a factor in this tragic event but being a 6'4" 220lb violent convicted felon certainly did.
You get SO MANY things WRONG. He wasn't claustrophobic, he just came out of a car with 3 other people in it. He was claiming he couldn't breath in it. He didn't do 12 years, more like four out of a five year sentence, and he was in no way "fresh out of prison." His prison sentence ended in 2013. I could go on and on.
@@user-ye4bu6xh4c His knee was never on his neck. He was on the back of his shoulder. Also, Floyd was saying I can’t breathe before he was ever in handcuffs while he was standing up next to the vehicle. Floyd was on his way to being dead. It’s a miracle he wasn’t dead already. The guy is pure gum in the world is a better place without him. These cops did not kill Floyd. It doesn’t even come close to fitting Murder, according to Minnesota law. It doesn’t even fit manslaughter according to Minnesota law.
@@hob976 1- calling out that guy cause he's the only one who keeps insisting there's no other circumstances to consider, that Chauvin had the situation completely under control, and he apparently knows what "should" have been done. 2 - HE is judging the situation based on things that are known now, many of which Chauvin couldn't have known at the time- some of which NO one knew at the time. Does that make it easier for you to understand what I meant?
@@stephenwilkens3101Thanks for thoughtfully fleshing that out. I understand - and you're pry right on both. Certainly on the second point though. This is the most nuance I've ever seen applied to 9 minutes of kneeling. ( There's pry a mom joke there for the taking... ) Cheers, Stephen.
Chauvin is guilty. He wills tay behind bars. And Coleman is arguing in bad faith. At the end of the day you have a police officer who deviated from his training and kneeled on a guys neck for way too long after people told him to stop, after he became unconscious and had no pulse. That is murder.
Tbh this debate is very skewed in one direction. With true and good moderation, moderators do not take sides (especially with sensitive topics like this one). This debate unfortunately was a clear three on one to the benefit of Mr. Balko. However, Coleman was so articulate with his arguments and kept his composure despite the unfairness and bias. This fact alone speaks so well for him. Good job, Coleman!
Reason was at one time a reputable site. They are carrying water for Balko. There is no question in their minds that G.F. was murdered. They are not going to consider alternatives. Nice job Reason.....
Balko’s arguments here are the dictionary definition of motivated reasoning. Coleman’s position was thoroughly informed of the facts and dispassionately argued.
I am sorry but this makes me rethink the Chauvin case a bit. Coleman Hughes seems to have by far the better argument here than do the other three. I was disappointed that the two guys seemed either unwilling or unable to even understand what Mr. Hughes was saying and tried to recharacterize what Mr. Hughes was saying to something he did not say.
I find it dubious that the counterpoint to Coleman's assertion of reasonable use in the continuation of MRT (in some form) was that the paramedics decision to "load and go" came after a few minutes of Floyd being unconscious, and somehow the crowd's opinion of the nature of the officer's actions was somehow germane to the situation. Crowds are onlookers who have (presumably) zero training in situational awareness, medical first response, use-of-force doctrine, etc; all these things which officers routinely get as "in-service" training each year. Why should the crowd's opinion matter? Mob rule is not justification for a decision one way or another. The officer's testimony was that "Code 4" (a safe scene) had not been established; hence the delay in using the hobble was reasonable and not out contextual keeping with their training per the training officer's testimony. WHAT THE CROWD THINKS IS INCONSEQUENTIAL and should NOT be taken into account. Further, there certainly exists examples of suspects faking medical conditions, or regaining consciousness after legitimately passing out, and being as combative as before they became (or faked) unconsciousness. The fact that Floyd had (presumably) been actually unconscious didn't matter; there was no requirement to remove the restraint technique as applied because Code 4 (safe scene) had not been declared. And that concern of an unsafe scene was confirmed by the fact that the paramedics didn't want to treat Floyd at the scene, and decided a "load and go" was appropriate. It is not unreasonable to believe that the unsafe scene not only existed when the medics showed up, but it also existed PRIOR to them showing up. The standard of conviction here is aptly described by Coleman; as long as "reasonable doubt" can be shown for one or more plausible explanations of the actions of the officers then acquittal wasn't to be ruled out.
23:45 Balko “you’re quoting from a question the defense asked…” I guess we’re just supposed to take a prepared statement from witnesses and not ask them questions in court. It trips them up and they say things they didn’t plan to. If Balko doesn’t like defense lawyers asking questions that throw a witness off their prepared statements and wordings. He should also dislike groups of people crowding around cops and throwing them off their prepared techniques to deal with resisting suspects.
It's hard to track this down now for obvious reasons, but it appears that at one time the training manual did factually train the MRT maneuver similar to how Chauvin applied it. However, updated policy indicated that the maneuver was only to be used to apply a hobble. The reason for this appears to be that a number of people were knocked unconscious by the MRT maneuver, in other words the MRT was known to be dangerous and they had to change policy. So it's technically true that Chauvin would have been initially trained one version of the MRT, but he was out of compliance with the latest policy. Also he may have been retrained but we don't know this for sure.
If a restraint technique is allowed to be continued on a suspect made unconscious by the restraint technique, that standard practice is bad. Simple as that. I understand concerns about the crowd/faking unconsciousness, but you should do what you can to mitigate these concerns but at some point stop applying pressure on an unconscious person because you threaten their life. Requiring code 4 to stop applying pressure on an unconscious person IS TOO MUCH.
Roughly 18:35: Accoridng to this guy, a scene is NOT potentially dangerous for the cops when there are emotionally incited bystanders witnessing a cop illegally (according to him) killing a man. Additionally, according to his logic, the cops should be able to perceive the future and determine that no civilians would end up striking any cops. And therefore, the cops should have known that they were not in any danger. Spot on. (Sarcasm, if it wasn't clear)
@@fancyhitchpin8675 I've already refuted your point when I mentioned that the cops cannot see the future and determine that at no point they would take any hostile actions. If you want to contribute to the discussion, please refute this point first.
Not sure I'm convinced by Coleman Hughes arguments w/out deeper analysis, but it's so refreshingly rare to hear deep, carefully considered, principle based analysis/defense of unpopular things that are at the very least intuitively repugnant. Coleman hughes is a sorely missing reminder of the enlightenment emphasis on prioritizing principles over preferences/outcomes that was once emphasized in law, journalism, science, and schools, (and which the ACLU once stood for), before being replaced with activism for preferred outcomes.
If you want to use their decision to not use the hobble as an excuse then you have to explain why they didn't put them in a recovery position because that is clearly step two regardless of whether the hobble is used or not .That's where the failure comes in
He actually already pointed out that (if I recall correctly, I watched this yesterday), positioning the retrained person in the recovery position is not, or may not be, done in a code 4 (a potentially dangerous scene, ie, an emotionally incited crowd). Whether you think that's right or not, that's proper conduct and if it's unjustified then the fault would not be in Chauvin and instead would be on that region's law enforcement system and THEY should be the one going to court. But point being, Coleman already did address and provide a viable explanation for what you're commenting.
@@cameronmoore136 That whole thread was literally the most embarrassing moment of the debate for Coleman. The only reason the scene was potentially dangerous was because Chauvin and the other officers were kneeling on the neck/back/shoulders of an obviously unresponsive man and the crowd (correctly!!) feared they were killing him. Even though he had already been misapplying MRT for multiple minutes in a dangerous way, Chauvin would doubtless be a free man today if he simply stopped kneeling on Floyd once Floyd stopped struggling. To argue that he was right to continue to crush Floyd to death because the crowd was upset that he was crushing Floyd to death is most embarrassing "murders his parents and asks for mercy because he's an orphan" argument that I have ever heard anyone actually make.
@@gordonstrause4075An angered crowd - regardless of the cause - is a very dangerous, unpredictable beast, therefore it's SOP to maintain a suspect in a more controlled submission hold until the POTENTIAL threat from the crowd has subsided. That's why Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd's neck. He (reasonably?!) assumed the medical aid would be arriving promptly. Was that a faulty, criminally liable assumption? Coleman effectively argued no, stating that the arrival of the Fire Rescue was uncharacteristically greatly delayed. Your point is at some point Floyd should have been rolled onto his side, or possibly sat upright, but when precisely was that point? Did the "potential threat" from the agitated crowd diminish prior to the Rescue's arrival, or did it actually increase? Can you see how it's possible that a series of reasonably rational and proper decisions can lead to an unexpected, unfortunate, tragic result? I'm not declaring Chauvin blameless, or not responsible, but Coleman has effectively stated very compelling arguments which raise reasonable doubts of Chauvin's guilt of criminality. They issue is definitely very cloudy, very subtle, and very much still open to debate.
@@gordonstrause4075 "The only reason the scene was potentially dangerous was because Chauvin and the other officers were kneeling on the neck/back/shoulders of an obviously unresponsive man and the crowd (correctly!!) feared they were killing him." But Coleman also refuted this being a valid argument when he mentioned that the estimated time of arrival for EMS was 3 minutes, and kneeling on his neck/back/shoulders for three minutes is not unreasonable. Having a debate where you attempt to make a point that has already been refuted without refuting that refutation is unproductive. Please do not do so again. But to continue that point, After 3 minutes has gone by. they'd expected EMS to be there any moment. And there is an abundance of situations where detainees have gone unconscious, causing the officers to no longer apply restraint, and then the detainee gaining consciousness again and wreaking havoc. It is not reasonable to un-restrain someone who has shown aggression just because they go unconscious and you think they will continue to be. I guarantee you if we did not have this discussion (especially prior to this Floyd incident) if you and I had a conversation about a man who assaulted a woman, who was detained, went unconscious, the police stopped restraining him, then he gained consciousness and assaulted the woman again, you'd be like "I can't believe the police did that. That is so irresponsible of them." And even if you are of the opinion that they should have stopped restraining him, as Coleman mentioned, whether you like it or not that' valid behavior under the code 3 or code 4 or whatever it was (I watched it yesterday and I don't explicitly recall which code it was). In this case, the fault is not on Chauvin but instead the law enforcement agency that trained cops to behave as such in those situations. (And before you say "yeah but it was only a code3/4 because Chauvin kneeled on him for so long", I'll redirect you back to the point on the unprecedented delay on EMS arrival again) Also, neither I or Coleman said "he was right to continue to crush Floyd to death because the crowd was upset that he was crushing Floyd to death." The point and and Coleman have made is that this is valid behavior under those circumstances, as trained by that region's law enforcement agency. Again, if you oppose this, the law enforcement agency is the one that should be in court, not Chauvin.
@gordonstrause4075 Ridiculous argument. These kinds of angry crowds gather for a lot of arrests. They are always potentially dangerous, regardless of what the police do. The argument that it was reasonable for paramedics to perceive that crowd as dangerous but wasn't reasonable for Chauvin/other officers to see them as dangerous 3 minutes earlier is absurd.
Coleman took all 3 of them on with his hands tied behind his back. Balko never deals with reasonable doubt and Graham v Connor reasonable officer standard.
I believe the Chauvin case should continue to be talked about amongst citizens. There was so much going on while Chauvin had his knee on his back. The bystanders didn't help the matter at all and I believe where a huge factor in the matter. De-escalation because the crowd was agressive reguardless of their intentions of trying to help. Great conversation and Im glad we are still talking about this. The result is citizens, overall having a voice in how we are treated and how threats are treated as well. Police officers are people too and this job takes a huge toll on their physical and mental health. ❤ Peace
Fentanyl - Similar to other opioid analgesics, fentanyl produces effects such as: relaxation, euphoria, pain relief, sedation, confusion, drowsiness, dizziness, nausea and vomiting, urinary retention, pupillary constriction, and respiratory depression. What are the effects of an overdose? - Overdose can cause stupor, changes in pupil size, clammy skin, cyanosis, coma, and respiratory failure leading to death. The presence of a triad of symptoms such as coma, pinpoint pupils, and respiratory depression strongly suggests opioid intoxication. Even at a desired dose fentanyl causes respiratory depression. Floyd had a very poor metabolic health. Kneeling on someone’s neck is potentially fatal. Do the math…
Yes thats right drugs do dangerous things. How were the police expected to know what he was on? "Excuse me sir do you mind letting us take a blood sample to deterimine what methid of restraint we may use while arresting you?" Yes when you take drugs you may die, it may make you die in circumstances when you normally wouldnt. Thats the risk floyd took when he took drugs and committed a crime. Chioce meet outcome. Now if the officer incorrectly applied a technique that could indicate a) poor training b) an incorrect technique being taught and that technique being applied as trained to this individual or c) i.competence on the part of the officer. Or d) murderous intent on the officers. Manslaughter seemed reasonable under the evidence murder was not though wheres the evidrnce he intended to kill Floyd?
its insane ppl in the comments think coleman is the reasonable one for nitpicking reasonable doubt for an officer that suffocated someone for multiple minutes until they died
There are crush events where people die by asphyxiation, but minutes prior are yelling in a state of panic. Saying "I can't breathe" doesn't literally mean the person can't breathe in the moment. It's a sign of someone struggling to breathe. Coleman was way off on this one. The video/audio evidence would be enough for me to convict if I was on the jury.
@@hob976 plus, they have to interact with junkies and drunks all day every day and a lot would kill them in a second to get out of a night in jail. Does you job come with that type of risk??
@@unforgiving266Well, as a junkie and a drunk, I have to interact with other drunk junkies all day, who want to steal my drugs and booz so YES. If the retirement benefits weren't so good, I'd quit ( and probably become a cop ).
I watched the fall of minneapolis when it first came out. You cannot convince me that Floyd died because of anything evil that Chauvin did. The bodycam shows something in his mouth as far as I know it was a piece of gum. Floyd repeatedly lied to Chauvin, changing his mood and stories within seconds. Ive done a fair amount of drugs. Floyd was what we call....high as fuck. He kept resisting. What are the officers supposed to do? Let him go? His knee was on his shoulder. A middle aged man on hard drugs, quite possibly a relapse after being clean, which would decrease his tolerance and increase the load on his heart and lungs. Floyd died because he resisted arrest, yes, the cops killed him, no, Chauvin didn't murder him by malice or neglect.
there was A LOT of reasonable doubt in this case. The mob outside made people ignore that and vote to save their city instead of finding an innocent man not guilty of a narcotic overdose
@user-ye4bu6xh4c Please. The left nearly destroyed half the country to get that verdict. People can stop pretending we've had a functioning court system since then.
@user-ye4bu6xh4c Right, right. Proving that OJ wasn't a murderer. Because whatever a jury decides is absolute fact. I mean, that whole appeals thing in our judicial system throws a wrench in your argument though. But otherwise a rock-solid argument.
the scene was definitely NOT safe.....I've never had to go to a secondary location to work a code. I've always worked one where i find the person. Coleman is 1 million % correct that the mob made this a unsafe and hostile scene. Not to mention, IF ems could had worked the code on scene then they could had gotten the information from PD personnel on scene that this code is possibly due to narcotics and the antidote could had be administered.. For whatever reason, the medic running the code never went fully through his Hs&ts. The ER doctor also never gave the antidote as this information was never given to ems, therefore ems never passed it on to the code team. Not sure it would had been any good at that time frame but at least it could be a way of ruling out narcotics as a possibly.
If you have a gun and two other guys as back up with guns, have a suspect handcuffed and prone, and can radio in a few dozen other guys with guns, and no one is approaching you, you are a coward and unfit as a peace officer if you think you're not safe. You need to work a garden or something if youre that nervous/cowardly. Youre FOS, like most so-called freedom-loving libertarians here.
I must add to the million comments that complain about the “moderators.” It’s very difficult to debate 3 people at once and yet Coleman managed it. The moderators seemed eager to both elaborate on and accept as fact his opponents assertions, to the extent that they couldn’t wait to interrupt and “correct” Coleman. This is really unhelpful in trying to clearly understand the problem..
Before even watching this debate I begin hoping Balko addresses the question raised by his citing at least 120 known cases of asphyxiation of this sort committed by police. How many of those resulted in felony murder charges and sentences similar to Chauvin's. He mentions a 2010 case in Mpls but it only resulted in a successful lawsuit. What elevates this obvious case of gross procedural malfeasance to the level of murder? The Tony Timpe case seemed to result in reprimands more for the insults directed at their victim than any murder . Precedence has considerable relevance here. Are chronically unenforced guidelines actually guidelines at all? Also, it would be interesting to review how many required reports on the use of this technique and hobble exist in police records to get some idea on how methodically the correct procedure is followed. In fact, I've heard that Chauvin used the technique previously. Are there any reports or reprimands for his past behavior? I look forward to see how these considerations are handled here.
Negligence is not the same thing as intentional murder. In my mind, there’s no question that as soon as Floyd passed out, the officers on scene should have initiated CPR or rescue breathing or something. But failing to do so, is not the same thing as murder
All of the weight on the balls of your feet not the knee... em ok what would be the point? It wouldn't be restraining in any way. Your knee would be floating.
@zufalllx ok, now it makes sense. The hold is a guy crouching with his knee really really close to the neck, but not applying force, or weight. Got it, sounds debilitating.
My response is that the moment he went unconcious, they had an obligation to get off his neck and or back. His training doesnt matter. There is no reasonable explanation. Guilty as charged!
Guilty of what manslaghter or murder. I watched a video where a guy on a bus had nearly stopped breathing when ems gave him narcan. This brings you back until it wears off. The ems wanted to take him to hospital he refused. The ems argued that the effect of the narcan would wear off in 30minutes and he needed to be hospitailsed. The police therefore had to search him for any weapons before going. He refused when the police insisted he drew a gun and shot an officer and ems killing the ems and took a pedestrian hostage who also got shot. Now should this guy have been restrianed when unconsious? In the real world its never so easy. Crimials play possum often have weapons.
I just UNsubscribed because of "Reason's" inability to maintain objectivity in a so-called debate. How is it seemingly intelligent people are so dense?
@@jwf2125 I would be inclined to agree except that Liz blatantly lied about rfkjr, using the same ignorant woke trope of "antivaxer." I expect better from any organization who calls themselves "Reason." Mediator objectivity is IMPERATIVE in any debate.
@@sunnyla2835 I’ve heard RFKJR’s explanation of his vax stance and it was at least plausible. Was Liz lying or just automatically accepting the common narrative? It’s usually hard to look inside someone’s head and see the intent behind their words.
The calculations for the dose of fentanyl is incorrect. It's not a linear relationship. A 3 ng/mL level is not a 25% chance to kill if 25 ng/mL is a lethal dose. The EU pharmacopeia states that the typical levels of fentanyl for anesthesia is around 10 to 20 ng/mL, and the lethal dose is considered to be in the mid 30 ng/mL. Yes, there are extremely rare cases where 3ng/mL has been fatal, but this is extremely rare and likely someone who is allergic to fentanyl. Since Floyd had used fentanyl before, it's unlikely that he was allergic to it.
What Mr. Hughes said was that 3ng/ml seems to be the minimum fatal dose and 25 ng/ml seems to be a likely fatal dose, and that Floyd was at 11 ng/ml, therefore Floyd was 25% of the way to probably lethal. He didn't say Floyd was at 3 ng/ml or that 3 ng/ml is a 25% lethal.
Then we have to factor in Floyd's significant health conditions including hypertension, heart condition, active covid, and being under extreme stress as he knew he was probably going back to prison after recently completing his 12 year sentence for violent home invasion robbery in TX. He was in a panic while in the back of the patrol car before ever being allowed to come out on the ground. Was it the fentanyl, heart attack, active covid, or stress that induced his state of panic and plead to lie on the ground outside instead?
@@Cajundaddydave He knew he wasn’t going to prison, it was a 20 dollar counterfeit bill - this characterization is just delving into absurdism, to argue hypoxia you need to argue overdose which isn’t the case he wasn’t near the lethal limit and wasn’t overdosing.
19:35 Claim, the crowd was riled up after they had kneeled on him for awhile before EMS showed. A lot of people are riled up from the first second they see cops. There are plenty of videos online of police greeting a person and the person immediately going into a “why are you harassing me” mentality. Chauvin and the other officers should have done better, but a crowd of people changes the dynamic. When was the last time they were trained on this? Do they introduce distractions/crowds into the training? Do they introduce a medical issue with the suspect in the training?
Rewind to before the death. The clerk testified that he had placed the 20 into the till. He tested it after accepting it. First mistake was pursuing the issue when Chauvin should have told them to pursue it as a civil matter. Second, the police no longer had possession of the bill. Had he not died, no charges could have been brought to a conviction. Chauvin should have been disciplined under any circumstances leading to an arrest.
@@user-ye4bu6xh4c Are we gonna pretend this was an ordinary trial for an ordinary case, as if riots wouldn’t have broken out w a different verdict, and as if an impartial jury was even possible to assemble?
@@user-ye4bu6xh4c Video is irrelevant? Lol. How is it irrelevant? We have no clue how the Trayvon situation went down, so you can’t compare the two. It is 100% relevant with regards to your apples to oranges comparison.
@@user-ye4bu6xh4c A racist jury in a racist city. OJ got off too. These people will let anybody off. George, Florida is a scumbag. The world is a better place without him. He’s dead because of his own actions. It was not murder. It wasn’t even manslaughter. This was a modern-day lynching by a black jury because of a man that they wanted to turn into a saint. I was a child of the 70s high school in college in the 80s in the deep south. Racism in this country was all dead. It was brought back by the Clintons and especially by the Obamas and now this administration because the left doesn’t care about people just power and they use identity politics to scare people and divide people to vote in the most illogical, ridiculous ways with pure propaganda and lies.
Terrible moderation. They begin with the female moderator gushing praise in Balko. Nothing whatsoever is said in praise of Hughes. They then let Balko begin, and give hime a very long time to speak uninterrupted. As soon as Hughes begins, she starts interrupting him. This continues throughout the interview. Balko also gets the last word, which he uses to arrogantly denigrate Hughes, saying “I’d hoped we’d see a little contrition here, but we didn’t”. Balko and the moderators essentially ganged up on Hughes, who calmly and graciously refuted their criticism of him. Balko doesn’t even seem to grasp he has been made a fool of.
I don’t like how the hosts from Reason handled this. They weren’t mediating the debate; they were actively participating with Bradley to prove that Chauvin killed Floyd. Colman ended up debating all three of them, who seemed to have their minds made up.
Because they're white Liberals.
If I am right, I will debate 100 people at once. Facts are Facts
Anyone who had seen the body cam footage (all of it, not just Chauvin's), and have some rudimentary understanding of drugs, know they were witnessing an opioid overdose, with Floyd complaining about not being able to breath *long* before he was put on the floor (where Floyd *asked* to be put).
The hold Chauvin had him in is used here in the UK too.... I know because *I've* been held that way by rhe police, and I could *still* breathe.
Coleman doesn't care about how he's perceived at the next dinner party with high-status hipsters. The three he's debating here clearly do.
@@bigfish92672 I highly fpubt that. Frankly, I'm almost inclined to definitively state that you wouldn't. Even if you were debating a simple fact like bananas have sugar, debating 100 people would take forever and the likelihood that you'd willingly waste that amount of time is exceedingly slim.
The problem with focusing so much on how Chauvin restrained Floyd and whether or not it was authorized or proper, is, it's a completely different question. If the answer to that question is "yes it was improper and dangerous, and no he was not authorized to pin someone that way," then he deserves to be reprimanded or to lose his job. SEPARATELY the question then needs to be asked "Was Chauvin the only potential cause of Floyd's death, or could there have been other factors?" If Chauvin's actions were the only reasonable cause, beyond a shadow of a doubt, then he's guilty of either manslaughter or murder, depending on whether or not you can establish intent. If there were other reasonable causes- like a potentially lethal amount of fentanyl in his system- that constitutes "doubt" in Chauvin being the cause. So it's entirely possible that he acted inappropriately and should lose his job, but still wasn't the cause of Floyd's death.
absolutely. and if you saw the body cam video in the beginning of TFM, Floyd looked like he was ready to croak.
Are you guys really trying to say 8 min 46 seconds neck on knee didn't kill Floyd?... The mental gymnastics.
@@thinker185 a) I didn't say anything like that, I said "did Chauvin's actions kill him or not?" is a question that needs to be answered separately from "was he authorized to use the methods he used?" and b) if you can SAY "I can't breathe" you can breathe. That's "choking victim" 101. But regardless, the time is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what was the actual cause. If the cause was something like airway restriction leading to asphyxiation and cardiac arrest, then fine, Chauvin deserved the guilty verdict. But if it was cardiac arrest due to a fentanyl overdose, then AT WORST Chauvin's actions might be aggravating factors, but still wouldn't qualify as homicide
19:34 Coleman already pointed out that applying a hobble takes roughly 2 minutes, EMS is expected to arrive around 3 minutes, the hobble must be removed before medical treatment is applied, and thus applying the hobble at that time is unreasonable. So her saying "well it's only an unsafe place because the knee was on so long!" while not refuting Coleman's point as to why the knee was justly on so long, is just silly. She's making a point that had already been refuted. If you want to make that point again then you need to refute Coleman's refutation as well.
She has an ideology she wants to hold on to ... no matter what facts she is given
1. The knee was not in the proper location.
2. Given the situation, it became improper once the hobble was not going to be used (even if it was employed properly, which it wasn't)
3. It is never proper to put that much weight on a human being's neck. Momentarily and accidentally, with no/minimal injuries? Perhaps you get a pass.
This is 9 minutes of the slow murder of a human being with the power of the state being used to prevent intervention from saving Floyd's life. He was trained, he ignored his training, a person is dead.
You go to prison on either intentional manslaughter or murder under those circumstances.
Coleman again with a masterclass debate, this time taking on an entire panel. Well done!
Coleman showed great poise, patience and maturity. Great job!
I’m constantly amazed by Coleman calmly taking insults that would have provoked me to making a sputtering ass of myself. Great poise in deed!
He did a good job considering that Liz Wolfe was no moderator. She was another person he had to debate also who didn't seem to question Balko's 30,000 word essay and probably never read it.
@@lostcauselancer333 Balko is an insufferable jag
He did but he's also got no idea how opioids work.
@@absolutmauser no, I don’t believe that’s true. He says it’s possible. All he does anted to do is offer reasonable doubt.
This Bradley guy is in his feelings. Coleman is right.
Coleman debates entire Reason squad
If I ever get arrested I want Coleman as my lawyer.
My thoughts exactly
Hell no! I want him on my jury. Lawyers are generally incompetent and juries are where the rubber meets the road in our justice system.
Coleman is a god tier debater, effortlessly taking on Balko and the "mediators".
Too bad these "libertarians" will judge you in the court of public opinion. Guilty until proven innocent
@@rshinn8776 Yeah but it did take some balls to upload the video regardless, despite the fact that both of their moderators and their (clearly) preferred guest were gracefully used by Coleman to wipe the fkn floor.
Libertarians used to say they were "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" but these guys followed the Overton window all the way to "socially progressive, fiscally conservative". No me gusta
I generally like the Reason crew and am mostly a libertarian. But the guy in the upper right made them look silly here in a 3 against 1. They should be embarrassed. I can't believe they posted it. That's kind of a libertarian thing. I guess that's why I like them.
Reason is can barely be considered libertarian. They're leftists with a few (very few) open market views. You'll see the same Don Lemonesque views and debate style in many of their videos
I'm not sure I've ever seen worse moderation for a debate before.
Coleman's a great example of calm and patient debate
Or sneaky grifter.
Absolutely. His appearance on “The View” is another prime example of that.
Smartest person here was the brother
He usually is
Coleman Hughes outclasses three other people and elevates Reason at the same time. They should be so lucky
We have a person who filtered through this trial and all the relevant information without shaking a pitchfork, appealing to emotion, or voicing the relevance of the opinions of the crowd… and then we have everyone else.
We have a bunch of so-called libertarians which obstensibly argue for limits on state power being ok with a cop kneeing a man to his end. Because... i dunno...he's different from them. Almost as if most libertarians are full of shyt.
@@arthurswanson3285 Reason attracts a lot of poseurs unfortunately.
He was convicted of 2nd degree murder right - intentional killing right?
Im all the way with manslaughter ie. Inappropriate technique of the restraint. But how does this support a murder charge?
If I indicate to you I am having difficulty breathing because of something you are doing and I then I asphyxiate, then you have intentionally murdered me. I wager you still do not understand.
@bigfish92672 do you know how many thousands of times arresting officers have heard "I can't breathe" or something similar from people who are struggling to avoid arrest? I would have ignored it too. They will say ANYTHING.
@@bigfish92672 I wager you havent seen any police arrest videos. When this happened I started watching arrests to see exactly what goes down.
Its educational. After about the 8th video seeing a struggling, uncopperative crimminal lying about not being able to breath or pull a knife or gun I started to realise its just a tiny bit more complicated.
In fact one guy who hadnt been breathing as was revived with narcane after having explianed to him the effects of the narcane were temporary and thus needed to go to hospital and the officer spend 20 minutes trying to negotiate a search obly to have the guy draw a gun shoot him shoot and kill the medic and then hold a hostage who got shot in the gun fight i realised it was just a tiny bit more complicated a job.
You csn be unconsious be revived and still need restraining because America is a gun mad country with crappy health care and bugger all social welfare. The cops wear the brunt if this and its far more complicated than bystanders think.
Ive also seen dreadful cops who range from incompenent to hostle a holes.
So im afraid merely telling you you cant breath doesnt mean he murders him that requires intent. Unless you want the cops to release every criminal potentially armed or not who says they cant breath then you will end up with situations like this.
Personally it raises the questions was he taught if they can talk they xsn breath. Now while this is likely a myth whats revevant to his murder charge is that what he was trained in. If so it may be trainers fault. Was he incorrectly applying the technique inspite of excellent training. Quite possibly in which cass that still could be manslaughter not murder.
For it to be murder theprosexution needs to prove intent. I dont think they were. BTW he was saying he couldnt breath while no one was on him. Abother possibilty is the feyntenol was stopping his respirarion before he was restrained.
He was (correctly in my opinion) convicted of "unintentional murder". Wikipedia has a good description of the law:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_Minnesota_law#Second-degree_murder
@@gordonstrause4075 i disagree just based on the other possibilities. Possibly manslaughter. I dont think they met the burden of eliminsting all reasonable doubt. But reasonable people can disagree though.
How does reason get so little engagement with nearly 1 million subs?
Everybody is just here for Remy
only 1 in 10 things they post have 'reason'
Most of their content is cringe./
The guy last week talking like you need a tinfoil hat to have questions about 9/11 was a real high point for me
Because the libertarian party is fractured and reason isn't their thing.
@@RetroMMA bingo! These guys are practically neocons. Not much daylight between them and the blob.
Such an ugly incident. From earlier body cam footage Floyd was freaking out and kicking the inside of the patrol car apart. Floyd pleaded with the cops to let him out of the car as he was "claustrophobic". This is a 6'4" 220lb known violent felon, fresh out of a 12 year prison sentence who was clearly under the influence of an unknown substance. He was considered highly dangerous to both officers and the public and they didn't want him loose on the street.
Hindsight they should have just kept him contained in the patrol car and allow him to destroy the interior until paramedics arrived. Instead they got him out onto the ground and then applied far greater than usual force to keep him restrained. This created the entire police brutality narrative by conducting this neck move in full view of the public to be recorded, and doubling down as the crowd pleaded to get off of him. A series of bad decisions by Chauvin led to his conviction in court but we will never know to what degree the fentanyl dose, existing heart conditions, covid infection, or neck restraint played in his death.
There is simply no evidence that race was ever a factor in this tragic event but being a 6'4" 220lb violent convicted felon certainly did.
Hindsight …Chauvin could have simply removed his knee
@@user-ye4bu6xh4c
The knee was not on the neck, other points of view show this
@@user-ye4bu6xh4c
Yes, a violent criminal was being restrained as trained
You get SO MANY things WRONG. He wasn't claustrophobic, he just came out of a car with 3 other people in it. He was claiming he couldn't breath in it. He didn't do 12 years, more like four out of a five year sentence, and he was in no way "fresh out of prison." His prison sentence ended in 2013. I could go on and on.
@@user-ye4bu6xh4c
His knee was never on his neck. He was on the back of his shoulder.
Also, Floyd was saying I can’t breathe before he was ever in handcuffs while he was standing up next to the vehicle.
Floyd was on his way to being dead. It’s a miracle he wasn’t dead already. The guy is pure gum in the world is a better place without him. These cops did not kill Floyd. It doesn’t even come close to fitting Murder, according to Minnesota law. It doesn’t even fit manslaughter according to Minnesota law.
Dude in the top left has never felt danger before and keeps judging based only on hindsight
1 - None of them have. 2 - They're all judging on hindsight. It's how time works.
@@hob976 1- calling out that guy cause he's the only one who keeps insisting there's no other circumstances to consider, that Chauvin had the situation completely under control, and he apparently knows what "should" have been done. 2 - HE is judging the situation based on things that are known now, many of which Chauvin couldn't have known at the time- some of which NO one knew at the time. Does that make it easier for you to understand what I meant?
@@stephenwilkens3101Thanks for thoughtfully fleshing that out. I understand - and you're pry right on both. Certainly on the second point though.
This is the most nuance I've ever seen applied to 9 minutes of kneeling.
( There's pry a mom joke there for the taking... )
Cheers, Stephen.
Coleman is so much better than this mob, it’s shocking.
Chauvin is guilty. He wills tay behind bars. And Coleman is arguing in bad faith. At the end of the day you have a police officer who deviated from his training and kneeled on a guys neck for way too long after people told him to stop, after he became unconscious and had no pulse. That is murder.
Tbh this debate is very skewed in one direction. With true and good moderation, moderators do not take sides (especially with sensitive topics like this one). This debate unfortunately was a clear three on one to the benefit of Mr. Balko. However, Coleman was so articulate with his arguments and kept his composure despite the unfairness and bias. This fact alone speaks so well for him. Good job, Coleman!
F*ck UA-cam for putting a sensitivity warning on this.
Those are not moderators, those are activists, period.
Reason was at one time a reputable site. They are carrying water for Balko. There is no question in their minds that G.F. was murdered. They are not going to consider alternatives. Nice job Reason.....
Balko’s arguments here are the dictionary definition of motivated reasoning. Coleman’s position was thoroughly informed of the facts and dispassionately argued.
Coleman is motivated by the paychecks he makes by excusing racism. Like Candice owens.
I am sorry but this makes me rethink the Chauvin case a bit. Coleman Hughes seems to have by far the better argument here than do the other three. I was disappointed that the two guys seemed either unwilling or unable to even understand what Mr. Hughes was saying and tried to recharacterize what Mr. Hughes was saying to something he did not say.
don't be sorry....you definitely should rethink it
I find it dubious that the counterpoint to Coleman's assertion of reasonable use in the continuation of MRT (in some form) was that the paramedics decision to "load and go" came after a few minutes of Floyd being unconscious, and somehow the crowd's opinion of the nature of the officer's actions was somehow germane to the situation. Crowds are onlookers who have (presumably) zero training in situational awareness, medical first response, use-of-force doctrine, etc; all these things which officers routinely get as "in-service" training each year. Why should the crowd's opinion matter? Mob rule is not justification for a decision one way or another. The officer's testimony was that "Code 4" (a safe scene) had not been established; hence the delay in using the hobble was reasonable and not out contextual keeping with their training per the training officer's testimony. WHAT THE CROWD THINKS IS INCONSEQUENTIAL and should NOT be taken into account.
Further, there certainly exists examples of suspects faking medical conditions, or regaining consciousness after legitimately passing out, and being as combative as before they became (or faked) unconsciousness. The fact that Floyd had (presumably) been actually unconscious didn't matter; there was no requirement to remove the restraint technique as applied because Code 4 (safe scene) had not been declared. And that concern of an unsafe scene was confirmed by the fact that the paramedics didn't want to treat Floyd at the scene, and decided a "load and go" was appropriate. It is not unreasonable to believe that the unsafe scene not only existed when the medics showed up, but it also existed PRIOR to them showing up.
The standard of conviction here is aptly described by Coleman; as long as "reasonable doubt" can be shown for one or more plausible explanations of the actions of the officers then acquittal wasn't to be ruled out.
Your first paragraphs make no sense. The paramedics decision is crucial and indicative of a hostile scene
23:45 Balko “you’re quoting from a question the defense asked…” I guess we’re just supposed to take a prepared statement from witnesses and not ask them questions in court. It trips them up and they say things they didn’t plan to.
If Balko doesn’t like defense lawyers asking questions that throw a witness off their prepared statements and wordings. He should also dislike groups of people crowding around cops and throwing them off their prepared techniques to deal with resisting suspects.
It's hard to track this down now for obvious reasons, but it appears that at one time the training manual did factually train the MRT maneuver similar to how Chauvin applied it.
However, updated policy indicated that the maneuver was only to be used to apply a hobble. The reason for this appears to be that a number of people were knocked unconscious by the MRT maneuver, in other words the MRT was known to be dangerous and they had to change policy.
So it's technically true that Chauvin would have been initially trained one version of the MRT, but he was out of compliance with the latest policy. Also he may have been retrained but we don't know this for sure.
Radley Balko speaking makes as much sense as a symphony of flatulence.
If a restraint technique is allowed to be continued on a suspect made unconscious by the restraint technique, that standard practice is bad. Simple as that. I understand concerns about the crowd/faking unconsciousness, but you should do what you can to mitigate these concerns but at some point stop applying pressure on an unconscious person because you threaten their life. Requiring code 4 to stop applying pressure on an unconscious person IS TOO MUCH.
Roughly 18:35: Accoridng to this guy, a scene is NOT potentially dangerous for the cops when there are emotionally incited bystanders witnessing a cop illegally (according to him) killing a man. Additionally, according to his logic, the cops should be able to perceive the future and determine that no civilians would end up striking any cops. And therefore, the cops should have known that they were not in any danger. Spot on. (Sarcasm, if it wasn't clear)
They were just trying to help man.
@@fancyhitchpin8675 I've already refuted your point when I mentioned that the cops cannot see the future and determine that at no point they would take any hostile actions. If you want to contribute to the discussion, please refute this point first.
@@cameronmoore136 I guess I shoulda said (sarcasm, If it wasn't clear)😄
@@fancyhitchpin8675My bad, lol.
@@cameronmoore136 In fairness to you, you did explicitly set the president.
Not sure I'm convinced by Coleman Hughes arguments w/out deeper analysis, but it's so refreshingly rare to hear deep, carefully considered, principle based analysis/defense of unpopular things that are at the very least intuitively repugnant. Coleman hughes is a sorely missing reminder of the enlightenment emphasis on prioritizing principles over preferences/outcomes that was once emphasized in law, journalism, science, and schools, (and which the ACLU once stood for), before being replaced with activism for preferred outcomes.
If you want to use their decision to not use the hobble as an excuse then you have to explain why they didn't put them in a recovery position because that is clearly step two regardless of whether the hobble is used or not .That's where the failure comes in
He actually already pointed out that (if I recall correctly, I watched this yesterday), positioning the retrained person in the recovery position is not, or may not be, done in a code 4 (a potentially dangerous scene, ie, an emotionally incited crowd). Whether you think that's right or not, that's proper conduct and if it's unjustified then the fault would not be in Chauvin and instead would be on that region's law enforcement system and THEY should be the one going to court.
But point being, Coleman already did address and provide a viable explanation for what you're commenting.
@@cameronmoore136 That whole thread was literally the most embarrassing moment of the debate for Coleman. The only reason the scene was potentially dangerous was because Chauvin and the other officers were kneeling on the neck/back/shoulders of an obviously unresponsive man and the crowd (correctly!!) feared they were killing him. Even though he had already been misapplying MRT for multiple minutes in a dangerous way, Chauvin would doubtless be a free man today if he simply stopped kneeling on Floyd once Floyd stopped struggling.
To argue that he was right to continue to crush Floyd to death because the crowd was upset that he was crushing Floyd to death is most embarrassing "murders his parents and asks for mercy because he's an orphan" argument that I have ever heard anyone actually make.
@@gordonstrause4075An angered crowd - regardless of the cause - is a very dangerous, unpredictable beast, therefore it's SOP to maintain a suspect in a more controlled submission hold until the POTENTIAL threat from the crowd has subsided. That's why Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd's neck. He (reasonably?!) assumed the medical aid would be arriving promptly. Was that a faulty, criminally liable assumption? Coleman effectively argued no, stating that the arrival of the Fire Rescue was uncharacteristically greatly delayed.
Your point is at some point Floyd should have been rolled onto his side, or possibly sat upright, but when precisely was that point? Did the "potential threat" from the agitated crowd diminish prior to the Rescue's arrival, or did it actually increase?
Can you see how it's possible that a series of reasonably rational and proper decisions can lead to an unexpected, unfortunate, tragic result?
I'm not declaring Chauvin blameless, or not responsible, but Coleman has effectively stated very compelling arguments which raise reasonable doubts of Chauvin's guilt of criminality.
They issue is definitely very cloudy, very subtle, and very much still open to debate.
@@gordonstrause4075 "The only reason the scene was potentially dangerous was because Chauvin and the other officers were kneeling on the neck/back/shoulders of an obviously unresponsive man and the crowd (correctly!!) feared they were killing him." But Coleman also refuted this being a valid argument when he mentioned that the estimated time of arrival for EMS was 3 minutes, and kneeling on his neck/back/shoulders for three minutes is not unreasonable. Having a debate where you attempt to make a point that has already been refuted without refuting that refutation is unproductive. Please do not do so again.
But to continue that point, After 3 minutes has gone by. they'd expected EMS to be there any moment. And there is an abundance of situations where detainees have gone unconscious, causing the officers to no longer apply restraint, and then the detainee gaining consciousness again and wreaking havoc. It is not reasonable to un-restrain someone who has shown aggression just because they go unconscious and you think they will continue to be. I guarantee you if we did not have this discussion (especially prior to this Floyd incident) if you and I had a conversation about a man who assaulted a woman, who was detained, went unconscious, the police stopped restraining him, then he gained consciousness and assaulted the woman again, you'd be like "I can't believe the police did that. That is so irresponsible of them."
And even if you are of the opinion that they should have stopped restraining him, as Coleman mentioned, whether you like it or not that' valid behavior under the code 3 or code 4 or whatever it was (I watched it yesterday and I don't explicitly recall which code it was). In this case, the fault is not on Chauvin but instead the law enforcement agency that trained cops to behave as such in those situations.
(And before you say "yeah but it was only a code3/4 because Chauvin kneeled on him for so long", I'll redirect you back to the point on the unprecedented delay on EMS arrival again)
Also, neither I or Coleman said "he was right to continue to crush Floyd to death because the crowd was upset that he was crushing Floyd to death." The point and and Coleman have made is that this is valid behavior under those circumstances, as trained by that region's law enforcement agency. Again, if you oppose this, the law enforcement agency is the one that should be in court, not Chauvin.
@gordonstrause4075 Ridiculous argument. These kinds of angry crowds gather for a lot of arrests. They are always potentially dangerous, regardless of what the police do. The argument that it was reasonable for paramedics to perceive that crowd as dangerous but wasn't reasonable for Chauvin/other officers to see them as dangerous 3 minutes earlier is absurd.
Coleman took all 3 of them on with his hands tied behind his back. Balko never deals with reasonable doubt and Graham v Connor reasonable officer standard.
Libertarians went from government force skepticism to cop boot lickers fairly quickly in the age of trump. Sad.
I believe the Chauvin case should continue to be talked about amongst citizens. There was so much going on while Chauvin had his knee on his back. The bystanders didn't help the matter at all and I believe where a huge factor in the matter. De-escalation because the crowd was agressive reguardless of their intentions of trying to help. Great conversation and Im glad we are still talking about this. The result is citizens, overall having a voice in how we are treated and how threats are treated as well. Police officers are people too and this job takes a huge toll on their physical and mental health. ❤ Peace
Chauvin could have listened to the crowd. His little ego got the best of him
Flyod could have just stayed calm in the car and not go berserk trying to get out.
@@DizzyDisco93 Chauvin could have simply stopped kneeling on him. But his petty little ego got him life in prison. Not smart
@@TroyJScott the cashier coulda let the 20 slide 😔
Fentanyl -
Similar to other opioid analgesics, fentanyl produces effects such as: relaxation, euphoria, pain relief, sedation, confusion, drowsiness, dizziness, nausea and vomiting, urinary retention, pupillary constriction, and respiratory depression.
What are the effects of an overdose? -
Overdose can cause stupor, changes in pupil size, clammy skin, cyanosis, coma, and respiratory failure leading to death. The presence of a triad of symptoms such as coma, pinpoint pupils, and respiratory depression strongly suggests opioid intoxication.
Even at a desired dose fentanyl causes respiratory depression.
Floyd had a very poor metabolic health.
Kneeling on someone’s neck is potentially fatal.
Do the math…
Yes thats right drugs do dangerous things. How were the police expected to know what he was on? "Excuse me sir do you mind letting us take a blood sample to deterimine what methid of restraint we may use while arresting you?"
Yes when you take drugs you may die, it may make you die in circumstances when you normally wouldnt.
Thats the risk floyd took when he took drugs and committed a crime. Chioce meet outcome.
Now if the officer incorrectly applied a technique that could indicate a) poor training b) an incorrect technique being taught and that technique being applied as trained to this individual or c) i.competence on the part of the officer. Or d) murderous intent on the officers. Manslaughter seemed reasonable under the evidence murder was not though wheres the evidrnce he intended to kill Floyd?
I can’t stand this clown Coleman. Disguises his pure bad faith with sophistry
As long as one person understands this. I agree completely.
I used to think he was worth listening to but the more and more I read and see him the less seriously I take him.
its insane ppl in the comments think coleman is the reasonable one for nitpicking reasonable doubt for an officer that suffocated someone for multiple minutes until they died
Floyd did not suffocate. He died of cardiopulmonary failure. He was able to breathe, his heart/lungs weren't able to circulate that oxygen.
@@worsethanjoerogan8061 same shit
There are crush events where people die by asphyxiation, but minutes prior are yelling in a state of panic. Saying "I can't breathe" doesn't literally mean the person can't breathe in the moment. It's a sign of someone struggling to breathe. Coleman was way off on this one. The video/audio evidence would be enough for me to convict if I was on the jury.
Every citizen should have to spend one day as a police officer.
Have you been a police officer? What would they learn?
@@hob976 plus, they have to interact with junkies and drunks all day every day and a lot would kill them in a second to get out of a night in jail.
Does you job come with that type of risk??
@@unforgiving266Well, as a junkie and a drunk, I have to interact with other drunk junkies all day, who want to steal my drugs and booz so YES.
If the retirement benefits weren't so good, I'd quit ( and probably become a cop ).
Garbage workers and fishermen are more dangerous occupations, by the stats. What's so incredibly difficult about being a cop?
Every libertarian is FOS. They have no problem with the state as long as its exercising power against people that dont share their skin color.
I watched the fall of minneapolis when it first came out. You cannot convince me that Floyd died because of anything evil that Chauvin did. The bodycam shows something in his mouth as far as I know it was a piece of gum. Floyd repeatedly lied to Chauvin, changing his mood and stories within seconds. Ive done a fair amount of drugs. Floyd was what we call....high as fuck. He kept resisting. What are the officers supposed to do? Let him go? His knee was on his shoulder. A middle aged man on hard drugs, quite possibly a relapse after being clean, which would decrease his tolerance and increase the load on his heart and lungs. Floyd died because he resisted arrest, yes, the cops killed him, no, Chauvin didn't murder him by malice or neglect.
Radley cares about nothing other than his own opinions. So disrespectful.
High school wrestling refs and coaches tell you if you're talking you can breathe
You could still be dangerously impaired.
there was A LOT of reasonable doubt in this case. The mob outside made people ignore that and vote to save their city instead of finding an innocent man not guilty of a narcotic overdose
Not a murder.
Easy.
Next.
@user-ye4bu6xh4c Please.
The left nearly destroyed half the country to get that verdict.
People can stop pretending we've had a functioning court system since then.
@user-ye4bu6xh4c Right, right. Proving that OJ wasn't a murderer. Because whatever a jury decides is absolute fact. I mean, that whole appeals thing in our judicial system throws a wrench in your argument though. But otherwise a rock-solid argument.
@user-ye4bu6xh4c
A jury intimidated by outside forces
@user-ye4bu6xh4c
You're denying the intimidation?
Seriously how?
@user-ye4bu6xh4c”his peers” is a hilarious term we use to mean something completely different
They act like all of his weight was on Floyd while ignoring his other leg. Looks to me that most of his weight is put on the leg on the asphalt
That's another thing. How can people claim to know from a still photo or even video, exactly how much weight Chauvin is putting on each foot?
the scene was definitely NOT safe.....I've never had to go to a secondary location to work a code. I've always worked one where i find the person. Coleman is 1 million % correct that the mob made this a unsafe and hostile scene.
Not to mention, IF ems could had worked the code on scene then they could had gotten the information from PD personnel on scene that this code is possibly due to narcotics and the antidote could had be administered.. For whatever reason, the medic running the code never went fully through his Hs&ts. The ER doctor also never gave the antidote as this information was never given to ems, therefore ems never passed it on to the code team. Not sure it would had been any good at that time frame but at least it could be a way of ruling out narcotics as a possibly.
If you have a gun and two other guys as back up with guns, have a suspect handcuffed and prone, and can radio in a few dozen other guys with guns, and no one is approaching you, you are a coward and unfit as a peace officer if you think you're not safe. You need to work a garden or something if youre that nervous/cowardly. Youre FOS, like most so-called freedom-loving libertarians here.
Coleman- when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
This Colman guy always trying to find to defend and rationalise racism and racist behaviours. He low can he go, to defensible.
Coleman got smoked...😮😮
the guy on the upper left tries to be right while its not a debate but a conversation about what happend
I must add to the million comments that complain about the “moderators.” It’s very difficult to debate 3 people at once and yet Coleman managed it. The moderators seemed eager to both elaborate on and accept as fact his opponents assertions, to the extent that they couldn’t wait to interrupt and “correct” Coleman.
This is really unhelpful in trying to clearly understand the problem..
Dude, radley! Youre completely dismissing the EMS eval of the situation that it was NOT safe. It'd really behoove you to actually listen!
Wow. That woman is nuts.
Before even watching this debate I begin hoping Balko addresses the question raised by his citing at least 120 known cases of asphyxiation of this sort committed by police. How many of those resulted in felony murder charges and sentences similar to Chauvin's. He mentions a 2010 case in Mpls but it only resulted in a successful lawsuit. What elevates this obvious case of gross procedural malfeasance to the level of murder? The Tony Timpe case seemed to result in reprimands more for the insults directed at their victim than any murder . Precedence has considerable relevance here. Are chronically unenforced guidelines actually guidelines at all? Also, it would be interesting to review how many required reports on the use of this technique and hobble exist in police records to get some idea on how methodically the correct procedure is followed. In fact, I've heard that Chauvin used the technique previously. Are there any reports or reprimands for his past behavior? I look forward to see how these considerations are handled here.
Top left guy contradicts his own argument
Wow! The dude in the upper right absolutely destoyed everybody. Calmly dismantled the other three. What a boss!
MRT restraint used in NZ, I have observed this done prone for 20 mins here in NZ, handcuffed and hobbled.
This clip reminded me of why I unsubbed from "Reason" TV.
Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe while upright mins before being on the ground
Negligence is not the same thing as intentional murder. In my mind, there’s no question that as soon as Floyd passed out, the officers on scene should have initiated CPR or rescue breathing or something. But failing to do so, is not the same thing as murder
Seeing libertarians defend police brutality is absolutely hilarious
Who is, Hughes? I don’t remember him ever calling himself a libertarian.
Lol. You clearly haven't watched this.
Making arguments that weren't even made in court by the prosecution is BS.
All of the weight on the balls of your feet not the knee... em ok what would be the point? It wouldn't be restraining in any way. Your knee would be floating.
It's difficult to understand if you've never done it. It's not about applying weight to someone it's about maintaining a position of control.
@zufalllx ok, now it makes sense. The hold is a guy crouching with his knee really really close to the neck, but not applying force, or weight. Got it, sounds debilitating.
My response is that the moment he went unconcious, they had an obligation to get off his neck and or back. His training doesnt matter. There is no reasonable explanation. Guilty as charged!
Guilty of what manslaghter or murder.
I watched a video where a guy on a bus had nearly stopped breathing when ems gave him narcan. This brings you back until it wears off. The ems wanted to take him to hospital he refused. The ems argued that the effect of the narcan would wear off in 30minutes and he needed to be hospitailsed. The police therefore had to search him for any weapons before going. He refused when the police insisted he drew a gun and shot an officer and ems killing the ems and took a pedestrian hostage who also got shot.
Now should this guy have been restrianed when unconsious? In the real world its never so easy. Crimials play possum often have weapons.
The real tragedy is that a knee was used and not a boot.
How libertarian of you!
I just UNsubscribed because of "Reason's" inability to maintain objectivity in a so-called debate. How is it seemingly intelligent people are so dense?
Reason seems better than this most of the time. This is such a hot topic.
@@jwf2125 I would be inclined to agree except that Liz blatantly lied about rfkjr, using the same ignorant woke trope of "antivaxer." I expect better from any organization who calls themselves "Reason." Mediator objectivity is IMPERATIVE in any debate.
@@sunnyla2835 I’ve heard RFKJR’s explanation of his vax stance and it was at least plausible. Was Liz lying or just automatically accepting the common narrative? It’s usually hard to look inside someone’s head and see the intent behind their words.
this comment section is mad
Coleman Hughs is trying to be a master of the futile.
Why would I've water braincells on such a debate topic?
This is clownish.😂
The calculations for the dose of fentanyl is incorrect. It's not a linear relationship. A 3 ng/mL level is not a 25% chance to kill if 25 ng/mL is a lethal dose.
The EU pharmacopeia states that the typical levels of fentanyl for anesthesia is around 10 to 20 ng/mL, and the lethal dose is considered to be in the mid 30 ng/mL.
Yes, there are extremely rare cases where 3ng/mL has been fatal, but this is extremely rare and likely someone who is allergic to fentanyl. Since Floyd had used fentanyl before, it's unlikely that he was allergic to it.
What Mr. Hughes said was that 3ng/ml seems to be the minimum fatal dose and 25 ng/ml seems to be a likely fatal dose, and that Floyd was at 11 ng/ml, therefore Floyd was 25% of the way to probably lethal. He didn't say Floyd was at 3 ng/ml or that 3 ng/ml is a 25% lethal.
Then we have to factor in Floyd's significant health conditions including hypertension, heart condition, active covid, and being under extreme stress as he knew he was probably going back to prison after recently completing his 12 year sentence for violent home invasion robbery in TX. He was in a panic while in the back of the patrol car before ever being allowed to come out on the ground. Was it the fentanyl, heart attack, active covid, or stress that induced his state of panic and plead to lie on the ground outside instead?
Watch the video you can see that the knee was not on the neck.@@user-ye4bu6xh4c
@@Cajundaddydave
He knew he wasn’t going to prison, it was a 20 dollar counterfeit bill - this characterization is just delving into absurdism, to argue hypoxia you need to argue overdose which isn’t the case he wasn’t near the lethal limit and wasn’t overdosing.
@@Bibky Plus fentanyl possession, plus DUI. If not prison, why did he panic in the patrol car?
You can tell by the comments that people who take Coleman seriously clearly aren’t critical thinkers themselves.
We can see your comments as well. Pot and kettle kind of thing.
19:35 Claim, the crowd was riled up after they had kneeled on him for awhile before EMS showed. A lot of people are riled up from the first second they see cops. There are plenty of videos online of police greeting a person and the person immediately going into a “why are you harassing me” mentality.
Chauvin and the other officers should have done better, but a crowd of people changes the dynamic. When was the last time they were trained on this? Do they introduce distractions/crowds into the training? Do they introduce a medical issue with the suspect in the training?
It's like Colman just doesn't understand how dangerous finding reasonable doubt would be.
He does, it's just he also happens to care about what's true.
He only cares about the objective truth. Not the hysteria that Balko follows
Still talking about this Jesuit ritual?
Once Coleman comes more correct on 2A, he's like the perfect candidate.
Now that Coleman Hughes has eclipsed bad faith mediocrities like Balko, I hope he uses his time to continue to engage with more serious people.
Bottom line: Floyd was no saint.
Bottom line:
You will only be damned once
That's not the point.
Rewind to before the death. The clerk testified that he had placed the 20 into the till. He tested it after accepting it. First mistake was pursuing the issue when Chauvin should have told them to pursue it as a civil matter. Second, the police no longer had possession of the bill. Had he not died, no charges could have been brought to a conviction. Chauvin should have been disciplined under any circumstances leading to an arrest.
Still isn’t murder
@@user-ye4bu6xh4c
I didn’t see video of the Martin killing. You?
@@user-ye4bu6xh4c
Are we gonna pretend this was an ordinary trial for an ordinary case, as if riots wouldn’t have broken out w a different verdict, and as if an impartial jury was even possible to assemble?
@@user-ye4bu6xh4c
Video is irrelevant? Lol. How is it irrelevant? We have no clue how the Trayvon situation went down, so you can’t compare the two. It is 100% relevant with regards to your apples to oranges comparison.
@@user-ye4bu6xh4c
A racist jury in a racist city. OJ got off too. These people will let anybody off. George, Florida is a scumbag. The world is a better place without him. He’s dead because of his own actions. It was not murder. It wasn’t even manslaughter. This was a modern-day lynching by a black jury because of a man that they wanted to turn into a saint. I was a child of the 70s high school in college in the 80s in the deep south. Racism in this country was all dead. It was brought back by the Clintons and especially by the Obamas and now this administration because the left doesn’t care about people just power and they use identity politics to scare people and divide people to vote in the most illogical, ridiculous ways with pure propaganda and lies.
Watch the murder video...the only argument you need 🤦🖕
I was strictly prosecution from the beginning since day one.
This is a Very hard video to watch on youtube! I had to hit confirm 6 times to stream it on a tv!!!!!!