George Floyd

A Defense Witness Says the Cops Who Pinned George Floyd to the Pavement Were Not Using Force

That was one of several eyebrow-raising claims made by Barry Brodd, who said Derek Chauvin's actions were "objectively reasonable."


The defense in Derek Chauvin's murder trial yesterday presented testimony from a use-of-force expert who said the former Minneapolis police officer's "interactions" with George Floyd "were following his training, following current practices in policing, and were objectively reasonable." That conclusion contradicted the testimony of the city's police chief, other supervisors, and other use-of-force experts. It was also highly implausible, relying on dubious definitions, eyebrow-raising assumptions, and the omission of crucial details.

Incredibly, former police officer Barry Brodd testified that pinning a handcuffed Floyd facedown on the pavement for nine and a half minutes did not constitute a use of force. "I don't consider a prone control as a use of force," he said. "The maintaining of the prone control, to me, is not a use of force…because it's a control technique. It doesn't hurt. You've put the suspect in a position where it's safe for you, the officer, safe for them, the suspect, and you're using minimal effort to keep them on the ground."

While Chauvin was using this "control technique," he had one knee on Floyd's neck and the other on his arm or back. Officer J. Alexander Kueng also was applying pressure to Floyd's back, while Officer Thomas Lane was holding down his legs. But according to Brodd, the officers were not using force, because they were not hurting Floyd.

Yet Brodd admitted during cross-examination that pressing Floyd against the pavement "could produce pain," in which case, according to his idiosyncratic definition, it would qualify as a use of force. As prosecutor Steve Schleicher pointed out, Floyd repeatedly complained that he was in pain. He said his neck, stomach, and "everything" hurt. Hennepin County Chief Medical Examiner Andrew Baker testified that Floyd had abrasions on his cheek and shoulder from contact with the pavement.

Los Angles Police Department Sgt. Jody Snider, a use-of-force expert, testified that the officers used "pain compliance" techniques on Floyd's hands and wrists. "If the officers were manipulating Mr. Floyd's hands in a way that would create pain," Brodd conceded, "then I would say yes, that would be a use of force."

In any case, the Minneapolis Police Department's definition of force does not require the infliction of pain. "Do you accept that the Minneapolis Police Department generally defines force to include restraint?" Schleicher asked. Brodd acknowledged that Schleicher was right about that.

Given that Chauvin used force against Floyd (a point I did not realize was up for debate until I watched Brodd's testimony), was that use of force justified in the circumstances? While addressing that question, Brodd, prodded by defense attorney Eric Nelson, introduced several irrelevancies.

The officers believed that Floyd, who had ingested black-market "Percocet" tablets that contained fentanyl and methamphetamine, was under the influence of drugs. "Drug-influenced" suspects, Brodd averred, "don't feel pain" and "may have superhuman strength"—an old canard with racist roots that police tend to drag out when they are accused of using excessive force.

Even drug warriors who still promote this myth generally do not claim that opioids like fentanyl make people aggressive or enable them to overpower several police officers at once. And while they do make that claim about methamphetamine, prior testimony indicated that the amount of that drug consumed by Floyd was comparable to a single prescribed dose. Superhuman strength and insensitivity to pain are not commonly noted side effects of Desoxyn or of other oral stimulants with similar effects, such as Adderall and Ritalin.

In any event, Floyd was not displaying the characteristics that Brodd attributes to "drug-influenced persons" during his prone restraint. Far from demonstrating superhuman strength, he was at the cops' mercy, and he certainly was not insensible to pain, judging from his repeated complaints that the officers were hurting him. Yet Nelson seems to think that introducing discredited notions about how people behave when they are "on something" will distract jurors from what actually happened in this case.

Speaking of distraction, Brodd reinforced the defense argument that bystanders who objected to the officers' treatment of Floyd drew Chauvin's attention away from the man under his knee. That claim is inconsistent with much of the video record, which shows Chauvin  looking at Floyd, acknowledging his complaints, and talking to his colleagues about how Floyd should be treated.

The defense makes it sound as if the officers were facing an incipient riot. But for much of the time, the bystanders were simply watching the encounter and recording it on their cellphones. Even when some of them were moved to criticize the officers' conduct and express concern about Floyd's welfare, they were not violent and did not make any threats. And regardless of what the bystanders were doing, as Schleicher pointed out and Brodd agreed, their behavior cannot legally justify the use of force against Floyd.

Nor can it justify the officers' failure to perform CPR after Floyd became unconscious and no longer had a detectable pulse. Brodd suggested it was reasonable for them to "wait for the professionals to show up." But he also acknowledged that they had a duty to care for Floyd—a duty that was not obviated by the fact that an ambulance was on the way.

Brodd also noted that Floyd, who initially seemed to be having a panic attack, struggled with Kueng and Lane when they tried to force him into the back of their squad car after they arrested him for using a counterfeit $20 bill to buy cigarettes. Floyd said he was claustrophobic, complained that he could not breathe, and asked to ride in the front seat. But once Kueng and Lane pulled him out of the car and onto the street, Floyd, at this point handcuffed and kneeling, stopped struggling and thanked them.

That was when Chauvin, Kueng, and Lane tackled Floyd and pinned him to the ground on his stomach, keeping him there despite his complaints that he was having trouble breathing and despite bystanders' warnings that his life was in danger. Chauvin continued kneeling on Floyd even after he stopped talking, became unresponsive, and no longer had a detectable pulse. The fact that Floyd had earlier resisted Kueng and Lane cannot justify this continued use of force.

Brodd claimed that Floyd was still resisting the officers even when they had him pinned. But his definition of resistance is broad:

Brodd: It appeared to me in that video that he was still struggling.

Schleicher: Struggling or writhing?

Brodd: I don't know the difference.

Schleicher: Would a reasonable police officer on the scene consider whether somebody is actively resisting or writhing on the ground because they can't breathe?

Brodd responded that it was reasonable to discount Floyd's 27 complaints that he could not breathe because he had said something similar during the struggle inside the squad car. Schleicher suggested that it was not reasonable to ignore Floyd's complaints once the officers were pressing him against the pavement, a different context in which it was less plausible that Floyd was faking.

Brodd's idea of how Floyd would have behaved if he were "perfectly compliant" underlines how police interpret distress as resistance:

Brodd: A compliant person would have both their hands in the small of their back and just be resting comfortably…He is still moving around.

Schleicher: Did you say "resting comfortably"?

Brodd: Or lying comfortably.

Schleicher: Resting comfortably on the pavement?

Brodd: Yes.

Schleicher: At this point in time…he's attempting to breathe by shoving his shoulder into the pavement.

Brodd: I was describing what the signs of a perfectly compliant person would be.

Schleicher: So attempting to breathe while restrained is being slightly noncompliant?

Brodd: No.

Brodd's discussion of "positional asphyxia," which is what the prosecution says killed Floyd, likewise had an air of unreality. He initially suggested that the hazard is relevant only when police are dealing with an "extremely obese" suspect whose body weight would press against his lungs when he lies on his stomach. But during cross-examination, he conceded that there could be a risk of positional asphyxia when police apply their own body weight to a thinner person in that position. He also acknowledged that Minneapolis police officers are trained to move suspects to a "side recovery position" because of that danger, which he said is widely recognized by police.

Lane twice suggested that Floyd should be rolled onto his side, but Chauvin flatly rejected the idea. "In this situation, there [were] space limitations," Brodd said. "Mr. Floyd was butted up against the tire of the patrol car. There was traffic still driving down the street. There were crowd issues that took the attention of the officers. Mr. Floyd was still somewhat resisting. So I think those were relatively valid reasons to keep him in the prone [position]." According to prosecution witnesses, including the police chief, the decision that Brodd calls "relatively valid" was objectively unreasonable and a clear violation of department policy.

Even by Brodd's account, Floyd was "actively resisting" or "struggling against the officers" for "a couple of minutes." Yet Chauvin kept kneeling on Floyd for an additional seven and a half minutes. At one point, Lane said, "He's passing out." Brodd conceded that Floyd did not seem to be resisting after he lost consciousness. Yet Chauvin maintained his position over Floyd for nearly five minutes after he became unresponsive, even after Kueng said he could not find a pulse.

While the prosecution says the prolonged prone restraint killed Floyd, Brodd said it was for his own good. Given an intoxicated suspect's "potential erratic behavior, going from compliant to noncompliant, not feeling any pain, potentially having superhuman strength," he averred, "it's just safer for the officer and for the suspect to keep them in that prone control."

How is it safer for the suspect? "If they were to get up and run, handcuffed," Brodd said, they could "trip and fall, sustain facial injuries, other injuries. On the ground, their mobility is reduced…and their ability to hurt themselves is reduced." If you believe Brodd, the cops killed Floyd to stop him from hurting himself.

NEXT: 3 Reasons Why Banning ‘Assault Weapons’ Is a Terrible Idea

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Actually, F = m * a
      The mass of the air in the atmosphere oppressed George Floyd due to the white supremacist conception of gravity.

      1. USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular ds office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. Change Your Life Right Now! Work From Comfort Of Your Home And Receive Your First Paycheck Within A Week. No Experience Needed, No Boss Over YourBVG Shoulder… Say Goodbye To Your Old Job! Limitedcdew Number Of Spots Open… Find out how HERE……. Visit Here

  1. >>Far from demonstrating superhuman strength, he was at the cops’ mercy

    being dead can do that to a man.

  2. “Nor can it justify the officers’ failure to perform CPR after Floyd became unconscious and no longer had a detectable pulse.”

    Would anyone here want to perform a lip lock and chest compressions on a known heroin/fentanyl user that just claimed to be Covid positive?
    Uh-uh, buddy, I ain’t going out like that.

    1. Sorry, Luddite, no one does CPR any more so your homoerotic fantasies will have to be manifested through some other scenario

      1. No one does CPR anymore? Could be. That would explain why they have AED systems in every government building these days and everyone has to learn hw to use them. You know, like the AED system that was at the police station that they were trying to transport Floyd to when he decided to resist arrest.

      2. What do they do now serious question (hopefully I didn’t bite on sarcasm)? We had a gentleman (random stranger I just happened to be by) just recently die of hear failure in front of me and we did chest compressions and AED

        1. Yes, my wife did CPR on recently deceased woman the other night for 30 minutes but I was so injured by being called a Luddite that I failed to mention it.
          The thing is, when you are resisting arrest, pop a pill in your mouth during the struggle and mention that you are covid positive, can you reasonably expect anyone to risk their life for you? I wouldn’t. Perhaps I am just self centered.

          1. No attack at you! I was seriously just curious! – from Jay below learned a few things.

            1. Those AEDs are fantastic if you have one handy. They will even talk you through the process.

          2. Maybe instead of CPR, he could have, you know, just gotten off him and let him sit there cuffed. That was an option that entire time.

        2. One way valve masks exist for performing mouth to mouth. Presumably cops have em. No idea if they’re obligated to perform it. The one time I had to do it—drowning victim—I knew the victim, and wasn’t worried about anything bloodborne or otherwise transmissible. Plus I didn’t have one of those masks. She lived, and I didn’t catch anything, so yay.

          CPR is theater, the vast majority of the time. Especially with something like open wounds and uncontrolled bleeding. Looks good, though. “Die motherfucker, die,” is apocryphally an ok cadence for the compressions. AED is supposed to be useful. Never tried or been trained in it.

          Floyd was dying without having an opiate antagonist (agonist?) in him immediately, and maybe not even then. Dude was drowning in exudate.

          We were all wondering how Sullum was going to spin the defense witnesses…

          1. I have been trained with the one way masks and the AED. The AEDs are a really good tool. I have never seen the one way masks outside of training though.

            1. Me neither. I guess the masks’d work…? Never tried one out. Just saw it in the, ‘this is great, you should use this.’ idea

              (I do need to practice my TQ application though. That’s something you want to have down, when you need it.) And AEDs have saved a butt load of people. I live next to a bunch of senior citizens—it’s great! It’s quiet—and I have pounded our condo board to buy one or two for the common areas.

              Anyway, resuscitation wasn’t going to save Floyd, even if they did it. Guy was drowning. Absent getting him on something to knock the edema down, while maintaining blood pressure, and knocking out the opiate, and supplemental oxygenating his blood, and fucking so on…Floyd was dying.

              Don’t swallow speedballs, kids. You want to say that Chauvin wasn’t monitoring Floyd’s vitals as much as he should have? Well, he’s on trial for Murder, so, yeah… But it’s not reasonable to think that cops effectuating an initially non-compliant arrestee, are going to monitor the guy’s vitals like he’s in an ER.

              So it goes.

              1. Had one in my truck when an older heavy guy dropped in a Walmart parking lot. The mask was clear hard plastic with a rubber gasket on one end which fits over the recipient, and a mouthpiece on the other which you use to provide air. I did CPR for about 10 minutes. Guy barfed once and had to go in the recovery position to clear the airway. I didn’t get any barf in my mouth but did get it all over my hands and knees. Paramedics arrived and got him in the rescue device, but the guy didn’t make it.

                Mask definitely helped, but compressions are more important than delivering air. The fentanyl overdoses I have seen or been aware of generally complicate both. Respiration is inhibited, and the muscles in the chest can become tight and resistant to compressions. This is unique to fetty, heroin doesn’t cause wooden chest like that. Mixing in meth would make that worse, as they interact to increase the wooden chest effect.

                I think Chauvin should probably be held liable for failure to render aid or for inappropriate use of force (he has even done this same thing before to a teenager, who was hospitalized; albeit the kid initially resisted. Initial force justified, probably excessive after a few minutes), but I’m inclined to believe that the death was drug related. Probably nothing that could be done, in which case we are looking at a somewhat lighter charge.

          2. I can say for a fact that the “Another One Bites The Dust” song is an acceptable cadence.

          3. Drowning in the meantime exudate? What are you talking about? You guys sure do tie yourselves in pretzels to avoid the obvious conclusion. The cop killed him by kneeling on him for 10 minutes, just like all the actual doctors said.

      3. Did the Glibertarians ban you already?

    2. I haven’t heard of any testimoney that they knew he was taking drugs. They also make dams that keep actual mouth to mouth contact from happening.
      But perhaps, they shouldn’t have let him go unconscious in the first place? Or maybe, they could have stopped once he was dead?
      Bottom line, Floyd died in part because the carelessness of the police officer. Police are not there to meet out punishment. And if they do, and the person is injured enough (or dies) the police need to suffer the consequences.
      If the police response is to kill the suspect – I don’t need the police, I can do that myself.

      1. If you feel that contact with the police is dangerous and unkind, don’t take hard drugs of unknown origin and don’t break the law. That is what I do.
        George Floyd’s never ending quest to get high kept him in contact with police regularly. This was not George Floyd’s first rodeo. He has never contributed anything to this country but unwanted crotch droppings and bodily fluids.
        Where were all these George Floyd fans when he was still alive? Surely, one of you could have taken him in? You should go out and find a “project junkie” today and pay his way. It will either make you feel better or……you may understand how frustrating it is to deal with a person that’s sole purpose is to steal enough money to buy dope.

        1. ‘You could simply avoid the police’ is not a very good answer to calls for police reform, and George Floyd being a bad person is beside the point.

          Every interaction with police *should be* impartial and presume innocence, use minimal reasonable and proportional application of force, and observe proper process jurisdiction and authorization. Obviously perfection is impossible, but officer conduct should be a reasonable approximation of this ideal. A suspects history should be a factor in preparation (known violent offenders should be approached understanding their propensity for such), but should not waive proper application of the law.

          That said, yeah, you probably shouldn’t poke the bear and you probably shouldn’t be doing drugs. The odds of a bad outcome are infinitely greater.

          *Note, I do think Floyd probably died from the drugs. The officer did not help that process and thus a charge of ‘improper use of force’ or ‘failure to render aid’ are probably warranted, but the homicide charge seems like a stretch*

        2. Wow Talcum. Unwanted crotch droppings? Do all drug afflicts deserve the death sentence or was Floyd special? What’s wrong with you

    3. You could still do chest compressions until the paramedics get there with bags and O2.

      1. Chest compressions are the most important part. Learning how to do proper chest compressions and when to apply them is probably the minimum everyone should know.

  3. Another day, another article by the schmucks.

    1. Nice article…odd how he finally mentions the other side during an examination.

  4. Chauvin will be found guilty. Of what, is the question. It isn’t intentional murder, but manslaughter is definitely a probability.

    1. The important question is what brand of shoes should I loot to fight for social justice and an end to anti-Black racism in America?

      1. To repeat, no one has ever looted a pair of workboots.

    2. I’d go with third-degree murder, which is murder with a depraved heart, in this case Chauvin’s indifference while he was killing a man.

      1. Depraved heart murder requires a high probability of an action resulting in death and a subjective awareness of this high probability by the killer. Both of those elements are in extreme doubt and that’s what the defense witnesses are getting at.

        Strangely, second-degree murder is actually a better fit here, since in Minnesota, that only requires proving intent to commit felony assault. But really, this has always an open and shut manslaughter case. We can debate whether it’s voluntary or involuntary.

        1. Maybe. Depends on if Floyd swallowed a baggy, which I haven’t seen noted in any autopsies. If he did, then drugs got him and it becomes failure to render aid and improper use of force. If he didn’t, manslaughter is pretty easy to convict on. Maybe even voluntary, given the fact that Chauvin has injured multiple people with this exact move.

        2. Strangely, second-degree murder is actually a better fit here, since in Minnesota, that only requires proving intent to commit felony assault.

          Proving intent to commit assault is a pretty tall order when there’s been some testimony that Chauvin would have been within authority to use a taser, which is not a non-lethal weapon.

          I think 2nd degree manslaughter fits best- 609.205(1):

          A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:

          (1) by the person’s culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another

          Chauvin’s actions created risk, but I don’t see that it was consciously taking the chance of causing death or great bodily harm. It would then be up to the jury to decide if he was negligent (seems like it) and created *unreasonable* risk (debatable).


    BREAKING: Medical expert debunks ‘blood choke’ theory. Chauvin’s knee did not block one carotid artery, or even both, as the hold would require.

    1. So you finally found someone whose opinion you liked and are going to ignore everyone else?

      1. You mean ignoring the Chief of Police and the supervisors who crafted the very procedures that killed Floyd?
        Those fuckers should have been in the dock too. Instead they were on the witness stand earning plaudits from you and Sullum. You stupid assholes.

    2. They suffocated him.

  6. “But for much of the time, the bystanders were simply watching the encounter and recording it on their cellphones.”

    Silence is violence. That was a riot.

  7. A useful example of police defenders: Nothing the police do is ever their fault.

    1. Were you fucking asleep when the most of the commentariat condemned the cop who killed Ashli Babbit? How about the cops who colandered that poor UPS driver’s van in Miami? Or the cops who killed Atatiana Johnson? Or the ones who killed Kathryn Johnston? Or who killed Rhogena Nichols and Dennis Tuttle?

      Fuck off, troll.

      1. This

      2. Chauvin too. And the lady cop who shot Wright.
        But one can condemn them and simultaneously recognize that there isn’t evidence of murder, and simply echoing the Establishment desire for an unjust lynching is not healthy for liberty.

        1. Absolving cops from any/all consequences/responsibility/liability for in custody deaths in the absence of a criminal conviction is equally unhealthy for liberty.

          1. No, dumbass, convicting them of something they arent guilty of is much worse for liberty

            1. I would say that probably is not correct lol. Just thinking about it entirely outside of this case, an officer who habitually violates rights and injures people causes more widespread liberty harm than an officer wrongly convicted. In theory we should err on the side of over convicting the state and under convicting the people, if liberty and tyranny are at question.

              1. I sort of agree with this. Police should be held to a higher standard of behavior. You want that power, you bear the full consequences if you abuse it. But I wouldn’t say that justifies convicting them for crimes they didn’t actually commit. What needs to happen is to make it easier to punish and fire police who go overboard, even when there isn’t a high profile death involved.

          2. There’s a massive spectrum between complete absolution and second-degree murder. It includes manslaughter, which is what the cop who killed Daunte Wright was (correctly) charged with. And which Chauvin should have been charged with.

            1. He was. There are three charges. Unintentional second degree murder, third degree murder, and second degree manslaughter.


    BREAKING: Testimony form a medical expert concludes George Floyd died from sudden cardiac arrhythmia due to heart disease and drugs.

    1. “George Floyd died from sudden cardiac arrhythmia due to heart disease and drugs”.
      That is way to difficult to chant repeatedly or fit on a t-shirt. For the sake of brevity, can we just go with, “I can’t breathe”?

      1. It’s also complete nonsense, so there’s that.

  9. Sullum deserves to be trampled to death by a gaggle of wild rioters.

    1. Just for saying bad things about a cop? Yeah ok.

  10. “That was one of several eyebrow-raising claims made by Barry Brodd”

    When it’s a equally culpable prosecution witnesses covering their own asses (city’s police chief, supervisors, and use-of-force ‘experts’), Sullum finds their testimonies irreproachable.
    But when an uninvolved defense witness contradicts the narrative, suddenly it’s all “eyebrow-raising claims”.

    There’s a word for Journo-Lists like Sullum.

    It just infuriates me how the mayor, police chief, supervisors, etc. are all going to walk away scot-free, and nobody’s going to hold them to account because they helped lynch a cheap thug who really was following their procedures.
    An it’s sickening how dishonest bastards like Sullum helped.

    1. You can add the civic leaders of Kenosha to that list, Mothers’. Since the guy who plugged the knife-wielding Blake went back to work today.

      The dance floor is empty, the music’s blaring, but the Right doesn’t want to dance yet.

    2. They’re eyebrow raising claims because they’re patently absurd, not because of who made them. I don’t know how it’s not perjury to claim he couldn’t feel pain and had superhuman strength, that’s not how drugs work when someone is still awake and not displaying psychosis.

      And 3 people pinning someone to the ground isn’t force? Come on.

      1. It’s not perjury because it’s an opinion. An absurd opinion.

      2. There’s nothing absurd about what he said. I disagree with his conclusion, but it’s nevertheless rational and logical.

        Also, Sullum fiddled with the quote. The bolded part is courtesy NPR, and rectifies what Sullum altered:
        If the officer is justified in using the prone control, the maintaining of the prone control is not a use of force. It’s a control technique.
        It doesn’t hurt. You’ve put the suspect in a position where it’s safe for you, the officer, safe for them, the suspect, and you’re using minimal effort to keep them on the ground.”

      3. Yes the absurd claim really undermines the whole defense. It seems the witness was not properly prepared by defense attorneys. It makes them look like they are grasping at straws.

        “Resting comfortably”

        The jury is going to remember that.

    3. If someone told me that kneeling on another persons back for 9 minutes wasn’t a use of force (justified or otherwise), I’d be inclined to raise my eyebrow at such ridiculousness.

      I can’t really say on the other stuff cause I didn’t really read the article.

      1. The soundbite that “it’s not force” is absurd. However, the full sentence was “It’s not force, it’s a control technique”. Though the phrasing is awkward, it makes sense.

        I cannot stand being lied to, and the reporting on this trial has been one step short of full out fabrication this entire time.

      2. Actually the common sense approach beginning with the video we all saw is the best evidence. Once you have seen that you can’t unsee it.

        The defense is trying to convince us that we were watching a simultaneous heart attack and drug overdose.

        The Wizard of Oz defense. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

  11. Brodd was crushed on cross examination.

    Then, however, Nelson’s direct questioning of Brodd opened a huge target of attack for the prosecution, when Brodd testified that he didn’t consider prone restraint to be a form of use-of-force.

    At. All.

    Folks, that’s simply not a reasonable use of the concept of force. It is common police practice to describe even mere physical presence or verbal commands as a form of force. Certainly anything involving the laying on of hands by an officer on a suspect is going to be considered a use of physical force.

    Going hands on may not be a lot of force. It may be just minimal force. Maybe even the most minimal force imaginable.

    But definitely force. Certainly not non-force.

    The difficulty of describing prone restraint as zero force is that, first, it seems preposterous on its face, but second, it suggests that in that case only zero force was justified under the circumstances. When the preposterousness is exposed, however, and the actual use of force revealed, then even the most minimal force appears unjustified under the circumstances.

  12. Barry Brodd was a cop. Therefore, he is a liar.

  13. Defend the police? But what will replace them?
    An unaccountable federal paramilitary that will enforce the will of the Global Socialist Party.

  14. My last month’s online job to earn extra dollars every month just by doing work for maximum 2 to 3 hrs a day. I have. joined this job about 3 months ago and in my first month i have made $12k+ easily without any special online experience. Everybody on this earth can get this job today and start making cash online by just follow details on this website………

  15. A person having underlying weakness doesn’t excuse a murderer from guilt.

    If Floyd was killed by the negligence of Chauvin while being officially taken into custody, it would have been negligence.

    But once Floyd was initially handcuffed, he was already in custody. He was killed in an intentional act of unnecessary and excessive force.

    1. Handcuffs do not make one “in custody”. They certainly don’t stop someone from fighting. Have you even seen the video? Putting him in a hold was quite reasonable given the situation. Calling the initial hold unnecessary or excessive is willful ignorance.

      On the other hand, I will agree with you on the negligence angle.

  16. Drugs give you superhuman strength? Which ones, I want to get some of those.

    1. Have you heard of hysterical strength, like a mother lifting a car off her child? The human body can release a huge amount of force if you don’t care about damaging yourself.

      Cocaine and Meth both have the effect of eliminating pain. On drugs, you can push your body to its absolute limits, exerting self-destructive force. They won’t care if they break their fingers punching you, they will keep coming. They don’t care if tendons snap. They keep coming. A drugged out man in rage can take a bullet and not even feel it, only stopping when his body physically can’t go on.

      1. Strength cannot by definition be superhuman.

      2. This is irrelevant to this case. George Floyd obviously was not exerting hysterical strength, and due to both his medical condition and an opiate OD was probably incapable of even exerting normal strength through the whole affair. The only apparent hysteria was the cops who interpreted a panic attack and struggling to breathe as “resistance”, forced him into a position that makes breathing more difficult, added to that with pressure on his back, and held that position after he passed out and even after his pulse stopped.

        Which is not to say that Chauvin can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of anything but stupidly following his training and police procedures…

  17. Here’s an idea. Next time a suspect under the influence resists arrest, the staff at Reason can be called in to bring him under control. I am sure a quick recitation of the Non-Aggression Principle will cause said suspect to see the light and cooperate with the lawful orders of officers.

    So let’s see the Reason staff step forward and volunteer. Should make a great online video!

    1. Awesome idea. Actually there is a video out there of a civil rights activist who changed his tune after going through a use of force exercise.


    JUST IN – Chauvin’s defense just got the prosecution’s expert Dr. Tobin to testify #GeorgeFloyd had 98% oxygen saturation in his lung after death. A normal level of oxygen is usually 95% or higher.

  19. Of course he was restraining him with force. Was it deadly force?

    I’m surprised the defense didn’t have Chauvin demonstrate the restraint on someone in the court and see if they live.

  20. Well, I don’t know what to think. I hope the jury comes to the right conclusion.

  21. In the Courtspeak jargon of folks who work in and around the courts decade after decade, these “expert witnesses” are respectfully referred to as whores.

  22. I don’t know guys I was under the impression this was a libertarian magazine and yet most of the comments seem to be defending police because the person arrested, and killed!, used drugs.

    Whatever happened to legalize drugs and fuck the police? Not saying I was ever 100% there but I was somewhat there, and I thought most of the people here would be.

  23. The defense is just throwing all kinds of random crap out there to create confusion.

  24. Get Best qoutes and status , shayari etc.
    Saheli status

  25. Paid experts, for either side, are just that paid experts, they will find for the people paying them. I am never impressed by a paid expert.

  26. Paid experts, for either side, are just that… paid experts, they will find for the people paying them. I am never impressed by a paid expert.

  27. Mahadev Bhkt Today We Here With Super Smooth And High Quality Mahadev Ringtones That’s Give You More Peaceful Mind & Groovy Feeling to Get Aything in Life With Mahadev Devotion

  28. Mahadev Ringtones Download 2021
    Best Mahadev Mp3 Ringtones Download And Satisfy Your Feeling About Mahadev Devotion

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.