Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday August 05 2020, @02:17PM   Printer-friendly

[Editor's note: This is a follow-on to the story George Floyd Dead - Officers Fired and Charged - Discuss it Here that we ran on June 2, 2020. With 385 comments, it was the 5th-most-discussed story in the history of SoylentNews. All four of the officers involved were fired from the police force and are facing charges for the death.

New body-cam footage has come to light, exclusively on DailyMail.com. The two videos there fill in gaps from the previously-released footage.

In light of the interest when we first ran the story, the continuing "Black Lives Matter" protests, and the information this brings to light, I have decided to run this story.

NOTE: Each news organization has their own "take" on the killing. This coverage from DailyMail.com is no exception; read it with a heaping helping of the proverbial "grain of salt". It has been excerpted here without elision so as to not add any additional "spin".

WARNING: Please be aware the video content is disturbing; viewer discretion is advised. --martyb]


Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1234

Police Bodycam Footage Shows George Floyd Arrest In Detail:

WARNING: DISTURBING CONTENT. DailyMail.com has obtained video from the body cameras of two officers involved in the arrest of George Floyd that ultimately led to his death on May 25 in Minneapolis.

[...] Bodycam footage from two cops accused in the murder of George Floyd is revealed exclusively by DailyMail.com today — and it shows a rookie officer terrifying Floyd by pointing a handgun at his head and another callously picking a pebble from the squad car tire just inches from the dying man and seconds before he draws his last breath.

The tapes show in minute detail how a very distressed Floyd begs 'Mr. Officer, please don't shoot me. Please man,' before the struggle that ended with his death on May 25.

It also shows how belligerent cops cursed at and manhandled the sobbing suspect, ignoring his pleas for compassion.

Floyd resisted as the cops tried to force him into the back of the car, telling them he suffers from claustrophobia and anxiety and how Officer Derek Chauvin knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes, leading to his death, ignoring Floyd's repeated cries of 'I can't breathe.'

Floyd is even heard predicting his own death. 'I'll probably just die this way,' he says.

Transcripts from the videos were released in mid-July but a judge in Minneapolis had ruled the video could only be viewed in the courthouse, meaning few people have had the chance to watch the powerful images.

But the footage has now been leaked to DailyMail.com so the world can finally see the tragedy of Floyd's last minutes as the cops were mindless of Floyd's anguish.

The footage includes more than 18 minutes from Officer Alex Kueng's bodycam and 10 minutes from Officer Thomas Lane. They were the first two cops to arrive on the scene after a complaint that Floyd had attempted to pass a fake $20 bill to buy cigarettes at Cup Foods, a store in the Powderhorn Park section of Minneapolis.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday August 05 2020, @02:23PM (25 children)

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Wednesday August 05 2020, @02:23PM (#1031718) Journal

    That the Daily Mail CAN do real reporting. I guess they committed a crime here by filming surreptitiously against the judge's order. Notice they blurred out some time stamps or stuff in their video footage.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 05 2020, @02:38PM (24 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 05 2020, @02:38PM (#1031725) Journal

    I've entirely missed the "filming surreptitiously against the judge's order." Could you elaborate on that? The video I'm looking at here took place before any judge had anything to say about the case.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday August 05 2020, @02:48PM (23 children)

      by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Wednesday August 05 2020, @02:48PM (#1031738) Journal

      Transcripts from the videos were released in mid-July but a judge in Minneapolis had ruled the video could only be viewed in the courthouse, meaning few people have had the chance to watch the powerful images.

      But the footage has now been leaked to DailyMail.com so the world can finally see the tragedy of Floyd's last minutes as the cops were mindless of Floyd's anguish.

      Basically, the judge provided limited viewing time to the public/members of the media on courthouse laptops inside of the courthouse. You had to go there in person to watch it, maybe after filling out an application and securing a reservation. But somebody used a hidden camera to film the laptop screen. And that's the video(s) that Daily Mail published.

      Why didn't the judge just release the video files onto the internet, like has been done with plenty of bodycam footage? You be the judge.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 05 2020, @03:08PM (2 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 05 2020, @03:08PM (#1031754) Journal

        Oh-kay, that makes sense now.

        Of course, I've always had a problem with a judge's "authority" to quash much of anything. If there is video, it should be released. Gag orders always piss me off, as well. "You can't tell anyone what you know outside of this courtroom." I'm afraid I'd have to say, "Well, fuck you very much, your honor." The only time I have any real respect for such orders, is "national security". Problem with national security is, it has been stretched beyond recognition with the FISA courts.

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by dry on Wednesday August 05 2020, @03:45PM

          by dry (223) on Wednesday August 05 2020, @03:45PM (#1031783) Journal

          It's simply which rights are the most important. Here in Canada, the courts consistently consider the right to justice to be very important and means that in the interest of having a fair trial, freedom of speech can be limited.
          Personally, I'm inclined to agree as I don't like the idea of innocent people being sentenced to prison. Others would rather be able to say whatever they like even if it leads to a miscarriage of justice.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2020, @08:55PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2020, @08:55PM (#1031946)

          I'm okay with gag orders, for the duration of the trial. After the trial is over though, zero gag orders should be present, and everything should be made public record. Anything a juror saw that influenced their decision, I should be able to see as a member of the public.

      • (Score: 2) by epitaxial on Wednesday August 05 2020, @03:30PM (17 children)

        by epitaxial (3165) on Wednesday August 05 2020, @03:30PM (#1031768)

        The videos weren't released because an argument can be made that it will influence potential jurors.

        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday August 05 2020, @03:35PM

          by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Wednesday August 05 2020, @03:35PM (#1031771) Journal

          So instead the potential jurors got a number of news articles based on the notes and recollections of reporters, with their own biases, and now a shakycam version of the same video. I guess nobody should have been shown this footage until trial.

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ilPapa on Wednesday August 05 2020, @03:46PM (15 children)

          by ilPapa (2366) on Wednesday August 05 2020, @03:46PM (#1031785) Journal

          The videos weren't released because an argument can be made that it will influence potential jurors.

          That's like saying evidence shouldn't be released because it will influence potential jurors.

          --
          You are still welcome on my lawn.
          • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2020, @04:05PM (11 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2020, @04:05PM (#1031801)

            Sometimes I wonder if some people actually like to show the entire world how clueless they are...

            It is one of the fundamental pillars of the justice system that jurors should come to a verdict based on what was presented in court, and ONLY in court.

            Gag orders are temporary. Once a verdict is reached, sentence has been pronounced, and all possible appeals exhausted, then no judge has the power to withold any longer all the evidence that was presented in court, except for very few exceptions, like the identity of victims in sexual assault cases, the identity of minors, etc.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 05 2020, @04:54PM (2 children)

              by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday August 05 2020, @04:54PM (#1031816)

              >It is one of the fundamental pillars of the justice system that jurors should come to a verdict based on what was presented in court, and ONLY in court.

              If this is a fundamental pillar of the justice system, we should just throw the whole thing out then, because it's stupid and impossible. You can't prevent jurors from seeing things in the media, so if you try to eliminate jurors who have, you end up with a bunch of jurors who are embiciles or hermits of some kind. Who wants to be judged by a bunch of weirdos who have absolutely no idea what's going on in the world? This limiting of information might be workable for low-profile, local cases where the case just isn't very interesting to the media, but for anything high-profile like this, the *only* people who will be qualified to sit on the jury are people like Ted Kaczinsky.

              • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2020, @07:14PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2020, @07:14PM (#1031897)

                Imagine, for example, that the police come into my house for no reason and find marijuana, and film it, and then release the film to the media. I am arrested and charged with drug possession. But if the police searched my property without probable cause, the jury can't see that evidence at my trial. I don't worship the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. But that privacy protection is critically important. Even if you don't believe in privacy rights, I don't know anyone that thinks the police should be able to force their way into anyone's home at any time for any reason. The 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights protects against that - if the police enter your property without cause, they can't use any evidence they find. So it absolutely makes sense for courts to only admit evidence that has been legally obtained.

                Now, in this particular case that mechanism for preventing certain evidence from influence juries is being used in the exact opposite way it was originally intended. This is information that should be public - that's why police have the body cams! - and they're trying to make it private.

                • (Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Wednesday August 05 2020, @07:57PM

                  by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 05 2020, @07:57PM (#1031914) Journal

                  Maybe. I suspect ALL parties of editing the footage so that people only see the things that support the case of the one presenting the footage. I *may* be over suspicious here, but I've watched news crews on a story, and then seen what was broadcast. It was real footage, but artfully trimmed and framed. And the story it presented was NOT accurate, even though every image was from the real event. Perhaps police bodycam footage is protected against that kind of thing, but that's not what the news stories about it seem to say. They say things like "Well, the camera was off when that happened, but then we turned it on". Or, "Sorry, that camera wasn't working".

                  --
                  Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 05 2020, @05:30PM (7 children)

              by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday August 05 2020, @05:30PM (#1031838)

              I'll also add that there's no reason to have a jury in the first place. Other countries don't have them: in Europe, people aren't judged by the 12 stupidest people the attorneys could find, they're judged by a panel of professional judges, and I'd say the results are far more fair and consistent.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2020, @05:41PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2020, @05:41PM (#1031843)

                I'll take my chances with Joe Six Pack instead of some Robed Whore.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2020, @06:04PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2020, @06:04PM (#1031860)

                  May you get an all minority jury for your next hate-crime trial.

              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @12:26AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @12:26AM (#1032049)

                The jury system was one of the cornerstones of Athenian direct democracy, along with sortition for magistracies instead of elections (only ambassadors and generals were elected), and communal votes on all decisions rather than referring matters to an elected oligarchy such as a parliament for decisions. Of the original characteristic institutions of actual, textbook-definition democracy, juries are the last vestige left. What Europe falsely calls "democracy" today, meaning elected oligarchies and unelected judiciaries, is simply oligarchy dressed up.

                • (Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday August 06 2020, @02:42AM

                  by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday August 06 2020, @02:42AM (#1032097) Journal

                  Which is to say, juries work very well when a democracy is just and functioning. Same maybe said for a panel of professionals, in a tribunal, when they are a functioning profession. But when either of these are corrupted, the profession by wealth and class, or the juries by racism, demagogery, or Fox News, they work very badly, delivering the opposite of justice. Just ask Socrates. Or Dreyfus.

                  Of course, Runaway is an example of democracy not functioning. So many things he does not understand, but has strong opinions on! This is always how democracies fail, from the inside, with the elevation idiocy in place of wisdom and justice.

              • (Score: 3, Informative) by legont on Thursday August 06 2020, @01:03AM (2 children)

                by legont (4179) on Thursday August 06 2020, @01:03AM (#1032067)

                In the US nobody is judged by 12 people. By nobody I mean less than 2%.
                Another 8% have their cases dismissed so 90% of Americans go to prison on their own will.
                https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi0sYClsIXrAhVrl3IEHdm7D88QFjAFegQIDBAG&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pewresearch.org%2Ffact-tank%2F2019%2F06%2F11%2Fonly-2-of-federal-criminal-defendants-go-to-trial-and-most-who-do-are-found-guilty%2F&usg=AOvVaw30k04np1Kgvk-NuURTqulf [google.com]
                Stalin's courts envy this achievement by a wide margin.

                --
                "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @04:40PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @04:40PM (#1032326)

                  A public defender is ~300-500 (added to court fees). A cheap lawyer (handling a misdemeanor, say) ~1000-2500 per court appearance. Good expensive lawyer? Starting at 10k and going up on a steep curve. The public defender is all most can afford, so they get fucked, because their "defender" has already sold them to the prosecutor.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2020, @09:32AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 07 2020, @09:32AM (#1032803)

                    In the vast majority of states, public defenders actually get better results than private lawyers on average. Criminal stuff, and usually particular types of criminal cases, are all they do all day every day to the tune of hundreds of cases a year. Short of one of the private criminal specialists that do big dollar, high publicity, or high stakes cases, they really are your best choice. Which, when it comes down to it, shows how stacked the deck is against you as a defendant given how hobbled they are by being horribly underfunded and overworked.

          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday August 05 2020, @08:51PM (2 children)

            by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday August 05 2020, @08:51PM (#1031943) Journal

            The videos weren't released because an argument can be made that it will influence potential jurors.

            That's like saying evidence shouldn't be released because it will influence potential jurors.

            Which is like saying that the corona virus cases are up because we are testing for it too much. Do we see a conservative thought pattern here?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2020, @10:38PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 05 2020, @10:38PM (#1031994)

              No. The case is not being tried in the court of public opinion but we could have done without the criminal damage and looting. Under the circumstances, releasing this bodycam footage in May would have been the responsible thing to do. The rates to look at with covid-19 are the infection and death rates, recording asymptomatic cases is only useful for epidemiologists and as a statistical propaganda tool.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @03:21AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 06 2020, @03:21AM (#1032119)

                When it comes to civil service workers violating the law and murdering civilians it becomes a public issue. Not that the public is to pass legal judgment, but we have a right to know a lot of details about such issues. Or we could get some real oversight and transparency groups set up.

      • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday August 05 2020, @05:56PM (1 child)

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 05 2020, @05:56PM (#1031856) Journal

        The judge's ruling has no effect upon the UK company (the provided link is www.dailymail.co.uk), unless it can be proven that the Daily Mail committed an offence in the US. Receiving a leaked film is not an offence as far as I can tell, but the person leaking the films might be covered by US law however.

        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday August 05 2020, @06:57PM

          by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Wednesday August 05 2020, @06:57PM (#1031887) Journal

          Yeah, I was thinking that Daily Mail might have a U.S.-based reporter for some reason. Instead, somebody chose the Daily Mail out of all possible outlets to leak it to, or maybe the Daily Mail paid somebody to go to the courthouse and make the recording.

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]