Wednesday, June 03, 2020


We go where others, writers of less ability and courage, fear to tread. You, loyal readers, expect no less. 

The increase of charges against  Derek Chauvin,  and the announcement of charges against three other former officers- Thomas Lane, Tou Thao, and Andrew Kueng,  has the potential to turn this case into a national lynching. And we know exactly the sensitivity that term evokes in African Americans. We use it for a reason. First, we choose our words carefully (except the other day when we said the criminal court was closed and it wasn't. Our mistake for the year). The case has the potential to turn into a national lynching. It is not one yet. 

Lynching denotes the illegal killing of a human being based on his or her race with little regard to their innocence or proportionality to the crime. Black men in the south were lynched for as little as supposedly leering at a white woman. It was a mob mentality. Mob rule. Mob punishment. Mobs demanding immediate justice for a perceived crime- due process be damned. Anything ringing a bell? 

Four men are going to be prosecuted, three ostensibly because mobs are demanding it. After a week of rioting, billions in damage, a country torn asunder, can anyone have faith in the decision of a prosecutor to bring charges against the three police officers who did not touch George Lloyd? Maybe they are culpable. Maybe they are not. But charges are being brought because the mob demands it, and this is not acceptable. Ever. 

As to Chauvin,  Minesotta Attorney General Keith Ellison has announced his office is  increasing the charges filed by the local prosecuor to second degree murder. When has that ever occurred before? Sound like mob rule to us. 

We are do ourselves as a nation  no favours by giving into the passions, prejudices, anger and resentment exhibited by the protestors. In America, two wrongs do not make a right. There are more than a hundred years of law enforcement brutality against people of colour without justice being done. Police shoot and kill people of colour and get away with it. Black parents have to tell their children, especially their sons, how to handle themseleves when in a car pulled over by the police, because they have a very real fear their child will be beaten or murdered. You do not need us to recount the abuses of a century and more of racism.

We are speaking about the operation of the criminal justice system. 
What jury in this country will not have heard of this case? What jury will not feel the pressure to convict? Can you imagine the fear of mob reprisals if a jury acquits one of the officers ? Must these men be sacrificed for a system they did not create and for crimes in the past they did not commit? 

In this country Jews defend Nazi war criminals. And African Americans defend racists. Lawyers of all faiths and colour defended terrorists accused of plotting to destroy our country. It is what we do. The FACDL proclaims to be the last line of defense. Lawyers like the great Albert Krieger, who recently passed away, relished walking into a courtroom to defend someone no one else would defend. This is what we do because we know our actions do not connotate agreement with the crime, but a defense of the Constitution and the principles it embodies that protects us all. 

So we rise to speak for the unspeakable. And to defend the un-defendable. To accuse the prosecutors in Minnesotta of bowing to the pressures of the mob. Of not having the courage to seek justice. Of only trying to molify a people rightfully angry. 

Of forgetting the basic principle that two wrongs do not make a right. 
The defense does not rest. We never rest. We have only just begun to fight. 



You wrote, "Four men are going to be prosecuted, three ostensibly because mobs are demanding it." You were once a prosecutor. You know the rules: follow the facts, read the law, and charge appropriately. You make it sound like there are no facts that justify charging the other officers. Maybe you missed the video and photos showing at least two of those other three officers also placing their body weight on top of Floyd. And the third officer standing immediately above them looking on. You have the right to believe that the ONLY reason that these three officers were charged was because of what is going on in our country right now and because the "mobs are demanding it". One could also look at the FACTS of this case and determine otherwise based on the LAW as it is written in Minnesota.

Floyd said he couldn't breath. He begged for life. At some point he even passed out. All four officers continued with your actions for nearly nine minutes. None of them took any affirmative steps to make any attempt to get Chauvin to remove his knee from the neck of Floyd.

Let's flip the facts. Civilian is on the ground. Four black men are now the assailants. One has his knee on the neck of the civilian. Two are also pressing their body weight on the civilian and doing nothing to stop the first from taking his knee off the neck of the civilian. The fourth assailant is standing watch immediately next to the other three assailants. Nobody would question the DA (ASA) charging all four assailants with crimes in that situation. It happens every day in every city across our country.

AG Ellison does not perform a second wrong here - he charges a crime based on the facts and what he believes he can prove.


Cap Out .....

Anonymous said...

Do you think you could honestly say that you would presume any of them innocent if you were asked to sit on the jury?
As much as I understand and agree with your post and I know the strong burdens that should be needed to overcome presumption, I don't think I could do it.
Especially for the first guy.

Rumpole said...

I haven't seen the video. No reason to. What I know is that in 40+ years of criminal defense I have never seen one prosecutor's office raise the charge filed by another prosecutor's office. I also know that the charges against the other three officers were announced after Senator Klobuchar (D, screeches a lot) met with the Minnesota AG. Something is rotten in the State of Minnesota.
I know that one prosecutor's office looked at the case and charged one defendant. The nation went up in flames and now three others are charged. I cannot feel comfortable about that. I refuse to join the Mob-train that we rectify all the problems with police brutality with these four men. On the other hand, some of us are more committed to due process of law and justice being blind that others. Some pander to the mob and some stand alone for what is right. You are in good company with millions of people anguished about what occurred. And when they decide to storm the courthouse and do away with the trial because we have all seen the video, you can tie one of the nooses- thirteen twists by tradition.

Anonymous said...

While the Captain is correct, there is ample PC for the charges against the cops, especially for the 2 cops who had their knees on Mr. Floyd's back, the real reason they were charged was to placate the mod and stop The riots

Anonymous said...

"None of them took any affirmative steps to make any attempt to get Chauvin to remove his knee from the neck of Floyd."

"Lane asked, "should we roll him on his side?" and the defendant said,"No, staying put where we got him." Officer Lane said," I am worried about excited delirium or whatever." The defendant said,"That's why we
have him on his stomach." "

Doesnt exactly make lane a hero, but it will be tough to convict him...


I am not addressing the upcharge in this case against Chauvin; I am addressing your other point about whether the charges against the other three officers was fact based or simply done to appease the mob.

Watch the video and stop dribbling on with your allegations that the charges against the three other officers was totally motivated by the 'mobs who were demanding it'. And read the law in Minnesota on Aiding and Abetting which states that: "a person is criminally liable for a crime committed by another if the person intentionally aids ..... with or otherwise procures the other to commit the crime."

You call it pandering to the mob - you have the right to your opinion. I call it following the facts - watch the video. I am not in the company of anyone who would lynch these three officers - with "13 twists". I'll trust the attorneys for both the State and the Defense to duke it out in court and let the jury decide.

Oh, and as for whether charging these four officers will "rectify all of the problems with police brutality" in our country, we both know that will not happen. We are, sadly, a long way from the day when "black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

Cap Out .....

Anonymous said...

"never seen one prosecutor's office raise the filed charge..." I seem to recall here in Fla. a few years back when the SAO in a mid-state Circuit hadn't filed a criminal case against a so called security person who shot and killed an individual the then Governor appointed SA Cory to handle the case which was thereafter filed, and then tried which was lost at trial. All of the officers are criminally culpable, whether a conviction will be obtained remains to be seen as it'll be a jury question. This case was filed as it should have been the other (not knowing all the facts) I'm not so sure. Thanks SAO5

Rumpole said...

We are not free at last. The optics of charging these other officers stinks especially after a senator visited the AG.
You tell me where in the USA they get an impartial jury?
You tell me that politics is not influencing this.
And then you tell me that they have a chance in hell of being acquitted. John Hinkley shot President Reagan on TV and there was video and he was found NG by insanity. SO to me my opinions are not influenced in the least by the video. Because their actions are beside the point when the mob is calling for their blood.

Anonymous said...

"Under Minnesota law, a person is criminally liable for a crime committed by another person if "the person intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures the other to commit the crime." Minn.Stat. § 609.05, subd. 1 (2006). To convict a defendant of aiding and abetting, the state must prove that the defendant played a knowing role in the commission of the crime. Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465, 477 (Minn. 2004). Mere presence at the scene of a crime does not, by itself, prove liability for the crime of another because "[i]naction, knowledge, or passive acquiescence [] do not rise to the level" of criminal culpability. State v. Russell, 503 N.W.2d 110, 114 (Minn. 1993). "To impose liability under the statute, the state must show that the defendant encouraged the principal to take a course of action which he might not otherwise have taken." Id. (quotation omitted)."

Inaction is not enough. There is no known evidence the 3 officers encouraged chauvin to kneel on floyds neck at all, let alone for 8 minutes. And one of the officers suggested floyd be rolled onto his side.

I understand 2 of the other 3 kneeled on floyd for a short period of time when he initially went to the ground, but not his neck. And they didnt keep kneeling on him as chauvin did, after it was clear floyd was not resisting.

The relevant "course of action" is chauvin kneeling on floyds neck beyond the initial takedown and securing compliance, to the tune of 8 minutes. No one encouraged chauvin to do this. The other cops passively acquiesced. They chose not to act. They may have even *known* chauvin was committing murder. But that is not enough.

The other cops are cowards, and are morally culpable for floyds deaths. But my reading is it isnt enough to convict them.

Lets see if any further facts come out in the complaints. Maybe all 3 of the other cops said something encouraging. But i doubt it. If they had, they would have been charged initially along with chauvin.

Maybe the state is going to argue the officer who stood guard took action to encourage the crime? Possibly but he was therefore faced away from chauvin and floyd. Even if that is enough for that officer, you still need some type of actual encouragement by the other 2.

Anonymous said...

If you really "haven't seen the video," which I have a hard time with, but let's leave that for now, then you are in no position to judge whether any of the filing decisions is appropriate.

Anonymous said...

Really!? You haven’t seen the video and you’re talking this shit? Frankly, the charge would be first degree murder in Florida and properly so. The man slow strangled a handcuffed George Floyd while 2 others held him and another protected him from outraged civilians. Floyd and the witnesses told the cops that the strangulation was leading to death and the cops didn’t give a shit. Don’t be ignorant, watch the video and then come up with a defense. At least 2 of the murderers deserve life and only one, the recent Minnesota grad who had the bad luck of being placed under Chauvins supervision, should be given any quarter. These “men” are responsible not only for George Floyd’s death but also for the societal consequences of their heinous crime.

Anonymous said...


I have seen the videos. I have seen many videos in forensic work.

There are several of this Minnesota murder.

Admittedly I vehemently take issue with the assertion that former 3 officers were silent.

Thomas Lane, and J. Alexander both helped restrain Mr. Floyd.

There have been statements that the 3 former officers stood by silently. False.

Former law enforcement officer Tou Thao stood near the other former officers.

Perhaps a surreptitious expedient execution death protocol is currently in place for possible passing of fake $20.00 dollar bill during a pandemic? I have eh never received fake US Currency as a defense attorney. Video from store shows Floyd sitting against the wall; being yanked up while handcuffed in the back (hard way to rise).

One such perniciously defined "silent" former law enforcement officer told the female paramedic to shut up. He acerbically inquired if she thought she was some kind of EMT to which she replied that she was a paramedic. The exchange means there was reflection and executive functioning (decision making function in the frontal lobe of brain) and reflective thought about what was occurring.

One "silent" former officer threatened a verbally critical male on tape. The male by-stander was simply a concerned person. The concerned unidentified male bystander said "you are killing him...he cant breathe...he is not resisting.." and was rewarded with a serious sardonic threat of arrest by the 'silent' former officer. The "silent" former officer was charging the concerned male bystander at the time- screaming at the bystander that if he (bystander) "got closer or interfered or touched a law enforcement officer (as the leo was aggressively pushing his body toward the male bystander) the citizen would be arrested with touching/striking a law enforcement officer."

The caustic rejection of important life saving information gave more than sufficient time to reflect on killing Floyd. These former officers had so much time to reflect. The people who were not interfering but giving accurate calm advice about the condition of Mr. Floyd that I imagine- if the citizens testify consistently with the tape recordings and audio that I listened to and saw- this may be a challenging trial.

That is what we do though, isn't it?

What are the chances that a paramedic would be a witness-in real time- while being present to educate and inform former law enforcement offices(s): Mr.Chauvin, who had his knee on the neck of Floyd, and the 3 other former officers who were not simply silent; not merely present, and certainly were NOT uninvolved bystanders without a sworn legal duty to PREVENT a crime from occurring in their presence. That should be main point of prosecution: the duty to PREVENT A CRIME FROM OCCURRING IN THEIR PRESENCE regardless of who is committing the crime.

The amount of time that it takes to reflect and form the intent to kill varies but there is not a jurisdiction which fixes a specific amount of time. The defense is a well worn path treacherous as it may be in 2020. This was not a shooting. In Florida if it was a penalty case this could or might be considered HAC.

Despite the content here- these former officers are presumed innocent. I would easily represent the accused.

Anonymous RZR

Anonymous said...

The optics of this case isn't a reaction to rioting or a conversation between a Senator and AG - it's four police officers deciding they were going to be the judge and jury. The real optics is the audacity of these idiots, who in spite of realizing they were being filmed and many individuals asking them to stop, proceeded for 8 minutes and 46 seconds to kill a man begging for his life. My only question is which one(s) will take a deal.

Anonymous said...

Lane and the guy who just stood there shouldn't have been charged. And given that the 4th defendant obv. heard Lane's comments and Chauvin's reply it's tough to say he's guilty either. Chauvin was the senior supervising officer on the scene and that ought to carry weight as well.

All irrelevant because they will all be convicted because jurors understand the emotions behind the case and they know which side the media is on... their names would leak in the event of acquittal and they know there would be a death threats to them and their family/children and a total upending of their life, or perhaps the ending of their life.

Maybe they will bond out and dip. They have zero chance to get a fair trial and will be maxed at sentencing.

Anonymous said...

Rumpole, you're part of the problem. The Captain is spot on. The mob may be calling for blood but the actions of the prosecutor are correct. He did his job, now you need to do yours.

Rumpole said...

I have not seen the video because I do not watch TMZ and channel 7. I mostly do not watch TV at all. I read the NY Times and Washington Post and Wall Street Journal and London Times and LeMonde on my Kindle which does not support video links.
And the point you people cannot see is the video is not relevant to the discussion of the Mob mentality.
BUT- you respond- the video shows proof of guilt as to why all these officers should be charged and the charges raised. You just do not get it Rumpole.

I get it more than you will ever realize.
These officers were not charged because of the video. If you think that, you are dreaming. They were charged because the nation was burning and the mob demanded it. It is the same reason why- other than hiring me and Mr. Markus- they will be convicted.
And the reason why that does not scare the people posting on this blog is because their ox is not gored. It is ok for them that the mob makes the decisions as long as they agree with the decisions. But may I remind you all that we have a president of the United States who supports white supremacists. And he may well win reelection- and I ask you this- are you comfortable with the rules THAT MOB will demand when Trump is reelected?

That is what is at issue here. And apparently it is my job to help the blind see.

Anonymous said...

Bravo Rump. We would disagree on nearly every political problem and certainly every solution, but I stand with you here.

It's akin to former civil rights groups like the ACLU now advocating for less due process for male college students accused of sexual crimes.

Anonymous said...

Lamentably, the mob is correct. They might have surmised that because the murderers were cops the fix would immediately be set in motion. You know, the endless investigation, the manipulation of evidence, the absurd inferences not made in any other case. The playbook. Thou served as protector and lookout to 2 men who held a man down while another strangled him for 8 1/2 minutes. Any idiot, much less a policeman, knows that applying the weight of a human body on a neck for 8 1/2 minutes will kill. Fortunately the mob is not sophisticated enough to recognize that the case was undercharged.

Anonymous said...

Rump. Me thinks you are either a fool or a liar to state you have not seen the video. How can you be so ignorant to comment on evidence that you allege you have not seen. Would not one be curious to see the video about which most of America and the world has viewed. If you were in federal court you would be convicted because of the "willfull blindness" instruction. I am disappointed in you.

Anonymous said...

The leaders of the legal community are silent. Shumie? Went deep. Q? Not speaking. The Easy Big E-retired to Penobscot Isle, Maine, where he spends his days doing water colors of water fowl.

Anonymous said...

The police officers were charged because of the video. They were charged so quickly
because of the mob mentality. Rumpole often says that if readers think his blog has lost credibility, they should go elsewhere. Rumpole, you have lost credibility. John Mortimer has rolled over in his grave. I'm out.

Rumpole said...

not going to miss you one bit

Pageviews today
Pageviews yesterday
Pageviews last month
Pageviews all time history
Manage tracking your own pageviews

Anonymous said...

If you compare the records and results of trump vs biden it seems Biden is the racist. Mr super predator crime bill..obama is the first clean articulate black politician..his support for segregation in schools...u ain't black unless u vote for me...cant go to 7 11 unless u speak Hindi..and on and on...trump will win..it won't be close.. start barking at the moon now for practice

Anonymous said...

Rump: If you choose to commit a crime with your face showing complete disregard for a dying man, with your hand in one pocket, your knee on his neck, listening to people screaming that he cannot breathe and is dying, with a cold, disinterested gaze, you deserve what you get. You are too good a trial lawyer to not understand that some folks just make their own bed. . . .

Anonymous said...

"has the potential to turn this case into a national lynching." A LYNCHING?? Your time is UP.

You're more than old enough to understand the history of lynching, yet in your post you white-wash the history of lynching to facilitate your racist comparison. You have the disgusting audacity to compare what was the JUST and RIGHTEOUS charging decision made in this case by a governing body with the protections of due process and the US Constitution to the UNJUST ILLEGAL vigilante hunting and murdering of countless black people who didn't get AN OUNCE of the fucking benefit these murderers are getting. That is unconscionable and racist, but not unexpected from someone who enjoys the constant privilege of being white. On top of that, you make this comparison without watching the video of the murder itself? What's wrong? You afraid of facing reality?

Let me ask you: did anyone LYNCH these murderers? is anyone petitioning their representatives to kill these men in a public square with no trial? is anyone demanding vigilante justice? Makes you wonder why you made the comparison.

I bet you think rioters should go to jail too. I bet you think the economic damage created by these demonstrations are "too severe" for the death of a single black man. I bet you're enjoying all the little PR stunts being pulled by police departments across the country. I bet you've tasted some boots around here.

You don't think the US should "give in" to the protesters demands for racial equity, for defunding the police, for voting in progressive prosecutors, for eliminating cash bail, for REFORMING the system you work in? I wonder if that's because after all these years of being a "criminal defense attorney", all you've ever seen in those human beings was a dollar sign.

You know what I don't see in your blog posts? SOLIDARITY with the Black community. SOLIDARITY with those abused by this system. In your last post you thank KFR, of all people, for dismissing charges against the journalist but are noticeably quiet about condemning the police who arrested the journalist in the first place.

You are part of the problem. I would say it's time for you to seriously pick up a book on white privilege and confront your racism but you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Rumpole said...

Ah, finally the indigent outrage to the lynching comment. I have been waiting. First, my dear ignorant reader, just how do you know what race I am?
Second, I explained that I had a complete understanding of the sensitivity of the use of the word. Any more writing was not necessary to anyone other than the dim witted. (If the dunce cap fits...).

Second, defunding the police is as ignorant as it sounds. The next time your car is stolen, or someone shoots and kills your spouse, just who should handle that my radical amigo?

Third- just how much about my business and what I charge, and whom I represent for free, do you know about? Do not tell me what I see in a human being. I see more humanity in them then you will ever see with your eyes blinded in rage.

Do I think rioters as opposed to protestors should go to jail? You betcha- if convicted. As I wrote in a prior post, when the McDuffie riots occurred and many small businesses were looted and burned by rioters, people-black and white- lost their life savings. Almost forty years later most of those businesses have not returned. I represented many of them in trying to get something from some insurance company. And I did it for free. Not that I have to justify myself to you.

You do not know the system I work in. You know the system. I work against it- not in it. You do not know who I support- progressive prosecutors or otherwise- but I guarantee you this- there isn't a credible candidate who is a progressive prosecutor who believes in defunding the police or not prosecuting people who burn and destroy innocent businesses.

Cashless bond- you bet I'm for it. And I've done more in more jurisdictions to get those laws enacted then I surmise you have with your radical trash burn it all down nonsense.

Those charging decisions may be just and righteous- but they were made at the point of proverbial gun. That is fine with you because you like the decision. Your ox is not gored (not sure you understand that concept, but so be it).

But when Trump wins reelection and white supremacists demand changes that he agrees to- then tell me if you are happy with rioting and trashing innocent businesses when those terrorists go into the communities of color and blow up businesses and start literally lynching people- or as they did in Charlotte driving their car into them. Then tell me the mob rule is righteous and just. But when you say that, be sure you're hiding because if they find you they are going to string you up right next to me (but they have to find me first).

Anonymous said...

703 and 816 you are both deluded, just in slightly different ways.

Anonymous said...


What is more delicious?

Mutton Snapper or Hog Snapper?

Anonymous said...

Repealing the doctrine of qualified immunity would do a great deal to curb police abuses.

Anonymous said...

A 75 year old man in Buffalo approaches police to try to return a police helmet. He is knocked to the ground by a police officer and is left bleeding and unconscious. Another officer attempts to assist him and is pushed away by the same officer. The elderly man is assisted by medics nearby and taken to the hospital where he remains in serious but stable condition. The video has been viewed worldwide and you can bet the public will again be outraged. This officer will be fired and eventually charged. If the gentleman should pass I would expect the public will demand a manslaughter charge or worse. Same story, same video and same outcome. Kudos to everyone with a cell phone and f@*k all these criminal thug cops.

Kissimmee Kid said...

Dear Thursday, June 04, 2020 11:30:00 AM;

In my job I have been required to closely examine the circumstances of violent death. I have watched autopsies, handled murder weapons, viewed crime scene photos, and poured over surveillance videos. I have seen death. I don't need to watch murder porn. When the Floyd video comes on, I turn away. I have no interest in watching a man die. It is not something I want to see.

If I am hired to defend a person unlucky enough to be accused of a crime, I will look at all the evidence. If it is someone else's case, let them have it.

If I won't watch the end of Mr. Floyd's life, I can understand why our host won't either.

I remain, sincerely yours,


Anonymous said...

RUmpole’s stock warnings were completely wrong! We got fucked.

Rumpole said...

You are thinking short term my friend. Google bear rally. After the stock market collapse in 1929 the market rallied 50% before bottoming out.

Let me give you some things to think about.
Small business is the backbone of the US. Many businesses cannot reopen.
The increase in employment numbers today is entirely predictable. As the country reopens, the businesses that did not fail have rehired their employees. This is a one time bump.
The 600/week unemployment bonus runs out the end of July.

You tell me how AMC movies, American Airlines, Carnival cruises, Disney Theme parks, any restaurant, any casino, any sporting venue makes money serving 50% of the people they used to with the social distancing restrictions. I do not see it. Hotels can still fill every room. But people need to get there. Restaurants cannot return to full capacity without a vaccination.

We are on a precipice here. If we do not get a second wave in the fall, and if we get a vaccination in 2021, then we may well have a V shaped recovery. You want to risk your family's future on that? Go right ahead. I am 95% cash and the 5% I have working is in bear funds. I am buying more today.

Once again- google a Bear rally and see if the numbers and charts do not fit into what is happening.
Kindly act accordingly.

Anonymous said...

Rump ur 930 post didn't age well lol..no one listens to ur stock advice I'm sure but if so they missed out on a lot of profits..u do know that u are allowed to buy and then to sell whenever u want?? I bought in big at abt 20k Dow..too bad for u

Rumpole said...

Bears make money. Bulls make money.
Pigs get kicked in the head.

As to buying and selling when you want. Try selling middle of March. Like Catching a falling knife. Of course there were times trading was suspended. So don’t tell me you can buy and sell when you want. You can’t. You only hope you can.

Anonymous said...

The SAO doesn’t want to investigate police abuses because to do so would call into question the validity of the criminal investigations and resulting convictions in which abusive officers were involved. It’s too much work. Much easier to find insufficient evidence to charge an abusive officer than deal with the domino effect of prosecuting one.

Anonymous said...

So it turns out that Floyd had heart disease with an enlarged heart, had arteries that were 90 percent blocked, had enough fentenal in his blood to kill a normal man, meth and thc...plus covid. That cop is gonna beat the case and then we will really see riots.