Due Process and Illegal Aliens accused of criminal offenses

 

Due Process of Law regarding Illegals who are criminally accused

DUE PROCESS in GENERAL

“Basically, all good law is the codification of the wisdom and morality of past ages. It is never safe to deal long with a practical problem without relating it to a moral standard. A more succinct summary would be simply: order and individual liberty. Put in these terms, it is easy to recognize that these principles are frequently in conflict with each other and are never easy to reconcile.

Order has been the keynote of every organized government from the beginning of history. But our American government, while plainly designed to preserve order, made the signal contribution to history by also avowing, as a government objective, the achievement of individual liberty for its citizens.

No one needs to remind me that the statement of the objective has not created the reality. What I am seeking to do is to outline both the importance and the difficulty of the topics we deal with. The nature of liberty is easier to describe than to define. Freedom on the frontier is one thing. Freedom in a metropolis is another. In relation to the man of the frontier, liberty could almost be defined as the right to do without hindrance what one wished. In the big city, liberty can be more accurately referred to as the maximum freedom of choice consistent with the maintenance of similar freedom for the other members of society.”

(https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5366&context=jclc)

CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS

“Due process under the Fourteenth Amendment can be broken down into two categories: procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process, based on principles of “fundamental fairness,” addresses which legal procedures are required to be followed in state proceedings. Relevant issues, as discussed in detail below, include notice, opportunity for hearing, confrontation and cross-examination, discovery, basis of decision, and availability of counsel.

States have an inherent “police power” to promote public safety, health, morals, public convenience, and general prosperity, but the extent of the power may vary based on the subject matter over which it is exercised.

[In recent years] two strands of reasoning were developed [by the U.S. Supreme Court]. The first was a view advanced by Justice Field in a dissent in Munn v. Illinois, namely, that state police power is solely a power to prevent injury to the “peace, good order, morals, and health of the community.” This reasoning was adopted by the Court in Mugler v. Kansas, where, despite upholding a state alcohol regulation, the Court held that “[i]t does not at all follow that every statute enacted ostensibly for the promotion of [public health, morals or safety] is to be accepted as a legitimate exertion of the police powers of the state.” The second strand, which had been espoused by Justice Bradley in his dissent in the Slaughter-House Cases, tentatively transformed ideas embodying the social compact and natural rights into constitutionally enforceable limitations upon government. The consequence was that the states in exercising their police powers could foster only those purposes of health, morals, and safety which the Court had enumerated, and could employ only such means as would not unreasonably interfere with fundamental natural rights of liberty and property. As articulated by Justice Bradley, these rights were equated with freedom to pursue a lawful calling and to make contracts for that purpose.” (https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/04-due-process-of-law.html)

DUE PROCESS and IMMIGRATION STATUS

Despite the government’s broad power over immigration, the Supreme Court has recognized that aliens who have physically entered the United States generally come under the protective scope of the Due Process Clause, which applies “to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” (Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001); see also Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976) ( “Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.” ); Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953)

The Supreme Court, however, has suggested that the extent of due process for aliens present in the United States “may vary depending upon [the alien’s] status and circumstance.” (Zadvydas)

ILLEGAL ALIENS ACCUSED OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES

In Demore v. Kim, however, the Supreme Court in 2003 held that the mandatory detention during the pendency of formal removal proceedings of certain aliens who had committed specified crimes was constitutionally permissible. The Court observed that “Congress may make rules as to aliens that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens,” while also citing its “longstanding view that the Government may constitutionally detain deportable aliens during the limited period necessary for their removal proceedings . . . .” (id.)

Regarding immediate deportation of illegal aliens, it would seem that the same authority that permits the government to hold a criminally accused person for an extended period of time, would also permit the government not to be required to hold him at all, but rather to return him forthwith to his country of origin. This does not seem to me an unusual or unreasonable power of government.

The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence indicates that, although aliens present within the United States generally have due process protections, the extent of those constitutional protections may depend on certain factors, including whether the alien has been lawfully admitted or developed ties to the United States, and whether the alien has engaged in specified criminal activity. Therefore, even with regard to aliens present within the United States, the Court has sometimes deferred to Congress’s policy judgments that limit the ability of some classes of aliens to contest their detention or removal. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/removal-of-aliens-who-have-entered-the-united-states)

 

WHY am I writing about this now?

National news: Trump Defied the order of U.S. District judge James Boasberg by deporting two planeloads of criminal gang members.

Trump's advisers contend U.S. District Judge James Boasberg overstepped his authority by issuing an order that blocked the president from deporting about 250 alleged Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act of 1789.

I argue that the Judge Boasberg overstepped his authority based on my analysis of Due Process under these circumstances.

Here’s what Blogger Tori Branum (Mar 21, 2025) had to say, “Ever wonder what drives a federal judge to order planes full of illegal immigrants, whom are gang members such as MS13 and Tren De Aragua, to turn back? Maybe it’s because his wife runs an abortion NGO funded by USAID, and his daughter Katherine works for Partners for Justice — a group that serves legal support to those very same criminals, thanks to 76% of their cash flow coming from Uncle Sam!

This organization is like an anti-deportation cheer squad and even boasts about having knocked off 5,000 years of prison time since 2018.

So, when investigative journalist Laura Loomer started connecting these dots, the judges wife Katherine suddenly ghosted her social media accounts like linked in, faster than a bad Tinder date!

This raises a big, blinking ethical alarm. According to the U.S. Judges’ Code of Conduct, judges should recuse themselves if a close relative might benefit from their decisions. Yet here we are, with a judge whose rulings are practically aligned with his daughter’s paycheck. “

 

The ‘letter’ of the law may appear hazy (to some) under these circumstances. I do not think so. Even if you think Trump’s actions reflect a disregard for the letter of the law, do you think he violated the ‘spirit of law’?
JAS 3/2025

 

Trump Versus Political Corruption

 

Trump opposes a Federal Judge. Is 'the law' whatever a judge SAYS it is?

Once upon a time, a small village entrusted its leadership to a council of wise men. Over time, as the village grew, those wise men appointed their sons, and their friends, and their relatives, to positions of civic leadership. As time marched on, civic leadership became a sort of ‘family business’ and the people in leadership discovered ways to exploit the public trust. The members of the public were largely unaware of this exploitation, being consumed with their jobs, and their own family issues. 

 New laws were passed by the lawmakers, and judges were appointed so that eventually, the powerful elite became more wealthy and even more powerful. But even though all of this was (or should have been) obvious to the public, they could not take time from their pressing daily duties to see to problems in their government. It was comfortable, and convenient to simply let the politicians administer the affairs of state. The politicians become even better at hiding their activities. They devised ways to obscure, confuse, and misdirect the interests of the public so that their corruption remained largely hidden.

Some of the people began to become aware of the corruption and they began to complain but the politicians merely increased the deception and confusion and misdirection. It seemed like the old ways were gone forever and the people lost all respect for, and control of, their own government. The village grew into a town and then into a large city so most people just figured that was just the nature of progress. As long as the people could still have a job, enjoy the weekends, and watch wrestling and football on TV, those despicable actions of the politicians could be overlooked.

Meanwhile, a man from another town had become wealthy and influential in his own neighborhood. He chose to operate his business in a way that was more transparent, so people could see how he worked. This made him seem like a man that could help the situation in the city. He was not a perfect man, and his methods often ruffled feathers, but he got things done and when he offered to help, the people (well…most of the people) got behind him. The people (most of the people) chose this man to fix the problems of corruption, waste, and fraud.

The predictable chasm opened among the people of the city. Some people were threatened because their primary source of income and security was derived from precisely the waste, fraud and corruption of the former leadership. Others were unhappy because the new guy was upending systems and policies that employed a lot of folks and allowed them to make their boat payments and buy bigger screen TVs. Some folks kinda liked what he was doing but they were still unhappy because the new guy had an abrasive personality and some crazy impulses. He definitely was NOT the same kind of man, nor did he operate in the same way, as the old regime.

The new guy said what he was going to do, and then he did what he said he was going to do.  He did not hide, or obscure, or misdirect the attention somewhere else. When a lawmaker, or a judge was misusing their authority, the new guy called them out and held them accountable. He used the law to attack waste, fraud and corruption. When some of the former leadership was found to have abused their authority, and instead used the power of their office to enrich themselves or family, or promote a political agenda that subverted the intent of the law, the new guy opposed them directly, openly and aggressively. Some of his actions pushed the boundaries of the law and maybe even crossed the lines. But, undeniably, the new guy shook up the old system that was clearly out of control and clearly about to destroy the foundations upon which the city had been built.

Then, as now, the people are confronted with a dilemma. We must preserve the institutions that are essential for the Republic to survive and thrive. Every threat to that objective must be eliminated.

Politicians have perverted the law and our form of government by creating departments and agencies under the executive branch and delegating congressional authority to those entities.  Judges have assumed power that transcends their legitimate authority. Politicians have exploited their offices to amass incredible wealth. Every dimension of our lives is under the control of, or impacted by, government policies and decisions. Most people have come to believe that this 'status quo' IS legal and Constitutional. We do not understand how the 'letter of the law' has come to assert power over the 'spirit of the law' so, sometimes we confused when the 'law' is challenged. 

There are principles that form, and frame, the laws of the land. Those laws are ONLY presumed just and legitimate when they conform to those principles. When a law is passed that violates the founding principles, or when judges issues a decision that is outside of the scope of their authority, then that law or decision is void, notwithstanding how popular it might be. If those politicians have tried to insulate themselves and their corruption by ‘legal’ means then they must be destroyed by any means. We (the people) must be careful that we do not allow the ‘cure’ to become worse than the disease. We must support the dismantling of the oligarchy but not incorporate those means into the ‘new’ (restored) republican ideals. We must return to the founding principles and hold on to them with zeal.

If Donald J. Trump will lead in the context of both the letter AND the spirit of the law, then I support him.  If, as president, he exposes congressmen and judges who have attempted to insulate themselves with pseudo-legal posturing, I applaud him and support his efforts to dismantle that entrenched corruption. BUT…I do not support the use of tactics that violate the spirit of the republic or the constitution. I WANT Trump to come out swinging an axe, but I expect him to be prudent, judicious, and observant of his constitutional limitations.

If he can do that, he deserves our support and our assistance. I hope that on that, we can all agree.

John Sterling, MA, JD
Law and Liberty

Deepfake

 I have been teaching criminal justice course for many years. One thing I have warned about for the last 20 years or so is what is now called 'deepfake.

 
A deepfake is a video, photo, or audio recording that seems
real but has been manipulated with AI. The underlying technology can replace faces, manipulate facial expressions, synthesize faces, and synthesize speech. Deepfakes can depict someone appearing to say or do something that they in fact never said or did.

Do you remember the old movie "Wag the Dog" with Dustin Hoffman and Robert DeNiro? It came out in 1997 and was the first time the concept was introduced to the public (as far as I know). Of course it was billed as "entertainment (and it Was...entertaining)

On 16 March 2022, a deepfake appeared online of Ukranian President Zelenskyy calling on Ukrainian citizens to surrender to Russia. The video is considered to be the first use of deepfake technology in a global-scale disinformation attack. (The attack was largely deemed to have failed at its intended goal. )

Suppose you are on a jury in a high profile case and the prosecution introduces video evidence that purports to show the defendant engaged in some nefarious activity. Whether you believe the evidence depends on the confidence you have in the government's investigator's and their evidence.

I expect to see a lot more of this kind of thing. For me, who already has trust issues, I suspect everything that is presented as digital evidence. I don't trust the news, I don't trust politicians,and I am beginning to distrust what I can see with my own eyes.

In Matthew 24:24-25, we are warned "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before."

Blessings
JAS

I cannot just agree to disagree

 WARNING: Political/social commentary
I saw this survey today (below). 

Recently(post-election) I have seen several comments from people who just want the nation to be healed and WISH that people could just agree to disagree.
I GET that, and I also want the nation to be healed, but...I'm going to take another view.

 
This presidential election (2024) was different than ANY previous election in the U.S.. There were several distinguishing differences, to wit:
One candidate was not selected for the ballot through the normal primary process.
Both parties advanced candidates with a track record after having held the highest, or second-highest office in the land.
There were four years worth of metrics by which to quantify the previous performance of each candidate and the differences were more starkly contrasted than between any two presidential candidates ever in our history.
Each candidate, and the parties they represented, offered a very clear path towards achieving their party's agenda.
Neither candidate was considered a 'prime pick' by most of the voters in America.
Each party's agenda could be clearly judged as to its consistency with national history, tradition, and the U.S. Constitution.
Every voter cast their vote as a reflection of THEIR values, traditions, and their understanding of and support of the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme law of the land.

Given all of that, at the end of the day, the voters picked the ground upon which they staked their future. I believe that most voted their conscience, selecting the candidate which best reflected their values.

This is quite clarifying for me. And, also quite troubling.

As illustrated in the graph below, based upon a survey, there are people (mostly young, as this survey was done by college students) who are so committed to their beliefs and values, that they cannot, or will not seek, or try to maintain a relationship with anyone who has a strongly divergent view.

I'm OK with that. Actually, I LIKE that, in some sense, because any meaningful relationship is rooted in shared values, beliefs, goals, and experiences. In this present example, those all point the future of our country: either further away from our constitutional foundations and moral values, or returning back to those roots. Personally, I do not want to invest the emotional energy or resources to have a relationship with any person who so despises those fundamental values. This is much too important.

While I can appreciate the spirit of "let's just agree to disagree", I cannot join myself to someone I consider to be an enemy of my most sacred values and beliefs. This is not merely a disagreement about some superficial issue, or some tertiary sentiment. This division of America is central to our fundamental values. It is the core of our system of laws and governance. It is the heartbeat of our national unity-what makes us the UNITED States of America.

People who cannot support the U.S. Constitution, or America's founding principles, are not going to be part of healing America. There can be no peaceful coexistence with someone whose fundamental values are hostile to our healthy, sustainable, regeneration as a beacon of hope for the world.

I am a man of peace. I choose to try to live in peace, as much as possible with my fellow man. I am tolerant of superficial differences. But there is a line between good and evil that none of us should be willing to compromise. I am willing to fight for 'truth, justice, and the American way'.

It is my opinion that this will be the point of the spear that produces, not only civil war in America, but ultimately, World War III.

And this, my friends, is why no one invites me to parties.
JAS 2024

 

A Liberal Comments on Conspiracy Theorists

 

 I recently (11/2024) read an article on Yahoo news about dealing with friends who become 'conspiracy theorists". It was written by a liberal. He makes some good points that pertain to relationships in general, but he makes some unwarranted assumptions, I think.

The Article was written by Sean Kernan, a Yahoo creator.  He says, “I acknowledge that much of my criticism in this piece is aimed at conservative leaning folks. I’d caution my fellow liberals against being sanctimonious and condescending during these discussions, as that is how we are sometimes perceived.”

Kernan told of a friend who was a pretty smart guy but who recently got very concerned about the Covid vaccines. The friend brought up “weird” questions and Kernan said that he was bringing up “ off-the-wall ideas I’d never even heard of.” The friend was quoting as a source, a podcast by someone whom Kernan described as “extreme political ideologue”. Kernan continues, “It wasn’t even a subject that I had strong opinions on, nor that I was particularly interested in.” And yet, he concludes in advance that the friend's ideas were 'off-the-wall' and further, that he'd never even heard these ideas advanced before.

See, that is part of the problem. People hold a ‘point of view’ that is most likely not well developed, nor personally researched, and may not even be a ‘hot topic’ for them but when they hear an opposing point-of-view, it grates mightily on their perceptions of reality and they are ill-prepared to defend what they actually believe. It is easier to dismiss the other person as a conspiracy nut. And Kernan wonders he and his liberals friends sometimes perveived as 'sanctimonious'.  Go figure.

Kernan goes on with his story: “I saw him again a few months later. He mentioned the election being stolen from Trump, and that’s when I started squirming…. It didn’t seem like he was inspecting the stories behind them, doing real research or, candidly, using basic logic.”

I agree with Kernan when he makes this comment: “The gulf between us was wide.” Most people, liberals and conservatives, do not do their own research. But ‘basic logic’ applied to twisted facts will lead to twisted conclusions. If we are serious about knowing truth, we must have confidence that our sources are people of integrity; honest, diligent, and critical of their own potential bias. This is true for all of us.  Logic, applied to actual facts, MAY lead to truth, if we have enough of the facts, and if those facts are relevant and timely, and any contrary facts are not intentionally ignored (i.e. ‘cherry picking’). Even then, one might still apply logic and yet be able to defend an alternative conclusion.
  
The definition of evidence is this: “Any fact which tends to prove the truth of the matter asserted”. The starting point for our analysis is that the facts themselves must be objectively accurate and verifiable.  Then, armed with actual facts, the analyst (truth seeker) must interpret those facts objectively. If the analysis contains bias, then the interpretation becomes subjective and the conclusions probably not accurate (not truthful).
If the analyst (truth seeker) already has bias towards a certain outcome, that will lend emotional energy to the analysis process, and that will likely lead to error. It is true that while passion may follow reason, reason will not follow passion. In other words, Passion will seldom lead a seeker to truth, but reason will, and when the mind is firmly resolved (objective truth; reliable), then the heart will follow. But if someone is being led by emotion, they will lose objectivity, and their conclusions will subjective (unreliable) truth. The Bible says (Jeremiah 17:9) "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

Kernan goes on about his friend, who is becoming a conservative before his very eyes.; “It was weird to feel so confident that I was on the right side of this issue. It was also discombobulating to have someone I cared about espousing views that were borderline offensive.”  I noted that Kernan never says that he has personally researched the issues, yet he seems quite comfortable accusing his friend of not so either and yet he (Kernan) nevertheless ‘feels quite confident’ that he is right.   Doesn’t that seem like the pot calling the kettle black? Sounds like incredible hypocrisy to me. Kernan (and most liberals, it seems) are offended when their liberal (subjective) feelings are challenged by actual (objective) facts.  What is the point of trying to maintain a relationship with anyone who is terrified of the truth?

After reading the article, I would like to have had a good discussion with Sean Kernan to perhaps get some clarification and to better understand his position. I would like to have engaged with him, word-for-word, and subjected his narrative to strict critical analysis.

In closing, I remind you not to be dismayed when you find that most people are so emotionally connected to their subjective point-of view that they cannot even see their hypocrisy.  It’s nice to have ‘thinking’ friends, with whom you can carry on intelligent, objective, logical conversation. Those are few, and far between.
John Sterling

Us vs Them

 

Us vs Them

The battle lines have been drawn. America is divided along ideological lines, each with historical roots that extend back to antiquity. There is a belief system (ideology) that holds certain core tenets: God is, and He is the rewarder of them diligently seek Him. He created us in His image and has a plan for mankind. He has delegated certain limited authority to us, and we, in turn, create government to protect the rights of man. It is this group and this doctrine that forms the philosophical basis for American law and government. This group, with which I identify, is “us”.

The other group holds that man is the highest authority and that government is a mechanism whereby the best and brightest will govern the affairs of everyone else. Government is the tool that allows the small group of elitists to control the masses (everyone else, in their view).  This is the ideology that is the basis for globalism and ultimately, a one-world government. These two ideologies are competing for the soul of America (and the world). This group is “them”

In order for a one-world government to operate, all traces of nationalism must be erased. Any notions of individual rights (as against government) must be quashed. The elites that have been chosen to lead must be obeyed if (according to this ideology) we are to “ascend” (or evolve) to higher social consciousness.  The operational plan requires that the foundations of self-governance (rooted in self-determination’ self-reliance, and personal accountability) must be destroyed. Any idea, or conduct, that is justified by the belief that it reflects the character and nature of God, must be tightly controlled or restricted altogether. ONLY the wisdom of the elites must be acknowledged as the guiding light for social conduct.

Laws, rules, regulations, mandates, executive orders, government departmental edicts are to be granted unquestioning moral authority. Assertions of personal liberty must never be permitted to trump “the greater good” or else the great global objectives (climate change, world peace, environmental balance, etc.) cannot be realized. Rebellion against these ideas must be suppressed by any and all means necessary.

We the people (“us” in this narrative)  however are committed to the founding principles. Conservatives (in this context) still believe that human rights are endowments from God, and that the primary purpose of any government is to protect those basic human rights (as defined and explained by God through His Word) by the authority of the governed.  WE (the people- “us”) hold that the only POWER that government may use against us is that which is derived from the AUTHORITY that WE (the people- “us”) have delegated to government in the first place.

It should be crystal clear to the reader at this point there can be no compromise as to these to competing ideologies, for they are diametrically opposed. They are mutually exclusive- one cannot exist in the presence of the other.

The heart and soul of America is up for grabs. Each person will decide which master they will obey but you cannot serve both. A failure to choose IS a choice.

Dr. John Sterling, MA, JD                                               November, 2021

Comments on the George Floyd Trial

 

April 21, 2021

I have some questions, and some observations about the end of the George Floyd Trial (4/20/21)

The jury concluded that Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin was responsible in part for the death of George Floyd.

Under Minnesota law, applicable to the Floyd case, Second degree murder is charged when someone "...causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense...". The requisite felonious act of which Chauvin is accused is "committing or attempting to commit felony third-degree assault" which in Minnesota is defined as the "intentional infliction of substantial bodily harm."

Third Degree murder is "perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life."

Second-degree manslaughter charge alleged Chauvin caused Floyd's death by "culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm."

Central to all of the charges is the element of causation, or that Chauvin was a substantial causal factor in Floyd's death.

The question is this: By what legal theory, or principle, does the state stack all those charges, which are (in my opinion) minor variations of a single action by a single perpetrator, against a single victim, at a single point in time and place.

In my experience, (admittedly limited) the judge instructs the jury at the end of the trial that if the prosecution's case in chief is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, the jury may still find the defendant guilty of one or more lesser charges.

I've never seen this happen before.

A felony is required for the conviction of 2nd degree murder. The requisite felonious act of which Chauvin is accused is "committing or attempting to commit felony third-degree assault" which in Minnesota is defined as the "intentional infliction of substantial bodily harm."

BUT... if the placement of a knee on the upper back/ shoulder (Chauvin's knee was NOT on Floyd's neck in any of the footage I have seen) is an approved method of restraint in most police departments, then what is the likelihood that it represents an ascertainable risk of "substantial bodily harm"? Said another way, if it was known that such a move would place a suspect at risk of substantial bodily harm, IT WOULD NOT BE APPROVED as a restraint method. Since that is an essential element of the 2nd Degree Murder charge, that count should have failed on those grounds.

A similar argument could be made for the Third Degree murder, which in Minnesota is when one is "perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life." IF the form of restraint use by Chauvin is approved by a significant number of police agencies, then by the same logic, then how can it be supported that Chauvin's conduct was "imminently dangerous"? There IS a case to be made that it was not the METHOD per se, that Chauvin used, but rather the length of time which he deployed that method. A "good" (approved) method might be justified for two, three, or even four minutes, but at some point that method might become unacceptable. A baton might be used to strike a knife-wielding assailant but the same baton used repeatedly after the assailant is disarmed, would be an excessive use of force. A strong case can be made (I think) that this was such an example.

That only leaves standing the final charge; 2nd degree manslaughter. Even then, the question is not the method, but the duration. The standard would have to be what the "reasonable, trained, police officer" would deem reasonable. In this case, other cops testified that Chauvin's use of this technique was excessive. That's pretty damning testimony which would lead a reasonable "non-cop" to find Chauvin guilty of the 2nd degree manslaughter charge.

Here's something that probably needs to change. There is a persistent notion that if you can talk, then are NOT having "too much" difficulty breathing. If you can talk, you can breathe.

Reliable, expert testimony in the Floyd trial instructs us that that particular piece of "common knowledge may, in fact NOT be true.

On 25 May 2020, during the actual arrest, George Floyd pleaded at least 16 times, “I can't breathe.” One officer in attendance nonetheless told bystanders, “He's talking. He's fine”.   (source: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-4186 )

Police have long been taught that if/when a person in custody is complaining of not being able to breathe, they may be telling the truth. (I say MAY be, because people in custody will say anything to try to escape custody).

Possibly, the myth that the act of speaking indicates the ability to breath may come from standard first aid training for victims of choking. But the point here is, that it is NOT "common knowledge" so it is not therefore "common sense" to let somebody up from the position of control on the ground- something that accusers of Derek Chauvin (and other officer's similarly accused) have bandied about. (i.e. the nine-year girl to whom is attributed great wisdom and insight when she told Chauvin to "Get off of him".) If common sense is a counterpart to common knowledge, then it might be reasonable for officers to doubt Floyd's claims. He was, after a felon on drugs, resisting arrest. (A very large felon, at that).

But given the publicity of this trial and the outcome for Derek Chauvin, police departments and police training academies all over the world will be altering their training with respect to any restraint methods that involve the detainee's respiratory functions. This is a GOOD thing.

I think the defense team may have missed the boat however by not making the point that prior to this, we (police) may not have had all the information we needed, and moreover, MAY have received improper training based on incomplete understanding human physiology. What, if any, impact could/should that have on Chauvin's conviction?

Another important lesson that needs reinforced is that politicians must exercise self-discipline and refrain from commenting on cases that are being investigated or cases that are in the trial process. Rep. Maxine Waters on Saturday night (4/17/21) called for protesters to "stay on the street" and "get more confrontational" if former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin is acquitted in the killing of George Floyd. "We've got to stay in the street and demand justice," Waters said to reporters, according to video posted on social media. (Source: https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics/maxine-waters-derek-chauvin-trial/index.html)
Shaun King, the opinion writer and Black Lives Matter activist, agrees. Under the headline “America will riot if Derek Chauvin isn’t convicted for killing George Floyd,” King wrote: “Yes, Dr. (Martin Luther) King said that riots ‘are the language of the unheard,’ but hear me now – if Derek Chauvin is not convicted of some degree – first, second or third – of murder, if he is not held accountable in the court of law, a reckoning is going to befall this country one way or another. And it should.”  (Source: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/greg-moore/2021/04/03/if-derek-chauvin-acquitted-or-guilty-will-there-riots/4823203001/)

Justice is never served when procedures are not followed, or relevant evidence is ignored, or juries are unduly influenced, as is certainly the case with the Floyd trial. Emotions must be checked and reason must rule the day. Any time a trial becomes a media circus, or the innocence or guilt of the accused is the fodder of media elites, the rule of law becomes trashed and none of us are safe.  The Criminal justice system will not, and CANNOT work effectively if it must give way to careless, inflammatory, performances by politicians and media folks. This represents, in my opinion, the collapse of our republic.