New Paragraph

The murder of George Floyd
May 31, 2020

The death of an African-American man at the hands of Minneapolis police on May 25th has once again spawned numerous violent protests across the U.S. over what was obviously a criminal act by at least some of the four involved officers. One of the officers quite calmly knelt on the neck of George Floyd – who had been arrested for suspicion of a minor criminal offence, for just shy of nine minutes. Floyd was clearly in distress for about six of those minutes and totally unresponsive for almost three, however that knee remained planted on his neck throughout.

 

Carotid artery restraints by police have led to a number of unintentional deaths across North America in the past and as a result most police departments have eliminated them from officer safety training and educate officers about the dangers involved in that practice. “Positional asphyxia” is another concern when an arrested subject is restrained in a position that causes breathing challenges.

 

Having said that, when an officer is fighting for his or her life, anything goes, including the use of techniques that may result in the death of the attacker. But we didn’t see such a threat in the George Floyd case. On the video we did see a large man who was handcuffed behind his back mildly resisting police, but largely under control by the three officers holding him down while a fourth stood and watched the concerned crowd. Floyd continued to say that he couldn’t breathe. I’d be trying to wrestle my way out of that position too if I struggled to breathe, which begs the question, was he resisting arrest or resisting death?

 

Derek Chauvin, the officer that knelt on Mr. Floyd’s neck and is now charged with 3rd Degree Murder, did not appear to be afraid for his safety at all. In fact he actually had his left hand in his pants pocket throughout most of the incident. His posture was not at all indicative of fear of serious injury.

 

All four officers were immediately fired from the police department. Good. Then Chauvin was arrested four days later. The fact that his arrest took so long understandably concerns Mr. Floyd’s family and the public. I appreciate that the investigators and prosecutor wanted to get it right. Police do have the legal authority to take lives when fearing for their lives or the lives of others, so confirming or negating such justification would be key in determining charges, as would clarifying whether the death was intentional (1st or 2nd Degree murder) or conscious recklessness (3rd Degree).

 

Examining the legality of the arrest of Mr. Floyd would be essential, but not onerous. Determining cause of death including conducting toxicological tests always takes a day or two. Interviewing witnesses takes time. Viewing different videos from various angles including body camera footage requires some work. Investigating potential relationship issues between Chauvin and Mr. Floyd – given that they apparently worked at the same club for a number of years, would be important in terms of any conflict that may have pre-existed between them. But is four days acceptable for all of this concurrent effort? Not in my view, but I admit I don’t know all the factors and challenges they faced.

 

So what happens now for the other three former officers? Did any of them try to stop Chauvin? Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman suggested Friday that he anticipates charges. It has been reported that one of the officers expressed concern about Floyd’s position and suggested rolling him over. A subsequent check for Floyd’s pulse appeared futile. Why wouldn’t they then remove the handcuffs and start CPR even if they had to arrest Chauvin to do so? Thin blue line be damned, the out of control officer needed to be stopped.

 

In my view, Chauvin’s actions are inexcusable and undoubtedly criminal. The apparent inaction by the other officers to stop him is unacceptable and perhaps criminal. All in all it was a horrifying event that taints police across North America. It made me ill to watch it and I haven’t talked to a single serving or retired police officer that isn’t sick over what they saw in the video of the last nine minutes of the life of George Floyd. I can only imagine how his family felt.

 

Was it racism, just police brutality or both? I don’t know, but I can understand why African-American people all over the continent would view it as yet another example of police racism. There are racists in policing. It’s simply not enough to point out – as I often do, that thankfully the numbers are minimal and that the vast majority of officers are not. Even one racist officer is beyond acceptable and the public deserves better. African-American people have been experiencing racism and socio-economic inequity for centuries. They have also repeatedly heard from elected leaders that “something has to change”, but it doesn’t. It’s very similar in many ways to the concerns of Canada’s Indigenous people which has led to protracted and sometimes violent protests across this country. The FBI is now tasked with investigating the civil rights aspect of Mr. Floyd’s death and if there was a racist facet, the former officers will have even bigger legal fish to fry.

 

The horrendous criminal actions of a bully cop in Minneapolis or anywhere for that matter is intolerable, and such blemishes on the police community must be excised quickly and decisively through due process. We haven’t always seen that in the past which is a total failure by some elected officials and some police agencies, which furthers levels of emotion and frustration.

 

But violence begets violence, so cooler heads need to prevail before the current tension spirals downward into civil war. I don’t see the current divisive and inflammatory U.S. President up to the challenge of leading the country through that hell. Something indeed has to change – once and for all, in policing and beyond.

By Chris Lewis June 21, 2025
Image: new-manager-training.com Imagine this scenario if you will, getting the worst boss on earth – a person who is the total antithesis of leadership. Your new “Boss” replaces a leader that wasn’t always right and was getting too old to meet the mental and physical demands of the job, but at the same time treated all those around him with respect. He tried to select people for key positions based on their experience base and his confidence that they may not always agree but the individuals picked would be honest with him, other employees and the client base. He undoubtedly made mistakes here and there and did have some flaws but would readily admit to most of them. This boss comes back to the organization having committed a list of publicly confirmed misdeeds and illegal acts – many of which would have singularly been a good reason to not hire even the lowest level of employee, and justification for imprisonment for others. However, he was chosen for the top job despite all that baggage. Conversely, he brings not one redeeming quality to the top position. From day one, it’s obvious that the new Boss is truly a “boss” and not a “leader.” He has old personal scores to settle and wreaks revenge on many employees that he doesn’t like. Not because they were dishonest, incapable or lazy, but because he perceives that they didn’t want him to return or didn’t always agree with his philosophies and rash actions during past affiliations. This activity causes panic among all employees who know they have no choice but to get aboard his out-of-control train or perish beneath it. Then – without any deep evaluation or thought, he makes tremendous cuts to many organizational programs – leaving thousands without work and lacking any strategy to provide much needed services to a vast array of client groups. He viciously cuts through the organization like a chainsaw through softwood. Why? Because he can. Some of these decisions may have had some degree of validity following a proper assessment, while others not, but that analysis never occurred. Most previous positive relationships with partner agencies and the majority of client groups are immediately scuttled by the new boss. He publicly demeans and taunts longtime allies with irrational statements and outright falsehoods. Never in the many decades of history of the organization has such broad-ranging international indignation been felt, largely as a result of his childish behavior. Very few productive relationships remain and although some new ones are developed, they are only with organizations that are poorly considered by clients and upstanding industry players. His decisions continually fly in the face of the needs of the immense client group but more align with the personal business interests of only the Boss and his business associates – some of whom are either known despots or of questionable character. Company stocks continue to plummet as a result of his silliness. That also has a significant negative impact on the fiscal picture of partner organizations around the world. Anyone that respectfully expresses disagreement or suggests alternative decisions to the Boss, are sidelined or fired, then are ridiculed and until they become unemployable. Gas-lighting, exaggerations, denials, the passing of blame and blatant lies are his norm. He seldom speaks the truth about anyone or any situation. The sycophants he has positioned to assist in his destruction of the organization, publicly praise him for his leadership and courageous decision-making, when the majority of employees and clients know it is just flagrant butt-kissing on their part. He constantly seeks and demands praise, even for things he didn’t do, then sulks and whines when he doesn’t receive it. He falsely takes credit for the few good things that do happen but quickly passes blame when things that have his fingerprints all over them, go horribly wrong. His God-complex is resounding and worsens with each passing day. His public claims of success – before and since becoming the Boss, and assertions of being the “Greatest Boss in history”, fall flat with anyone that truly knows him. He aggressively takes advantage of anyone he can but then turns on them at the flip of a switch. No one is beyond being found at the pointy end of his meanness stick. When caught making an error, he’ll blame everyone on his “team” before accepting any criticism. In fact, he’d turn on his own children if he felt it would make him look brave or heroic, or if it would prevent him from public humiliation. He states his 24/7 lies over and over so often to make his base of lemming followers believe him, that he seemingly believes them to be factual himself. Even when he is confronted with witness testimony or audio/video of his brazen lies, he blames others for being out to get him. Being accountable when things go wrong and letting the light shine on others when they go well, is beyond his comprehension. (Can you spell “narcissistic”?) Although he doesn’t understand the business, he refuses to surround himself with people that do, given that he thinks he knows more than any of them and possibly more than anybody, anywhere, ever, since the dawn of time. Public statements he makes are often completely ridiculous and childish, causing all those around him to force plastic smiles, offer him undeserved praise and nod like pre-programmed bobbleheads. People and even affiliated organizations live in such fear of his thirst for retribution that they either cow-tow to his insanity or prepare for annihilation. He is an embarrassment internally and externally, on an international scale. No past executive has even been so blatantly self-centered, mean spirited and/or inept, nor have they ever had such a negative impact on the organization and its people. It may take decades to repair all the damage he has done. Thankfully, his employment contract is only for four years, so there may be some light at the end of the tunnel. Most of those within and those reliant on the organization, as well as friends, associates, allies internationally pray that this nightmare will end at that time. If it’s not too late, that is. Just a bad dream for some or a reality for millions of us?
By Chris Lewis February 4, 2025
Is there any meat to this or is it more of the same?
By Chris Lewis January 4, 2025
Police know how to conduct major investigations and find bad guys. Although several specific factors change from case to case, their general investigative playbook remains the same. Once some ungodly multi-victim attack occurs, in very simplistic terms: the scene is protected, and the health of the living victims is looked after. Forensic experts begin processing the crime scene. Witnesses are located and interviewed. Physical evidence is gathered. Area and witness video recordings are collected and analyzed. Victims are identified. An off-site reunification centre is established where there are multiple victims. Next of kin notifications begin. At any point – if a suspect or suspects become known, their background is gathered, and the hunt begins. They need to be apprehended before anyone else is hurt. Area law enforcement officers need to know suspect details ASAP. “Motive” is at top of mind as investigators are synthesizing all this information, whether the suspect is identified or not. Of course, establishing motive often leads to identifying the suspect, but at other times identifying the suspect helps fill in the blanks on motive. What was the initial basis of what became a murder? Was it a robbery? Could it have been a street fight gone bad? Was it simply a want or need to kill someone specific or maybe anyone at all? That’s for investigators to sort out. There is an onus to warn the public or at least tell them something, i.e. “ongoing threat”, “stay indoors”, or “no threat to public safety”. There are reporting protocols to follow. Senior officers need to be advised up the food chain as do their political masters, so everyone knows what is happening. None of that should detract investigators from doing what they do best – catching killers. But that’s when the ravenous “thirst for knowledge” and political grandstanding often take over and completely interfere with police work. The only knowledge the investigators are thirsty for in those early hours is evidence and then identifying, locating and capturing bad people. They do not need politics monopolizing their time or efforts. The New Years Day massacre in New Orleans was big. Fourteen innocent party goers were killed and dozens injured. The world wanted to know what happened and the community wanted to know if they were in danger. I absolutely get that. However, what sometimes comes with such tragedies is everyone wanting to know everything. We see it in most mass murder cases, but this was an exceptional example of the insanity surrounding such a high-profile incident. Whatever blanks weren’t immediately filled in by police officials and verified mainstream media reports, were filled in by social media. In such cases police totally lose control of the narrative as rumours, theories, falsities, conspiracy theories and “hey look at me” games take over. The political party and individual positioning in this case was nauseating. In any multi-agency response, having the leaders of those agencies at press conferences in a united front makes sense. The public needs to have confidence that the situation is in the best of hands. But where did these massive press conferences where police officials are flanked by numerous politicians come from? I can see some elected leaders being present when a new program is launched or government funding is being announced, but it should never be in the early hours of a mass murder. Having a bunch of partisan wonks peacocking on stage and in follow-up interviews, helps no one at the operational level. As some of them were speaking, I was responding to their dumb questions in my mind: Was it a terror attack? Maybe, but let the experts figure that out. In the meantime, it’s a mass murder. Was the killer an illegal immigrant? Let’s worry about that when the dust settles. What political party is to blame for allowing him into the country? We don’t care. Maybe he was born here. Let’s sort that out if he turns out to be an illegal immigrant. Why wasn’t the area more secure? Good question for a future debrief. We need to get the FBI and HSI leaders before a government committee right away so we can find out who failed! Shut up. We have police work to do. There are always enough social media theories, private citizens’ investigations into suspects, outright lies and misinformation being spread to the public, without silly partisan games sidetracking investigators who are fighting to stay ahead of legitimate theories and tips. In the early hours of a mass murder case investigators are probably the busiest they have ever been, and don’t need any of this interference. Controlling the social media fever is next to impossible. It would take a sudden level of maturity across the populace that may be unattainable. But politicians at all levels need to get the message that they are not welcome on stage at operational press conferences and their comments to the media – if asked for them – aside from expressing sadness, thoughts, prayers and confidence in the police, should be “Our law enforcement agencies are investigating, and we need to let them do what they do.” Adding any theories, raising questions or passing blame is totally wrong. If elected officials truly care about their electorate and feel the need to say more, they should have some prior dialogue with the police leaders or their Public Information Officers to ensure that what they say is helpful as opposed to harmful. Otherwise, be quiet.