Chauvin trial missed issue of responsibility
In my opinion, the defense for the police officer Derek Chauvin in the most recent trial missed the most important issue of the legal system. That issue is who is responsible for the welfare of a criminal or criminal suspect in an arrest when the suspect refuses to comply with the arrest. That refusal may be either physical or merely walking or driving away, but it still is an active process in refusing to comply.
If the well-being of the noncomplying person to be arrested is the responsibility of the authorities, then if he will not comply, he should be allowed to walk away since any attempts to bring him into compliance may cause injury, death, or liable action. How can you arrest someone who will not accept your authority or direction?
If the well-being of the noncomplying person to be arrested is his responsibility, because of his noncompliance, then the authorized representative should have the right to use the force or restraint as is necessary to complete the arrest.
Although excessive force is certainly subjective, as is noncompliance, the responsibility for the well-being of the arrest should be clearly established for all future police actions. Perhaps the responsibility may be defined and divided. Methods of arrests under noncompliant situations need to be revised based on current ongoing criminal actions and hopefully approved with public support.
The old methods of the Billy clubs are not acceptable but, in some cases, they may be all that can be effective.
G. Pat Ryan
Lake in the Hills