Derek Chauvin Trial - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By noemon
#15164951
Verv wrote:Police have to consistently enforce laws or the laws themselves will be flagrantly and routinely violated because people will know that they can then get away with them because no police officer will use force to restrain them over a counterfeit twenty dollar bill.


It is extremely hard to take you seriously. Honestly, if I were near you I would slap you. The fact that you would take the time to actually bother writing this nonsense up is vomit inducing.

Police strangling a Black man in broad daylight for passing an alleged counterfeit dollar bill is so insane to wrap one's head around but what is more surreal is having to bear witness to pathetic posts like yours.

In Greece you would be spat on & beaten in my village if you dared to say this in the coffee shop and Orthodox monks would join in.
#15164960
Verv wrote:Police have to consistently enforce laws or the laws themselves will be flagrantly and routinely violated because people will know that they can then get away with them because no police officer will use force to restrain them over a counterfeit twenty dollar bill.

This attitude is probably what I hate most about this country.

It's just really jarring to me that conservative Americans hoot and holler all fucking day about being "the land of the free", "don't tread on me", "Molon labe" and other such macho rubbish while simultaneously believing that the use of overwhelming (and often deadly) force by authority figures in response to minor infractions is not only necessary, but desirable.

Yes, it is absolutely essential that police officers be allowed to summarily execute someone for possessing a counterfeit $20 note. A very rational and sane point of view.
User avatar
By Verv
#15164964
noemon wrote:It is extremely hard to take you seriously. Honestly, if I were near you I would slap you. The fact that you would take the time to actually bother writing this nonsense up is vomit inducing.

Police strangling a Black man in broad daylight for passing an alleged counterfeit dollar bill is so insane to wrap one's head around but what is more surreal is having to bear witness to pathetic posts like yours.


He was actually overdosing on fentanyl, and he spent quite a bit of time claiming he could not be put into the backseat of the police cruiser due to not being able to breath (which is a completely ridiculous claim -- maybe not so much if you're overdosing on fentanyl and need medical help for this, though).

He was then restrained by a technique which the prosecution will argue was an acceptable police tactic. It is definitely an uncomfortable hold, I imagine, but is taught.

In Greece you would be spat on & beaten in my village if you dared to say this in the coffee shop and Orthodox monks would join in.


And I would tell them "I fuck my wife." :lol:

Heisenberg wrote:This attitude is probably what I hate most about this country.

It's just really jarring to me that conservative Americans hoot and holler all fucking day about being "the land of the free", "don't tread on me", "Molon labe" and other such macho rubbish while simultaneously believing that the use of overwhelming (and often deadly) force by authority figures in response to minor infractions is not only necessary, but desirable.

Yes, it is absolutely essential that police officers be allowed to summarily execute someone for possessing a counterfeit $20 note. A very rational and sane point of view.


It is essential that the laws are enforced and that people do not get out of them via resistance.

That is the point.
User avatar
By noemon
#15164966
Verv wrote:And I would tell them "I fuck my wife." :lol:


And they would know that you don't actually have one.

Verv wrote:It is essential that the laws are enforced and that people do not get out of them via resistance.

That is the point.


It is essential that people like you understand the laws of society indeed, trying to justify illegal and disgusting murder does not represent 'law enforcement' but a sadistic abuse and a mockery of it.
User avatar
By Verv
#15164969
noemon wrote:And they would know that you don't actually have one.


Actually, I do.

It is essential that people like you understand the laws of society indeed, trying to justify illegal and disgusting murder does not represent 'law enforcement' but a sadistic abuse and a mockery of it.


There's a trial going on right now -- the defense are doing their best to show that it was justifiable to use this hold, which they will claim was sanctioned by the MPD, because he was actively resisting attempts to put him in the back of the vehicle.

They will also talk about how this hold is essentially non-lethal, and so the cause of death could only be from the fentanyl overdose. I imagine there will be some emphasis to try to say that this choke really was the cause of death due to something like the eggshell skull theory, because the prosecution will not be able to actually say that this hold normally causes people to die.

It's an interesting case.

I think the hold was likely inappropriate -- one of the interesting arguments that may be made is that they should have known the hold could be dangerous because they even called an ambulance to come get Floyd who they believed was overdosing. Thus, a hold which puts pressure on the back of the neck and could put stress on the respiratory system was not the right call.

What makes this case so good for debate is the fact that it is not a clear case of murder.

And that is why people are so emotional -- talking about you will be beaten by peace-loving monks for wrong-think! :eh:

Emotions run hot -- everyone is on fire, like it's the fourth of July, and it's not even summer yet.
By wat0n
#15164971
How was George Floyd actively resisting under MPD policy? I'm asking because the policy in place when the whole thing happened defined "active resistance" in a very specific way and I don't think his actions objectively fit it well. It seems to me like he was passively resisting, which did not warrant the use of neck restraints.

Yes, law enforcement has to do its job. And that doesn't limit to simply catching those for who there is a reasonable suspicion (or probable cause) of similar behavior, but to also not actually break the law in doing so.
User avatar
By noemon
#15164973
Verv wrote:What makes this case so good for debate is the fact that it is not a clear case of murder.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

It is a clear-cut case of daylight murder and one has to be extremely sadistic to say otherwise. The kind of sadist that people are averse to.
User avatar
By Verv
#15164974
wat0n wrote:How was George Floyd actively resisting under MPD policy? I'm asking because the policy in place when the whole thing happened defined "active resistance" in a very specific way and I don't think his actions objectively fit it well. It seems to me like he was passively resisting, which did not warrant the use of neck restraints.

Yes, law enforcement has to do its job. And that doesn't limit to simply catching those for who there is a reasonable suspicion (or probable cause) of similar behavior, but to also not actually break the law in doing so.


This is what Andrew McCarthy has pointed out about it:

Though prosecutors tried some misdirection, the video and audio recordings are clear: Floyd, at six-foot, four-inches and 223 pounds (according to the autopsy report), was so determined not to be placed in the back of the squad car that, even though he was handcuffed, four grown men — police officers trained in the use of force, and pushing and pulling for all they were worth — could not get him to take a seated position.

This does not mean the officers’ prolonged restraint of Floyd later on, as his life faded, was justified. That is the central issue the jury will have to resolve. ...

What’s more, it was not the idea of the arresting officers to place Floyd in a prone position on the street. Rather, after propelling his way out of the squad-car rear seat that four cops unsuccessfully struggled to place him in, Floyd insisted that he preferred to lie down on the street. The police restrained him in the position in which he put himself, which was not the position they wanted him in (they wanted him in the car). Reasonably convinced that Floyd was high on drugs (a conclusion supported by his erratic behavior, the accounts of witnesses, and later toxicology tests), the police called for paramedics to take him to a hospital, rather than continuing to try to thrust him in the squad car and take him into police custody.


National Review

I think it can be said that there was an active resistance to being placed into the back of the car.

As it is described somewhere else:

New CCTV footage has emerged of Minneapolis Police officers in a violent struggle with George Floyd in the back of their car before he was later pinned to the ground and died.

While the 46-year-old father-of-two cannot explicitly be seen in the video from May 25, one officer leans into the back of the car and his legs shuffle around as he visibly struggles with someone in the back seat.


news.com.au

So, it was justified to put him in some form of restraint, yes?

The real issue is about the fact that there was a prolonged use of the prone restraint with the knee to the back of the neck.

The knee-to-the-back of the neck is banned by some departments, but...

The knee-to-neck move is banned by several major metropolitan police departments, but Minneapolis police allow police to restrain suspects' necks if they're aggressive or resisting arrest.
...
It's a dangerous position, Stoughton said, because it's known to cause what's called positional asphyxia.

Someone in that position can draw enough breath to gasp or speak in spurts, but they can't breathe fully, so they gradually lose oxygen and fall unconscious.


MSN

It is known that this can increase the likelihood of death:

Prolonged (particularly resisted) restraint, obesity, prior cardiac or respiratory problems, and the use of illicit drugs such as cocaine can increase the risk of death by restraint, according to a 2001 article in American Journal of Emergency Medicine.[12]


Positional asphyxia via Wikipedia

... So a real issue here, is if the MPD allows for the use of this technique, and Chauvin was never specifically trained to avoid certain situations, it could be said that this is a death that occurred due to faulty police protocol, and Chauvin's responsibility is diminished, and therefore, he is innocent.

to answer @noemon as well... This is not a clear case of murder if we recognize that Chauvin was using an allowed hold.

But I think it could be said he was reckless because he applied it for such a long time, and should have been aware that this has been a contributing factor in people's deaths. The death of Eric Garner comes to mind -- though not an identical hold, in which a legal process was invoked and the officer was fired and removed from police work, but was never held criminally responsible for the death(Wikipedia blurb about the termination of ex-officer Pantaleo).

I think if the Garner incident were to happen today, it would play out much differently, and if the Floyd incident had happened immediately in light of the Garner incident, it would also have to be treated differently.
Last edited by Verv on 06 Apr 2021 03:11, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By noemon
#15164977
Verv wrote:But I think it could be said he was reckless because he applied it for such a long time, and should have been aware that this has been a contributing factor in people's deaths.


As a murder apologist for this sadist, we should try this hold on your neck for the same duration of time and film you while you 're screaming that you can't breath. This is the only way for you to actually comprehend the vileness of your written word.

Unlike the poor Black guy who may or may not have held a fake dollar bill, you are actually committing a much more severe crime by sincerely and in good conscience attempting to justify murder. You require a lesson in the law of society a lot more urgently than Floyd did.
By wat0n
#15164979
@Verv I think you are not using it in the way the MPD was, at the time of the events. I quoted the definition and MPD policy on restraints earlier ITT. I know for a fact those are accurate because I found them at the Minneapolis' PD website as the events unfolded and I posted it on the big thread on the matter.

To me, it seems he was passively resisting. Although he left the car at some point, he never quite got the point of showing an intent to flee or otherwise release himself from custody (let alone aggression against the cops). After all, the first thing he did upon leaving the car was sit down, if my memory serves me well. And this would be the most relevant form of resistance on Floyd's part.

Also, even if he did actively resist, the use of an unconscious neck restraint was unquestionably wrong. So how can Chauvin's decision to keep on pressuring until Chauvin would lose consciousness be justified? Had he just opted for a conscious neck restraint, leaving Floyd tired but alive and even conscious would have been enough and we wouldn't even have heard about this incident at all.
User avatar
By Verv
#15164980
noemon wrote:As a murder apologist for this sadist, we should try this hold on your neck for the same duration of time and film you while you 're screaming that you can't breath. This is the only way for you to actually comprehend the vileness of your written word.


This is emotional language. And emotional language is beautiful.

Beautiful & loud & wonderful & perplexing & floral. Rich & vivid like the risky tattoos people get to be forever enshrined to liberty via social alienation. It's intoxicating & awful & wonderful & humiliating & emboldening, like violence -- like the violence you want done to me, like the violence done to every man shot by the police and every officer shot by man.

And to this, I can quote Allen Ginsberg...

And the Communists have nothing to offer but fat cheeks and eyeglasses and
lying policemen
and the Capitalists proffer Napalm and money in green suitcases to the
Naked,
and the Communists create heavy industry but the heart is also heavy
and the beautiful engineers are all dead, the secret technicians conspire for
their own glamour
in the Future, in the Future, but now drink vodka and lament the Security
Forces,
and the Capitalists drink gin and whiskey on airplanes but let Indian brown
millions starve
and when Communist and Capitalist assholes tangle the Just man is arrested
or robbed or has his head cut off,
but not like Kabir, and the cigarette cough of the Just man above the clouds
in the bright sunshine is a salute to the health of the blue sky.


(Kraj Majales)


And we can set aside some rules for discussing things emotionally:

I am pleased to collaborate with you, beloved Spaniards, in the great Art of the Bullfight. Seeing that in the regeneration of your life you have chosen to extol the noble race of the bulls to human dignity,



1) I ask you that in every bullfight at least three fans jump to the arena.


2) I ask you that in every bullfight be a mixed jury of bulls and fans. Living injured or dead, the bulls, before and after clashing to be part of the jury.


3) I ask you the pardon, free life exquisite hay saline grass and glory for the bulls that knock down two opponents in the arena.


4) I ask you that the triumphant bulls be recruited for the next war, and organized in herds of disembowelment, face off with a furious barbed wire of horns against the enemy’s assault vehicles.


5) I ask you that the triumphant bulls be admitted into political and artistic councils, so that the usual horns of the dilemma also have the disemboweler’s horns.


6) I ask you that the corpse and bones of the defeated bulls receive all military honors using our ramadan of rumps snouts clashing eerily.


7) I ask you that the defeated bulls are conceded a funeral procession, solemn and pompous of bull men horses harnessed with gold in an Andalusian noon, a painstaking embalming in shining salts with compressed algae and a vast tomb of granite equal to the one of the Sacred Bulls of Egypt.


(The Last Will of Negro II, Bull of Andalusia by F. T. Marinetti)
User avatar
By noemon
#15164981
Verv wrote:This is emotional language. And emotional language is beautiful.


It is not emotional language at all. It is pure and basic rationalism.

You claim that a guy allegedly holding a fake dollar bill deserved to be murdered by a 10 minute choke hold but you fail to acknowledge that your crime of murder justification is far worse than allegedly holding a fake dollar bill and that your crime deserves in truth and in fact this kind of 10 minute choke-hold because that is what you are suggesting people do to other people to teach them about law-enforcement. A lesson that you lack more evidently than anyone else.
User avatar
By Verv
#15164982
wat0n wrote:@Verv I think you are not using it in the way the MPD was, at the time of the events. I quoted the definition and MPD policy on restraints earlier ITT. I know for a fact those are accurate because I found them at the Minneapolis' PD website as the events unfolded and I posted it on the big thread on the matter.


That is a very interesting post there, thanks.

To me, it seems he was passively resisting. Although he left the car at some point, he never quite got the point of showing an intent to flee or otherwise release himself from custody (let alone aggression against the cops). After all, the first thing he did upon leaving the car was sit down, if my memory serves me well. And this would be the most relevant form of resistance on Floyd's part.

Also, even if he did actively resist, the use of an unconscious neck restraint was unquestionably wrong. So how can Chauvin's decision to keep on pressuring until Chauvin would lose consciousness be justified? Had he just opted for a conscious neck restraint, leaving Floyd tired but alive and even conscious would have been enough and we wouldn't even have heard about this incident at all.


He became unconscious, yes, but was the intnetion of the initial hold to control Floyd?

This can be a very, very subjective argument... If it was to control, one can always say that further control was unnecessary, but the opposite can be argued: the guy could not be placed into the back of a police car. Is it so radical to expect other forms of resistance could be tried?

And notice that the only separation of the conscious and unconscious neck restraints here is intent, and there appears to be no qualitative difference in their description (though potentially this could be described elsewhere).

It's very subjective, IMO.

noemon wrote:
It is not emotional language at all. It is pure and basic rationalism.

You claim that a guy allegedly holding a fake dollar bill deserved to be murdered by a 10 minute choke hold but you fail to acknowledge that your crime of murder justification is far worse than allegedly holding a fake dollar bill and that your crime deserves in truth and in fact this kind of 10 minute choke-hold because that is what you are suggesting people do to other people to teach them about law-enforcement. A lesson that you lack more evidently than anyone else.


But he was not put in this position for a counterfeit $20; he was put into that position for resisting arresting.

Of course, aspects of this are all questionable -- what was necessary, how long should it have been done, etc... But how am I supposed to react when a moderator on this website is suggesting that I have committed a crime myself for my speech on this topic topic, and I deserve a ten minute chokehold -- a chokehold you may even believe is lethal? But IDK.

I can only think of emotions. For me, suggesting physical violence to another is an emotional thing.

And all I ask for is

every bullfight be a mixed jury of bulls and fans. Living injured or dead, the bulls, before and after clashing to be part of the jury.


and

I ask you that the defeated bulls are conceded a funeral procession, solemn and pompous of bull men horses harnessed with gold in an Andalusian noon, a painstaking embalming in shining salts with compressed algae and a vast tomb of granite equal to the one of the Sacred Bulls of Egypt.
User avatar
By noemon
#15164983
Verv wrote:But he was not put in this position for a counterfeit $20; he was put into that position for resisting arresting.

Of course, aspects of this are all questionable -- what was necessary, how long should it have been done, etc... But how am I supposed to react when a moderator on this website is suggesting that I have committed a crime myself for my speech on this topic topic, and I deserve a ten minute chokehold -- a chokehold you may even believe is lethal? But IDK.

I can only think of emotions. For me, suggesting physical violence to another is an emotional thing.


1) You are resisting both the letter and the spirit of the law right now.
2) You are suggesting physical violence to the point of murder is justified for all those who resist the law(.ie your own self).

Ergo the only rational thing is to put you into an identical 10 minute choke-hold while handcuffed so that you put your own recommendation into practice.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15164987
@Verv There were FOUR... 1, 2, 3, 4 police officers present. There is absolutely no reasonable excuse for Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck, no matter HOW big Floyd might have been You are simply making apologies for a murderer, and totalitarianism.
By wat0n
#15164988
Verv wrote:That is a very interesting post there, thanks.


You're welcome, it's important because this shows what MPD policy was at the time.

Verv wrote:He became unconscious, yes, but was the intnetion of the initial hold to control Floyd?

This can be a very, very subjective argument... If it was to control, one can always say that further control was unnecessary, but the opposite can be argued: the guy could not be placed into the back of a police car. Is it so radical to expect other forms of resistance could be tried?

And notice that the only separation of the conscious and unconscious neck restraints here is intent, and there appears to be no qualitative difference in their description (though potentially this could be described elsewhere).

It's very subjective, IMO.


I would say that if Chauvin did not intend to render Floyd unconscious, then why didn't he let go while both Floyd and bystanders were asking him to? My understanding is that Chauvin is also trained on these neck restraint techniques, so chances are he should have been aware of the signs to look for when the suspect they are being applied on is fainting.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, I don't think the conditions set by the prevailing policy at the time on unconscious neck restraints were objectively fulfilled (namely, and I quote from the MPD, "On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or; For life saving purposes, or; On a subject who is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject; and if lesser attempts at control have been or would likely be ineffective."). Floyd was not aggressive (let alone actively so), no one's life was threatened by the PD officers' problems in handling him and, even if you want to assume Floyd was actively resisting, I find it hard to argue lesser means (such as a conscious neck restraint) would have been likely ineffective and it seems other MPD officers have not actually said so under oath either.

At last, but not least, the unconscious neck restraint was considered to be a non-deadly force option so if Floyd was having trouble to breathe, I think Chauvin could have also let go at low risk for himself, his colleagues and bystanders, since George Floyd was handcuffed and subdued by the other 3 cops. Chauvin was not meant to be using deadly force.

It seems to me Chauvin will go to jail for 2nd degree manslaughter and it's likely the third degree murder charge (which is a form of manslaughter in other States) will also be sustained. Second degree murder seems a lot less likely unless it turns out Chauvin and Floyd actually knew each other from a different job.
Last edited by wat0n on 06 Apr 2021 04:02, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Verv
#15164989
noemon wrote:1) You are resisting both the letter and the spirit of the law right now.
2) You are suggesting physical violence to the point of murder is justified for all those who resist the law(.ie your own self).

Ergo the only rational thing is to put you into an identical 10 minute choke-hold while handcuffed so that you put your own recommendation into practice.


(1) Even if you believe that I am wrong, I am actually not violating any law. It's 100% legal to have wrong, bad takes on what the law is, or what the law should be.

(2) Well, yes, it is justifiable to use violence against those actively resisting. Deadly force is only justifiable, I think, if there is a direct threat to the life of the officer or someone else.

But there was not deadly force -- the choke hold being used is allowed by the MPD, though it may be questionable that it is allowed, or that it was used correctly, at which point this is really about policy & protocol, or about negligence, or perhaps about some conspiracy that Chauvin knew what he was doing would cause death and that was his intention all along.


... I have not broken any law or done anything that would merit such treatment (even if my opinion is bad), but I also have not taken a lethal dose of fentanyl, and do not intend to resist at all... So, i actually feel the most likely scenario is I have difficulty breathing on my stomach for 10 minutes and some uncomfortable weight on the back of my neck.

That's my theory.

But I imagine that you thinK Chauvin was really GRINDING it in there and causing trauma to the neck and cutting off the airway?
User avatar
By noemon
#15164993
Verv wrote:(1) Even if you believe that I am wrong, I am actually not violating any law. It's 100% legal to have wrong, bad takes on what the law is, or what the law should be.

(2) Well, yes, it is justifiable to use violence against those actively resisting. Deadly force is only justifiable, I think, if there is a direct threat to the life of the officer or someone else.


You are posing a danger to the lives of a lot of people by consciously attempting to justify murder.

You are violating the same law that you claim Floyd violated, you are actively resisting the law and attempting to obscure it.

Your actions are objectively far worse than anything Floyd did.
#15164996
@Godstud

I would think one of those 4 officers would have a taser on him. It would have been preferable to use a taser as a taser is part of the use of force paradigm and policy and procedures of most departments. That or maybe one of the officers who was good at verbal judo could have stepped in to talk the suspect into accept being placed under arrest without resistance. Anytime you have to use violence, you have already lost. The Guardian even has an article on verbal judo:


Tom Dart of The Guardian wrote:Bored with his life in academia, George “Doc” Thompson left his prestigious career and went on to teach a million police officers to ask questions first and shoot later.

Thompson was a judo black belt who ran a dojo, studied rhetoric and persuasion at Princeton and had a PhD in English literature. But after 10 years of teaching university classes, Thompson wanted a change. He took a sabbatical and decided to become a cop, working the midnight shift as a patrol officer in New Jersey.

The father of a tactical communication style known as “verbal judo”, he wrote his first book on the subject in 1983 and became a successful law enforcement trainer.

“Anybody can teach English,” he said in one of his training video from the 1990s. “Not anybody can talk a knife out of somebody’s hand.”

Making police more restrained was a hot topic after the 1991 beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles, but in the wake of 9/11, de-escalation techniques and community policing seemed to fall out of fashion. Instead, US police departments increasingly resembled military units both in ethos and equipment.

Thompson died in 2001, aged 69, but some police instructors are now once again emphasising the value of communication in avoiding combat, advocating scientific analysis allied with realistic training to prepare officers to handle stressful situations.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... munication


User avatar
By Verv
#15164997
noemon wrote:You are posing a danger to the lives of a lot of people by consciously attempting to justify murder.

You are violating the same law that you claim Floyd violated, you are actively resisting the law and attempting to obscure it.

Your actions are objectively far worse than anything Floyd did.


OK, OK, Ok, I get it.

Now, what if I were to tell you that....

You are volating the law, because you are essentially saying that a man who is on trial is completely guilty, so much so that any kind of defense, no matter how informal and vague, cannot even be spoken by civilians outside of the courtroom because it undermines the rule of law.

I would, of course, be wrong, because the first principle we all have to remember is that it's legal to have a bad opinion no matter how much others hate it.

Godstud wrote:[usermention=9101]There were FOUR... 1, 2, 3, 4 police officers present. There is absolutely no reasonable excuse for Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck, no matter HOW big Floyd might have been You are simply making apologies for a murderer, and totalitarianism.


Was it a valid police hold for restraining someone?

Was there intention to kill George Floyd? Or was it the use of an MPD approved restraining technique to prevent him from further resisting arrest?

If it is a valid restraining technique, and it should not be one, it is not the fault of Chauvin, but of the administrator's of the MPD and the city of Minneapolis that ought to be making these decisions.

If it was the case that even Chauvin went too far in deciding to employ such a restraint, it still does not really amount to murder, for a man employing a valid restraining technique would have no reason to believe that his actions will result in the man's death. He is, after all, applying a valid restraining technique, one which can actually result in unconsciousness, but even in this case, it apparenty does not say anywhere in MPD material that it does result in death.

Of course, we would have to takl about what any of this means in terms of jurisprudence. Perhaps due to things like eggshell skull theory, there is a good argument to be made that he is culpable for murder, but it seems doubtful in the sense that he intended to kill Floyd.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 22

He is even less coherent than Alex Jones. My gu[…]

Yes, and it did not order a ceasefire. Did you ev[…]

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia could[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

A new film has been released destroying the offici[…]