Police Brutality Thread

[dalpat077]

That’s not what his lawyer said if you watched the trial.

Nah. C'mon Deputy Dawg! That's a stretch even for me!

And bear in mind this coming from somebody who was in vehement support of Officer Chauvin when this all went down initially and who has done a bit of an about turn on this particular case.

Any half-baked or semi-decent lawyer should twist and turn and tweak anything in the interests of getting his client off. Not to mention that he's getting paid handsomely to do the same. And bear in mind there were other officers that testified to quite the opposite (although their reasons for doing so too could also be questionable) (although they were quoting police procedure chapter and verse apparently).

My last take on this particular case hasn't changed. Do I think Officer Chauvin should have walked away with no penalty whatsoever? Nope. This in spite of my really and truly still believing that he had no intention of killing Mr. Floyd and that he was merely maintaining the status quo while waiting for the, then very late, EMS to arrive. But in all of the time taken: there was indeed time to think. At very least he could have rolled Mr. Floyd over, while cuffed, and kept speaking to him and asking him if he'd decided to take it down a notch and stop giving the officers shit. If Mr. Floyd had been turned over while still alive and then croaked due to all of the other factors: well then so be it. Unfortunately and even if that had been the case: given the climate law enforcement would still have gotten the short end of the stick. But maybe it would have resulted in not so harsh sentencing and less fury. I don't know. Just surmising.

I still think it'd be nice if there was some other method of punishing officers (when under questionable and complicated circumstances) and that didn't result in them being convicted and ending up with criminal records and losing their careers. As already noted: lay them off, with no pay or benefits, even if it be for years, but at least giving them the opportunity to return to the force if they so desire when the time comes. But there's no way this is going to happen I don't think.

I also don't think there shouldn't be any of these ridiculous financial awards under any circumstances. And certainly none awarded BEFORE the final outcome of a trial. As far as I know this is something new. How can a civil award be made before there is a definitive outcome? That I don't get. Basing it down: what would have happened if all of these officers involved in Mr. Floyd's case were indeed acquitted because it was found that, for example, Mr. Floyd's aorta had burst as a complication of his other underlying issues and that was the direct cause of his death? Or let's just say, for example, Mr. Floyd had indeed swallowed a whole bunch of Fentanyl laced pills and that was the direct cause of death. Would they have gone back and asked for the money back? And even if that be the case: good luck with that one. When law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty and actually simply doing their jobs: their families don't get these ridiculous amounts i.e. there's a calculation involved if I'm not mistaken.

 

[dalpat077]

^ thanks.

for what it's worth, methamphetamine was detected in his body.

alasdair

This my second response to your post above. Have had time to think (what's new).

I've still read nothing about the case. Not even the usual YouTube preamble in the police video just released. I've as yet only watched the video (admittedly for its entertainment value).

My point being: I've had since last Thursday or Friday to come up with, and discuss with you, all of these hypotheses and possible outcomes and ponder upon them at length. And have made certain, dare I say, untainted assumptions. Unless it comes with experience on the job (which is quite possible) or I just take my sweet time and think too much (which is also quite possible: try and condense all of this into only a few minutes, maybe only even a few seconds, before a fatal shooting takes place. See my point?

Conversely: it took me days and days to go through the George Floyd video footage, almost on a frame-by-frame basis, in order for me to reach the conclusion that there was indeed overreach (albeit that I do believe there were reasons albeit that they are arguable). And not to mention the, let's call them, deliberations here.

I guess all I'm doing is making my case that it's easy to see this all after the fact and with not actually being in the situation.

And I see/hear they're still banging on about our thug that got nailed in Hawaii. The excuse now is that the officers didn't identify themselves before losing their shit. I've watched that video several times. And no matter how many times I watch it: there simply was no time. And even if they had identified themselves the very minute they arrived: he would have reacted the same way, probably wouldn't have heard them anyway, and I'm willing to bet that the then argument would be being made that there wasn't a sufficient time lapse between them identifying themselves and then starting to shoot. And yeah I'll be honest: I'm keen to see HIS toxicology report when it's released. Assuming he was such a pillar of society (and frankly from what I've heard about him here I've no reason to think otherwise): I can only assume that he was intoxicated in one way or another. Unless something had happened and he just simply snapped (believe me I see how that'd be possible). I don't know at this time. But based on what all have been saying about the dude: he was acting TOTALLY out of character (that's what I personally am saying i.e. he still is a Saint around these parts seems to me). And I don't see as how law enforcement are responsible for that or are required to take that all into account. They could not know, at the time, about the dude what I know now so have to make certain judgement calls and assumptions on the fly and in split seconds. And in his case: he didn't exactly go down without a fight and causing serious harm to officers even after being shot.

 

[Xorkoth]

I think I've partly addressed this above. Could one of them maybe have caught up with him and wrestled the knife away? I don't know what the training manual says. But I'm betting it goes something along the lines of him having a deadly weapon and that warrants lethal force (this at bare minimum i.e. this aside from failing to comply initially). And frankly (personally speaking): if I have such a mandate I'm not going to put myself in harm's way for somebody who a) has such a bad attitude, b) has been given more than his fair share of opportunities to comply, and c) could very well have endangered others. And I'm pretty sure that law enforcement has to make certain assumptions and judgments. And as much as it's unpalatable to bring this type of thing up here: what if this dude was as high as a kite on something and (arguably) not responsible for his actions or not acting like he otherwise would have? I know for sure the one thing I'd be asking myself is why is this dude so intent on running anyway? There must be a reason.

Don't you think that a nonlethal method such as a taser would have been the appropriate course of action against a man running from arrest who had a knife in his hand (and was not threatening the cops with it), rather than unloading 11 rounds to kill?

I agree that if someone is resisting arrest or running, the cops should apprehend the guy and not just let get away. But there are a number of far less lethal avenues to go down before lethal force is warranted. Lethal force should be an absolute last resort, don't you think? Instead, it is too often being used as the go-to.

Situations where I support cops shooting someone:

- A guy has a gun is is firing at the police
- A guy has a gun and is threatening someone else.
- A guy has a knife and is about to stab an innocent

Even in the last 2 cases, shouldn't cops be seeking to shoot someone in the leg or other nonlethal area, before shooting to kill?

In the first example, then yes, the cops have ever right to shoot to kill.

 

[dalpat077]

Don't you think that a nonlethal method such as a taser would have been the appropriate course of action against a man running from arrest who had a knife in his hand (and was not threatening the cops with it), rather than unloading 11 rounds to kill?

I agree that if someone is resisting arrest or running, the cops should apprehend the guy and not just let get away. But there are a number of far less lethal avenues to go down before lethal force is warranted. Lethal force should be an absolute last resort, don't you think? Instead, it is too often being used as the go-to.

Situations where I support cops shooting someone:

- A guy has a gun is is firing at the police
- A guy has a gun and is threatening someone else.
- A guy has a knife and is about to stab an innocent

Even in the last 2 cases, shouldn't cops be seeking to shoot someone in the leg or other nonlethal area, before shooting to kill?

In the first example, then yes, the cops have ever right to shoot to kill.

Hello and good morning to ya!

If you read my preceding post and previous response to @alasdairm you'll find that I agree with most, if not all, of that which you've just posted. If only in theory anyway.

As noted right above though: I've not read anything at all about the case save for watching the video. The taser malfunctioned (much to the dude's delight I might add). Had that not been the case: none of this would have happened. Now if I were a prosecutor or a civil defense attorney: I'd have an absolute field day with that let's face it. Why did it fail? Is this a common occurrence (in which case the police department if fucked anyway)? Was the officer derelict in not maintaining or checking the same or ensuring that it was fully charged?

Then again (see how these things can feed upon themselves): was he the ONLY officer that had a taser? At the risk of shooting myself in the foot and in just looking at your post and being all too familiar with the video: seems to me any one of the other officers had ample time to use THEIR taser as the dude was in range more than once so far as I can see. So yeah: interesting.

As for the actual shootings? Already addressed I think. It's hard enough to be accurate at a shooting range, under cool calm and collected conditions, shooting at a fixed target with a pistol or revolver, let alone trying to take somebody out at the knees under those conditions.

Believe it or not and particularly of late: I try to avoid my usual knee jerk reactions before commenting on these things. But I'm afraid to say that in this case I come to the same conclusion and belief in that if anything law enforcement took too long to bring things to an end (one way or the other). The untold damage and loss of life that COULD have been the result of this chase could have been substantial. And if my line of thinking is correct: I then have to ask myself the question why this was allowed to drag out the way it did i.e. bearing in mind that this was after Mr. Floyd's, and other's, demises: is that the reason? Law enforcement now having to think twenty times before acting for fear of retribution? It's possible not?

And of course: try as I might there's still the same old basic issue. There isn't one case cited on this thread where somebody did not lose their life as a direct result of them failing to comply with a direct order given by a law enforcement officer. And that includes Mr. Floyd unfortunately. And not a single one was some random person on the street that law enforcement just decided to fuck with. In all cases the suspects had either given law enforcement reason enough to suspect that something wasn't quite right or had been called out to an unfolding scene by Joe Public and who may only have provided limited information and law enforcement arrived on the scene, and acted, based on said limited information.

In this particular case there's one thing that I've not been able to fathom and that was the role of the blue truck that pulled up? That wasn't law enforcement from what I gather? Was that a good citizen trying to get involved and help the dude by advising him to take it down a notch and comply? I don't know. Unless whoever it was had the intention of offering him a quick getaway (in which case there'd be more than one deceased in this case for sure i.e. that'd have been shear folly especially based on the number of officers and units involved at the time).

Maybe it IS time to look up this case now and see what, if anything, has actually transpired and if there's any further information floating around (seems to me there is though).

 

[LordOfThisWorld]

Nah. C'mon Deputy Dawg! That's a stretch even for me!

And bear in mind this coming from somebody who was in vehement support of Officer Chauvin when this all went down initially and who has done a bit of an about turn on this particular case.

Any half-baked or semi-decent lawyer should twist and turn and tweak anything in the interests of getting his client off. Not to mention that he's getting paid handsomely to do the same. And bear in mind there were other officers that testified to quite the opposite (although their reasons for doing so too could also be questionable) (although they were quoting police procedure chapter and verse apparently).

My last take on this particular case hasn't changed. Do I think Officer Chauvin should have walked away with no penalty whatsoever? Nope. This in spite of my really and truly still believing that he had no intention of killing Mr. Floyd and that he was merely maintaining the status quo while waiting for the, then very late, EMS to arrive. But in all of the time taken: there was indeed time to think. At very least he could have rolled Mr. Floyd over, while cuffed, and kept speaking to him and asking him if he'd decided to take it down a notch and stop giving the officers shit. If Mr. Floyd had been turned over while still alive and then croaked due to all of the other factors: well then so be it. Unfortunately and even if that had been the case: given the climate law enforcement would still have gotten the short end of the stick. But maybe it would have resulted in not so harsh sentencing and less fury. I don't know. Just surmising.

I still think it'd be nice if there was some other method of punishing officers (when under questionable and complicated circumstances) and that didn't result in them being convicted and ending up with criminal records and losing their careers. As already noted: lay them off, with no pay or benefits, even if it be for years, but at least giving them the opportunity to return to the force if they so desire when the time comes. But there's no way this is going to happen I don't think.

I also don't think there shouldn't be any of these ridiculous financial awards under any circumstances. And certainly none awarded BEFORE the final outcome of a trial. As far as I know this is something new. How can a civil award be made before there is a definitive outcome? That I don't get. Basing it down: what would have happened if all of these officers involved in Mr. Floyd's case were indeed acquitted because it was found that, for example, Mr. Floyd's aorta had burst as a complication of his other underlying issues and that was the direct cause of his death? Or let's just say, for example, Mr. Floyd had indeed swallowed a whole bunch of Fentanyl laced pills and that was the direct cause of death. Would they have gone back and asked for the money back? And even if that be the case: good luck with that one. When law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty and actually simply doing their jobs: their families don't get these ridiculous amounts i.e. there's a calculation involved if I'm not mistaken.

Why aren't the other officers that were there being locked up, they should get the same conviction and jail time.

 

[alasdairm]

^ the other officers present at floyd's murder have been charged and will stand trial. their trial starts august 23rd.

alasdair

 

[dalpat077]

Why aren't the other officers that were there being locked up, they should get the same conviction and jail time.

At the risk of starting this shit show all over again...

Personal opinion is that because of a single, bystander, video: Officer Chauvin became the poster child is all. And I still believe that were it not for that particular video: this thread wouldn't exist (or would certainly not have 1 337 posts on it counting this one! ).

But as has just been noted by @alasdairm: their time is coming. Last time I checked on this the trial(s) were postponed (possibly to, as noted by @alasdairm, 23 August 2021)? And when those start: methinks we'll be on v2 of this thread and on this topic before you know it!

 

[LordOfThisWorld]

At the risk of starting this shit show all over again...

Personal opinion is that because of a single, bystander, video: Officer Chauvin became the poster child is all. And I still believe that were it not for that particular video: this thread wouldn't exist (or would certainly not have 1 337 posts on it counting this one! ).

But as has just been noted by @alasdairm: their time is coming. Last time I checked on this the trial(s) were postponed (possibly to, as noted by @alasdairm, 23 August 2021)? And when those start: methinks we'll be on v2 of this thread and on this topic before you know it!

If officer Chauvin was convicted guilty so do the other officers that were present need to be, just as guilty if you want to call officer Chauvin guilty, I don't, but the bystander cops are cowards and rats and trying to save their own ass.

 

[LordOfThisWorld]

^ the other officers present at floyd's murder have been charged and will stand trial. their trial starts august 23rd.

alasdair

They need to be put away for life, just for being cowards and turncoats.

 

[alasdairm]

They need to be put away for life, just for being cowards and turncoats.

that's for a jury to decide.

that said, chauvin's being found guilty of murder likely does not augur well for these other 3 officers.

alasdair

 

[Nurse Ratched]

^ the other officers present at floyd's murder have been charged and will stand trial. their trial starts august 23rd.

alasdair

The Federal one correct? The State trials were moved to March 2022.

From what I understand the Feds will try all 4 in Federal Court in the Fall which will circumvent the State trial ( for the remaining three ) which WAS scheduled for August.

 

[Nurse Ratched]

If officer Chauvin was convicted guilty so do the other officers that were present need to be, just as guilty if you want to call officer Chauvin guilty, I don't, but the bystander cops are cowards and rats and trying to save their own ass.

I applaud your passion but that is not how the legal system operates.

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

All of the burning, looting, and murdering over a violent crackhead thug...yeah I guess her deadbeat dad who cared more about the next bag of dope, or crack rock instead of his family, really changed the world! 8)

George Floyd's Mugshots

Well, a better journalist than I named Matt Berman over at PhillyMadeCreative spent the last several months aggressively pursing George Floyd's mugshots from the Houston Police Department. Oh and got them he did. Let's take a little look through them, shall we? First: The full list of Floyd's...

www.somebitchtoldme.com

 

[Xorkoth]

I guess drug addicts just deserve to be killed without due process Fuck 'em, huh?

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

No way dude, absolutely not! But there was a National moment of silence for George Floyd today on the anniversary of his death to celebrate his life like he was some sort of civil rights leader like MLK. He was not. He was, in very delicate words, no hero (civil right or otherwise). He was arguably a real piece of shit that cared for no one other than himself.

Are we now supposed to forget all about him burglarizing a pregnant women at gun point with his gun shoved in that pregnant belly while his crew randomly robbed her house? Is he a HERO now!? Is he a person that deserves a moment of silence from the fucking country. Pssssssst

Exactly.

 

[aemetha]

Are we now supposed to forget all about him burglarizing a pregnant women at gun point with his gun shoved in that pregnant belly while his crew randomly robbed her house? Is he a HERO now!? Is he a person that deserves a moment of silence from the fucking country. Pssssssst

Are you supposed to forget too the charity work he did in the years after that? Was he a hero, on balance, in his life. No, he was a person who did good things and bad things. George Washington was a slave owner, is he a hero now? Oh wait, he is. Such things are adjudged based on the balance of a persons deeds.

I would argue that George Floyd, on balance, probably shouldn't be remembered as a hero. He probably shouldn't be remembered as a villain either - certainly there are far worse people walking around who never had a moments thought of remorse or making amends. I would also argue though that the circumstances and event of his death should be remembered and memorialized. Not for the person, but for what can be learned from those events.

 

[dalpat077]

No. No, no, no. No. I'm in a relatively good space this morning!

 

[Nurse Ratched]

No. No, no, no. No. I'm in a relatively good space this morning!

Same. It's not worth it.

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

Are you supposed to forget too the charity work he did in the years after that? Was he a hero, on balance, in his life. No, he was a person who did good things and bad things. George Washington was a slave owner, is he a hero now? Oh wait, he is. Such things are adjudged based on the balance of a persons deeds.

I would argue that George Floyd, on balance, probably shouldn't be remembered as a hero. He probably shouldn't be remembered as a villain either - certainly there are far worse people walking around who never had a moments thought of remorse or making amends. I would also argue though that the circumstances and event of his death should be remembered and memorialized. Not for the person, but for what can be learned from those events.

LMAO charity work? It is called probation. He was a violent criminal and the way he is being hailed and worshipped as some hero, model baby daddy, and good guy is disgusting and absurd.

 

[Xorkoth]

From my perspective, it's more about the movement his death started. People should try to separate the greater issue from him personally, as all it does it bog the whole thing down and create a false dilemma. Essentially what you're saying, either explicitly or implicitly, is "George Floyd was a bad person, therefore police reform is bullshit and there isn't any problem, and it doesn't matter that due process was not followed". Which is nonsensical at best, if I try to be gracious about it.

Was he a bad person? Yeah probably so. But he still didn't deserve to be killed by the police, and excusing Chauvin is extremely problematic, as it means we are okay with police acting as judge, jury and executioner. That's not how our system works and it is hard to imagine anyone actually thinking our system should work that way. I think we should be thinking not about George Floyd the man, but about what the results of this event mean for our society and legal system. Who he was is irrelevant. I agree that some people are looking at the man through rose tinted glasses, but thinking that his morality as a human being (or lack thereof) is the point of this is grossly misunderstanding the entire point.

Also what I said to you stands. Over and over again, you suggest that because he was a drug addict, it was okay that he was treated unfairly and killed by a police officer without due process. Holding that position essentially reveals that either you're not thinking clearly about the issue, or you think due process under the law isn't important if you're deemed (by the police) as a bad person. Since you continually reference his drug addiction as your reason for this view, it stands to reason that your viewpoint is interpreted as "drug addicts get what they deserve if they get killed by police", and/or "drug addicts are bad people". Which is a problematic viewpoint, especially on a drug forum.