Derek Chauvin Trial - Page 3 - 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.
#15164998
Verv wrote: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.



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.


@Verv ,

In a sense it does not matter to some if Chauvin is guilty or is innocent. It is important to them that Chauvin be found guilty lest the cities burn once more. For the greater good, of course.

Personally, I think he's guilty based on the evidence I've seen so far, which admittedly isn't much. But I think of some of the ''supporters'' of that unfortunate man Mr George Floyd, and I shudder. I'm sure he would too.
By ness31
#15165001
I found the testimony of Donald Williams to be quite powerful and revealing. When asked why he called the police on the police and if he had spoken to them, he responded with “We just didn’t have no connection, I spoke to them but not on a connection of a human being relationship”.

User avatar
By Verv
#15165002
I would not know what to do in a case like this. I think he's shown a lack of good judgment, but I do not think that he intended to murder Floyd, and it seems he used an approved maneuver by the MPD. Did he use it wrongly, and against how he was instructed..? That's another question I would want to see answered.

What is really the threshold for "third degree murder?"

Just a quick DuckDuckGo search:

(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.
(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.


Minnesota Statutes via Revisor

Now... what's this about a depraved mind?

Charging a person with depraved mind murder relies on the assumption that there are reckless acts so dangerous that a person should be charged with murder if another person dies while you are engaging in them.

Examples of depraved mind murder include violently driving an automobile ², the accidental discharge of a gun during a fight³, and Mohammed Noor’s widely publicized charge of shooting a woman while on duty as a police officer.


Karaluslaw writing specifically on what this means in the state of Minnesota

This makes it even more difficult...

This hold appears to be approved of by the MPD, which puts it in a different class than 'violent driving' or proffering a gun during a fight, and it is done while restraining someone who was resisting arrest (at least the part of being put into the back of a police car).

- Chauvin's actions contributed to a death (like with Pantaleo in the Garner case who did not go to prison but was dismissed).
- The hold that contributed to the death was MPD approved, though, so was this eminently dangerous? One could potentially prove that MPD training would have informed him that it was... but imagine a scenario where MPD does not remove this hold from their accepted procedures. That would be the real test to me: them showing they absolutely believe that all of the manuals & training procedures in place as they were when Chauvin was trained do not have to be corrected at all because they stated the right thing and the death here is purely the result of Chauvin countering what the training says.
- 'The Depraved Mind' bit could also be potentially proven, but it seems subjective.

I guess if I were to make a decision I'd want to sit and here evidence for weeks on end before doing so! I'd also think that there might be another classification of crime .

Involuntary manslaughter might be more appropriate:

609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:

(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or


Revisor

An unreasonable risk and consciously taking a chance seems appropriate and provable because he was aware that Floyd required medical attention for his overdose.

I guess it would depend on what one would hear that would place the guilt in either one of these.
User avatar
By Verv
#15165003
To add to this:

Apparently today at some point (whatever time it is over there), the Chief of Police did testify on the issue, saying that this was not an issue of training:

"This was murder — it wasn't a lack of training," Arradondo said, adding that that was why he "took swift action" and fired the four officers involved in the incident a day after Floyd's death.

"The officers knew what was happening — one intentionally caused it, and the others failed to prevent it," Arradondo said in June.
...
"Once Mr. Floyd had stopped resisting, and certainly once he was in distress and trying to verbalize that, that should have stopped," Arradondo responded.

"There's an initial reasonableness in trying to just get him under control in the first few seconds," Arradondo said. "But once there was no longer any resistance, and clearly when Mr. Floyd was no longer responsive and even motionless, to continue to apply that level of force to a person proned out, handcuffed behind their back, that in no way, shape or form is anything that is by policy. It is not part of our training, and it is certainly not part of our ethics or values."


More of the details:

Arradondo was asked whether Exhibit 17 — a photo from the bystander video that shows Chauvin looking up at bystanders while he knelt on a seemingly anguished Floyd — was within police departmental policy 5-300, authorizing the use of reasonable force, and whether Chauvin had used an authorized neck restraint.

"A conscious neck restraint by policy mentions light to moderate pressure," he said. "When I look at Exhibit 17, and when I look at the facial expression of Mr. Floyd, that does not appear in any way, shape or form that that is light to moderate pressure."

...

Arradondo's testimony was followed by that of 5th Precinct Inspector Katie Blackwell. At the time of Floyd's death, Blackwell was the commander of the training division.

Blackwell was shown the same photo from bystander video that depicts Chauvin as he knelt on Floyd's neck. She, too, said that the restraint, as depicted, violated departmental policies and that neck restraints were not taught.

"I don't know what kind of improvised position that is," Blackwell testified. "So that's not what we train."

Blackwell testified that she has known Chauvin for about 20 years.

Prosecutor Jerry Blackwell's opening statement last week forecast Arradondo's and Blackwell's testimony.

"He will not mince any words," Blackwell had said of Arradondo. "He is very clear. He'd be very decisive that this was excessive force."

...

In his statement in June, Arradondo said one of the officers on the scene told Chauvin that Floyd should be put in a recovery position, meaning turned on his side.


NBC News

I suppose the testimony was more lengthy in person and perhasp there was proof that these things were never taught in this way in training, and hopefully, for the sake of the MPD, that was satisfactory.

What is funny about this is that one would think the conservative position would actually be that Chauvin himself alone is responsible murder here, and it would be a more liberal response to doubt the Police narrative and view the policing institutions themselves as responsible for poor trainng & policing.

But the positions are actually reversed.

What will also be interesting is the three officers are charged with aiding and abetting second degree murder.

I suppose I would point out that there really is something to be said about the confusion of the moment -- the three other Policemen were awfully silent, weren't they?

They are looking at serious time for not speaking out.
By wat0n
#15165004
@Verv yes, it's one of the paradoxes of the current political debate here in the US. But I think that MPD testimony is basically burying Chauvin, and underscores what I mentioned earlier: He was not supposed to use that kind of force to deal with George Floyd.

As for the rest, two of them had just joined the PD and had little experience. If they had no training on neck restraints, I think this would mitigate their criminal responsibility a lot and perhaps completely. There's another one with 10+ years of experience who I'd be surprised if he hadn't been trained, however. He should have it harder to be able to avoid criminal responsibility.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15165005
Verv wrote:Was it a valid police hold for restraining someone?
No. it was not. Given that there were 3 other police officers there, using such an extreme hold was completely unnecessary.

"Detective says Chauvin knee on neck a 'totally unnecessary' use of deadly force. A Minneapolis homicide detective has described Derek Chauvin's decision to press his knee into George Floyd's neck for more than nine minutes as a totally unnecessary use of “deadly force”."

“Once a person is cuffed, the threat level goes down all the way. They’re cuffed, how can they really hurt you?” he said.

Video shows Floyd was already handcuffed by the time he was forced onto the ground.

“I saw no reason why the officers felt they were in danger, if that’s what they felt. And that is what they have to feel to use that level of force,” said Zimmerman.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... e%E2%80%9D.

Verv wrote:Was there intention to kill George Floyd?
That is not relevant. When a person is in police custody, their safety is the responsibility of the police arresting them. You also do not need intent, when it comes to murder.

Verv wrote:Or was it the use of an MPD approved restraining technique to prevent him from further resisting arrest?
It was excessive force, only to be used when necessary. With 3 other police officers present, it was not necessary.

Minneapolis police chief Medaria Arradondo said Chauvin’s behavior was not in line with department policy.But the department signed an agreement with the state Department of Human Rights to ban all neck restraints and chokeholds anyway.
https://www.minnpost.com/greater-minnes ... s%20anyway.

Why are you defending the indefensible? :eh:

@wat0n This was clear use of excessive force, and the other police present should be parties to the offense, and be held culpable, as well. They were all serving members of the police force, and not Trainees.

The Minnesota PD should also be held responsible for training their cops in the use of a deadly restraint that was easily misused.
Last edited by Godstud on 06 Apr 2021 07:06, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Verv
#15165006
wat0n wrote:yes, it's one of the paradoxes of the current political debate here in the US. But I think that MPD testimony is basically burying Chauvin, and underscores what I mentioned earlier: He was not supposed to use that kind of force to deal with George Floyd.

As for the rest, two of them had just joined the PD and had little experience. If they had no training on neck restraints, I think this would mitigate their criminal responsibility a lot and perhaps completely. There's another one with 10+ years of experience who I'd be surprised if he hadn't been trained, however. He should have it harder to be able to avoid criminal responsibility.


I've been very curios about this, so I have continued to try to find what the defense attorney said in response.

Fortunately, the Star Tribune (the local newspaper of the Twin Cities) has been adequately covering Nelson's remarks, unlike the earlier quoted NBC article:

Under cross examination, defense attorney Eric Nelson asked Arradondo the last time he arrested a suspect. "It's been many years, sir," the chief said.

Nelson said the department's use of force policy includes the phrase "In light of facts and circumstances known to that employee at time the force was used."

"Do people like to be arrested?" Nelson asked, pointing out that people will come up with reasons why they should be arrested, such as a need to tend to a family member.

"Typically not," Arradondo said.

Under continued questioning, Arradondo acknowledged that officers sometimes need to take control of a situation.

"Would you agree that the use of force is not an attractive notion?" Nelson asked.

"I would say the use of force is something that most officers would rather not use," Arradondo said.

The chief also agreed that department policy affords an officer flexibility for when to use force or choose to de-escalate an encounter with someone resisting arrest.

"It's different in every case?" Nelson asked. The chief agreed, as he did when the defense attorney brought up choosing one path or another "when reasonable and practical" or "advisable and feasible."

Nelson returned to an earlier strategy by bringing up the degree of agitation of the witnesses standing close by and at times screaming their objections laced with profanities. The chief agreed that bystanders in certain situations could be distressed to the point of experiencing a crisis and not just the person who has the direct attention of the officers on the scene.


But the most interesting part:

Nelson went on to show two views of Floyd's detention just as the paramedics arrived. One angle, from the Darnella Frazier's bystander video, appears to show Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck, the chief said. While the other angle, coming from an officer's body camera video, reveals Chauvin's knee on Floyd's shoulder blade, Arradondo agreed.

The prosecution did not challenge those views but made sure to bring out in another round of questions to the chief that the time frame chosen by the defense lasted just a few seconds and occurred just before Chauvin stood up.


A bit away from the actual topic of Chauvin's actions, there's this very questionable part:

The chief said it is "typically not" an allegation that leads to someone being detained, because it's not a violent felony. To reinforce his point, Arradondo said the mere fact of it being a felony-level crime is not enough to prompt an arrest and jailing.


We've seen it stated elsewhere that cashiers will have to pay for any counterfeit currency that they accept. This can have a pretty serious community impact. The idea that people are not typically held accountable for this through arrest and jailing strikes me as odd, especially when this leads to finding guys carrying fentanyl and under its influence.

The chief said every officer must know the contents of the department's policy manual that covers all requirements of the force and then sign a document to that effect. The prosecution then showed the court Chauvin's signature on that confirming document.

The prosecution then showed the court the policy entry saying that calls on an officer to not to detain any suspect "no longer than necessary."


No idea how the no longer than necessary part is relevant..?

It is not necessary to arrest someone for passing counterfeit bills and potentially defrauding the community? You can really just resist your arrest and be let go if you are large enough to make it so four police can't get you in the back seat? You must be joking.

Keep in mind that Floyd also had a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system -- he really should have been taken into the hospital at that point.
User avatar
By Verv
#15165007
Another really interesting part of the trial is determining the cause of death.

This article is currently trending on the Star Tribune:

Prosecutors trying the former Minneapolis police officer charged with murder in George Floyd's death appeared to distance themselves last week from the medical findings on his cause of death, issued by the only doctor who performed an autopsy.

Special Prosecutor Jerry Blackwell told jurors last Monday that while Hennepin County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker ruled Floyd's cause of death cardiac arrest, prosecutors would prove he died of asphyxia, or, lack of oxygen, while Chauvin knelt on his neck for more than nine minutes.

"This was … not a fatal heart event," Blackwell said in his opening statement. "He died one breath at a time over an extended period of time."

Some veteran attorneys and legal scholars said the prosecution appeared to draw a line between themselves and the medical examiner. Others said perhaps they were "shoring up" Baker's work, which concluded that Floyd's death was a homicide.

In a PowerPoint presentation during his opening statement, Blackwell displayed the names of six outside medical experts hired to help their case, including a forensic pathologist — Baker's job — whom Blackwell spoke about at length while mentioning Baker as an aside.

"Usually you hear about alternative experts — outside experts — from the defense," said former Ramsey County attorney Susan Gaertner. "Typically expert pathologists are hired by the defense to dispute or undermine the medical examiner's report.

"What is unusual is that, to some extent, the battle of the experts is within the state's case instead of between the state and the defense."


And what the defense is saying:

Chauvin's attorney, Eric Nelson, seized on the issue. To raise reasonable doubt, he told jurors in his opening statement, "The state was not satisfied with Dr. Baker's work so they have contracted with numerous physicians to contradict Dr. Baker's findings, and this will ultimately be another significant battle in this trial: What was Mr. Floyd's actual cause of death?"

He noted that Baker was the only person to perform an autopsy on Floyd.

"Dr. Baker found none of what are referred to as the telltale signs of asphyxiation," said Nelson. "There was no evidence that Mr. Floyd's airflow was restricted and he did not determine [it] to be a positional or mechanical asphyxia death."

Nelson argued that Floyd died of a cardiac arrest resulting from drug use and pre-existing health issues, including heart disease and high blood pressure.


Also very interesting:

"It seemed to me that essentially the prosecution is going to take the position that Dr. Baker's autopsy report is incorrect or can be explained more clearly," said Mitchell Hamline School of Law emeritus professor Prof. Joe Daly. "It's extremely unusual … to cast doubt on your own medical examiner."

Baker's findings that Floyd's cause of death was "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression" sparked public outrage when they were released last June 1. Many, including attorneys for Floyd's family, believed Floyd died of asphyxiation and criticized Baker's ruling. An emergency fence and concrete barricades were erected around Baker's downtown Minneapolis office two days after he issued his results; they remain standing.


Now this is wild...

Baker listed hardening and thickening of the artery walls, heart disease and drug use as "other significant conditions." Fentanyl and methamphetamine were also found in Floyd's system.

Baker ruled the manner of death a homicide, a death that occurs at the hands of another person.

...

"It appeared to Dr. Baker that the pressure to the neck was coming from the back or posterior lateral portions of the back, and none of these strictures would impact breathing or cause loss of consciousness," said a document summarizing the meeting. " … Dr. Baker found it important that Floyd had narrowing of coronary arteries: 75-80% narrowed. This would put him at risk for a sudden cardiac arrest."


This reminds me of Garner:

During an April 4, 2019, disciplinary hearing Pantaleo's attorneys argued that in an internal report dated December 10, 2014, NYPD Chief Surgeon Eli Kleinman concluded Pantaleo did not use a chokehold on Garner and Garner had suffered no chokehold associated injuries.[69] According to Pantaleo's lawyer, Kleinman found that Garner's pre-existing health conditions contributed to his death.[69] The report was completed at the request of NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau.[69] Kleinman did not personally examine Garner and based his conclusions on a review of two videos of the incident and Garner's autopsy.[69][165]


The Eric Garner article on Wikipedia

But... But...!

if Chauvin is just one of these factors involved, he is guilty?

Prosecutors don't have to prove that Chauvin's actions alone caused Floyd's death, according to Minnesota guidelines for jury instructions. According to the state and the defense's proposed jury instructions, "  'To cause' means to be a substantial causal factor in causing the death. … The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability."

Being restrained and pressed upon while lying flat on your stomach can restrict the intake of oxygen and output of carbon dioxide, and reduce blood flow through the heart, leading to a fatal cardiac arrest, said cardiologist Dr. Alon Steinberg, chief of cardiology and medicine at Community Memorial Hospital, based in California.


Perhaps of Second Degree Manslaughter..? Since he would be aware of the pressure being put down on someone under the influence of fentanyl...? But how could he be aware that 70% of one of Floyd's arteries is blocked off?

I am not sure if I would know if someone under the influence of fentanyl is at risk of a heart attack in a hold that restricts respiration..?

Wild stuff.
By ness31
#15165008
*sigh*

Are you just playing devils advocate Verv? That’s what I’m going with..

I’m finding it impossible to quote your post so I’m just going to summarize -

*Trained police officers were causing the agitation of onlookers. They were not justified in keeping Floyd in that position as a form of crowd control.

*I’m glad you find the defenses cherry picking of the body cam, ‘interesting’. It’s a tough job but someone’s got to do it, right?

*The store owners shitty policy where they recoup losses from employees doesn’t even sound legal. But you know this...

*Jury is still out on the drug use being fatal. But yes, either way, Floyd should have been given medical attention.
By wat0n
#15165010
Godstud wrote:@wat0n This was clear use of excessive force, and the other police present should be parties to the offense, and be held culpable, as well. They were all serving members of the police force, and not Trainees.


I wouldn't be so sure about that. The policy at the time said that only officers that have been trained should use neck restraints. That implies that there were serving members of the force that were not trained on using neck restraints and that this was not part of their basic training.

Now, the only one who actually restrained George Floyd's neck was Chauvin. But I could imagine that an untrained officer would be unaware of the policy in place, when to use them, how to tell if they are being used properly and also how to tell if they could kill the person that is being subdued.

Godstud wrote:The Minnesota PD should also be held responsible for training their cops in the use of a deadly restraint that was easily misused.


Well, the city settled for $27 million for a reason. The Justice Department had issued advice discouraging PDs from using them at all years ago.
User avatar
By Verv
#15165011
ness31 wrote:*sigh*

Are you just playing devils advocate Verv? That’s what I’m going with..


Sure.

I’m finding it impossible to quote your post so I’m just going to summarize -

*Trained police officers were causing the agitation of onlookers. They were not justified in keeping Floyd in that position as a form of crowd control.


If there was a belief that this is a non-lethal hold that is permitted by MPD, there would be no reason to suspect that Floyd's life was at risk, yes?

*I’m glad you find the defenses cherry picking of the body cam, ‘interesting’. It’s a tough job but someone’s got to do it, right?


I assume this could become more relevant later.

*The store owners shitty policy where they recoup losses from employees doesn’t even sound legal. But you know this...


Why would I know that?

The last time I lived in the United States, George W. Bush was President and I could not legally drink. I've never worked in retail or the service industry, and never done so in the US.

Shouldn't people passing counterfeit bills be arrested?

Or is the US a third world country in 2021 that cannot spare resources to enforce this law?

*Jury is still out on the drug use being fatal. But yes, either way, Floyd should have been given medical attention.


Agreed.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15165014
@wat0n There being 4 police officers present, and George Floyd being handcuffed face down on the ground, made the use of such an extreme form of restraint unwarranted.

What's the matter, @Verv? You can't address any of the arguments(evidenced by sources) I have presented, because they dissemble your pathetic opinions?

You are playing Devil's Advocate and it's pretty amoral. :knife:
By ness31
#15165016
Sure


you’ve just PoD’d me. Your ‘sure’ just isn’t quite as aggravating as PoDs though :lol:

If there was a belief that this is a non-lethal hold that is permitted by MPD, there would be no reason to suspect that Floyd's life was at risk, yes?


Floyd was cuffed. One must ask why this ‘non lethal hold’ was being employed in the first place.

Besides, every encounter with an armed officer is life threatening because they are carrying weapons. It was very much an abuse of a pretty conventional power dynamic.

I assume this could become more relevant later.


Yes, it will be interesting to see the footage from that angle in its entirety.

Why would I know that?


Because you’re educated.

Shouldn't people passing counterfeit bills be arrested?


Shouldn’t employers stealing workers money be prosecuted?

Edit -
You are playing Devil's Advocate and it's pretty amoral.


Nothing wrong with playing devils advocate, it’s essential to figuring shit out. What is wrong is when people don’t declare that that’s what they’re doing :)
User avatar
By Verv
#15165017
Godstud wrote:@wat0n There being 4 police officers present, and George Floyd being handcuffed face down on the ground, made the use of such an extreme form of restraint unwarranted.

What's the matter, @Verv? You can't address any of the arguments(evidenced by sources) I have presented, because they dissemble your pathetic opinions?


That is just a different focus point.

Chauvin either caused his death, or he did not. It is entirely possible that his choice of restraining him was excessive, but that this restraint is not the main cause of Floyd's death.

So, again, think of what precedent there theoretically may exist from the Garner affair:

At a May 2019 disciplinary hearing for Pantaleo, Dr. Floriana Persechino, who performed Garner's autopsy, testified that Pantaleo's use of a chokehold on Garner "set into motion a lethal sequence" that led to a fatal asthma attack.[166][167] However, the examiner conceded that even "a bear hug" could have had the same effect as the chokehold, given that Garner weighed 395 pounds (179 kg), suffered from asthma and diabetes, and had a heart twice the size of a healthy person's heart.[165] Moreover, during the trial at a hearing in June 2019, a defense witness, Dr. Michael Graham, St. Louis, Missouri's chief medical examiner, testified Garner's death couldn't have been caused by a chokehold because, Graham said, Garner was never actually choked or unable to breathe during the arrest.[168][169] Graham attributed Garner's death to heart disease exacerbated by the stress of the arrest.[168][169]


If it is justifiable to use force to quell somebody resisting arrest like Chauvin used, then the death can be ascribed to the action of arresting via acceptable measures. But... Let us say that it was excessive force during an arrest... But it was excessive force that would not have contributed to the death of any healthy person..? It is very complicated.

2nd Degree Manslaughter would perhaps be a comfortable charge because the behavior really can be said to be potentially negligent and reckless.

It's really an incredibly complex question.

You are playing Devil's Advocate and it's pretty amoral. :knife:


:lol:

Not at all!

Why do people advocate unpopular ideas? Because many people show way too much hubris & animus in their ideas which may not be so certain.

Surely, somebody who si on the left, somebody who was part of #TheResistance, would see the purpose of opposing the establishment & advocating for alternative ways of seeing the situation.... And would view this not as amoral, but the actual task of any man of integrity.

Let me post some quotes from atheists & leftists that should give you a boner and rally you around the banner of free inquiry & doubting narratives:

“But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.”
― Mikhail Bakunin

“Does history record any case in which the majority was right?”
― Robert A. Heinlein

“Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin, more even than death. Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habits; thought is anarchic and lawless, indifferent to authority, careless of the well-tried wisdom of the ages. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid ... Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man.”
― Bertrand Russell, Why Men Fight

“Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking...”
― Leo Tolstoy

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.”
― Christopher Hichens

"Democracy and free speech are not facets of one gem; democracy and free speech are eternal enemies." - H. L. Mencken
User avatar
By Verv
#15165018
ness31 wrote:you’ve just PoD’d me. Your ‘sure’ just isn’t quite as aggravating as PoDs though :lol:


Haha!

Floyd was cuffed. One must ask why this ‘non lethal hold’ was being employed in the first place.


It could be unnecessary to have used that non-lethal hold; and it could be the case, simultaneously, that the hold is non-lethal in nearly all circumstances, and they could determine that the arrest was valid, and it was a contributing factor in his death, but nobody can be held responsible because nobody can know this. As they said, Garner could have died from a 'big bear hug.

Besides, every encounter with an armed officer is life threatening because they are carrying weapons. It was very much an abuse of a pretty conventional power dynamic.


Which is a great reason to get in the back seat of the cop car when asked.

Because you’re educated.


Thank you.

Shouldn’t employers stealing workers money be prosecuted?


Two different topics.

But, sure, why not? Why not both things...

- Prosecute and arrest counterfeiters whenever possible
- Illegalize taking losses like this from the staff.


Nothing wrong with playing devils advocate, it’s essential to figuring shit out. What is wrong is when people don’t declare that that’s what they’re doing :)


Right!

But there's no need for people to tiptoe.

This is a place for intelligent discussion -- why should everything be framed so carefully so as to not upset the lowest common denominator who is going to bitch & moan that you may not be saying the politically correct narratives that the media, academics, BLM, and DNC have approved of..?

People who follow these narratives so close that they get triggered when people disagree with them deserve to be slapped -- intellectually.

I will not go so far as other users and takl about how questioning the narrative merits you getting physically hurt for it.
User avatar
By noemon
#15165019
Verv wrote: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.


You can openly defend as many murderers as you like and pretend that you have some kind of moral duty doing it.

But unless you admit that you are a far more dangerous, illegal & immoral person than the victim you are claiming that he deserved it, you simply prove yourself to be a hypocrite based on your own argument.

You claimed that Floyd deserved to be choked for 10 minutes for resisting the law, according to your own logic you deserve to be choked for more because you are performing a far worse crime than he did.

Noone is preventing you from defending a murderer without any shame. Your defence logic is ridiculed by being turned on its head and you are unable to even comprehend it.
User avatar
By Verv
#15165020
noemon wrote:You can openly defend as many murderers as you like and pretend that you have some kind of moral duty doing it.

But unless you admit that you are a far more dangerous, illegal & immoral person than the victim you are claiming that he deserved it, you simply prove yourself to be a hypocrite based on your own argument.

You claimed that Floyd deserved to be choked for 10 minutes for resisting the law, according to your own logic you deserve to be choked for more because you are performing a far worse crime than he did.

Noone is preventing you from defending a murderer without any shame. Your defence logic is ridiculed by being turned on its head and you are unable to even comprehend it.


Why does this restraint appear in the MPD handbook and why is it used by police and security forces throughout the world?

Because it fundamentally is nonlethal, and because it is effective in subduing struggling and uncooperative people being arrested, both through completely immobilizing them, and also through even rendering them unconscious.

Like in the case of Garner, the police were not responsible for the many contributing factors. They did not pump Floyd up with fantanyl and clog 70% of one of his arteries. They also did not force him to resist four arresting officers for ten minutes.

So, if this is a valid technique applied immoderately, it is still problematic, and it makes sense to think that Chauvin unintentionally caused the death through negligence, but there's still room to argue that the force was not excessive and the situation that Garner was in also applies to Floyd, thus Chauvin, like Pantaleo, does not deserve a conviction for murder or manslaughter.
User avatar
By noemon
#15165021
Verv wrote:Why does this restraint appear in the MPD handbook and why is it used by police and security forces throughout the world?

Because it fundamentally is nonlethal, and because it is effective in subduing struggling and uncooperative people being arrested, both through completely immobilizing them, and also through even rendering them unconscious.

Like in the case of Garner, the police were not responsible for the many contributing factors. They did not pump Floyd up with fantanyl and clog 70% of one of his arteries. They also did not force him to resist four arresting officers for ten minutes.

So, if this is a valid technique applied immoderately, it is still problematic, and it makes sense to think that Chauvin unintentionally caused the death through negligence, but there's still room to argue that the force was not excessive and the situation that Garner was in also applies to Floyd, thus Chauvin, like Pantaleo, does not deserve a conviction for murder or manslaughter.


If it exists to sort out dangerous people and was used appropriately for George Floyd then it must be used on you because you are objectively speaking far more dangerous to society than George Floyd.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15165022
Verv wrote:Why does this restraint appear in the MPD handbook and why is it used by police and security forces throughout the world?


The Minneapolis policy
Prior to last week, the policy manual for Minneapolis police said officers could use chokeholds to cut off air and kill someone when deadly force is necessary because an officer fears they or others could be killed or suffer a severe injury. The same rules apply for firing a gun.

An officer could also use two types of neck restraints in less severe circumstances. One is called a conscious neck restraint, in which an officer applies light to moderate pressure to the side of a person’s neck but does not intend to knock a person unconscious. That could be used against people who are “actively resisting,” according to the policy guidebook posted online.

The other neck restraint is one meant to render someone unconscious, and could be used when someone is “exhibiting active aggression” and for “life saving purposes.” Department policy said neck restraints can’t be used against people who are “passively resisting.”

https://www.minnpost.com/greater-minnes ... estraints/

As for it being used everywhere? That's patently false.

Some of the biggest police departments in the country have already instituted bans on chokeholds. The Los Angeles Police Department banned what's called the "bar-arm chokehold" in 1982. The New York Police Department banned chokeholds in November 1993 — except when an officer's life is in danger. And the Chicago Police Department did the same in May 2012. Philadelphia and Houston have similar policies.
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/87752797 ... 20policies.

Facts sure suck, don't they, @Verv? They dismantle your argument pretty quickly, when used.

Chauvin and Pantaleo both deserve jail time. Firing Pantaleo 5 years after the fact was not justice.

If I punch a person in the head and they die, then I am guilty of murder, even if my intent wasn't to 'kill' someone. That applies to police officers even moreso, as a person's welfare in their custody is their responsibility.
User avatar
By Verv
#15165024
Godstud wrote:The Minneapolis policy
Prior to last week, the policy manual for Minneapolis police said officers could use chokeholds to cut off air and kill someone when deadly force is necessary because an officer fears they or others could be killed or suffer a severe injury. The same rules apply for firing a gun.

An officer could also use two types of neck restraints in less severe circumstances. One is called a conscious neck restraint, in which an officer applies light to moderate pressure to the side of a person’s neck but does not intend to knock a person unconscious. That could be used against people who are “actively resisting,” according to the policy guidebook posted online.

The other neck restraint is one meant to render someone unconscious, and could be used when someone is “exhibiting active aggression” and for “life saving purposes.” Department policy said neck restraints can’t be used against people who are “passively resisting.”

https://www.minnpost.com/greater-minnes ... estraints/

As for it being used everywhere? That's patently false.

Some of the biggest police departments in the country have already instituted bans on chokeholds. The Los Angeles Police Department banned what's called the "bar-arm chokehold" in 1982. The New York Police Department banned chokeholds in November 1993 — except when an officer's life is in danger. And the Chicago Police Department did the same in May 2012. Philadelphia and Houston have similar policies.
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/87752797 ... 20policies.

Facts sure suck, don't they, @Verv? They dismantle your argument pretty quickly, when used.

Chauvin and Pantaleo both deserve jail time. Firing Pantaleo 5 years after the fact was not justice.

If I punch a person in the head and they die, then I am guilty of murder, even if my intent wasn't to 'kill' someone. That applies to police officers even moreso, as a person's welfare in their custody is their responsibility.


It is actually not the case that a person is necessarily guilty of murder for killing someone with a single punch. It can be justifiable homicide because it was done in self defense.

It can also be the case of something like with Pantaleo, where it would be justifiable force for an arrest, and the man effectively kills himself by forcing a justifiable punch that results in a death, yes?

Imagine an evil nazi waltzes up to your missus and slaps her on the rear and says "Fancy a biggun, ma'am? " and after you punch him good he steals your wife's phone... the police catch him, and the totally mental fellah starts resisting arrest... he earns a punch in the kisser and he falls back, banging his soft head on the metal railing, now he's dead...

Should the police have to spend life in the slammer for killing the evil nazi with a punch like that?

Surely, we can then imagine less dramatic scenarios where justifiable force is used that results in unexpected consequences.

But yeah, I imagine this is where we have to maybe bow out and let the Brahmin class tell us what to believe.

I think it is possible Chauvin is quite guilty of excessive force or negligence but I think it should probably he something akin to third degree or second degree manslaughter.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the triggered readers would actually agree with me if they could get over their emotions.

noemon wrote:If it exists to sort out dangerous people and was used appropriately for George Floyd then it must be used on you because you are objectively speaking far more dangerous to society than George Floyd.


Wow, ok, very strong words.

Would you do it yourself or would you get a police officer like Derek Chauvin to do it for you?

Or do you prefer the mob justice approach, and we just get a bunch of protesters to do it... no need for law and order after all, innit?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 22

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]