[noemon]

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?

Rationalism is about applying your logic at the same ratio to your own argument to see if it actually stands up to your own logic and thus deduce its validity.

Since your crime is objectively speaking far worse than Floyd's, then you either posit that neither you nor Floyd deserve it, or you posit that both of you do. There is no other logical way forward for you.

As I told you earlier I would of course do it myself. When I said that people in my village along with Orthodox monks would actually spit on you and beat you I did not exaggerate, it is a fact that this would actually happen in real life. I have seen this happen with my own eyes not just once but a couple of times. People who pose a real danger, are treated accordingly. And you pose a real danger to people. That is also your own argument, that Floyd posed a real danger without actually taking the moment to consider how much more danger you pose compared to him.

[ness31]

It could be unnecessary to have used that non-lethal hold;

No. It was completely unnecessary in that particular situation. The defenses strategy, unfortunately for them, highlighted that even more

and it could be the case, simultaneously, that the hold is non-lethal in nearly all circumstances,

Irrelevant.

and they could determine that the arrest was valid, and it was a contributing factor in his death,

Valid does not mean appropriate. Whether or not something is appropriate can actually overturn its validity

By the way, it was actually that Morris Lester Hall fellow who tried passing off that fake 20 earlier in the day. That wanker, who is now pleading the fifth probably used Floyd to try and get rid of it.

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

Sure

I’ve just watched some more of the trial where Police Sgt David Pleoger testified that on a phone call to Chauvin immediately after the incident, Chauvin said Floyd had become combative, that “we had to hold a guy down, he was going crazy” cough cough and then turned off his body camera and recording device..

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.

Hey, you’re the one that brought up the societal impact of fake money.

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 -- [i]intellectually.

I don’t think that’s what’s going on here.

For myself personally, the clear disregard for humanity was so shocking. It almost looked like a malfunction

So, it’s all a bit sensitive, yes

I will not go so far as other users and takl about how [i]questioning the narrative merits you getting physically hurt for it.

Must have something to do with those affects on the community that you keep banging on about

[Godstud]

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.

If the person was handcuffed and face down on the ground would it still be "self defense"? You're implying that.

I showed you the Minneapolis policy. You have a problem with the wording they had?

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

If the person was not resisting arrest, and if the person was already handcuffed(and in police custody), YES. They should go to jail for manslaughter, at the very least. Laws apply to everyone, even police officers.

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

If you are looking for that, then this is not the example you should use. 4 Police officers were present, and he held his knee on Floyd's neck for 9 minutes. Chauvin had options he chose to ignore. The consequences in such a situation might very well have been inevitable, given his belligerence.

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.

No one is saying otherwise. Given the history of police getting off of such charges, an example does need to be made, even if these lesser charges are used. I never thought they would charge his with pre-meditated murder, but surely it might fit criminal negligence or manslaughter. Jail time should be a given.

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

You have being doing some heavy duty trolling, so if you don't like it, then maybe you should stop. You're been stating some pretty dumbass shit.

[ness31]

Indeed, I’m intrigued by Verv the troll! Since when?

[ingliz]

the hold is non-lethal in nearly all circumstances

If that's the case, why does the MPD list it under 'deadly force' options?

non-lethal

English police standard operating procedures forbid prone restraint after handcuffing.

Compliance with this SOP and any governing policy is mandatory.

[..]

Once handcuffed, a person should be raised to their feet to a seated or standing position that does not impede the mechanism of normal breathing;

Care should be taken not to put pressure on the back as breathing can be restricted even if the person is placed in the recovery position;

Monitoring the person’s condition continually whilst being restrained, as death can occur suddenly and develop beyond the point of viable resuscitation within seconds rather than minutes.

Why do they say, "death can occur suddenly and develop beyond the point of viable resuscitation within seconds rather than minutes," if it's so benign?

[Pants-of-dog]

As @ingliz mentioned in this or the other thread, this trial will probably end up as a mistrial due to a hung jury.

All that is needed is for one of the jurors to believe the things @Verv has claimed. And that seems entirely believable.

[ingliz]

The use of force training officer has just testified that it's ok to murder a suspect if the crowd asks you to stop murdering the suspect.

[Verv]

Rationalism is about applying your logic at the same ratio to your own argument to see if it actually stands up to your own logic and thus deduce its validity.

Yeah, that makes sense. I agree with that.

Since your crime is objectively speaking far worse than Floyd's, then you either posit that neither you nor Floyd deserve it, or you posit that both of you do. There is no other logical way forward for you.

But there is no actual crime: it's free speech. Free speech is never criminal.

And you would say what I am saying is absurd, right? Why would anyone believe what I say? How can I be dangerous?

As I told you earlier I would of course do it myself. When I said that people in my village along with Orthodox monks would actually spit on you and beat you I did not exaggerate, it is a fact that this would actually happen in real life. I have seen this happen with my own eyes not just once but a couple of times. People who pose a real danger, are treated accordingly. And you pose a real danger to people. That is also your own argument, that Floyd posed a real danger without actually taking the moment to consider how much more danger you pose compared to him.

Wow, so what did these two men in your village do to earn mob violence? I am really curious about that?

I am also not too surprised that there can be violence in Greece over these things. There's a lot of passionate politics. The Greeks are showing up to to protest new migrant camps, and I will always remember when there were banners outside of Mt. Athos about how they must protest that Antichrist Tsirpas coming to visit in 2017. "Keep the Anti-Christ off the Holy Mountain!"

So, what sort of village is this? You guys were ringing church bells to protest the gender laws & take a hard stance against LGBTQ+? Would Archbishop Makarios leading anti-abortion protests in Sydney resonate with them?

Or are the monks & people of your village more defined by BLM & intersectionalist narratives?

I knew a woman who told me about visiting a place in Greece where she met a Marxist with servants in his home that talked about his commitment to his radical left ideology and such, though, so I imagine there are many types of Greek villages out there. All of them special.

No. It was completely unnecessary in that particular situation. The defenses strategy, unfortunately for them, highlighted that even more

The big thing is that he was resisting arrest and there can always be said to be suspicion that he would rise up again, and that the mob surrounding the place would be a threat to the arrest process.

Irrelevant.

It's actually super relevant...

For we are ultimately discussing whether he is guilty of
- Murder in the second degree (up to 40 years in prison
- Murder in the third degree (Up to 25 years in prison)
- Manslaughter in the second degree (Up to 10 years in prison or up to $20,000 in fines, or both)

If we believe that this hold is generally non-lethal, but it was applied negligently, and the force was excessive, we would perhaps conclude that this was manslaughter in the second degree, and it may even be decided that only a fine would be appropriate for using excessive force in a dicey situation...

If we believe that the act itself is quite dangerous, or that he did it in a way that is dangerous and with depraved mind/without regard for human life, then we are looking at something more like murder in the third degree.

I can totally see this being a manslaughter in the second degree case; in fact, let's say that no exculpatory evidence comes out and defense lawyer Nelson doesn't pull out any great miracles... I'd probably be voting for this when it was all said and done.

By the way, it was actually that Morris Lester Hall fellow who tried passing off that fake 20 earlier in the day. That wanker, who is now pleading the fifth probably used Floyd to try and get rid of it.

Correct-a-mundo.

Sure

LOL< I like that you notice this, because I have always noticed this.

I’ve just watched some more of the trial where Police Sgt David Pleoger testified that on a phone call to Chauvin immediately after the incident, Chauvin said Floyd had become combative, that “we had to hold a guy down, he was going crazy” cough cough and then turned off his body camera and recording device..

Which is a huge strike against Chauvin, if you ask me.

I don’t think that’s what’s going on here.

For myself personally, the clear disregard for humanity was so shocking. It almost looked like a malfunction

So, it’s all a bit sensitive, yes

See, I know that police put up with loads of theatrics, and there were theatrics going on early in the arrest, so I am less sympathetic about this.

Now, I do not have as much time, so responses will be shorter.

Godstud

If the person was handcuffed and face down on the ground would it still be "self defense"? You're implying that.

I showed you the Minneapolis policy. You have a problem with the wording they had?

(1) I had also mentioned legitimate arrest, I think.
(2) There's two reasons this is not persuasive re: MPD policy.

- The Police Chief & City have already decided that they are going to side with the BLM narrative on this; they also had a police station burnt down. What? You expect the Police to be some objective source of information on them clearing their name?
- It does not prove that it caused Floyd's death, ultimately.

4 Police officers were present, and he held his knee on Floyd's neck for 9 minutes. Chauvin had options he chose to ignore. The consequences in such a situation might very well have been inevitable, given his belligerence.

But did it cause his death? Should Chauvin have expected it to cause his death?

You have being doing some heavy duty trolling, so if you don't like it, then maybe you should stop. You're been stating some pretty dumbass shit.

Isn't it exciting, though? Where would this thread be without me?

If it weren't for my "trolling," you'd be doing two-line posts in a center-left circle wank. You should be high fiving me.

Indeed, I’m intrigued by Verv the troll! Since when?

I've been irritating people like this since I got an internet connection in 1996.

But I assume I've been irritating people a lot longer than that.

If that's the case, why does the MPD list it under 'deadly force' options?

It also talked about it as used to simply control a situation or even render a man unconscious. That is, if we are both talking about the Wolfschilde posts.

Once handcuffed, a person should be raised to their feet to a seated or standing position that does not impede the mechanism of normal breathing;

Care should be taken not to put pressure on the back as breathing can be restricted even if the person is placed in the recovery position;

Monitoring the person’s condition continually whilst being restrained, as death can occur suddenly and develop beyond the point of viable resuscitation within seconds rather than minutes.

Is that the MPD SOP?

As @ingliz mentioned in this or the other thread, this trial will probably end up as a mistrial due to a hung jury.

All that is needed is for one of the jurors to believe the things @Verv has claimed. And that seems entirely believable.

Yeah, that would make sense.

But I am thinking that they will be able to get Manslaughter in the second degree.

[noemon]

But there is no actual crime: it's free speech. Free speech is never criminal.

And you would say what I am saying is absurd, right? Why would anyone believe what I say? How can I be dangerous?

You are openly arguing for sadistic murder. You are far more dangerous to society than George Floyd.

You are also hypocritical enough to argue that allegedly holding a fake dollar bill is more of a crime than arguing for sadistic murder.

I am also not too surprised that there can be violence in Greece over these things. There's a lot of passionate politics.

You are only following obscure & fringe far-right news because that is what you are. In any country you can find whatever news you want to find to make yourself feel comfortable. Tsipras reached an agreement with the Archbishop despite the protests by the crazies you follow.

The Greeks built a monument to a single victim of police brutality and maintain yearly vigils in his name. If you tell a Greek in a coffee shop that you support the police killing them in cold-blood for holding a fake euro, they will spit on your face, if you protest they will beat the shit out of you. Orthodox monks in the vicinity would join in.

[Verv]

You are openly arguing for sadistic murder. You are far more dangerous to society than George Floyd.

I'd actually stated that, if nothing else important were to happen in the trial, I would be inclined to say that this was manslaughter in the second degree.

You are only following obscure & fringe far-right news because that is what you are. In any country you can find whatever news you want to find to make yourself feel comfortable.

I cited
- a Russian Orthodox website that is perhaps quite to the right,
- Associated Press
- Canada Broadcasting Corporation
- Neos Kosmos, the "The latest Greek-Australian News, Opinion, Features, Culture, Food, Entertainment, and Sport from Neos Kosmos in Melbourne, Australia".

The Greeks built a monument to a single victim of police brutality and maintain yearly vigils in his name. If you tell a Greek in a coffee shop that you support the police killing them in cold-blood for holding a fake euro, they will spit on your face, if you protest they will beat the shit out of you. Orthodox monks in the vicinity will join in.

And the Greeks have protests about the 2017 transgender bill, and they have an anti-abortion movement, just like any other society.

What, conservative Greeks don't exist?

But I understand your position. There are many Koreans who are quite conservative but are very much against police violence due to a history of them being employed by a violent dictatorship.

[noemon]

I'd actually stated that, if nothing else important were to happen in the trial, I would be inclined to say that this was manslaughter in the second degree.

Are you no longer arguing for sadistic murder? If so, then say it out loud.

I cited
- a Russian Orthodox website that is perhaps quite to the right,
- Associated Press
- Canada Broadcasting Corporation
- Neos Kosmos, the "The latest Greek-Australian News, Opinion, Features, Culture, Food, Entertainment, and Sport from Neos Kosmos in Melbourne, Australia".
And the Greeks have protests about the 2017 transgender bill, and they have an anti-abortion movement, just like any other society.

You did not post anything relevant. Protesting LGBTQ by the ultra-Orthodox is hardly anything surprising. At best a stupid distraction to change the topic.

The crazy fringe I mentioned was the Russian crazies you linked calling Tsipras(the antichrist) for meeting with the Orthodox to reach a settlement regarding their salaries.

What, conservative Greeks don't exist?
But I understand your position. There are many Koreans who are quite conservative but are very much against police violence due to a history of them being employed by a violent dictatorship.

The same monks who would protest LGBTQ, would spit on anyone who would argue for police brutality in their faces.

Orthodox monks do not take kindly to sadistic murderers and their apologists, no matter how conservative they may be.

The Greek Orthodox people who brought you into our religion would not EVER tolerate your apologetics for sadistic murder, neither your appropriation of their name and symbols for the prop of such a cause. If you don't believe me, talk to your priest about it, in honesty.

Disappointment can be irritating though not the way you think.

[ness31]

It's actually super relevant...

Only for defense attorneys trying to get their clients off a murder charge.

Floyd was handcuffed, face down on the pavement.

What did Chauvin hope to achieve by keeping him in that position for 9 minutes? What was the purpose?

[Pants-of-dog]

Yeah, that would make sense.

But I am thinking that they will be able to get Manslaughter in the second degree.

A large percentage of US citizens believe in YEC, despite the evidence.

A large percentage of US citizens believe that Trump had the election stolen from him, despite the evidence.

Consequently, it is logical to assume that a large percentage of US citizens believe this was a lawful killing, despite the evidence.

And the defence and prosecutors only need to find one together.

[Verv]

Are you no longer arguing for sadistic murder? If so, then say it out loud.

I would actually say that I have never argued in support of sadistic murder. But yes, I will categorically state...

Chauvin overreacted to the situation; once Floyd was handcuffed and not struggling, he really should have, at most, put his knee on the shoulder or back. However, I am not convinced that Chauvin had the intent to kill him, and I have no idea how to navigate some of these questions, like...

- What does it mean if someone's actions are a contributing factor to someone's death but they could have potentially not expected a death to occur at all?
- What if they are a contributing factor, but the actions themselves were legal?
- What was Chauvin actually trained on? Not what the manuals said, and not what the director of training in formal police uniform in front of the nation says... But what training did the average MPD officer literally have on this, and how did these guys typically operate in the wild?
- What does it mean if the respiratory stress and heart failure really were the main culprits here..?

I think it's incredibly complex.

You did not post anything relevant. Protesting LGBTQ by the ultra-Orthodox is hardly anything surprising. At best a stupid distraction to change the topic.

The crazy fringe I mentioned was the Russian crazies you linked calling Tsipras(the antichrist) for meeting with the Orthodox to reach a settlement regarding their salaries.

There were plenty of Greeks calling Tsirpas an anti-Christ.

The same monks who would protest LGBTQ, would spit on anyone who would argue for police brutality in their faces.

Orthodox monks do not take kindly to sadistic murderers and their apologists, no matter how conservative they may be.

The Greek Orthodox people who brought you into our religion would not EVER tolerate your apologetics for sadistic murder, neither your appropriation of their name and symbols for the prop of such a cause. If you don't believe me, talk to your priest about it, in honesty.

You know what, I will do that at some point, I think, though I have had very little facetime with my spiritual father in 2020-2021 due to the Coronavirus, and this is also partly because the two Greek clergymen we have now are more busy outside of my area.

And you know what, I will say this, Noemon...

I was actually disturbed by your reaction throughout yesterday because I respect you & like you as a person, and I felt that I perhaps am going too far and making a mistake. I normally do not dwell on what was said, but my mind wandered to what you said when walking home, even when brushing my teeth. But I honestly think you have overlooked some of the things I have said, and I must also admit that I like emphasizing my disagreements with what people are saying and tend to not bring out where we are in agreement, because I think that is unmasculine in a debate forum.

And yes, it was upsetting for you to talk about monks beating me. Because I do value the judgment of our ascetics.

But, hey, to me, the radical disagreements & going against the crowd are vital aspects of being a human and actually opposing tyranny that does produce more situations like George Floyd's. I just do not believe there was a political or racial motive in what Chauvin was doing.

[Verv]

Only for defense attorneys trying to get their clients off a murder charge.

Floyd was handcuffed, face down on the pavement.

What did Chauvin hope to achieve by keeping him in that position for 9 minutes? What was the purpose?

But would a healthy person die as a result of this maneuver? The answer is no; and if we can further conclude that Chauvin did not believe that this would result in death, and that it could even be standard for MPD officers to occasionally do this to people who were resisting arrest, and the main cause of death is fentanyl and heart issues... It really changes the situation.

A large percentage of US citizens believe in YEC, despite the evidence.

The best chess player I faced IRL was YEC, and he was also one of the smartest boys in the school. Very sharp. He now has a prestigious position in a shipping & logistics company and makes crazy money with an attractive wife. Very outstanding guy.

And he was one of two YEC people I knew growing up in a rural state.

So, I have a strange relationship with YEC.

I am definitely not YEC, but I am less critical of it than most people.

A large percentage of US citizens believe that Trump had the election stolen from him, despite the evidence.

I think this is a case where there are strong arguments it was.

Consequently, it is logical to assume that a large percentage of US citizens believe this was a lawful killing, despite the evidence.

And the defence and prosecutors only need to find one together.

I am not even necessarily sure of how to navigate this because the laws can produce radically different results in the US even when it is determined that the actions a person did basically killed someone.

A very important example of this is unfolding now:

[Godstud]

@Verv You are against sadist murder, but with caveats.

[ness31]

Lol, I’m done. We’re like dogs chasing our tails now

[Verv]

Lol, I’m done. We’re like dogs chasing our tails now

Right.

This is how all good discussions end.

People just start repeating themselves because the same basic points can't be resolved.

@Verv You are against sadist murder, but with caveats.

And this is how great evils are accomplished, folks!

How do you justify political violence?

You take a Communist who tries to communicate rationally, remove him from his framework, and then insist all he is really doing is justifying murder.

You can do this with anyone.

Pro-Lifers & nationalists would use the same exact means to reduce you to being someone who supports sadistic murder -- but with caveats!

And that is exactly what motivates me to post on the internet sometimes: to show that we can have disagreements on sensitive topics but everyone can still be a good person.

Right now, I am failing you, or you are failing me; regardless, we both lose.

[Godstud]

No, @Verv, you are just trolling.

[noemon]

You take a Communist who tries to communicate rationally, remove him from his framework, and then insist all he is really doing is justifying murder. You can do this with anyone.

You openly said that people -George Floyd- needed to be taught a lesson on the law. No one reduced you to anything, you reduced your own self. I just turned this on its head and asked you that if Floyd, deserved a lesson on the law for holding a fake dollar bill, then what kind of lesson do you deserve for trying to justify murder?

It's a legitimate question, not one intended to 'remove you from your framework' but place you firmly within your own framework.

Pro-Lifers & nationalists would use the same exact means to reduce you to being someone who supports sadistic murder -- but with caveats!

You are someone who openly argues for sadistic murder, while totally ignoring the fact that his actions are far worse than anything george Floyd did.

You 're simply not convincing me that this is just you playing 'devil's advocate' as a form of exercise. And that is why I no longer give you the benefit of the doubt which as you know I have given you time and time and time again. I can see there is something fundamentally wrong with you to sit here and take the time to tell us that "George Floyd was rightfully schooled on a lesson in the law".

And I do not think you appreciate how deeply embedded this is in our culture & religion. You can say anything to a Greek person and no eyebrow will ever be lifted, once you start apologising for the pigs' authority to murder a civilian for no cause, you have broken all the religious barriers and then some. And what exactly was the intended outcome in here? To convince me that Floyd deserved it? It's not true that he did, no matter how much you bang your head against the wall. But what will you earn by that even if you manage to convince a single idiot?