@Bigga
As I'm awake and can't sleep I'll address you now as I have no other distractions.
I) I think the issue of treatment of the victim is subject on when #45's suggestion of "don't treat them too nice!" came into play when a man who is shouting he's claustrophobic. At no point did the officers think about another option rather than forcing the man in the vehicle. there are demonstrations online showing how to make someone more 'compliant'
I see you have beaten around the bush and failed to answer my question. So let me clear the weeds:
I agree Trump is an ass, let's even agree police can be trained better. And I agree Claustrophobia is a pain... So now that we both agree on those
And assuming none of the above is present, What should the police do when a suspect decides he doesn't want to be arrested or detained?
Please try to focus your answer on the question this time.
II) "Violently" is not opinion. You have eyes, you can see the great scuffle on the video itself in trying to force the man into a vehicle. The very LEAST "violence", as a definition is, is a push with intent. You're absolutely scraping the barrel on this POV.
"Violently": the use of physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
did they intend to hurt, damage or kill him when they 'forcefully' (which is the correct word you were looking for) tried to make him comply?
Also the word 'forcefully' is what you intended in question one. So yeah, 'Violently' is an opinion. An incorrect one at that.
III) You can't say to me it's false! The body cam only shows so much and is not at head height where the officer can see. All the officer is doing is following procedure where he can absolutely see both hands on the wheel. This is EXACTLY why he doesn't feel threatened and in 'fear for his life' as we see and hear so often. Watch again. At no point do two hands go to his gun in a 'threatened' manner. He can see, he's just reverting to training.
Yes I can. Your claim was that "Floyd's hands could be clearly seen at all times." That underlined claim is false. As you have now admitted above that "the bodycam only show so much." Thus, Floyd hands (i.e both) was NOT CLEARLY seen at all times. It wasn't seen when the officer said "Let me see your hands.
So, short answer? FALSE!
IV) Tell me if when Floyd is being handcuffed, they explain to him WHY this is happening. I would think it's against his civil liberties not to explain to him what's happening REGARDLESS of orientation. The job is to allay fear and communicate otherwise it's akin to snatching someone off the street, just because. He is told AS he is coming out of the other side of the police vehicle. At no point has he been read his Miranda rights as far as I can tell.
:
First, the job of the cops is NOT to allay fears. That is Clearly NOT one of the requirements of the job. Their job is to safely secure the suspect and the scene. At every point that cop was doing that.
2nd. He is being detained and restrained (handcuffed) because (and yes this is an opinion but one based on how police are trained) they had a reasonable suspicion he might have been involved in a crime. So the police following safety procedures removed him from the car to reduce any dangers ( including the possibility of having a weapon somewhere in the car or the existence of incriminating evidence in the vehicle).
3rd. Miranda rights are not necessarily relevant here. Miranda rights are really for the cops benefit. Not the suspect. They only need to read him his Miranda rights if they intend to use his statements against him in a criminal investigation. Based on the facts if this case, I see no reason why that would be necessary.
V) He became resistant to arrest after being compliant. This coincided with the proclamation of being claustrophobic. He's taken from the car he was sat in. he is sat down on the floor. He is walked to the police vehicle. He is searched. All of this is compliant behaviour. Show me otherwise. It's his clear fear of claustrophobia that sets off the incident. 'Resisting arrest' is implication he fought all the way. He did not.
Wrong. He was NOT compliant at every point. I can go point by point on the non compliance. Failure to show both hands upon instructions. Failure to exit vehicle upon instructions. Resisting detainment (handcuffs). Failure to comply with instruction (sitting on ground when told to walk towards police vehicle). Failure to Comply with instructions to enter the car. There was no point where Floyd was compliant. He seemed unable to comply PERIOD.
VI) That is a massive leap of faith when it could just be his claustrophobia setting off a huge panic attack at the thought of being left alone in a dark vehicle. No officer would there with him in his arrest whilst an investigation would be ongoing, let's be honest.
It's less of a leap of faith than the cockamamie claim of Claustrophobia. He was in a tighter spaced front sit of a car and just fine. What is more likely, is that the effect of the drugs he was on was getting worse. But more likely than not, the Claustrophobia claim was just a part of his constant and unrelenting attempts to NOT Comply
VII) The unedited version does show he asked to be put on the ground. Again claustrophobia driving him to do anything but be in the vehicle. One would assume if he'd taken the substance before he'd have reacted poorly on another occasion, so why re-use something that made you ill previously. Claustrophobia is the main issue here, alongside the substance, possibly. I think that's a fair assumption.
Claustrophobia (in so far as it's believable) is at best a symptom of his drug use. Unless you've missed it. He was seating in a car with his Windows wound up. So clearly wasn't Claustrophobic then. Common sense suggest there was no reason to buy his claustrophobic claims later.
VIII) This is assumption. Looking at the whole scuffle "he was put on the ground for a reason" is because that's where they ended up. That is the only fact to reason.
I don't know what you mean by this is an assumption. The claim was based on the following facts 1) they called an ambulance 2) asked if he was on drugs 3) one officer stated he was possibly having an episode of excited delirium.4) they stated many times he was acting erratically. All point to the fact they suspected something was wrong with him.
IX) I didn't have the privilege of crawling through every page, so what I said about not recalling is a truth to my recollection. One you cannot argue with. Hence why I asked if you needed your recollection refreshed.
In conclusion, is really like your answer to question 1. The rest are just rebuttals to your statements. The first is an actual request.
As I'm awake and can't sleep I'll address you now as I have no other distractions.
I) I think the issue of treatment of the victim is subject on when #45's suggestion of "don't treat them too nice!" came into play when a man who is shouting he's claustrophobic. At no point did the officers think about another option rather than forcing the man in the vehicle. there are demonstrations online showing how to make someone more 'compliant'
I see you have beaten around the bush and failed to answer my question. So let me clear the weeds:
I agree Trump is an ass, let's even agree police can be trained better. And I agree Claustrophobia is a pain... So now that we both agree on those
And assuming none of the above is present, What should the police do when a suspect decides he doesn't want to be arrested or detained?
Please try to focus your answer on the question this time.
II) "Violently" is not opinion. You have eyes, you can see the great scuffle on the video itself in trying to force the man into a vehicle. The very LEAST "violence", as a definition is, is a push with intent. You're absolutely scraping the barrel on this POV.
"Violently": the use of physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
did they intend to hurt, damage or kill him when they 'forcefully' (which is the correct word you were looking for) tried to make him comply?
Also the word 'forcefully' is what you intended in question one. So yeah, 'Violently' is an opinion. An incorrect one at that.
III) You can't say to me it's false! The body cam only shows so much and is not at head height where the officer can see. All the officer is doing is following procedure where he can absolutely see both hands on the wheel. This is EXACTLY why he doesn't feel threatened and in 'fear for his life' as we see and hear so often. Watch again. At no point do two hands go to his gun in a 'threatened' manner. He can see, he's just reverting to training.
Yes I can. Your claim was that "Floyd's hands could be clearly seen at all times." That underlined claim is false. As you have now admitted above that "the bodycam only show so much." Thus, Floyd hands (i.e both) was NOT CLEARLY seen at all times. It wasn't seen when the officer said "Let me see your hands.
So, short answer? FALSE!
IV) Tell me if when Floyd is being handcuffed, they explain to him WHY this is happening. I would think it's against his civil liberties not to explain to him what's happening REGARDLESS of orientation. The job is to allay fear and communicate otherwise it's akin to snatching someone off the street, just because. He is told AS he is coming out of the other side of the police vehicle. At no point has he been read his Miranda rights as far as I can tell.
:
First, the job of the cops is NOT to allay fears. That is Clearly NOT one of the requirements of the job. Their job is to safely secure the suspect and the scene. At every point that cop was doing that.
2nd. He is being detained and restrained (handcuffed) because (and yes this is an opinion but one based on how police are trained) they had a reasonable suspicion he might have been involved in a crime. So the police following safety procedures removed him from the car to reduce any dangers ( including the possibility of having a weapon somewhere in the car or the existence of incriminating evidence in the vehicle).
3rd. Miranda rights are not necessarily relevant here. Miranda rights are really for the cops benefit. Not the suspect. They only need to read him his Miranda rights if they intend to use his statements against him in a criminal investigation. Based on the facts if this case, I see no reason why that would be necessary.
V) He became resistant to arrest after being compliant. This coincided with the proclamation of being claustrophobic. He's taken from the car he was sat in. he is sat down on the floor. He is walked to the police vehicle. He is searched. All of this is compliant behaviour. Show me otherwise. It's his clear fear of claustrophobia that sets off the incident. 'Resisting arrest' is implication he fought all the way. He did not.
Wrong. He was NOT compliant at every point. I can go point by point on the non compliance. Failure to show both hands upon instructions. Failure to exit vehicle upon instructions. Resisting detainment (handcuffs). Failure to comply with instruction (sitting on ground when told to walk towards police vehicle). Failure to Comply with instructions to enter the car. There was no point where Floyd was compliant. He seemed unable to comply PERIOD.
VI) That is a massive leap of faith when it could just be his claustrophobia setting off a huge panic attack at the thought of being left alone in a dark vehicle. No officer would there with him in his arrest whilst an investigation would be ongoing, let's be honest.
It's less of a leap of faith than the cockamamie claim of Claustrophobia. He was in a tighter spaced front sit of a car and just fine. What is more likely, is that the effect of the drugs he was on was getting worse. But more likely than not, the Claustrophobia claim was just a part of his constant and unrelenting attempts to NOT Comply
VII) The unedited version does show he asked to be put on the ground. Again claustrophobia driving him to do anything but be in the vehicle. One would assume if he'd taken the substance before he'd have reacted poorly on another occasion, so why re-use something that made you ill previously. Claustrophobia is the main issue here, alongside the substance, possibly. I think that's a fair assumption.
Claustrophobia (in so far as it's believable) is at best a symptom of his drug use. Unless you've missed it. He was seating in a car with his Windows wound up. So clearly wasn't Claustrophobic then. Common sense suggest there was no reason to buy his claustrophobic claims later.
VIII) This is assumption. Looking at the whole scuffle "he was put on the ground for a reason" is because that's where they ended up. That is the only fact to reason.
I don't know what you mean by this is an assumption. The claim was based on the following facts 1) they called an ambulance 2) asked if he was on drugs 3) one officer stated he was possibly having an episode of excited delirium.4) they stated many times he was acting erratically. All point to the fact they suspected something was wrong with him.
IX) I didn't have the privilege of crawling through every page, so what I said about not recalling is a truth to my recollection. One you cannot argue with. Hence why I asked if you needed your recollection refreshed.
In conclusion, is really like your answer to question 1. The rest are just rebuttals to your statements. The first is an actual request.
Last edited: