George Floyd murder / Derek Chauvin guilty of murder

Dax777 said:


I figured I'd wait to get a clearer picture before commenting. As it turns out, there is now a 2nd video.

One that shows an earlier portion of the interaction. Apparently the cops had wrestled the man down (you know, what many claimed they should have done), he struggled with them and got loose, you know, as most resisting arrest would. And then they drew their guns as they chased him around the car where he opens the door and reaches in....Then an officer shoots...Yes, multiple times.


There is nothing the naysayers often like suggesting that wasn't attempted here.

2 police officers with guns on their hips struggling to subdue a suspect who was determined to NOT be detained..

@Bigga over to you. What should they have done there?

According to reports, they attempted to wrestle him to the ground and had tased him already.

So officers with gun on their hips try to arrest, wrestle to the ground ( but no knee as that's illegal), and then tased the suspect. He gets loose. Walks purposely or Maybe in a daze around to his car front door with police officers with guns drawn behind ordering him to stop.


I ask everyone on this thread What Should They Have Done? And at what point should they have done it?
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'm really not interested at the point where they're wrestling Blake. I'm interested in how the situation started; whether conversations were had or assumptions made.

If he's there to break up a fight, how did it reach its conclusion?

I'll let you answer that.

Cheers.
 
inbetween said:
Yes yes, no-one can condone police violence. The killing of Floyd was disgraceful and the officers involved should and hopefully will face justice for what they did. That should happen however with any instance of murder, be it the police or the guy on the street, no single murder is justifiable or excusable.

And this is the problem in the US, violence is normalised because of stupid laws allowing the proliferation of weapons for fun by all sides. That's why you get protesters and counter-protesters turning up with assault rifles followed by the police in armoured trucks but in that instance how can we blame the police for turning up in armoured trucks?

All people seem to care about is the police turning up in gear when actually why does anyone need to turn up to a protest with a weapon, but indeed why does the protest need to exist at all? It's all just a vicious circle and for me the major aggravating factor has always been guns and the violent culture surrounding them.

Take the guns away and the police don't need military gear as they don't in 99% of situations here in the UK. Yes racism remains a real problem as it is in all forms of society but at least without guns the people over there might stop dying on a daily basis.

This again for me is why you can't defund the police unless it's done at such a low level that it won't make any difference. There is an argument to reduce their efforts to gather military gear fair enough, but the police need to be armed and protected or else in the US there is a good chance on a daily basis that they may go out and never come home again.

Still though yes it's a lose-lose situation but that's not because the police are violent, it's because criminals are violent and often armed with guns and willing to fire them if necessary.
Click to expand...

So, wait...

Your argument is 'escalate the arms race' instead of giving the people the resources they need so there's a de-escalation in weaponry?

If you give people money for food, they won't feel the need to steal.

If you give people a decent living wage, they will have the money to feed their families/ themselves, so there's no need to arm yourself to steal for a living.

If you give people a way out of a life full of drugs, let's use a job or rehab resources in this instance, they won't feel the need to turn to drugs, as their life won't be shit, nor will they need to steal/ commit to afford their drugs and on and on into ever decreasing circles.

If you give a people back their dignity, they won't feel like people think they're the scum of the earth, anyway and maybe have some pride about their lives.


Or... You can choose to escalate the arms race, making the NRA types happy.

One way hasn't changed a fooking thing, but I reckon it's pretty much 50/ 50, ain't it...?
 
Dax777 said:


I figured I'd wait to get a clearer picture before commenting. As it turns out, there is now a 2nd video.

One that shows an earlier portion of the interaction. Apparently the cops had wrestled the man down (you know, what many claimed they should have done), he struggled with them and got loose, you know, as most resisting arrest would. And then they drew their guns as they chased him around the car where he opens the door and reaches in....Then an officer shoots...Yes, multiple times.


There is nothing the naysayers often like suggesting that wasn't attempted here.

2 police officers with guns on their hips struggling to subdue a suspect who was determined to NOT be detained..

@Bigga over to you. What should they have done there?

According to reports, they attempted to wrestle him to the ground and had tased him already.

So officers with gun on their hips try to arrest, wrestle to the ground ( but no knee as that's illegal), and then tased the suspect. He gets loose. Walks purposely or Maybe in a daze around to his car front door with police officers with guns drawn behind ordering him to stop.


I ask everyone on this thread What Should They Have Done? And at what point should they have done it?
Click to expand...

Same here, I dont know what anyone else would have done in that situation, blood pumping, suspect possibly reaching for a gun, people screaming all around, you'd have to be superhuman to make sensible decisions n that situation. I do feel for the police and some of these people criticising them just dont know what it is like, they say do this do that as if it is easy.

But to me it's the police training, they seem to be trained to get their guns out at the merest possibility of personal injury, there's no inbetween, no consideration of any other course of action. Tasers, shoot once maybe (Not the 3 then 4 more times they did in this case), the training seems to be if you shoot you have to kill.

One thing that did strike me in that video was the fear from those surraounding, it was almost as if they knew there would be shooting
 
Bigga said:
Please read about Daniel Shaver and Philando Castile.
[/QUOTES
Shaver was a drunken buffoon who didn’t follow his instructions. Whilst crawling, he moved his right hand toward his waistband. in direct contravention of his simple instructions. Prior to police attending, had been waving a gun out of his window, toward the street. Didn’t need to get shot though. Awful policing.

Castile declared he had a gun, then reached down without being told to reach anywhere. That equals trouble. Which is what he got. Perhaps if he’d have put both his hands on display and not moved them, things would have been different.
Click to expand...
 
Bigga said:
Yeah, I'm really not interested at the point where they're wrestling Blake. I'm interested in how the situation started; whether conversations were had or assumptions made.

If he's there to break up a fight, how did it reach its conclusion?

I'll let you answer that.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
There was a warrant out for his arrest for sexual misconduct with a minor. What role that played in this in interaction, I don't know. But what is undeniable, is that he had absolutely no intentions of complying.

He was tackled, tased, and had guns pulled on him. But non of that stopped him.

I have noticed a lot of people like you are showing severe disinterest in the relevant questions.

But even if you don't know the above. Even if he was a monk, when a guy with guns drawn on him decides, "nah I just need to get to my car and ignore these idiots"*** Again, I ask you the same question you like to avoid like the plaque, what should they have done?



'***' Not a real quote.
Gorton_Tubster said:
Same here, I dont know what anyone else would have done in that situation, blood pumping, suspect possibly reaching for a gun, people screaming all around, you'd have to be superhuman to make sensible decisions n that situation. I do feel for the police and some of these people criticising them just dont know what it is like, they say do this do that as if it is easy.

But to me it's the police training, they seem to be trained to get their guns out at the merest possibility of personal injury, there's no inbetween, no consideration of any other course of action. Tasers, shoot once maybe (Not the 3 then 4 more times they did in this case), the training seems to be if you shoot you have to kill.

One thing that did strike me in that video was the fear from those surraounding, it was almost as if they knew there would be shooting
Click to expand...
Police may need better training. But it would have been of no use in this situation or any situation involving a suspect who is determined to be non compliant.

Generally speaking, non-complying suspects tend to comprise about 95% of suspects who kill cops.

So as a cop, the moment someone becomes consistently non-compliant, you are in a life or death situation. It doesn't matter how benign the situation looks at any point. The moment there is a consistent attempt to resist compliance, the cops (and any sensible human being for that matter) danger alarm starts going off the handle.

On the video, you can hear the woman screaming, get my kids! Get away. This was long before the actual shooting. That woman wasn't clairvoyant. She simply recognized what anyone with common sense would. An escalating situation in progress.

But most of the truth about this and other similar situations are often Camouflaged in rhetoric. You'd really have to search high and low to find actual facts :(
 
Last edited:
Kinkladze 1 said:
Don’t know how I did that by the way. Apologies. I wrote the above. Not Bigga.
Click to expand...
If you take out the "S" at at the end of "QUOTES" and replace with a "]" that should fix it.

You certainly don't want to accuse @Bigga of writing something he didn't. Only wish he'd afford others the same respect and not infer things they didn't say :p
 
Bigga said:
Pretty dumb answer and expected, to be honest.

Not a single original thought going on in your head.
Click to expand...
Lol, go on mate face it, AOC has pissed on your chips with her statements hasn't she? Kinda upset the applecart and all that, she wants them defunded, no ambiguity, just defunded., which is a bit of a squirm fest for those suggesting nobody really means it, as this prominent politician clearly does.
Then when you get City Mayors, also making similar pledges, it gets a little difficult trying to say it was all about discussing budgets.
 
Dax777 said:
There was a warrant out for his arrest for sexual misconduct with a minor. What role that played in this in interaction, I don't know. But what is undeniable, is that he had absolutely no intentions of complying.

He was tackled, tased, and had guns pulled on him. But non of that stopped him.

I have noticed a lot of people like you are showing severe disinterest in the relevant questions.

But even if you don't know the above. Even if he was a monk, when a guy with guns drawn on him decides, "nah I just need to get to my car and ignore these pigs," Again, I ask you the same question you like to avoid like the plaque, what should they have done?

Police may need better training. But it would have been of no use in this situation or any situation involving a suspect who is determined to be non compliant.

Generally speaking, non-complying suspects tend to comprise about 95% of suspects who kill cops.

So as a cop, the moment someone becomes consistently non-compliant, you are in a life or death situation. It doesn't matter how benign the situation looks at any point. The moment there is a consistent attempt to resist compliance, the cops (and any sensible human being for that matter) danger alarm starts going off the handle.

On the video, you can hear the woman screaming, get my kids! Get away. This was long before the actual shooting. That woman wasn't clairvoyant. She simply recognized what anyone with common sense would. An escalating situation in progress.

But most of the truth about this and other similar situations are often Camouflaged in rhetoric. You'd really have to search high and low to find actual facts :(
Click to expand...
I suspect they do need better training because their policy is to "terminate the threat".

So, why the need for 7 shots? This guy didnt need to die.

I aint talking about better training I am talking about different training. The guy didnt need to die
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
I suspect they do need better training because their policy is to "terminate the threat".

So, why the need for 7 shots? This guy didnt need to die.

I aint talking about better training I am talking about different training. The guy didnt need to die
Click to expand...
Not wading into the debate but has he died? I read this morning he’s likely lost the ability to walk which is very sad but he’s still alive right?
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
I suspect they do need better training because their policy is to "terminate the threat".

So, why the need for 7 shots? This guy didnt need to die.

I aint talking about better training I am talking about different training. The guy didnt need to die
Click to expand...
For starters he is not dead. But severely injured. But I appreciate the point you are making.

As for your question, once the danger has become deathly, yes terminating the threat is the Policy. And a the correct policy.

Notice they didn't shoot him when he was struggling with them, even though at that point it had gotten critical. They didn't shoot him as he walked away purposely. Instead they chased. It was at the moment he opened the door and reached in that the cop started shooting.

At that point counting whether it was 1 bullet or Seven is unimportant. You shoot until the threat no longer is a threat.

You can't shoot once and then check. You have to shoot until it seems he has stopped moving.

These are gruesome thoughts for the average civilian. But for the cop in that situation. And at that point, those are the only options that guarantees his survival.
 
Dax777 said:
For starters he is not dead. But severely injured. But I appreciate the point you are making.

As for your question, once the danger has become deathly, yes terminating the threat is the Policy. And a the correct policy.

Notice they didn't shoot him when he was struggling with them, even though at that point it had gotten critical. They didn't shoot him as he walked away purposely. Instead they chased. It was at the moment he opened the door and reached in that the cop started shooting.

At that point counting whether it was 1 bullet or Seven is unimportant. You shoot until the threat no longer is a threat.

You can't shoot once and then check. You have to shoot until it seems he has stopped moving.

These are gruesome thoughts for the average civilian. But for the cop in that situation. And at that point, those are the only options that guarantees his survival.
Click to expand...

Shite policing, could have just tackled him to the ground if you suspected he was going to his car to grab a weapon. Common sense policing doesn't exist in America just executions the fucking pigs.
 
Dax777 said:
There was a warrant out for his arrest for sexual misconduct with a minor. What role that played in this in interaction, I don't know. But what is undeniable, is that he had absolutely no intentions of complying.

He was tackled, tased, and had guns pulled on him. But non of that stopped him.

I have noticed a lot of people like you are showing severe disinterest in the relevant questions.

But even if you don't know the above. Even if he was a monk, when a guy with guns drawn on him decides, "nah I just need to get to my car and ignore these idiots"*** Again, I ask you the same question you like to avoid like the plaque, what should they have done?



'***' Not a real quote.

Police may need better training. But it would have been of no use in this situation or any situation involving a suspect who is determined to be non compliant.

Generally speaking, non-complying suspects tend to comprise about 95% of suspects who kill cops.

So as a cop, the moment someone becomes consistently non-compliant, you are in a life or death situation. It doesn't matter how benign the situation looks at any point. The moment there is a consistent attempt to resist compliance, the cops (and any sensible human being for that matter) danger alarm starts going off the handle.

On the video, you can hear the woman screaming, get my kids! Get away. This was long before the actual shooting. That woman wasn't clairvoyant. She simply recognized what anyone with common sense would. An escalating situation in progress.

But most of the truth about this and other similar situations are often Camouflaged in rhetoric. You'd really have to search high and low to find actual facts :(
Click to expand...
Is there more than one person saying he was tasared ?
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Same here, I dont know what anyone else would have done in that situation, blood pumping, suspect possibly reaching for a gun, people screaming all around, you'd have to be superhuman to make sensible decisions n that situation. I do feel for the police and some of these people criticising them just dont know what it is like, they say do this do that as if it is easy.

But to me it's the police training, they seem to be trained to get their guns out at the merest possibility of personal injury, there's no inbetween, no consideration of any other course of action. Tasers, shoot once maybe (Not the 3 then 4 more times they did in this case), the training seems to be if you shoot you have to kill.

One thing that did strike me in that video was the fear from those surraounding, it was almost as if they knew there would be shooting
Click to expand...
tbf they are trained to offset the blood pumping,they need better training or guns only reserved for those most highly trained,soldiers manage it
 
I assume we have reached the point in the debate where we are now justifying shooting unarmed civilians in the back. Seven times.

I don’t know why some people are keen to have a police force where such actions are ever justifiable or where non compliance is a capital crime, or in this case tasering a guy and then shooting him in the back because he is no longer thinking straight, or indeed shooting a 12 year old boy for ‘looking too old’, but it seems there will always be people that will move heaven and earth to justify these shootings.

At some point the cycle will have to broken, because right now it’s looking pretty fucked and doubling down defending the situation will just mean a bigger fucking further down the line.

It would save a lot of time, trouble and tortured logic if certain posters would just say that they are okay with unarmed civilians getting shot in the back seven times. I think you’ll feel better for it. I know I will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top