George Floyd murder / Derek Chauvin guilty of murder

[FogBlueInSanFran]

https://www.bullshido.net/anatomy-of-a-catastrophe/

Thanks for posting that. We should all read it.

Tragedies are so, so often the result of a clearly linked series of failures -- clear only in retrospect. Whether each and every fact is precise in this recounting (which the author admits he/she doesn't -- and can't -- know) is less relevant than that failures across ALL individuals in control of their own thoughts, words and deeds led to the tragedy(tragedies). The lesson is not to let this tragedy lead to other tragedies. And it's probably already too late.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I am sick of seeing cops shoot EVERYONE...white, black, brown, you name it!

The big difference is I understand WHY some of these people get shot. I explained why Blake got shot (btw, he already admitted he had a knife).

Indeed, even to this point, I have not expounded on my feelings as to whether it was a legal shoot or not.

It would be great if the Police in the US didn’t have to be on high alert to knives, guns or even fighting with people they want to talk to or even arrest, wouldn’t it?

One of the funny things I hear is “Why not wrestle, like UK cops sometimes have to?“ The simple reason is, if you don’t win your wrestling match, there’s a good chance you’ll get shot with your own weapon! When you are carrying a gun, “fisticuffs” isn’t an option, especially one on one. If you ever see a US cop wrestling with someone, it is nearly always because A) he got jumped and has had to react, or B) there is at least one other cop present, often with gun drawn in case there is a need to avoid a weapon being taken. Cops are taught to protect your weapon at all times, because the life you’re saving us your own!

Brits appear incapable of understanding life in America, esp life in the trenches of the urban wastelands.

By now, you’ve all seen a (white) 17 yr old walking down the road, hands up, walk-jogging towards a phalanx of police vehicles with an AR-15 over his shoulder...and not being pinned on the ground and arrested...with mouths agape. You know he just killed 2 people, but the police don’t, and seeing people exercising “open carry” Isn’t an every day occurrence in most places, but isn’t illegal, either!

I know...sounds crazy, and I agree with you...but this is the law and ONE PARTY protects such laws because it feeds their base! I AM NOT THEIR BASE!

Crime is a problem. I’m on record here abhorring violent crime and have no problem with harsh penalties for violent crimes, esp those committed while brandishing a deadly weapon, even if not used or even loaded.

The problem, in 99%+ of cases, is not the “fucking pigs.” When it is, I have ZERO ISSUES with them feeling the full weight of the law coming down on them, and it’d be fine by me if George Floyd’s killer is found guilty of second/third degree murder, because I think he is guilty of it. The Blake case is NOT the Floyd case!

Whilst I agree with most of that, the 'Rules of Engagement' are not consistent across the states, and they certainly are not always adhered to.

The simple fact is that RoE are should be set and administered in order to protect both the Law Enforcement Officer from committing an unlawful act, and the general public from harm.

The use of lethal force against an individual should only apply IF the individual poses a DIRECT AND IMMEDIAT THREAT TO LIFE THE OF THE OFFICER OR SOMEONE ELSE, and their IS NO OTHER WAY to prevent the threat.

Someone is running away, or handcuffed on the floor is NO LONGER AN IMMEDIATE THREAT.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Talking of compliance....

I hope he has a nice big fat settlement in the bank now, because that is simple police brutality. No place for it. And, I hope the cop is fired and charged with unlawful battery.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Whilst I agree with most of that, the 'Rules of Engagement' are not consistent across the states, and they certainly are not always adhered to.

The simple fact is that RoE are should be set and administered in order to protect both the Law Enforcement Officer from committing an unlawful act, and the general public from harm.

As you point out, America is real ya bunch of “sovereign” states cobbled together, which means local jurisdictions are different. That said, I would have no problem with federal laws that state basic minimums fir

The use of lethal force against an individual should only apply IF the individual poses a DIRECT AND IMMEDIAT THREAT TO LIFE THE OF THE OFFICER OR SOMEONE ELSE, and their IS NO OTHER WAY to prevent the threat.

So, then you’re good with the Blake shooting. Got it.

Someone is running away, or handcuffed on the floor is NO LONGER AN IMMEDIATE THREAT.

I think most police departments adhere to this, UNLESS the person running away poses a clear and imminent to others.

e.g. If he is running away from you with a gun, but is running towards a group of schoolchildren, what now? Your law says let him go, let him shoot em up, as long as he is moving away from you!
Is it EVER OK to shoot someone in the back?

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

As you point out, America is real ya bunch of “sovereign” states cobbled together, which means local jurisdictions are different. That said, I would have no problem with federal laws that state basic minimums fir


So, then you’re good with the Blake shooting. Got it.


I think most police departments adhere to this, UNLESS the person running away poses a clear and imminent to others.

e.g. If he is running away from you with a gun, but is running towards a group of schoolchildren, what now? Your law says let him go, let him shoot em up, as long as he is moving away from you!
Is it EVER OK to shoot someone in the back?

The DIRECT AND IMMEDIAT THREAT TO LIFE THE OF THE OFFICER OR SOMEONE ELSE overrides everything. In this case, if shooting someone in the back is necessary to prevent a life threatening attack (for instance a terrorist in a suicide vest) then so be it. But it has to be an IMMEDIATE threat. You can't shoot someone who is running away because you 'think' they might kill someone else further down the line. You are not in a position to make that decision.

As for the Blake shooting, I don't know the full facts.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I hope he has a nice big fat settlement in the bank now, because that is simple police brutality. No place for it. And, I hope the cop is fired and charged with unlawful battery.

“Appropriate action” was taken. The department was not required to disclose the punishment. That would indicate no termination and certainly no crime. That’s Sacramento Sheriff by the way, not Metro. Also, as noted, they don’t have the right guy. They had a warrant for the arrest of someone else. Poor guy didn’t even have a record. He’d just eaten brunch. After he covered up and began struggling after he was kicked and punched he was arrested for “resisting arrest.” From March of this year.

 

[Silva_Spell]

Talking of compliance....

Even if he was wanted for a particularly heinous crime (turns out it was mistaken identity so he wasn't actually wanted at all), and taking him down in a rough manner could maybe be understandable, that cop with the taser should be fired. Completely unprofessional and, because he turned a stationary target and a calm situation into a moving target and a chaotic situation, totally counterproductive with the potential to endanger the public.

Whilst police are no more likely to shoot a black person than a white or hispanic this video does highlight a real problem in terms of the mistreatment of black people.
Black people are (21.2%) more likely to suffer low level uses of force (tho this interaction is on the high end of low) at the hands of police than other demographics. This is what the conversation in the US should be about, something fixable, not hyperbolic falsehoods about police going out to murder black people every day (based on snap judgements - often informed by obviously self interested lies of family/reps of the person shot - of shootings like the Blake case)

That 21.2% absolutely must come down however there's little chance of that happening in this climate where trust between police and black people is almost certainly falling even further.






Study PDF: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_analysis_tables_figures.pdf

 

[Bigga]

That "other one" (tbf I think there are more than 2 of us who utilise reason and logic and try to look at cases/laws objectively - tho not too many more) couldn't post in here because Ric forgot to reinstate privileges after your little moralising crusade derailed the thread. And Messi has taken too much of my time too. I guess you could call that "busy"

And, unless there are very recent developments that I have missed, the Kenosha incident is still a pretty clear case of self-defense*. As things stand, it's almost a litmus test concerning the right of self-defense. So, yea, maybe you should put me on ignore...

*the only thing I see that the prosecution can try to point to is the wound in the back/lung/liver, but that could be explained by a shot as the attacker fell with the shots in quick succession

There is nothing you're ever "objective" about.

Whoever makes a judgment call on an individual snap of action without seeing the full context is not "objective" and cannot be.

Don't use words you don't or cannot understand.

 

[Bigga]

Seems this fella thought it was better to be carried by 6 than judged by 12 when dealing with a white guy. Funny that.



And I was led to believe non compliance meant you got shot, a lot.

Thank you for this post!

Maybe the officer didn't feel 'threatened'? Maybe the officer thought the man didn't step to him aggressively? Maybe the officer didn't see the man reach into his pockets suddenly? Maybe the officer thought the man was exercising his rights? Maybe the officer forgot his handcuffs or to put his gun away?

Maybe the officer wasn't dealing with an unarmed Black man...?

The sheer hypocrisy is breathtaking!

 

[Bigga]

“Appropriate action” was taken. The department was not required to disclose the punishment. That would indicate no termination and certainly no crime. That’s Sacramento Sheriff by the way, not Metro. Also, as noted, they don’t have the right guy. They had a warrant for the arrest of someone else. Poor guy didn’t even have a record. He’d just eaten brunch. After he covered up and began struggling after he was kicked and punched he was arrested for “resisting arrest.” From March of this year.

Yes, but... but... but he 'resisted' and that's the key part, right @Dax777 and co?

He's lucky he didn't eat another 7 bullets to go with his brunch! He would have deserved that!