US police thread
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,536
- Location
- Bucks
Haha no they did not. An expert was asked about the location of the knee at the point the paramedics arrived (shoulder blade) but the same witness also said that for the rest of the time it was clearly on his neck.
Some of this woke stuff is getting a bit OTT - is this guy really all that emotional about protesting or is he getting himself all worked up with the performance aspect, being surrounded by media etc..
*** warning contains one swear word part way through ***
*** warning contains one swear word part way through ***
I was going by the video evidence that showed it and the chief of police agreeing.
Looks similar! Might have changed pronouns since then.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,536
- Location
- Bucks
It was in relation to the paramedics arriving not what occurred during the rest of the 8+ minutes. Its very clear in questioning during that day. Very very clear.
So we have a video that shows one thing.
And a statement saying another.... only 3 days to go to we find out how many years he will get.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,536
- Location
- Bucks
Here is the transcript:
Schleicher: "You testified that the particular moment in time that you were viewing officer Keung's body worn camera it appeared, at that moment in time, that the knee of the defendant was more towards the shoulder blade. Is that right?"
Arrandondo: "That is correct."
Schleicher: "That is at a time where the ambulance had already arrived?
Arrandondo: "Yes."
Schleicher: "Very shortly before they loaded Mr. Floyd onto the gurney?"
Arrandondo: "Yes. That is correct."
Schleicher: "And in your view of the body-worn camera footage, everything you reviewed prior to testifying today, did you see the defendant's knee anywhere but the neck of Mr. Floyd up until that time?"
Arrandondo: "That is correct."
Schleicher: "And so, the knee of the defendant was on Mr. Floyd's neck up until the time you just pointed out?"
Arrandondo: "Yes. When I viewed that video portion, that is the first time that I had seen the knee of the defendant on the shoulder blade area."
lol, I remember this one from last year - so silly, people just get themselves worked up into a frenzy, even when they're just being blatantly wound up for fun
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
Looks like the officer who shot Duante Wight by accident is being charged with second degree manslaughter.
Don't see that one going the full hog in court, as I don't think the officer intended to cause his death at the time as she thought she had drawn her taser.
Don't see that one going the full hog in court, as I don't think the officer intended to cause his death at the time as she thought she had drawn her taser.
Manslaughter is unintentional though - I mean I guess the case is going to be a bit more clear-cut than others at least. I guess the question for the jury is simpler there and just whether that sort of mistake is sufficient for a manslaughter conviction etc..
Intent isn't the issue, hence the charge:
"Second-degree manslaughter: According to the Minnesota statute, when someone “creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another” is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree."
From: https://www.voanews.com/usa/nation-...-degree-murder-3rd-degree-murder-manslaughter
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
We shall see where this ones goes as it was considered an accidental discharge and her reaction immediately following it points to that being the case, she dropped the gun and freaked out.
Which raises questions about why, when carrying both Taser and a conventional firearm, you aren't taking steps during the process to identify which one you're drawing. It may be entirely her own negligence or it may highlight a training or familiarity issue, but either way just saying it was an "accidental discharge" doesn't entirely take away from the fact that a negligent mistake led to someone's death.
They shouldn't really be calling it an accidental discharge anyway, it's generally accepted that that refers to a mechanical failure within the weapon whereas a negligent or unintentional discharge is performed by the user.
Should it not be a matter of muscle memory?
Let's presume that the two guns look and feel the same, then logically placement of each should be important. For instance a taser could be mounted on the chest while the firearm would be mounted normally at the side. If not that, then just opposing sides.
Let's presume that the two guns look and feel the same, then logically placement of each should be important. For instance a taser could be mounted on the chest while the firearm would be mounted normally at the side. If not that, then just opposing sides.
Yeah, that should help, a completely different action then to draw each one - or just make the drill for drawing a taser explicitly involve a motion to look at the thing and confirm it is a yellow thing you're holding...
Like literally in their annual tests or whatever they do - go through the drills and make sure they're seen to look at the taser or announce to the instructor that they're looking at the taser to check it is a yellow thing they're holding. Same could be applied to any training scenarios where they're assessed - pull them up every time they draw a taser and don't explicitly look... could even make it a verbal thing... instead of saying "taser taser taser"... they could add in say "taser drawn" (to be announced once the officer has explicitly looked at the thing and seen it is a yellow taser) then "taser taser taser"
there are a whole bunch of idiot-proof things they could do here to reduce the chance of this sort of thing.
- Status