Derek Chauvin murder trial (Police officer who arrested George Floyd)
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,341
they'd presumably send you to the russian front and let the reds shoot you for them.
I precisely defined the threshold in my post (read my post again). So not sure what you are teaching me other than to throw some unnecessary ambiguity on this threshold.
Not really, I'm not sure what relevance WW2 has here?
As for morality, they were dealing with a guy who was clearly wasted and behind the vehicle of a car - of course they're going to arrest him.
Not necessarily, no. And anyway we're not dealing with some hypothetical here we have a specific example, the police are supposed to arrest suspects involved in crimes and there is guidance on how to do so.
So what law or laws do those guidelines break?
It's dubious to draw any conclusions from that pay out for pretty obvious reasons.
It was morally correct to arrest him. It was morally incorrect to the continue to torture a fully restrained person. Especially as that torture then led or at least contributed to his death.
Did you really confuse simply arresting someone with using dubious techniques to cause pain and compliance that led to death? When we already have police officers and myself pointing out how unnecessary it was?
Hell, the police officers themselves had people, on video, telling them to get off his neck (that they were on needlessly), because they were killing him, and they refused....
It might well have been unnecessary but you don't know that those techniques did cause much pain or lead to his death. You're just throwing in hyperbole when talking about "torture" here.
The point though, again, is that this particular technique is what they're trained to use. I don't doubt that techniques vary between police forces, that some bystanders cried out is pretty irrelevant.
Right, so on one side with have systematic genocide of millions of people, shooting them and gassing them, completely deliberate acts of murder and genocide. Then on the other side we have 1 man putting his knee on another man to strain him.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,477
In this case obviously manslaughter. Restraining someone is one thing, killing them using that method of restraint is a complete other thing. Numerous other people have been a victim of the same form of killing in police hands.
They were also well aware of the fact he needed to be hospitalised when they called for an ambulance minutes beforehand, yet continued to choke the man to death. If you view the footage closely you can see Chauvin pushing firmly in his pocket to further reduce GF's airflow further.
They used to work at the same nightclub as security. It's highly possible they had a run in and Chauvin decided to enact some revenge of sorts. Chauvin and his partner also have plenty of form for killing civilians.
Manslaughter requires someone to die surely? I was asking about the technique in general not the specific incident, we already know what the officers have been charged with.
As for continuing to choke him, that isn't clear at all - I think they probably should have started CPR sooner but as for the use of the technique, I wasn't there and I don't know how much force was actually applied. It's, again, a technique that they've been trained to use - that city/police department has approved it knowing it has risks. We don't know that the technique itself was the cause here though.
That's getting into conspiracies and is conflating their roles here - Floyd worked as a bouncer inside the club, Chauvin worked shifts as a police officer outside - clubs could pay for a police vehicle to be deployed outside so they'd be available to be called upon - they don't directly employ the police officers, it's via the police force AFAIK - they're just making sure they have an easy response time and a visible deterrent to trouble makers etc...
It's possible they did recognise each other but neither seems to acknowledge that in the video AFAIK - I've not seen any footage or dialogue along those lines.
I disagree for two main reasons.
We're not debating a murder. We're debating a death. It's not even clear that it was a killing, let alone a murder. There's absolutely no evidence of anything fitting the UK definition of "murder".
The unintentional death of 1 person is very far indeed from being anything like ethnic cleansing. The key characteristics of ethnic cleansing are that the killings are deliberate, the victims are targetted solely because of their ethnicity and a substantial proportion of the population is killed. This incident is the exact opposite on all counts. Lumping it in with ethnic cleansing is grotesque political posturing that simulataneously promotes racism and trivialises ethnic cleansing.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 55
Wow the tin foil is strong with this one
"A preliminary autopsy report cited earlier by prosecutors said the county medical examiner's review "revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation."
You did know this?
Remember these are the officers we are talking about.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/28/us/minneapolis-officer-complaints-george-floyd/index.html
A single police officer routinely has 18 complaints that reach internal affairs?
I've noticed people try to go on about the victims character. Seems this is relevant by the same token.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/28/us/minneapolis-officer-complaints-george-floyd/index.html
A single police officer routinely has 18 complaints that reach internal affairs?
I've noticed people try to go on about the victims character. Seems this is relevant by the same token.
Well yeah as already mentioned - those past complaints will be allowed at the trial, the past convictions/arrests of Floyd won't be.
Two of the officers were rookies though on their first patrol, it seems ridiculous that they're caught up in this tbh...
You know in the same report
"Hennepin County Medical Examiner Andrew Baker will be a central figure. He ruled Floyd’s death a homicide, saying he died when his heart stopped as police restrained him, compressing his neck."
The report basically says it was a combination of factors which led to his death. Including the actions of the police officer.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
But it's not just one man is it? It's part of a wider pattern of oppression of people of colour.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,139
- Location
- Birmingham
The problem with US is that civilians have guns, and unfortunately, many black people over there are poor and live in areas where they are either involved in or surrounded by crime and gang culture.
When you have an altercation in that kind of environment there is every chance you yourself will get shot either by the offender himself or by one of the many bystanders who in that environment would clearly be on the side of the offender.
It is a very volatile environment. The police are more brutal because they have to be, in my view.
The offender in this case was a known violent criminal. Did he deserve to die in the way he did? Maybe not, but neither do I think its a miscarriage of justice - he was a criminal by choice and therefore no great loss to the world that he is dead.
The police officer in this case was clearly violent also. I think to some extent, he had to be that way to police in that environment. I don't know whether that force was excessive, because I wasn't there to see what was happening and what threats may have been made by the offender or the bystanders. The officer had to exercise some control over the situation or it could have escalated and he could have been on the receiving end of it.
I disagree massively with the £27m payout, it has simply rewarded crime, tribalism and gang culture and undermined the ability of the police to use force.
When you have an altercation in that kind of environment there is every chance you yourself will get shot either by the offender himself or by one of the many bystanders who in that environment would clearly be on the side of the offender.
It is a very volatile environment. The police are more brutal because they have to be, in my view.
The offender in this case was a known violent criminal. Did he deserve to die in the way he did? Maybe not, but neither do I think its a miscarriage of justice - he was a criminal by choice and therefore no great loss to the world that he is dead.
The police officer in this case was clearly violent also. I think to some extent, he had to be that way to police in that environment. I don't know whether that force was excessive, because I wasn't there to see what was happening and what threats may have been made by the offender or the bystanders. The officer had to exercise some control over the situation or it could have escalated and he could have been on the receiving end of it.
I disagree massively with the £27m payout, it has simply rewarded crime, tribalism and gang culture and undermined the ability of the police to use force.
You do know that the DA is not going to show the jury both findings.
I don't call that fair.
Lol. Gang culture, tribalism and crime?
Wow, you have no clue about what happened here. He allegedly paid with a fake $20 note. That was it.
I can see why people might think that, based on the stories the media tends to focus on but in reality it doesn't seem to be the case, for example re: police shootings:
https://www.city-journal.org/reflections-on-race-riots-and-police?
It isn't clear what you're quoting from there but note, as per the article in the OP the medical examiner also says:
Washington Post said:
If there is reasonable doubt there then...
- Status