Derek Chauvin murder trial (Police officer who arrested George Floyd)

[Deleted User 234324]

Yeah its not like homicide detectives have to apprehend violent offenders, like murderers... oh wait.

I'm pretty sure that when the time comes for them to apprehend a suspect, they aren't going without police support. Not that I need to explain that what ever you see in hollywood, in the real world and in a high risk situation, brad pitt and morgan freeman would not have gone after the suspect without a squadron of police escorts behind them.

 

[dowie]

Didn't he state he joined the Police in 2004, moved to homicide in 2008, so 4 years on the beat. Question is, is the training he is given the same as that of a street copper, or as I suspect, is the training more relevant to his role with only minor aspects from general policing.

Well exactly - he's had less time patrolling or being involved in general uniformed policing than two of the officers involved in the incident and he's not an instructor either. I'm not quite sure why he is being called as a witness.

Yeah its not like homicide detectives have to apprehend violent offenders, like murderers... oh wait.

But they're not generally reacting to incidents/first on the scene etc.. they're called when a body is found, in some cases the murderer is already in custody. In others, they might need to make a planned arrest of someone following an investigation but that is rather different and frankly, if they're planning to arrest someone who is known to be dangerous then they have resources available to them.

 

[inogen]

Obviously not, since they didn't promote a social hierarchy, they nationalised most industries, they instituted a welfare state and they favoured very big government. All the opposite of "right wing". They didn't despise socialists. They despised Marxists. Like politics in general, socialism isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

Would you class Stalin as right wing? If not, why not? He was much the same without the nationalism. Similar policies, similar authoritarianism, similar mass murderousness.

Almost nothing fits into the over-over-simplified "left or right" boxed because they have very little connection to reality. You may as well label them "good" and "evil" or "pious" and "heretic".

ERmmmmm.... yes they did promote a social hierarchy. You were either a nazi, in which case you did well, or you weren't in which case they stole things from you and gave it to nazis. They didn't nationalise anything. They appropriated it into the nazi state, which they then gave to nazis, not the people. It was state gansgterism. Not socialism.

And yes, I would, Stalin was was a right wing authoritarian. There was nothing socialist about post 1920ish USSR, for exactly the same reasons. A small cabal achieved power and did everything could to to conserve it. That is not progressive or socialist. That's right wing. Command economy (that serves the cabal) or not.

 

[rubberduck]

Also have no idea why that homicide guy was called as a witness. Absolutely bizarre!

 

[Moogwai]

Dont drunk post

 

[Delvis]

George floyd was obviously a complete scumbag, not sure why so many people give a **** tbh

Scum bag or not, there are certain things you do and don't do.

Murder someone is one of the "don't do's" by the way.

 

[Angilion]

ERmmmmm.... yes they did promote a social hierarchy. You were either a nazi, in which case you did well, or you weren't in which case they stole things from you and gave it to nazis. They didn't nationalise anything. They appropriated it into the nazi state, which they then gave to nazis, not the people. It was state gansgterism. Not socialism.

And yes, I would, Stalin was was a right wing authoritarian. There was nothing socialist about post 1920ish USSR, for exactly the same reasons. A small cabal achieved power and did everything could to to conserve it. That is not progressive or socialist. That's right wing. Command economy (that serves the cabal) or not.

OK, your position is internally consistent in that respect. But it leaves socialism a non-existent thing and pretty much the whole "left wing" of politics a non-existent thing because you've put nationalisation (state ownership of business, however it's dressed up), welfare state, etc, etc into the "right wing". What's left that's "left"?

Which leads back to my point about the whole "left/right" thing being over-simplified to the point of being worse than useless. You define "left" as whatever you consider to be good and "right" as whatever you consider to be bad. You've over-simplified an over-simplified false dichotomy of an over-simplified spectrum based on economic policies and you've made it subjective and defined by you alone and not about economic policies.

What's good or useful about the idea that politics is a hyper-simplified false dichotomy with different people using different meanings and which serves only to promote conflict?

George floyd was obviously a complete scumbag, not sure why so many people give a **** tbh

Because he died in custody for uncertain reasons. That's something to care about whatever the person was like. Besides, he was a run of the mill scumbag, not a way out there scumbag. It's not like he was a serial killer/spree killer/mass murderer/etc. But even if someone like that died in custody it would be something people should care about.

 

[MissChief]

is this being broadcast anywhere?

 

[Skunkworks]

Many news channels on Youtube stream it live.

 

[Deleted member 236143]

Fact remains George was in custody and secured. He was agitated as any american really would be being arrested with previous. 13th Amendment!

He was secured and cuffed and in a police cruiser.
He was removed from there, put on the ground, and choked out to death. BY an officer of the law.

Pretty ****** up.

This is from the country that bullshits about freedom and liberty and righteousness. ****.
They have plenty to say about Hong Kong and China.
Yet why are no US troops or Ships bullying Myanmar or Burma where liberty and freedom is being shot in the street?

Property, resource, and investment.

 

[pp111]

This is from the country that bullshits about freedom and liberty and righteousness.

Changing the subject slightly, it does make me laugh when Americans claim all this liberty, freedom and such nonsense. It's absolute BS and they are barely better than any other country in this twisted world.

I think this police officer did what he did because he could. Time and time again it has been shown that if you give humans an ounce of control over others then there will be many who abuse that power.

 

[McBain]

is this being broadcast anywhere?

Court TV on Sky. Channel 179 IIRC.

 

[deuse]

Yeah its not like homicide detectives have to apprehend violent offenders, like murderers... oh wait.

No they don't.

Either the normal cops or SWAT do it.
The Crime Uni\Gang Unit ect.
Looks like you've been watching to much TV.

 

[Danny75]

Fact remains George was in custody and secured. He was agitated as any american really would be being arrested with previous. 13th Amendment!

He was secured and cuffed and in a police cruiser.
He was removed from there, put on the ground, and choked out to death. BY an officer of the law.

Pretty ****** up.

This is from the country that bullshits about freedom and liberty and righteousness. ****.
They have plenty to say about Hong Kong and China.
Yet why are no US troops or Ships bullying Myanmar or Burma where liberty and freedom is being shot in the street?

Property, resource, and investment.

You should watch the whole video of what happened.

He was not removed from the cruiser. Even handcuffed, he was still a handful and exited it himself* and demanded to be laid on the ground. "Put me on the ground!"

* The cops had compassionately left both doors open because he said he was claustrophobic. He would not be secured until he was in the car and stayed there. Cops can be sued if they simply handcuff an individual who is an altered state and they run off and get themselves or someone else injured.

He was even more agitated because of the fentanyl and meth in his system, and also because he was "acting out", working himself up into a worse state. Either to dry and draw sympathy from bystanders or to distract the officers from wherever the drugs were or other reason. The two people he was with made statements during the arrest that indicated they knew he was play-acting ("he always does this ****"), and told him to stop resisting.

It's what happened after that point that is the issue. i.e. Should pressure have been applied to his neck? Yes or no? If yes, should pressure have continued to be applied for so long, especially after he went limp? Yes or no?

Up to that point, the facts simply do not show the officers being anything other than remarkably patient with him.

 

[deuse]

Fact remains George was in custody and secured. He was agitated as any american really would be being arrested with previous. 13th Amendment!

He was secured and cuffed and in a police cruiser.
He was removed from there, put on the ground, and choked out to death. BY an officer of the law.
.

He refused to go in to the vehicle and was putting up a fight. Then he ask to be laid down.
I stopped reading after that.
Beaten to it ^

But it goes to show how many don't really know a thing about it. But post rubbish anyway.
I would go so far to say how gullible these people are.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

But they're not generally reacting to incidents/first on the scene etc.. they're called when a body is found, in some cases the murderer is already in custody. In others, they might need to make a planned arrest of someone following an investigation but that is rather different and frankly, if they're planning to arrest someone who is known to be dangerous then they have resources available to them.

No they don't.

Either the normal cops or SWAT do it.
The Crime Uni\Gang Unit ect.
Looks like you've been watching to much TV.

Oh so they travel everywhere with SWAT do they? When they are knocking on doors, following up leads they have a SWAT truck at their back? Could it be this cop isn't following the narrative you are trying to paint on this case? Its clear as day this guy is guilty of at least 3rd degree murder. George Floyd being a scumbag is irrelevant.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Oh so they travel everywhere with SWAT do they? When they are knocking on doors, following up leads they have a SWAT truck at their back? Could it be this cop isn't following the narrative you are trying to paint on this case? Its clear as day this guy is guilty of at least 3rd degree murder. George Floyd being a scumbag is irrelevant.

You watch too many films. Do you think they regularly knock on a door and accidentally stumble upon some criminal syndicate? Or they regularly come across the criminal in the middle of another murder. They probably knock on a door and get at worst a verbally overly aggressive person on a regular basis.

Also someone who does an action multiple times a week is going to be more knowledgeable than someone who performs that action a few times a month.

As for what chauvin is guilty of, the more I read the more it seems like some sort of negligence charge is more appropriate and the more I realise that I got suckered in by the original story that people were pedaling.

 

[dowie]

Oh so they travel everywhere with SWAT do they? When they are knocking on doors, following up leads they have a SWAT truck at their back? Could it be this cop isn't following the narrative you are trying to paint on this case? Its clear as day this guy is guilty of at least 3rd degree murder. George Floyd being a scumbag is irrelevant.

It isn’t clear at all, could easily be manslaughter or not guilty.

Usung hyperbole doesn’t negate the point that this was a detective in homicide not a trainer or experienced uniform Sgt or Lt.

 

[Deleted User 234324]

Exactly Chuk_Chuk,

Was it murder, hell no, it wasn't premeditated and there was no intent. manslaughter? maybe the case could be argued but I doubt it would stick considering the evidence. At worst I'd say gross negligence but anyone with a few brain cells can see where this case is going and how the media want it to pan out. The prosecution are throwing every emotion they can at it, focusing on what should have happened, rather than what did happen.

 

[inogen]

OK, your position is internally consistent in that respect. But it leaves socialism a non-existent thing and pretty much the whole "left wing" of politics a non-existent thing because you've put nationalisation (state ownership of business, however it's dressed up), welfare state, etc, etc into the "right wing". What's left that's "left"?

Which leads back to my point about the whole "left/right" thing being over-simplified to the point of being worse than useless. You define "left" as whatever you consider to be good and "right" as whatever you consider to be bad. You've over-simplified an over-simplified false dichotomy of an over-simplified spectrum based on economic policies and you've made it subjective and defined by you alone.

nope. I just don’t include state ownership of business as a definition of “left wing” economic policy it isn’t if the state is run for the benefit of a few and not for the benefit of society as a whole - that’s what’s socialism is. Nazi germany was not socialist, the USSR was not socialist and you won’t find anyone who isn’t attempting to disparage socialism claim that they were.

I’d also be dead interested for you to tell me what you think the “welfare state” looked like in Nazi Europe or the USSR seeing as you keep saying they were left wing because they of it. Work makes you free remember? And if you can’t work... off you pop. How very socialist. Not.