Author Topic: George Floyd  (Read 35908 times)

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #50 on: May 31, 2020, 02:03:31 PM »
Crunch

Floyd was not shot and did not have a gun. Freddie Gray was not shot and did not have a gun. Tamir Rice had a toy gun and was shot so fast that he did not have a chance to drop the gun.  Philando Castile had  a legal gun, told the officer he had a gun, was asked to produce ID and when he was trying to produce ID, was shot 7 times at point blank range.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #51 on: May 31, 2020, 02:15:23 PM »
...There is no training deficiency in play here.  You're talking about training for police work, which has been ongoing for thousands of years.  You're talking about how to secure suspects which is something that every single police officer has been trained in.  You're talking about killing a man that didn't have to die with a technique that no one has ever been taught to apply in a police setting.

Sorry, Seriati, but when we were researching training programs at CJI, there had been no research and upgrades in training since 1935. The police, fire, and judiciary were far behind where they should have been. You have the wrong approach on what should have been trained. Not kneeling on the neck is a part of hand-to-hand fighting, which is lightly covered in most jurisdictions. Most police get that training outside of the official training scenario. An officer like Chauvin who was sleight of build, and positively scrawny next to Floyd, seemed to exhibit small-man syndrome, doncha think? He didn't have sword training either, which is what a thousand year-old curriculum would have focused upon.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #52 on: May 31, 2020, 02:25:22 PM »
However, since white people in the USA outnumber blacks by almost 6 to 1, that 'only' twice as many whites are killed as blacks means that on average, a black person is 3 times as likely to be killed by police as a white person.  That particular piece of evidence actually does support the idea that police are specifically targeting blacks, as opposed to the supporting the opposite.

I strongly suspect if you instead looked at it in terms of economic demographics instead of racially, the fatality rate is very comparable. But I doubt anyone has been able to accomplish that as the relevant data likely isn't collected.

"Poor people" in general are more likely to be shot by police without respect to their racial background.

Of course, Blacks have an extra problem in regards to sterotypes and likely getting "special attention" in some situations that aren't entirely justified(a black guy driving a nice(expensive) car around is probably more likely to be stopped and questioned, partly because of racial sterotyping(they've not "supposed" to be able to afford them), but also partly because low income people are more likely to engage in criminal acts--like joy riding, and there are plenty of low income black people in many areas of the country who take up criminal activities.)

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #53 on: May 31, 2020, 03:26:08 PM »
I strongly suspect if you instead looked at it in terms of economic demographics instead of racially, the fatality rate is very comparable. But I doubt anyone has been able to accomplish that as the relevant data likely isn't collected.
You're missing my point - I wasn't suggesting that black are more likely to be killed because of the colour of their skin, or otherwise.  I was simply disputing Crunch's conclusion that blacks are not likely being particularly targeted because more whites than blacks are being killed.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #54 on: May 31, 2020, 04:30:46 PM »
I strongly suspect if you instead looked at it in terms of economic demographics instead of racially, the fatality rate is very comparable. But I doubt anyone has been able to accomplish that as the relevant data likely isn't collected.
You're missing my point - I wasn't suggesting that black are more likely to be killed because of the colour of their skin, or otherwise.  I was simply disputing Crunch's conclusion that blacks are not likely being particularly targeted because more whites than blacks are being killed.

Shouldn't the point be that the police on Black incidents gave been greatly reduced, while the police on White incidents have held steady? Do we really want to protest an improvement? Why want a status quo that was far worse, which is what the protests may lead to?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #55 on: May 31, 2020, 05:35:27 PM »
Is reading really that hard?  Try to understand my actual words, as opposed to my imagined meaning.

Here's a hint:
1. Crunch made a logical argument (because this, then not that)
2. I showed that his 'this' was not correct, so if he was using the 'this' as a basis for his 'not that', his argument failed.
3. I then showed that if his 'this', if true, was evidence for his 'not that', then the actual 'not this' is evidence for 'that'.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #56 on: May 31, 2020, 06:32:42 PM »
 ::)

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #57 on: May 31, 2020, 08:15:28 PM »
I know, right? ::)  It was so obvious, but wmLambert didn't even get it after the first explanation

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #58 on: June 01, 2020, 05:05:23 AM »
Come on, guys.

Donald, Crunch had eventually managed to communicate what he meant.

Crunch, Donald made a point and ya shouldn't have ignored it.

Can we all put the tools and tape measures away and be friends again?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #59 on: June 01, 2020, 07:15:15 AM »
Come on, guys.

Donald, Crunch had eventually managed to communicate what he meant.
No, he actually didn't.

But that is completely beside the point, since I was responding TheDaemon and wmLambert, who seemingly completely missed the point I was making and were arguing things that I simply did not raise in my post.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #60 on: June 01, 2020, 07:27:49 AM »
In nearly every thread you start posting about how you “won” the argument with your superior logic. It’s like clockwork.

Here’s a tip: if you have to constantly tell everyone how you “won”, buddy, you ain’t “winning”.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #61 on: June 01, 2020, 07:38:21 AM »
Crunch

Floyd was not shot and did not have a gun. Freddie Gray was not shot and did not have a gun. Tamir Rice had a toy gun and was shot so fast that he did not have a chance to drop the gun.  Philando Castile had  a legal gun, told the officer he had a gun, was asked to produce ID and when he was trying to produce ID, was shot 7 times at point blank range.

Those three stories do not prove police are intentionally targeting blacks for murder.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #62 on: June 01, 2020, 07:42:17 AM »

Crunch, Donald made a point and ya shouldn't have ignored it.

I believe I did address it. Perhaps my response was not sufficient but there was one.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #63 on: June 01, 2020, 09:11:40 AM »
In nearly every thread you start posting about how you “won” the argument with your superior logic. It’s like clockwork.
I can't figure out whether you actually believe this, and didn't understand my response, or are pretending not to have understood the response - a response which was actually very non-confrontational; even when you accused me of misrepresenting you, I clarified politely.  But you seemingly cannot stomach even polite disagreement...

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #64 on: June 01, 2020, 12:09:12 PM »
Crunch

Floyd was not shot and did not have a gun. Freddie Gray was not shot and did not have a gun. Tamir Rice had a toy gun and was shot so fast that he did not have a chance to drop the gun.  Philando Castile had  a legal gun, told the officer he had a gun, was asked to produce ID and when he was trying to produce ID, was shot 7 times at point blank range.

Haven't followed the thread, but Tamir Rice - the gun was indistinguishable from a real gun and the responding officers didn't know it was a toy, they were told he had been threatening people with it, and the video shows an interpretation of 'reaching for his gun' is reasonable, even if that wasn't what he was actually doing.  People have a false impression from TV shows and movies that it is reasonable to wait to shoot until someone has  completely drawn a weapon - but if you do that there is a good chance that even if you shoot first, you will still get shot as well.  Bullets don't incapacitate instantly.  So police are taught to shoot once people begin reaching for a weapon.  Also the picture of Tamir Rice is about 100 lbs lighter than when he was shot (He was 5' 7" and 195 lbs at the time of the shooting).  When he was shot he would have been indistinguishable from an adult.

So while we know he was 12, and it was a toy gun.  The knowledge of the responding office was that he appeared to be an adult male who had been threatening people with a real gun.

Philandro Castile - the gun was in his front pants pocket where he was reaching (he may have been reaching to undo his seatbelt), he was ordered to stop reaching for his gun.  While Castile likely was reaching to undo his seatbelt to then get out his wallet, the officer can't know that.  7 shots is quite typical if an officer opens fire - when adrenalin is pumping fine motor control is lost, so police can only expect 1 or 2 bullets to hit at even close range, and it takes 2-3 bullets to stop a person, so police are taught to shoot until motion ceases (a glock can shoot 20 rounds per second; most police do 4-7 rounds a second, so this was about a seconds worth of shooting).

While the Rice and Castile shootings are tragic and I don't think either were doing anything wrong, I don't think either of them is reasonable evidence of racism by the police.  Both officers responded within their training, and many cops would likely have had similar results.

Quote
Floyd was not shot and did not have a gun. Freddie Gray was not shot and did not have a gun.

Floyd I think the officer should get at least 2nd degree manslaughter.  Any officer will know that knelling on the neck is potentially deadly.  It appears that Floyd and Chauvin once worked overlapping security guard shifts, so it may have been personal.

Freddie Gray appears to have been given a 'rough ride' - I think they should have been charged with manslaughter.  I don't think it was racism involved, but rather that he had caused them aggravation by running from them.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2020, 12:17:17 PM by LetterRip »

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #65 on: June 01, 2020, 12:23:21 PM »
According to snopes, while they worked for the same place at overlapping times - they were different departments, etc. so the owner views it as unlikely they knew each other.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chauvin-floyd-club-employment/

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #66 on: June 01, 2020, 12:36:34 PM »
LetterRip makes a good point above that many of these cases are more murky than they initially appear.

The George Floyd case looks awful and I can't see any mitigating evidence that could emerge that would justify kneeling for almost 9 minutes on a man's neck while he was struggling to breath.

The Philandro Castile IMO is also pretty troubling. After the officer was informed he was armed, it was the officers responsibility to either go back to his car and wait for back up or find a way for Philandro to safely move the gun to a place where the officer wouldn't feel threatened. Asking for ID the officer should expect that he would then be reaching for a wallet, likely in his back pocket.

Most of the other shootings that come forward involve really difficult split second police decisions. But I worry about the psychology of the public when we hear about all of these shootings/killings of black males but almost never hear about white deaths at the hands of police. The numbers above show that in terms of raw numbers there are move white deaths than black deaths at the hands of police, even if proportionally speaking blacks are more likely to be targeted. The human mind doesn't handle learning about all of the wrongs done to an entire populace of people and treating them like they are done to a personal friend. This is the upside and downside of social media and videos, they can sign a bright light on injustice but at the same time can make really rare events seem common and cause a misperceived risk calculation to how dangerous an interaction with police can be.

That all being said we need to adjust police culture and accountability. Because a significant amount of the rage comes not just the deaths but from the hundreds of other slights and negative police interactions between the police and the african american community.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #67 on: June 01, 2020, 12:42:22 PM »
LetterRip makes a good point above that many of these cases are more murky than they initially appear.

I agree, it's good to be objective about these things. That being said, I've read too many reports about no-knock raids gone terribly wrong, and seen to many videos of cops shooting fleeing people in the back, to think that this problem is just a result of misunderstanding. Explaining away a couple of the alleged instances is of course in the interest of truth. But in my view that doesn't particularly address the trend that I think is real.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #68 on: June 01, 2020, 12:57:05 PM »
LetterRip makes a good point above that many of these cases are more murky than they initially appear.

I agree, it's good to be objective about these things. That being said, I've read too many reports about no-knock raids gone terribly wrong, and seen to many videos of cops shooting fleeing people in the back, to think that this problem is just a result of misunderstanding. Explaining away a couple of the alleged instances is of course in the interest of truth. But in my view that doesn't particularly address the trend that I think is real.

There is a significant problem with police training and deployment that causes an overuse of force but social media often makes these cases initially seem worse than they are. Recently in my city there were small violent protests following reports on social media of police shooting and killing an unarmed black teenager in the back. Later when the body cam footage and more information came out it showed the police shooting an armed black man in the chest one time, and the man survived. It also doesn't help that russian bots infiltrate this space to help spread that kind of misinformation to inflame tensions.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #69 on: June 01, 2020, 01:02:48 PM »
There is a significant problem with police training and deployment that causes an overuse of force but social media often makes these cases initially seem worse than they are. Recently in my city there were small violent protests following reports on social media of police shooting and killing an unarmed black teenager in the back. Later when the body cam footage and more information came out it showed the police shooting an armed black man in the chest one time, and the man survived. It also doesn't help that russian bots infiltrate this space to help spread that kind of misinformation to inflame tensions.

Sure. But every time I hear talk of "police report proved to be a lie once cam footage released" makes me automatically doubt the police report as a default, and for good reason. The organization armed to the teeth, who are supposed to record everything on cam, have the complete burden of proof on every count. We have no reason at all to take for granted anything they claim unless they can demonstrate that use of force was warranted. Sometimes it is, sometimes not. But any time I hear that a cop turned off his body cam prior to engaging, that should be an automatic arrest with no possibility of circumstantial defense. The default assumption should be that criminal activity was engaged in by any cop trying to eliminate transparency. Likewise, with precincts trying to bury footage, or taking away cameras and telling people they'll be arrested if they record an incident. These things still happen all the time. This is the context in which people assume the worst. It's no coincidence that people are all too willing to believe overblown reports, our significant issues with modern media notwithstanding.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2020, 01:12:15 PM by Fenring »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #70 on: June 01, 2020, 01:05:01 PM »
I know, right? ::)  It was so obvious, but wmLambert didn't even get it after the first explanation

Oh, I got it perfectly. But you missed the point that we have been getting better - not worse. Defining the incidents differently does not change that. Why so vehement that your posts are the end-all and be-all?

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #71 on: June 01, 2020, 01:10:01 PM »
LetterRip makes a good point above that many of these cases are more murky than they initially appear.

I agree, it's good to be objective about these things. That being said, I've read too many reports about no-knock raids gone terribly wrong

The 'militarization' of the police is a major issue, but entirely seperate from police racism.  (There is some overlap in that sadists are probably a major issue for both groups).

Quote
, and seen to many videos of cops shooting fleeing people in the back, to think that this problem is just a result of misunderstanding.

Most people will be at risk of shooting a fleeing person in the back if they are still in a fight/flight reaction.  Their fear and anger for most people will be far greater than their rational brain saying it is wrong to do so.  Avoiding the physical aspects (chasing a fleeing suspect; physical struggle) is necessary if you want to avoid people getting shot in the back.  If you get emotional and instinctual behaviors activated it is very difficult to suppress them with rational thought.  If you've never experienced where your emotions and instincts take over, it is quite scary.  We are mostly 'rationalizing' not 'rational' - that is most of our behavior is actually instinctual/subconscious, and then we create a plausible story to ourselves of why we did it.

Quote
Explaining away a couple of the alleged instances is of course in the interest of truth. But in my view that doesn't particularly address the trend that I think is real.

There is definitely racism among the police, but I think we need to be careful in labeling every police interaction with a horrific outcome as being based in racism.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2020, 01:14:46 PM by LetterRip »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #72 on: June 01, 2020, 01:12:06 PM »
There is a significant problem with police training and deployment that causes an overuse of force but social media often makes these cases initially seem worse than they are. Recently in my city there were small violent protests following reports on social media of police shooting and killing an unarmed black teenager in the back. Later when the body cam footage and more information came out it showed the police shooting an armed black man in the chest one time, and the man survived. It also doesn't help that russian bots infiltrate this space to help spread that kind of misinformation to inflame tensions.

Sure. But every time I hear talk of "police report proved to be a lie once cam footage released" makes me automatically doubt the police report as a default, and for good reason. The organization armed to the teeth, who are supposed to record everything on cam, have the complete burden of proof on every count. We have no reason at all to take for granted anything they claim unless they can demonstrate that use of force was warranted. Sometimes it is, sometimes not. But any time I hear that a cop turned off his body cam prior to engaging, that should be an automatic arrest with no possibility of circumstantial defense. The default assumption should be that criminal activity was engaged in by any cop trying to eliminate transparency. Likewise, with precincts trying to bury footage, or taking away cameras and telling people they'll be arrest if they record an incident. These things still happen all the time. This is the context in which people assume the worst. It's no coincidence that people are all too willing to believe overblown reports, our significant issues with modern media notwithstanding.

Agree - but the problem is more with bureaucracy vs. actors when assessing actions. As with my Armando Galarraga example, what is commonly thought to be the real thing is often not a thing at all.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #73 on: June 01, 2020, 01:15:37 PM »
LetterRip makes a good point above that many of these cases are more murky than they initially appear.

I agree, it's good to be objective about these things. That being said, I've read too many reports about no-knock raids gone terribly wrong, and seen to many videos of cops shooting fleeing people in the back, to think that this problem is just a result of misunderstanding. Explaining away a couple of the alleged instances is of course in the interest of truth. But in my view that doesn't particularly address the trend that I think is real.

The exact nature of any one event can be difficult to ascertain to a fine degree of precision, but the long tale of unnecessary deaths shows a predisposition for overreaction.  The entire judicial system, spanning police actions to sentencing to incarceration show an undeniable pattern of racial imbalance.  I don't think these protests are going to end the way the 1968 riots did, because these may have been triggered by a single incident, but represent far larger underlying issues.  For one, how have "whites" responded to the reports that blacks are disproportionately impacted by the coronavirus?  How has the government responded to the health care imbalances that leave blacks with far fewer options to seek treatment for the disease?

IMO, these protests are not going to go away once the 4 officers in Minneapolis are arrested, but are going to refocus on other issues.  I can see that the cities will become quieter, but marches and protests will shift and make DC the epicenter.  Trump hasn't done anything to prevent that with his angry responses and lack of empathy.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #74 on: June 01, 2020, 01:23:34 PM »
According to snopes, while they worked for the same place at overlapping times - they were different departments, etc. so the owner views it as unlikely they knew each other.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chauvin-floyd-club-employment/

If they were both working physical security, even if one was outside while the other was inside, I'd be surprised if the people in those divisions (internal vs external) did NOT interact on occasion, if only at those times when someone was removed from the premises.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #75 on: June 01, 2020, 01:26:47 PM »
According to snopes, while they worked for the same place at overlapping times - they were different departments, etc. so the owner views it as unlikely they knew each other.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chauvin-floyd-club-employment/

If they were both working physical security, even if one was outside while the other was inside, I'd be surprised if the people in those divisions (internal vs external) did NOT interact on occasion, if only at those times when someone was removed from the premises.

Yeah I would have expected interaction as well, I was simply reporting what the owner said according to snopes.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #76 on: June 01, 2020, 01:32:14 PM »
The 'militarization' of the police is a major issue, but entirely seperate from police racism.  (There is some overlap in that sadists are probably a major issue for both groups).

If you ask me, the racism issue is actually minor. Not minor in the sense that it doesn't matter, but minor in the sense that I don't think it's the thing to worry about that is causing most of these incidents. If you have a police force trained to think of civilians as the enemy, and criminals as dirtbag scum, THEN their innate bias is going to kick in. If they are in the mode already of looking for targets, yes, if there is racism their targets are going to be selected partially on that basis. However the main problem there is to see citizens as targets at all. If a police officer was well-trained in non-lethal force, if there were dire consequences for over-aggressive force and all interactions recorded, and if the general culture there was de-escalation, then even if an officer happened to be racist it would not lead to shooting black people, because they would not be looking to shoot anyone. It's when you're trigger happy that you're going to target people who you feel are most threatening. If you're peaceful, you can be as racist as you want but it won't lead to deaths.

Quote
Most people will shoot a fleeing person in the back if they are still in a fight/flight reaction.

I don't know about that. Is that demonstrated somewhere with a significant study? I would wager rather that most people have enough active awareness that, if they're able to withstanding the adrenaline shaking and panic enough to wield a firearm accurately, they will also know if their desire is to execute the person who made them feel bad or not. It's not legal to decide to execute someone because you feel like you're in fight or flight mode, and I'm not convinced the vast majority of people have this kind of killer instinct in the first place.

Quote
There is definitely racism among the police, but I think we need to be careful in labeling every police interaction with a horrific outcome as being based in racism.

Not sure if this comment was addressed to any posts I've made. Typically I resist "racism" interpretations of events that have IMO more immediate and obvious explanations. Maybe it's a kneejerk pushback on my part against of a trend of interpretation where any result whatever is explained via racism.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #77 on: June 01, 2020, 01:35:59 PM »
Crunch

Tamir Rice had a toy gun and was shot so fast that he did not have a chance to drop the gun.

Haven't followed the thread, but Tamir Rice - the gun was indistinguishable from a real gun and the responding officers didn't know it was a toy, they were told he had been threatening people with it, and the video shows an interpretation of 'reaching for his gun' is reasonable, even if that wasn't what he was actually doing.  People have a false impression from TV shows and movies that it is reasonable to wait to shoot until someone has  completely drawn a weapon - but if you do that there is a good chance that even if you shoot first, you will still get shot as well.  Bullets don't incapacitate instantly.  So police are taught to shoot once people begin reaching for a weapon.  Also the picture of Tamir Rice is about 100 lbs lighter than when he was shot (He was 5' 7" and 195 lbs at the time of the shooting).  When he was shot he would have been indistinguishable from an adult.

So while we know he was 12, and it was a toy gun.  The knowledge of the responding office was that he appeared to be an adult male who had been threatening people with a real gun.
Thr problem with the police's actions had nothing to do with age, size, or that it was a toy.  The problem is that the police did not find out anything new once they arrived on-scene that they did not know on their way to the scene of Rice's execution.  They 'knew' that there was a man threatening people with a gun.  They arrived on scene and 'observed' a man, alone at the time, with a gun (that it was in his waistband is irrelevant - he may just as well have been brandishing it at the time.)

No, the issue is that within one - maybe two - seconds of exiting the police car, Rice had been shot, and this action by the officer was based on information he already had minutes earlier.  If the police were not prepared to deal with an armed individual without immediately killing him, they should not have engaged, but waited for backup; or the SWAT team.  Being a black man with a gun in public is NOT a death warrant, exercisable by any police officer present.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #78 on: June 01, 2020, 02:38:32 PM »
No, the issue is that within one - maybe two - seconds of exiting the police car, Rice had been shot, and this action by the officer was based on information he already had minutes earlier.  If the police were not prepared to deal with an armed individual without immediately killing him, they should not have engaged, but waited for backup; or the SWAT team.  Being a black man with a gun in public is NOT a death warrant, exercisable by any police officer present.

That he was black is irrelevant to the scenario.  Brandishing a gun and pointing it at people is assault with a deadly weapon (I know that doing so with a toy gun is the same crime if it is done in a robbery - because people can't know that it is a toy gun which means deadly force is a high likelihood).  The police are, from their perspective responding to a serious crime.  When someone who has committed a serious crime reaches for a weapon - the rational belief is that it is with clear intent of shooting at the police.  It is irrelevant that it happened 'within seconds' of arriving.  The officer had a reasonable fear for his life and responded as many officers would do in that situation.  It is horrific and tragic, but nothing really to do with racism.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #79 on: June 01, 2020, 03:03:19 PM »
Quote
The officer had a reasonable fear for his life and responded as many officers would do in that situation.  It is horrific and tragic, but nothing really to do with racism.

Perhaps not, but the shooting officer had a history that was ignored.  According to Wikipedia:

Quote
In the aftermath of the shooting it was revealed that Loehmann, in his previous job as a police officer in the Cleveland suburb of Independence, had been deemed an emotionally unstable recruit and unfit for duty. Loehmann did not disclose this fact on his application to join the Cleveland police, and Cleveland police never reviewed his previous personnel file before hiring him. In 2017, following an investigation, Loehmann was fired for withholding this information on his application.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #80 on: June 01, 2020, 03:10:29 PM »
No, the issue is that within one - maybe two - seconds of exiting the police car, Rice had been shot, and this action by the officer was based on information he already had minutes earlier.  If the police were not prepared to deal with an armed individual without immediately killing him, they should not have engaged, but waited for backup; or the SWAT team.  Being a black man with a gun in public is NOT a death warrant, exercisable by any police officer present.

That he was black is irrelevant to the scenario.  Brandishing a gun and pointing it at people is assault with a deadly weapon (I know that doing so with a toy gun is the same crime if it is done in a robbery - because people can't know that it is a toy gun which means deadly force is a high likelihood).  The police are, from their perspective responding to a serious crime.  When someone who has committed a serious crime reaches for a weapon - the rational belief is that it is with clear intent of shooting at the police.  It is irrelevant that it happened 'within seconds' of arriving.  The officer had a reasonable fear for his life and responded as many officers would do in that situation.  It is horrific and tragic, but nothing really to do with racism.
We don't know whether it was relevant or not.  What we do know is that that the police officer had been told that there was complaint of a man threatening people with a gun. That he then observed a man with a gun when he arrived changed the situation in no way whatsoever - meaning the police officer had all the exact same information to make his decision prior to arriving. (that's ignoring that the man was NOT actually brandishing the gun or threatening anybody when the police car drove up)

If he knew his decision would be to immediately shoot the man holding the gun, then he should not have stopped his car at the scene, never mind get out or shoot.  That he arrived, observed what he had been warned about (or less) then proceeded immediately to shoot the man in question anyway, meant that this wasn't really a split second decision.  I would like to say it was completely avoidable, but his actions are suggestive of having made the decision to shoot before arriving.  If he did NOT already know what his decision would likely be when he did arrive to the described situation, that's a whole other problem. 

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #81 on: June 01, 2020, 03:19:58 PM »
As an aside "brandishing" is such an evocative word, isn't it?

What it is not, is a license to kill anybody accused of "brandishing" at some time in the past.

Like it or not, it is not illegal to carry a gun in Ohio, so Rice having a gun, or even holding a gun, would not be evidence of a crime.  The only thing the police had was a complaint (or complaints) of somebody doing something. What they observed when they arrived at the scene was not in and of itself illegal activity.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #82 on: June 01, 2020, 03:25:53 PM »
Quote
The officer had a reasonable fear for his life and responded as many officers would do in that situation.  It is horrific and tragic, but nothing really to do with racism.

Perhaps not, but the shooting officer had a history that was ignored.  According to Wikipedia:

Quote
In the aftermath of the shooting it was revealed that Loehmann, in his previous job as a police officer in the Cleveland suburb of Independence, had been deemed an emotionally unstable recruit and unfit for duty. Loehmann did not disclose this fact on his application to join the Cleveland police, and Cleveland police never reviewed his previous personnel file before hiring him. In 2017, following an investigation, Loehmann was fired for withholding this information on his application.

Screening police officers for how they respond to stress is important.  I'd really like a good screen for sadism and psychopathy as well.  His 'emotional instability' was him being upset about a break up with his girlfriend.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/12/04/justice/cleveland-police-officer-timothy-loehmann/index.html

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #83 on: June 01, 2020, 03:27:02 PM »
And he was 12.  A child.  Maybe large for his age but still a child.  No attempt to talk or find out what was happening beyond what he was told by dispatch.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #84 on: June 01, 2020, 03:38:27 PM »
Quote
Screening police officers for how they respond to stress is important.  I'd really like a good screen for sadism and psychopathy as well.  His 'emotional instability' was him being upset about a break up with his girlfriend.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/12/04/justice/cleveland-police-officer-timothy-loehmann/index.html

Is that a mitigating factor? The 12-year old boy was carrying a toy gun.  The city settled with the family for $6M.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #85 on: June 01, 2020, 03:41:15 PM »
Quote
The independent autopsy appears to contradict information from the criminal complaint, which said that the autopsy “revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation," saying that "the combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death."

There have been a lot of excuses and misdirection in the aftermath of Flynn's murder.  Here it sounds like the county ME either lied or is incompetent.  If he lied, who directed him to lie?  If he is merely incompetent, why is he in this job?  Will any of his prior autopsy findings now be subject to review?  Will the state or county be held liable for any of it?

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #86 on: June 01, 2020, 03:45:03 PM »
We don't know whether it was relevant or not.

Unless you have actual evidence of relevancy after almost certainly the press have gone through extensive research to find such relevancy and failed - given extensive research and a negative result - we can safely assume a lack of relevancy until such time as evidence is discovered.

Quote
What we do know is that that the police officer had been told that there was complaint of a man threatening people with a gun. That he then observed a man with a gun when he arrived changed the situation in no way whatsoever - meaning the police officer had all the exact same information to make his decision prior to arriving. (that's ignoring that the man was NOT actually brandishing the gun or threatening anybody when the police car drove up)

The new information was the apparent drawing of the weapon, something that can reasonably (though likely wrongly) inferred from the video footage we have.

Quote
If he knew his decision would be to immediately shoot the man holding the gun, then he should not have stopped his car at the scene, never mind get out or shoot.  That he arrived, observed what he had been warned about (or less) then proceeded immediately to shoot the man in question anyway, meant that this wasn't really a split second decision.  I would like to say it was completely avoidable, but his actions are suggestive of having made the decision to shoot before arriving.  If he did NOT already know what his decision would likely be when he did arrive to the described situation, that's a whole other problem.

I think you are misremembering what happened.  The way the call went out they believed they may have had an active shooter situation.  Garmback was the driver, Loehmann was the trainee.  Garmback parked close to the gazeebo where Tamir was, when he claims that they saw him begin to pull the gun from his waistband.  At which point Loehmann got out and shot.

If Loehmann had been the driver, your criticisms would be more on point, but he was a trainee and not the driver.  He would have had no influence over the situation.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #87 on: June 01, 2020, 03:50:04 PM »
And he was 12.  A child.  Maybe large for his age but still a child.  No attempt to talk or find out what was happening beyond what he was told by dispatch.

Police aren't psychic.  They couldn't know it was a toy or that he was 12.  They had been told it was a potential active shooter situation.  Had it not appeared he was drawing a gun, they could have learned more.  His age or it being a toy is irrelevant to the situation they were in.  His physical appearance was an adult; the gun appeared real; they had been told he had been assaulting people with it; he appeared to be drawing it - those are the only relevant facts to the officers actions.  Not our emotional reaction to the tragedy.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2020, 03:58:46 PM by LetterRip »

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #88 on: June 01, 2020, 03:56:47 PM »
Quote
Screening police officers for how they respond to stress is important.  I'd really like a good screen for sadism and psychopathy as well.  His 'emotional instability' was him being upset about a break up with his girlfriend.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/12/04/justice/cleveland-police-officer-timothy-loehmann/index.html

Is that a mitigating factor?

What do you mean?  Most people are 'emotionally unstable' after a break up.  It is extremely common - it doesn't imply a lack of fitness for duty unless there is serious information that wasn't included in the write up.

Quote
The 12-year old boy was carrying a toy gun.  The city settled with the family for $6M.

Yes, juries often will react to the emotional aspects of an argument, regardless of the fact pattern - so it is rational to settle a lawsuit even if legally there isn't any liability.  There are aspects of potential liability - namely the first dispatcher conveying incomplete information to the second dispatcher; and the veteran officer violating protocol.  Loehmann's actions though - with the information he had and the situation he was in likely weren't contributing to the liability.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #89 on: June 01, 2020, 04:12:52 PM »
As an aside "brandishing" is such an evocative word, isn't it?

Yep, but the person who made the call said he was pointing the gun at people.  Thus it is the correct term.

Quote
What it is not, is a license to kill anybody accused of "brandishing" at some time in the past.

It was a self defense shooting, not a 'license to kill'.  Which generally absolves a police officer of legal liability as long as the officer could reasonably believe he was acting in defense of self or others.

Quote
Like it or not, it is not illegal to carry a gun in Ohio, so Rice having a gun, or even holding a gun, would not be evidence of a crime.  The only thing the police had was a complaint (or complaints) of somebody doing something. What they observed when they arrived at the scene was not in and of itself illegal activity.

He was shot as a matter of self-defense and in defense of his partner, it wasn't a 'punishment for a crime' etc.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2020, 04:18:36 PM by LetterRip »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #90 on: June 01, 2020, 04:25:35 PM »
I think you are misremembering what happened.  The way the call went out they believed they may have had an active shooter situation.  Garmback was the driver, Loehmann was the trainee.  Garmback parked close to the gazeebo where Tamir was, when he claims that they saw him begin to pull the gun from his waistband.  At which point Loehmann got out and shot.
Yes, Garmback was the driver. No, Garmback did not 'park' close to the gazebo - the car was still moving when Loehmann got out of the car, and when he shot Rice, the car had just settled backwards slightly. Garmback had not yet had time to fully stop by the time Loehmann exited. It took less than 2 seconds for Loehmann to exit the moving car and for Rice to fall.  According to Judge Ronald B. Adrine on the case:
Quote
this court is still thunderstruck by how quickly this event turned deadly.... On the video the zone car containing Patrol Officers Loehmann and Garmback is still in the process of stopping when Rice is shot.

Quote
The way the call went out they believed they may have had an active shooter situation.
This is nothing like anything I ever read.  The 9-11 call was about a black man, possibly a youth, pointing a gun, probably a toy-gun, at people.  It's just not possible for a an active shooter to be using "probably" a toy gun.

What got communicated was the black man and a gun being pointed parts, where the 'possibly a youth' and 'probably a toy' parts were lost in the communication.

There was never anything said about an active shooter.  I think you may be misremembering what was described as happening :)

Given that there was never a question of there being an active shooter, does that change anything for you?


Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #91 on: June 01, 2020, 04:26:12 PM »
Crunch

Floyd was not shot and did not have a gun. Freddie Gray was not shot and did not have a gun. Tamir Rice had a toy gun and was shot so fast that he did not have a chance to drop the gun.  Philando Castile had  a legal gun, told the officer he had a gun, was asked to produce ID and when he was trying to produce ID, was shot 7 times at point blank range.

It's the armed vs unarmed thing I've been thinking about and I found this really good site.

People shot by police: 1,004

Unarmed: 41
White: 19
Black: 9

Armed with a gun: 589
White: 209
Black: 152

Armed with a knife: 171
White: 67
Black: 31

When you look at what happens during police encounters, whites get killed by the police more than blacks. For every 10,000 black people arrested for violent crime, 3 are killed. For every 10,000 white people arrested for violent crime, 4 are killed.

I get the desire to make this on a per capita basis since it tells a politically correct story but when you correct for actual police encounters the bias either disappears or skews heavily to fatal outcomes for whites more than blacks.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #92 on: June 01, 2020, 04:27:47 PM »
Quote
Screening police officers for how they respond to stress is important.  I'd really like a good screen for sadism and psychopathy as well.  His 'emotional instability' was him being upset about a break up with his girlfriend.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/12/04/justice/cleveland-police-officer-timothy-loehmann/index.html

Is that a mitigating factor?

What do you mean?  Most people are 'emotionally unstable' after a break up.  It is extremely common - it doesn't imply a lack of fitness for duty unless there is serious information that wasn't included in the write up.

There is a differential to be established about the duration during which someone may be emotionally distraught after being dumped. If it lasted a couple days, I doubt there would have been an issue, unless he simply had very lousy timing for a periodic psych eval that the department may or may perform.

Otherwise it suggests he was still being impacted by it weeks after the fact. That's not particularly normal when it comes to impacts with on the job performance.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #93 on: June 01, 2020, 04:31:38 PM »
When you look at what happens during police encounters, whites get killed by the police more than blacks. For every 10,000 black people arrested for violent crime, 3 are killed. For every 10,000 white people arrested for violent crime, 4 are killed.

I get the desire to make this on a per capita basis since it tells a politically correct story but when you correct for actual police encounters the bias either disappears or skews heavily to fatal outcomes for whites more than blacks.

Probably because their white privilege was showing and they bought into those same statistics everyone else hears about, and thought they weren't going to get shot--because they were white.  8)

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #94 on: June 01, 2020, 04:37:06 PM »
Quote
Screening police officers for how they respond to stress is important.  I'd really like a good screen for sadism and psychopathy as well.  His 'emotional instability' was him being upset about a break up with his girlfriend.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/12/04/justice/cleveland-police-officer-timothy-loehmann/index.html

Is that a mitigating factor?

What do you mean?  Most people are 'emotionally unstable' after a break up.  It is extremely common - it doesn't imply a lack of fitness for duty unless there is serious information that wasn't included in the write up.

There is a differential to be established about the duration during which someone may be emotionally distraught after being dumped. If it lasted a couple days, I doubt there would have been an issue, unless he simply had very lousy timing for a periodic psych eval that the department may or may perform.

Otherwise it suggests he was still being impacted by it weeks after the fact. That's not particularly normal when it comes to impacts with on the job performance.
It's unclear to what people think the 'break up' is relevant... His emotional instability after the breakup, in conjunction with his inability to follow basic instructions, his loss of composure during a weapons training exercise and his "dismal" weapons handling were all reasons for his being terminated from his previous position in a different police force 2 years earlier.  I hope that's what everybody is talking about, here...

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #95 on: June 01, 2020, 04:57:05 PM »
Yes, Garmback was the driver. No, Garmback did not 'park' close to the gazebo - the car was still moving when Loehmann got out of the car, and when he shot Rice, the car had just settled backwards slightly. Garmback had not yet had time to fully stop by the time Loehmann exited. It took less than 2 seconds for Loehmann to exit the moving car and for Rice to fall.  According to Judge Ronald B. Adrine on the case:
Quote
this court is still thunderstruck by how quickly this event turned deadly.... On the video the zone car containing Patrol Officers Loehmann and Garmback is still in the process of stopping when Rice is shot.

I'm not sure what you think the relevance is that he was 'parking' but hadn't completed and thus was not 'parked'.  The fact that the Judge was 'thunderstruck' is irrelevant - most people have trouble dealing with tragic events.  Once it appeared he was drawing a gun and given the prior knowledge they had, that determined the following events.  Two seconds is how quickly most things turn deadly when a police officer believes someone is drawing weapon.

Quote
This is nothing like anything I ever read.  The 9-11 call was about a black man, possibly a youth, pointing a gun, probably a toy-gun, at people.  It's just not possible for a an active shooter to be using "probably" a toy gun.

There were two dispatchers.  That is indeed what the first dispatcher was told. 

Quote
What got communicated was the black man and a gun being pointed parts, where the 'possibly a youth' and 'probably a toy' parts were lost in the communication.

A person pointing a gun at people is presumed a possible active shooter situation.

Quote
There was never anything said about an active shooter.  I think you may be misremembering what was described as happening :)

It was described in the interview that the officers believed they were responding to a 'possible' active shooter situation.  Anytime someone is pointing a gun at people - that is the presumption.

Quote
Given that there was never a question of there being an active shooter, does that change anything for you?

See above.  The presumption was an active shooter due to the pointing the gun at people.

Also he apparently did in fact draw the gun, it was in his hand and kicked away after the shooting.

Quote
"You can actually see the gun after Tamir gets shot," Meyer said. "There's a point of contrast on the film that you can see, after [Tamir] collapses to the ground, the point of contrast appears on the concrete gazebo floor that had not been there before."

That point of contrast, prosecutors said, is the replica Colt 1911 that Tamir was seen aiming at people in the hours before someone called 911.

About 40 seconds after the gun appears on the gazebo floor, Loehmann's partner, Frank Garmback, walks to it and kicks it out of the way, Meyer said.

"The significance of that is this: for it to have fallen on the ground, it would have had to have been in Tamir's hand, which means he would have had to have pulled that gun out," he said. "Both officers had their weapons drawn on Tamir even though we know in hindsight he wasn't a real threat to them, which indicates they saw a gun or what they thought was a gun."

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2015/12/indisputable_images_of_tamir_r.html

Of course obviously not to shoot the police in retrospect, perhaps he thought he'd be in trouble so was going to throw it away or something.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #96 on: June 01, 2020, 05:49:55 PM »
Wouldn't it be more interesting to see how many people are killed being arrested for non-violent crime, you know, like forgery and illegally selling cigarettes? Or shot for holding cell phones?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #97 on: June 01, 2020, 05:55:20 PM »
Wouldn't it be more interesting to see how many people are killed being arrested for non-violent crime, you know, like forgery and illegally selling cigarettes? Or shot for holding cell phones?

Not possible!

Quote
There is a differential to be established about the duration during which someone may be emotionally distraught after being dumped. If it lasted a couple days, I doubt there would have been an issue, unless he simply had very lousy timing for a periodic psych eval that the department may or may perform.

Otherwise it suggests he was still being impacted by it weeks after the fact. That's not particularly normal when it comes to impacts with on the job performance.

Why hypothesize ways to excuse him?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #98 on: June 01, 2020, 06:02:03 PM »
Quote
There is a differential to be established about the duration during which someone may be emotionally distraught after being dumped. If it lasted a couple days, I doubt there would have been an issue, unless he simply had very lousy timing for a periodic psych eval that the department may or may perform.

Otherwise it suggests he was still being impacted by it weeks after the fact. That's not particularly normal when it comes to impacts with on the job performance.

Why hypothesize ways to excuse him?

If you think that's excusing him, you're reading it too quickly, and not comprehending enough. It was intended as a strong implication that the "emotionally unstable" entry was added because it impacted his work performance for a significant period of time. Granted, can't rule out the option that they were looking to terminate his employment for other reasons(provided in this thread already) and might have pounced on that as soon as it happened. But I have doubts that the previous department were being ###holes about that matter.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: George Floyd
« Reply #99 on: June 01, 2020, 06:03:39 PM »
If they really thought he was an active shooter - why did they drive up to within 10 feet of him?  Why would they put themselves within certain danger of an armed, and ready to shoot, dangerous person? That's incredibly irresponsible, verging on deranged.

My point being that the decisions they made before getting to the gazebo were the most important.  They had no business getting within 10 feet of an active shooter.  If he was not an active shooter, driving up to somebody at speed, yelling out the window, then braking hard and jumping out of the car is also likely to generate unpredictable responses.
Quote
I'm not sure what you think the relevance is that he was 'parking' but hadn't completed and thus was not 'parked'.  The fact that the Judge was 'thunderstruck' is irrelevant - most people have trouble dealing with tragic events.  Once it appeared he was drawing a gun and given the prior knowledge they had, that determined the following events.  Two seconds is how quickly most things turn deadly when a police officer believes someone is drawing weapon.
My only point was the timing, and my continued observation that nothing Loehmann saw in that 1-2 second period changed anything about what they 'knew' to be true.  The decision to drive within ten feet of an armed person you believe to be armed and dangerous is a recipe for disaster, because it does not give you, the police, enough time to analyze the situation.  What happened was completely predictable, and the decision to do so led directly to Rice's death.
Quote
There were two dispatchers.  That is indeed what the first dispatcher was told. 
Not according to the Review of Deadly Force Report:
Quote
At approximately 3:22 in the afternoon on November 22, 2014, City of Cleveland Division of Police (CPD) Communication Center received a 911 call advising that there was a “guy in the park with a pistol, pointing it at people.” The caller, who later identified himself as “ ,” described the individual in question as a black male wearing a camo hat and a grey jacket with black sleeves. also stated that the individual was “probably a juvenile” and the weapon was “probably fake.”

At 3:26 pm, dispatch requested an available unit to respond to a Code 1 at the Cudell Rec Center (CRC). When Officers Frank Garmback and Timothy Loehmann advised dispatch they were able to respond, they were informed by dispatch that there was a black male sitting on a swing in the park by the Youth Center pulling a gun out of his pants and pointing it at people. The dispatcher further provided the address of the location and a description of the clothing worn by the individual with the weapon.
There is no other reference to either another caller or another dispatcher in the report.

A person pointing a gun at people is presumed a possible active shooter situation.
Every situation where somebody says that somebody has a gun is a possible active shooter situation. Again, if they believed he was an active shooter, what were they doing driving up to him, within easy firing range, unless it was a) to get themselves shot or b) to shoot him?  To test their abilities to outdraw him, maybe? In the hopes that maybe he would give up?  If the latter, they would have needed to provide him the ability to give up, and evaluating all the sets of possible ways he would surrender would take longer than 1.5 seconds.

If you are arguing that the prosecutors were right in tanking their case, or with the decision not to prosecute, OK, I get it.  What I am saying is that the decisions that led to them being 10 feet away from a dangerous shooter and then taking the shot were reckless and arguably criminal.  Yes, there were other people in the park - but surveilling him from a distance, they could see that he was not actually firing the gun, that he had been alone for 5 minutes underneath the gazebo, and mostly just sitting at a picnic table.  If this was truly considered an active shooter situation, why weren't more units dispatched or requested?  If he was sitting alone under the gazebo for 5 minutes, and not approaching anybody, where was the fire?