George Floyd

[msquared]

Or they did their duty and found him guilty based on the evidence.

[yossarian22c]

Another reason besides the evidence for why he was found guilty:
...
With the mobs we've seen and our own politicians like Maxine Waters inciting them, the fact that the jury wasn't assured of permanent privacy means if they are reasonable people, which they should be since they are on a jury, they would fear for their safety if they came up with a not guilty verdict.

Why do you keep looking for other reasons why Chauvin is guilty of a crime? Have you seen the video of him kneeling on Floyd while Floyd begs for air, then his mother, then nothing and then still doesn't get off until the paramedics ask him to move because they can't find a pulse and need to start treatment?

[cherrypoptart]

Because I don't know how much pressure was being put on Floyd's neck. If it was enough to make a difference then he's guilty. If it was an insignificant amount and made no difference and Floyd died because he swallowed extra fentanyl pills while he was being arrested and spit one out into the back of the squad car and so the reason he died was because while being arrested he swallowed more pills than he ever would have taken at one time otherwise then an innocent man was just sent to prison to placate the mob. Now I don't know Floyd swallowed extra pills but one with his saliva was found in the squad car so there may have been more. And I don't know that the pressure on Floyd's neck was insignificant or if it caused his death, but there's room for reasonable people to have reasonable doubts. I do know that any reasonable jury would have been influenced by many factors well outside of the evidence, like Biden saying he's obviously guilty, like the settlement the city paid, like the threats of violence by Maxine Waters, like the vandalism and threats against the defense, and like the months of riots, murder, and mayhem committed in the name of Black Lives Matter. We'll never know what the outcome of a fair trial would have been because he didn't get one and he never will.

[msquared]

He got a fair trial.   Biden's comments were made after the jury was sequestered, so had no impact.  You are speculating.  The jury was not. They made the decision after hearing all of the evidence.

[yossarian22c]

Because I don't know how much pressure was being put on Floyd's neck. If it was enough to make a difference then he's guilty. If it was an insignificant amount and made no difference and Floyd died because he swallowed extra fentanyl pills while he was being arrested and spit one out into the back of the squad car and so the reason he died was because while being arrested he swallowed more pills than he ever would have taken at one time otherwise then an innocent man was just sent to prison to placate the mob.
...

He's not an "innocent man" his actions did contribute to Floyd's death. Putting Floyd in a position where it is more difficult to breath and compounding that by placing a knee on his neck and leaving it there for 9 minutes means at the very least Chauvin accelerated Floyd's death. Maybe Floyd would have needed the medicine that reverses ODs, he may have been around to get it without Chauvin.

If Chauvin had gotten off of Floyd when he began saying he was having trouble breathing and then Floyd had still died then Chauvin would have had a defense. Chauvin only has himself to blame for his conviction.

[cherrypoptart]

"You are speculating.  The jury was not. They made the decision after hearing all of the evidence."

Juries convict innocent people all the time. At least that's what the left and the media says. It's interesting that now all of a sudden juries never make a mistake and the jury is sacrosanct and cannot be questioned or doubted. Just like elections after Biden won but after Trump won that's all elections were good for, to be questioned and doubted.

One interesting thing about the paramedics and the media is that stories also leave out exactly when they were called and how long it took them to get there.

But I'm not saying the knee on the neck definitely did not contribute to Floyd's death though. I don't know that.

I think what would be helpful would be a recreation. I remember a guy going by the name Mancow decided to determine for himself whether or not waterboarding is torture so he got himself waterboarded. He decided that yes it's torture.

A recreation shouldn't be too difficult. Is it possible to be in the position those two were in and the knee not have any affect on breathing or circulation? Conceivably, you could be in that position and the knee is just barely touching or you could also lean in and compress.

The Freddie Gray case is illustrative because the prosecutor and much of the public went all out to convict police officers when it's entirely possible he killed himself as a witness says he was thrashing about in the vehicle like he wanted to injure himself. If that jury had convicted, and they very well could have, and maybe if they were in the same situation as the Floyd jury they would have. The prosecution obviously thought they had enough evidence to convict. And the rioters did too.

But one funny thing about this notion that the juries had all of the evidence and we didn't is that for one thing that's not necessarily true. Many times juries are not allowed to see evidence. But for another thing the prosecution also has all of the evidence. The whole prosecution team has exactly all of the same evidence the jury has if not even more, and that whole prosecution team should be certain the defendant is guilty otherwise why would they even be having the trial, right? And yet juries often find people not guilty anyway, like in the Freddie Gray case. So this whole notion about the infallibility of juries and how we have to accept their verdicts, just like elections, seems to only gain steam and traction when they go our way.

[yossarian22c]

..
But I'm not saying the knee on the neck definitely did not contribute to Floyd's death though. I don't know that.

I think what would be helpful would be a recreation. I remember a guy going by the name Mancow decided to determine for himself whether or not waterboarding is torture so he got himself waterboarded. He decided that yes it's torture.

A recreation shouldn't be too difficult. Is it possible to be in the position those two were in and the knee not have any affect on breathing or circulation? Conceivably, you could be in that position and the knee is just barely touching or you could also lean in and compress.

You have the video. It looks like Chauvin's center of mass is over Floyd. Which means a significant portion of his weight is on Floyd. Chauvin's upper body would be leaned back over his feet if he wasn't putting much weight on Floyd.

Sorry we couldn't stop Chauvin from pressing his knee into Floyd's neck so we could put a force plate in there to see exactly how much weight he put on him.

Why are you hung up on looking for reasonable doubt for this sadistic a-hole? A man was literally underneath him begging for his life and Chauvin not only didn't respond by providing aid he didn't even take the minimum action of just standing up. Floyd was cuffed, unarmed, and not going anywhere with 4 cops at the scene by then.

[cherrypoptart]

And there is another issue with trials like this too. The quality of the defense.

I've seen many people note that the quality of the defense in this case while not glaringly incompetent was also not outstanding either. If the quality had been of the caliber of OJ's defense could the results have been different? I've even seen it mentioned that George Zimmerman's defense team was much better.

And there's the quality of the prosecution too. Did they use the usual prosecution team that a case like this would have gotten say twenty years ago? Or that a case would have gotten if it wasn't for all of the media attention and the riots? Or were the big guns called in for the prosecution and lots of them? The left always tells us about how money influences justice. Well, how much in the way of resources was spent on the prosecution compared to the defense?

I was also debating whether or not to bring this up but may as well. Was that really a jury of his peers? We are constantly told about how race affects justice outcomes, how the race of the juries compared to the defendant influences their process and the verdicts.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/10/us/derek-chauvin-trial-jurors/index.html

"The jury of five men and seven women began deliberations Monday to decide the extent of Chauvin's role in the death of George Floyd. Of the 12 jurors, six were White, four were Black and two were multiracial, according to information released by the court."

"...The jurors in Chauvin's case all came from Hennepin County, which is demographically about 74% White and 14% Black, according to census data."

[cherrypoptart]

If the positioning is that blatant and we have it on video then it should be easy enough to recreate it and see exactly how much pressure someone in that positioning would be exerting on the person under them.

We'll see what happens with the next trials of the other officers. All of them should be found guilty to one extent or another of a crime related to Chauvin's. Maybe their defenses will be better.

Just kind of back of the envelope thing here but anyone can try to put themselves in Chauvin's position. Nothing scientific so far but when I do it, it seems like it's no problem at all to adjust quite easily from not applying any pressure at all to exerting a great deal and it can be done regardless of leaning forward or backward.

[yossarian22c]

And there is another issue with trials like this too. The quality of the defense.

Is Chauvin a friend of yours?

I do feel sorry for the other 3 cops on the scene, particularly the two rookies who were being trained. I know the military learns just following orders doesn't absolve you from sins but I don't think they deserve to spend years in jail for being paired up with Chauvin. I think they all showed poor judgement and a disregard to stand up for what is right. If there was a civilian version of a dishonorable discharge that would follow them around but maybe not send them to prison I think that would be justified.

[cherrypoptart]

I don't know the guy.

But I do think police should be given the benefit of the doubt and I don't think he's being given that.

How far is that going to go?

Now we see people going after a police officer who shot someone with a knife literally in the act of trying to stab another person.

"LeBron James tweeted 'you're next' to the Ohio cop who killed Ma'Khia Bryant, 16"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9497413/LeBron-James-calls-cop-killed-MaKhia-Bryant-held-accountable.html

Just like black people couldn't get a fair trial back in the day, and many would argue even now, it seems like it's open season on cops and their odds of getting a fair trial don't look good because of all the bias against them, the racism against blue people.

Public safety is going to suffer for this too. More black people are getting killed by criminals because the police are turtling up then would have been killed by police if they were doing their jobs.

[LetterRip]

cherry,

police regularly get acquitted even when the evidence is strongly against them.

As to the young woman who had the knife who was shot - I have no doubt it will be found a clean shooting, and there will never even be a case brought against the police officer, I doubt even a civil case will be brought.  People are reacting a bit emotionally because police have done horrific things and either not been charged or are acquitted so frequently and the timing is rather bad.

As to Chauvin, the only thing he could have done to make the case stronger against him was a public confession - it should have been a slam dunk case.  As a number of police I know have said - this case won't change anything for them because Chauvin was so blatantly in the wrong that they themselves would have convicted him.

[NobleHunter]

If we were to try and fix the problem of over-zealous prosecution and inadequate defense, a cop who was caught on camera murdering someone isn't where I would start. Waiting until there's finally some accountability for the police use of force isn't the time to start complaining about how broken the system is. Justice should start with the oppressed, not the oppressors.   

The usual prosecution team for this sort of thing would have interviewed the cops, accepted that the suspect had an adverse medical event and gone about their day. It sucks for Chauvin that the rules changed on him but that needs to happen if things are ever going to get better. If he didn't want to be convicted he shouldn't knelt on someone's neck until they died.

But I do think police should be given the benefit of the doubt

Why on Earth would you think that? Case after case shows that police not only lie, they conspire to lie, lie in writing, and lie in court. Anyone who's been paying attention, should instead insist that any police report be corroborated independently by non-police witnesses or hard evidence. Any testimony they give on the use of force or other matters in which they may have an interest in should be regarded as suspect. They have too much at stake to simply trust them at their word.

[NobleHunter]

cherry,

police regularly get acquitted even when the evidence is strongly against them.

As to the young woman who had the knife who was shot - I have no doubt it will be found a clean shooting, and there will never even be a case brought against the police officer, I doubt even a civil case will be brought.  People are reacting a bit emotionally because police have done horrific things and either not been charged or are acquitted so frequently and the timing is rather bad.

That depends on if there's video or not.

[LetterRip]

I really hate that news use age of the person shot as if it were relevant, it may make the death sadder, but it in no way should impact police behavior - a 16 year old doing a knife attack is every bit as deadly as a 25 year old.

[cherrypoptart]

A prominent activist doesn't think the video proves the officer was correct:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-let-teenagers-knife-fight-caucus/


"Teenagers have been having fights including fights involving knives for eons. We do not need police to address these situations  by showing up to the scene & using a weapon against one of the teenagers. Y’all need help. I mean that sincerely."

This is where we're heading. Actually it looks like we're already there.

The officer did arrive just in time in this case but in thousands of others they slow rolled and just let the criminals kill someone as the spike in murders across major cities after the Baltimore riots shows.

We also have the shop owner who called the police on Floyd saying that he wishes he hadn't. Many other stores are also not calling the police for relatively minor crimes. That does not bode well for our society. Broken window syndrome and all that. We saw that effect in the early stages of the violent hate crime wave against Asians. They often don't report because the police don't do anything anyways. As the police do less and less policing more and more crime is going to go unreported which will lead to more and more crime in a downward spiraling cycle for our society.

[LetterRip]

That depends on if there's video or not.

There is bodycam footage of her pushing one person down and apparently swinging the knife at another, there is a 911 call they are responding to requesting help because they are being attacked with a knife,

In the video, it appears that the 16-year-old, identified now as Ma’Khia Bryant, who was moments later shot by police, pushes or swings at a person, who falls to the ground.

Bryant then appears to swing a knife at a girl who is on the hood of a car, and the officer fires his weapon what sounds like four times, striking Bryant, who died a short time later.

[...]

Police received a 911 call at 4:35 p.m. about an attempted stabbing on the 3100 block of Legion Lane, which is located north of Chatterton Road. The caller reported a female was trying to stab them, then the caller hung up.

Officers responded to the scene and at 4:45 p.m. an officer-involved shooting was reported.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/crime/2021/04/20/one-person-killed-officer-involved-shooting-east-side/7309088002/

[LetterRip]

A prominent activist doesn't think the video proves the officer was correct

Yes, well there are also people who feel that Chauvin was wrongfully convicted.  I think the vast majority of people and the law will find the officer was in the right.

This is where we're heading. Actually it looks like we're already there.

Eyeroll...

The officer did arrive just in time in this case but in thousands of others they slow rolled and just let the criminals kill someone as the spike in murders across major cities after the Baltimore riots shows.

Miraculously the 'spike' started before Baltimore in may of those cities, corresponding with the increased heroine wars due to the opioid crisis.

Also there has been research done when police have done 'slow downs' - the longest one in history didn't show an increase in homicides, though there was an increase in assaults.  So your 'slow roll' resulting in a 'spike' theory is debunked.

https://academic.oup.com/aler/article-abstract/18/2/385/2808725

We also have the shop owner who called the police on Floyd saying that he wishes he hadn't. Many other stores are also not calling the police for relatively minor crimes. That does not bode well for our society.

Yes, when society is so afraid of police that it is preferable to suffer minor crimes than call them - it is a major indictment that the police need reform.

Broken window syndrome and all that.

So here is what the research says,

A recent systematic review by Braga, Welsh and Schnell (2015) found that policing strategies focused on disorder overall had a statistically significant, modest impact on reducing all types of crime.  This positive effect was driven by the success of place-based, problem-oriented interventions.  In contrast, there was no significant overall impact of aggressive order maintenance strategies.  Thus, they conclude that police can successfully reduce disorder and non-disorder crime through disorder policing efforts, but the types of strategies matter.

https://cebcp.org/evidence-based-policing/what-works-in-policing/research-evidence-review/broken-windows-policing/

So the 'aggressive order maintenace' is exactly what people are opposing and is shown to not be effective.

We saw that effect in the early stages of the violent hate crime wave against Asians. They often don't report because the police don't do anything anyways.

There is definitely a deficiency of law enforcement going after white supremacists and other racists who commit hate crimes especially under the Trump administration.  Of course arguably much of that is related to Trump calling Covid-19 'Wu Flu' and blaming China - I'm thinking racists might think that attacking asians is then 'patriotic' and racist police might agree it is 'justified'.

As the police do less and less policing more and more crime is going to go unreported which will lead to more and more crime in a downward spiraling cycle for our society.

We should absolutely fire those who don't do anything.  Looks like you are making an argument we should defund the police.

[Wayward Son]

A recreation shouldn't be too difficult. Is it possible to be in the position those two were in and the knee not have any affect on breathing or circulation? Conceivably, you could be in that position and the knee is just barely touching or you could also lean in and compress.

You know what, cherry? That doesn't matter.

Because when George said he couldn't breath, the first thing he should have done is take pressure off Floyd's neck.  When he said he still couldn't breath, he should have pulled off and checked that he wasn't choking.  If anyone was to do the test you suggest, that is how they would react, because they wouldn't want to kill the person they were testing. (At least, you'd hope that is you were the one who was the test subject. )

It just shows again his disregard for George's life.

[oldbrian]

And the whole point of the knee on the neck was to control Floyd's ability to move - it is a restraint.

If there is no pressure there, how does that stop anyone from moving?

[cherrypoptart]

If he's not trying to move especially because he's unconscious then there is no need for pressure. If Chauvin did keep pressure on all that time then I agree he's guilty of a crime. And maybe he did so maybe he is. But if Chauvin was maintaining that position just in case and was not applying any pressure and Floyd died of a drug overdose you have a lot of people saying that doesn't even matter and he's still guilty of murder.


The idea that the officer who shot a knife wielding assailant who was a moment away from stabbing an unarmed young black lady wouldn't provoke mass protests seems to be premature. The protests are already happening. The mob has already found him guilty just like Chauvin.

https://news.yahoo.com/after-ma-khia-bryants-killing-ohio-state-university-students-demand-the-college-sever-ties-with-columbus-police-182334852.html

What does this prove? It proves that even if the police don't do anything wrong they are still guilty.

[Wayward Son]

It proves the police are not getting the benefit of the doubt anymore.  Perhaps rightly so.

Of course, we are also talking about Ohio State University students, who have a history of protesting.

[LetterRip]

cherry,

The idea that the officer who shot a knife wielding assailant who was a moment away from stabbing an unarmed young black lady wouldn't provoke mass protests seems to be premature. The protests are already happening. The mob has already found him guilty just like Chauvin.

A protest by a less than 1% of a student body is a pretty trivial number.  If the school 'severe ties' - then it will be newsworthy.  If there are actual 'massive protests', then it would be newsworthy.  If there is any actual mob, it would be newsworthy.  At this point there is zero reason to think there will be 'massive protests'.

[oldbrian]

Cherry:

If he's not trying to move especially because he's unconscious then there is no need for pressure.

And yet, the paramedics had to force Chauvin to move so they could examine/treat Floyd.

And what makes you think these questions never came up during trial?  You are assuming without a shred of evidence.

I actually agree that the police should be given the benefit of the doubt.  But the flip side of that is they must be held to a higher standard of conduct.  The Tao of Ben Parker comes up time and again in these discussions.

[cherrypoptart]

"Also there has been research done when police have done 'slow downs' - the longest one in history didn't show an increase in homicides, though there was an increase in assaults.  So your 'slow roll' resulting in a 'spike' theory is debunked."

Not so fast...

https://mtracey.substack.com/p/one-year-after-george-floyd-minneapolis


"If one unjust killing (Floyd) generates sustained, historic, society-altering attention, and hundreds or thousands of others generate virtually no attention, the reasons for that disproportionality have to reflect something about a society’s cultural and political priorities.

This is especially true in Minneapolis, where the tumult of the Floyd episode and its fallout has now lasted for nearly a full year. Because it simply cannot be disputed that the prevalence of unjust killing and violence in the Twin Cities area has vastly increased since last summer’s protests and riots. Minneapolis recorded its second-most homicides ever in 2020 — after only 1995, when the city was ignobly dubbed “Murderapolis” in national media. And the trend has continued to escalate in 2021: between January 1 and April 25, the number of homicides increased by 92% compared to the same period in 2020. More than 80% of the shooting victims in 2020 were black.

“We’re gonna blow Murderopolis off the charts this year,” one Minneapolis cop told me...

... “Usually a cop should take about ten calls a day,” he said. “I’m already at like, thirty. So that’s way overboard. I mean, you’re gonna have burnout. You’re gonna have people quitting.” Fourteen officers had left in just the past week since the verdict, he said.

“One of us is gonna get killed and nobody cares. And that’s what’s sad. Nobody cares. Not the citizens, not our brass. Not our administration, not our city. They don't care. They don’t care one bit...


... Here is the exact location at a Saint Paul auto body shop where 36-year-old Mohamed Jama Samatar fell to his death on March 30 after being ambushed by a shooter who’d pretended to be a customer:


Here is the makeshift memorial for Iaan James Wade, a 19-year-old who was shot to death April 22 in North Minneapolis:


There will never be cries to “say their names,” nor will enormous crowds of protesters ever demand “justice” on their behalf. Again, the unique political resonance of cop-on-civilian killing makes the outsized focus on those events understandable. But when you spend some time in the crime-surging Twin Cities looking into other victims of unjust violence, the disproportionality of the focus does make you think."

 

[LetterRip]

Cherry,

you need to always look at per capita for comparisons and age adjusted as well.

For instance Minneapolis has been growing steadily, about 30% since 1995.

https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23068/minneapolis/population

So the number of murders would have to be 30% higher than in 1995 to be even the same murder rate.

I haven't checked the age demographics - but generally it is the percentage of males in the 16-35 age demographic that are unemployed is a major determinant of the violent crime rate (unemployed males generally are only eligible for SNAP and other public assistance for a fairly brief period of time, and if they don't have relatives who can support them, then some percentage end up turning to crime rather than live homeless after public assistance runs out).

[cherrypoptart]

People were upset that a person was shot and killed by police as she attempted to stab someone.

And now police officers are stunned as a cop is convicted of murder for shooting a man with a gun who refused to drop it.


https://news.yahoo.com/local-police-shocked-alabama-officer-120230499.html


"Huntsville police chief Mark McMurray said the verdict left local police "in the first stages of shock," according to AP.

"I do not believe Officer Darby is a murderer," McMurry added. "Officers are forced to make split-second decisions every day, and Officer Darby believed his life and the lives of other officers were in danger."

Yes he was pointing the gun at his own head but what's to stop him from changing his mind and shooting the officers to die by cop? Has that ever been simmed or happened in real life where the guy was able to suddenly shoot a cop before they could shoot and disable him?

[TheDrake]

Prosecutors argued Huntsville Officer William Darby, 27, had no reason to kill Jeffrey Parker while responding to a call after the 43-year-old man phoned 911 saying he was armed and planned to kill himself. A one-time colleague, Genisha Pegues, testified that while Parker was upset, he was talking to her and posed no immediate threat.

But the defense argued that Darby feared for his life and fired in defense of himself and two other officers who were on the scene.


While Madison County prosecutors asked jurors to convict Darby of murder during closing arguments, a city police review cleared him of wrongdoing after the April 2018 killing and officials allowed him to remain an officer, with Huntsville taxpayers helping fund his defense.

Jurors saw video of the shooting taken from police body cameras, and Darby testified that he feared seeing “one of my officers” get hurt and fired after Parker shrugged when ordered to put down the gun he was holding to his own head.

Pegues, who has since resigned, told jurors during testimony that Parker hadn’t pointed his weapon at officers and was communicating with her until Darby rushed through a front door past her and leveled a shotgun at the man.

Video showed Darby fired within seconds.[/quoted]

So, cop #1 is trying to talk the guy down when cop #2 barges in past that cop already on the scene and blows the guy away. That's your impressive hero that you are defending.

[cherrypoptart]

The problem is we don't know how it was going to turn out. Has it ever happened in a situation like that where the suicidal guy with a gun is getting talked down and he suddenly turns the gun on the cops and kills one before they have time to shoot him?

And shoots him within seconds... well if it's like ten seconds that's plenty of time to drop a weapon.

And is the cop a hero? Well, I didn't go that far. But is he guilty of murder and should he be sent to prison? That's how far the jury went.

So do the cops have to wait now until the gun is pointed at them before they shoot? Does the jury mistakenly think there is time for the police to defend themselves in that situation or do they just hate cops so much that they don't care if some of them die needlessly?

And here's a story about people freaking out in Hawaii over the shooting of a 16 year old by police and implying racism.

https://apnews.com/article/hawaii-micronesia-police-shootings-race-and-ethnicity-74305f44d1efed56f96de57daebf5fd9

while here is a shorter story that includes a few more facts like the "...car Sykap was driving, was linked to a crime spree over several days and that witnesses had seen the suspects with firearms less than a half hour before the police chase. Earlier that day, they were linked to an armed home invasion."

So what's the point? The point is it is a war on police and when the police give up and surrender as they are doing in major cities where the violent crime and murder rate are skyrocketing, we're all going to be in greater danger.

In the case with the suicidal guy with the gun, the rules of engagement the officers have to follow are what exactly? A guy with a gun who refuses to drop it cannot be shot? The police have to wait until he shoots at them first? And by shooting at them that most likely means shooting them. So cops have to wait until they are shot, maybe in the head, before they can shoot back? Yeah, that's going to work out just great.

Going back to the 16 year old in Hawaii, people like to bring their age into it as if to say that means they are more innocent and less dangerous. Yeah, like the 15 year old who killed up and coming entertainer Pop Smoke for the lousy $2000 he got for his Rolex?

https://www.thewrap.com/pop-smoke-killed-teen-rolex-lapd-detective/

A young age doesn't mean these kids aren't still extremely dangerous.

[Fenring]

The problem is we don't know how it was going to turn out. Has it ever happened in a situation like that where the suicidal guy with a gun is getting talked down and he suddenly turns the gun on the cops and kills one before they have time to shoot him?

And shoots him within seconds... well if it's like ten seconds that's plenty of time to drop a weapon.

The matter is really not that complicated. U.S. cops have a reputation now for escalating rapidly, even in situations where it is totally unnecessary. I've read plenty (far too many) stories of someone calling in the cops to help with someone who's suicidal or having a crisis, and they show up and shoot the person. We are not talking about a call-in to report a crime, but actual calls for assistance. I've also heard of people with mental health problems or autism-spectrum disorders calling the cops for help and it turning into an inquisition where the cops are trying to frame the actual caller as being some sort of problem. It should be painfully obvious to those who look on that not only are they improperly trained to deal with civilians in distress, but anytime a weapon is involved (whether a deaf person who can't hear commands, or someone in a state of psychosis who needs help) the cops treat the person like a perp to be taken down if they don't follow orders. If you can't see this, then I can't help you. But if a cop comes across someone in a state of mental distress who wants to shoot themselves, and you think it is in any way ok that the first solution offered is to shoot the person, then I pray to God you never have anything to do with the state of policing and police training. Although I could perhaps suggest a side career in penning scripts like Speed, where that type of solution could potentially be seen as clever.

[cherrypoptart]

So let's be clear. The police deserve to have very clear policies in place. So what we're saying here is that in the case of a suicidal person with a gun, the police have to wait until he points it at them before they can shoot?

If that's going to be the law then it needs to be put in writing.

[Fenring]

So let's be clear. The police deserve to have very clear policies in place. So what we're saying here is that in the case of a suicidal person with a gun, the police have to wait until he points it at them before they can shoot?

If that's going to be the law then it needs to be put in writing.

Why should they shoot someone suicidal at all? Or is it your contention that anyone at all with a gun is fair game, like they've got a target painted on their chest? The whole 'any chance at all that we feel threatened and you die' mentality is so vile that it makes me lean towards the British system of disarming the police completely. I know in the U.S. there are other factors in play making it apples to oranges, but if you can't handle the responsibility...

[msquared]

I mean the Second Amedment, some say, allows people to go around armed all they want, right?

[cherrypoptart]

"Why should they shoot someone suicidal at all?"

They shouldn't shoot someone just because they are suicidal. He wasn't shot for that. He was shot because he was a danger to others.

Was he not a danger to others?

That's what I'd like to see explained, how he was not a danger to the police.

A lot of these suicide by cops shoot at the police. So are we just assuming that he won't start doing that? And we're just assuming that he won't get off a shot? And just assuming that one of the police officers won't get killed?

Asking why shoot someone who is suicidal but leaving out the part that the person has a gun in their hand seems like burying the lead.

If the guy was holding a bottle of pills or a rope that would be a different story.

The point I'm making is that we are going in the wrong direction. We should be encouraging people to follow the lawful orders of police. And that's not what's happening. We're encouraging people to ignore lawful police commands and then putting the police in prison instead.

[msquared]

IF only police only gave lawful orders. Some of them sure seem to think you should do everything they tell you, even if it is not a lawful order and violates your civil rights.

[cherrypoptart]

So are we balancing the times that the police gave unlawful orders by putting police in prison after they gave lawful orders that weren't followed and tragedy ensues, like lawfully ordering someone to get in a police vehicle after they are handcuffed and under arrest for suspicion of counterfeiting, or lawfully ordering someone to drop a gun when they are threatening to shoot themselves with it?

Because that's what it seems like. Haven't there been other cases where someone with a gun threatened to shoot themselves and were shot by the police but the police weren't convicted of a crime? And haven't there been other cases like the Floyd case where a suspect has died like that in custody and the same kind of circumstances were present but the police weren't convicted of a crime?

So one thing I think we can all agree on here is that things are changing.

I think we can also agree that according to the new rules and court precedents police are expected to put themselves in greater danger. They will have to use lesser force when restraining suspects hopped up on drugs and even armed suspects. More police will die as a result but hey they volunteered so that's their problem. More police will also hold back a bit on getting the bad guys off the street too and that's going to be our problem. Better that a hundred random innocent people die in crossfires from random gun violence than one gang banger dies because a cop shoots him when he refuses to drop his gun.

[Wayward Son]

So what you're saying, cherry, with this "encourage people to obey the police," is that we should encourage the police to kill anyone who does not immediately obey their instructions, even those who are incapable of doing so?  Even those who are physically incapable (deaf) or mentally incapable (insane, temporarily or chronically).  That all they have to do is feel that someone is threatened (whether the threatened person feels threatened or not), and they have the right to kill a person then and there.  They become the judge, jury and executioner.

Sounds just the policy that any fascist government would encourage.

[cherrypoptart]

I agreed with the left on some of these cases.

Here's a case where the police were wrong:

https://kutv.com/news/local/family-of-13-year-old-boy-shot-by-salt-lake-city-police-sues-department

Okay I say the police were wrong and it looks a lot like they were definitely wrong assuming the kid didn't have a gun. So there's one case and there are thousands more. So there are plenty of times when the police are in the wrong. We constantly see the refrain about the unarmed person shot by the police. Fair enough. Those cases do deserve scrutiny. Floyd was unarmed so that case deserved it's fair scrutiny. Although he wasn't shot but anyway, now we're getting into cases where even when the suspect has a gun and he's shot the police are going to prison, and that's the logical trajectory of the Floyd case and BLM, defunding the police, and the Democrat agenda. We're getting a war on cops, and not just the bad cops either but all of them. It's morphing into a war on all of them, like the only good cop is ... well there are no good cops so defund them and let them work construction or something.

[TheDrake]

So do the cops have to wait now until the gun is pointed at them before they shoot? Does the jury mistakenly think there is time for the police to defend themselves in that situation or do they just hate cops so much that they don't care if some of them die needlessly?

The other cop on the scene was handling things peacefully, was that cop recklessly lenient? And yes, I do think it is worse to have dozens of people die for a shrug than to take a rare risk of a cop getting fired upon by a suicidal individual before they can react to that person making an aggressive move.

I can't say that I personally think this individual was guilty of murder, as there are few details from the testimony in the trial.

I don't know their rules, but it seems to me that it might warrant commanding the guy to drop his gun a second time before taking his life. Should the rules of engagement be such that the default behaviour is to fire away if your verbal command isn't followed instantly? That's how we wind up with deaf people and people wearing headphones getting shot, mentally challenged people, unarmed people (hey a cell phone looks a lot like a gun huh), diabetics, etc.

If cops don't want a war on cops, and most cops are really good, I suggest that other cops start arresting, stopping, and turning in the bad ones.

[yossarian22c]

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/19/998433764/former-colorado-officers-who-arrested-73-year-old-woman-with-dementia-face-charg

If there was ever a case that showed police need retraining and a different attitude when dealing with the public this is it.

Multiple charges have been filed against two former Colorado police officers for their roles in the arrest of a 73-year-old woman with dementia last year.
...
Hopp, who handcuffed Garner and allegedly dislocated her shoulder in the process, is charged with two felonies
...
Her lawyers say the woman had forgotten to pay for the items and that when she offered to pay the $13.88 bill, employees refused to let her. Instead, surveillance camera footage shows that an employee tried to keep her at the store while they waited for law enforcement.
...
Garner, whose lawyers say stands at 5 foot and weighs 80 pounds, appears confused by the officers' commands and says she is going home before turning away from Hopp. She is holding a cell phone and a small bouquet of wildflowers picked from the side of the road in her left hand. As her back is turned to him, Hopp reaches for her left hand, pulls it behind her back and pins her to the ground.
...
The two officers eventually transport Garner to the station and where she is booked. According to court documents, she remained handcuffed to a bench in a cell for six hours before receiving any medical attention, despite numerous complaints by Garner that both her shoulder and wrist were in pain.

What a crap show all around. The walmart employees could have just let the old woman pay. The officers easily could have used less force. Walked with her to explain what happened, take her back to the walmart and have her pay the $13.

[Fenring]

Even if she really did try to shoplift, it doesn't give license to use violence to subdue her. Even if she had stood there saying "haha! I'm walking out with this stuff and you can't stop me, copper!!" any well-trained officer should use persuasion and de-escalation to get her to either (a) give back the stuff (letting the sly old lady off the hook), or (b) explaining that they had to arrest her, ideally sorrowfully, so she had better come with them. And they proceed to take her arm and guide her to their vehicle as if she was a guest of honor. Anything else - and she can be as guilty as you like - should be felony assault period end of story. Agree with yossarian on this one.

[TheDrake]

Schielke has noted that the department failed to take any action against the officer until media reports publicized Garner's violent arrest. This inaction was despite the fact that several other officers as well as supervisors were aware of what had happened. Only after reports did officials seek to launch an investigation into the incident resulting in Wednesday's charges, she said.

"ALL of those individuals did nothing about it. That is not a Hopp-and-Jalali-being-rogue-criminals problem. That's a City of Loveland creating them problem," Schielke stated.

This. The "most cops are good" crowd consistently ignores the indifference of their so called good cops to bad acts committed by other cops. Meanwhile if it hadn't been a little old lady, people would be coming out of the woodwork to defend the cops actions against a teenage person of color.

[alai]

The whole 'any chance at all that we feel threatened and you die' mentality is so vile that it makes me lean towards the British system of disarming the police completely.

Not by any means completely.  Though by far the majority of police in Great Britain (as opposed to Northern Ireland) carry no firearms and aren't authorised to do so.  There are however officers that have a general authorisation to be armed, though can only actually be so when specifically authorised by a higher-ranking officer or when at particular sites.  Go through a UK airport and you'll routinely see pairs of British Bobbies strolling around with full-auto bullpups.  Response units are more at the "to the teeth" level.

(The Republic of) Ireland is another country that likes to burnish its "uniquely unarmed" police force, but proportionately is actually more armed than GB forces (but much less than NI).

[Fenring]

In the sense I meant it, "completely" meant going all the way and taking away their firearms, rather than suggesting they literally had no tools at their disposal (or that there are no armed units of any sort in the U.K., of which James Bond is clearly evidence to the contrary).

[alai]

I didn't interpret it as "no tools", as over and above AFOs some (again not all) officers are issued tasers, which I didn't take to be within the scope of your intended meaning.  But perhaps I shouldn't have said "by no means" but rather "not at least the most obviously sense of"...

By way of additional datapoints, Euronormal is for all police to routinely carry a sidearm.  So you could argue those as precedents either way, depending on how you feel that's working out for each of those countries.