A different look at George Floyd

Well it's about time they did! In this age, such details inevitably leak out over the course of time and this is the kind of thing which leads the MSM to become ever more distrusted each time it occurs. There must be vanishingly few people left by now, who unquestioningly accept everything they're shown and told on TV and in the newspapers (but that is no bad thing in general).

Such incidents are few and far between nowadays, fortunately. And when it does happen, the 'victim' is almost invariably less than completely blameless.

Such a shame that two great talents, Rocky and Bullwinkle, couldn't work together as their careers matured. Too much egoism over whose name should be billed first. ;-)

If only he would. One of the cabal of trolls here who post under the auspices of a certain Bill Sloman.

And a voluminous poster of garbage. A most worthy entrant into any thinking person's KF.

====================

Now that they mostly do, activists want them to stop.

Cos the images when released by police or courts are harming their cause by making blacks look incredibly bad.

The usual tactic in response nowadays is to take the vid, edit out all the incriminating stuff and post it on U-tube as showing the opposite to reality.

Have a look at the channel run by "Donut Operator".

As a former police officer, he shows the entire vid and explains what is really going on with the applicable law.

As I posted earlier, a vid can only show what happened from a single viewpoint but not explain WHY !!

..... Phil

I consider it a high compliment to be sworn at by you. Or maybe it's just your way of saying, "Hi diddly Ho, neighbor!"

No, it's not common practice to keep your knee on the neck for nearly nine minutes resulting in death. You'd have to be pretty stupid to think there was anything necessary in that.

Unaware that they were killing the man? Hardly, even the rookie was telling them they should get off.

I quoted the official report which you seem to be ignoring. But I suppose so, since you only accept evidence that confirms the opinion you have already formed. I guess that's why you... well, fill in the blank.

You are the one who brought it up.

Actually it is at the crux of the matter. The "bias" will only be an issue if a lawyer in the case tries to make it one. If both side's lawyers feel they can get a sympathetic jury they won't complain and it will go right ahead.

Yes, we all know what you are full of.

Lol, more shaping events to suit your beliefs. They don't throw police to the wolves because there is a riot. But then that doesn't suit your previously formed opinion, so you won't consider it. BTW, "officers". All four have been charged.

Of course it did. Most of us have seen the video and the details, so it is very clear.

Now that IS high praise coming from someone of your caliber. About a .22, right?

It is truly amazing what a poor thinker you are. Didn't do well in school, I bet.

atter have been demanding that police wear and use body cams.

There's nothing lunatic about it (unless you subscribe to Phil Allison's de finition of a "lunatic" which is roughly "anybody who isn't Phil Allison").

Evidence is always useful.

Really?

by making blacks look incredibly bad.

They frequently do. Most policing is done by sensible police coping with pe ople doing bad stuff.

e incriminating stuff and post it on U-tube as showing the opposite to real ity.

That's a characteristic of any propagandist - you get your spin by snipping out the bits of evidence that don't fit the story you are peddling. Phil h imself makes a habit of it.

really going on with the applicable law.

point but not explain WHY !!

Having several cops, each with their own body cam, can give a much more com plete picture of what is going on. It takes quite a lot of work to integrat e the various images into a coherent whole, and even more work to display t hat coherent whole to a remote audience.

Video editing is an art - one of my nephews did it for a few years before h e got a second university degree part time (in computer science) and ended up working for Google.

You probably think you aren't racist, do you? You are one of the most racist people I've met. You don't really even understand the word do you?

You have my pity. You are surely deserving of it.

==========================================

Narcissistic, entitled, reckless zealots.

The entire problem is FOOLS thinking such vids are self explanatory.

They only rarely are.

..... Phil

es Matter have been demanding that police wear and use body cams.

Perhaps some. "Mostly" is one of Phil's lunatic generalisations.

Some of them are. Not many.

use by making blacks look incredibly bad.

What I actually posted was

"They frequently do. Most policing is done by sensible police coping with p eople doing bad stuff."

As usual, Phil has snipped out the part that he found inconvenient, and fai led to mark the snip, which is text-chopping, one of his less attractive ha bits.

Not quite enough.

is really going on with the applicable law.

viewpoint but not explain WHY !!

complete picture of what is going on.

A point that I had explored in more detail.

"Having several cops, each with their own body cam, can give a much more co mplete picture of what is going on. It takes quite a lot of work to integra te the various images into a coherent whole, and even more work to display that coherent whole to a remote audience.

Video editing is an art - one of my nephews did it for a few years before h e got a second university degree part time (in computer science) and ended up working for Google."

As usual. Phil snipped that too, without marking the snip. He is an unsavou ry piece of work.

Black police officer shoots Australian white woman, no video, who knows what really happened or what kind of mistake it was or what she did or didn't do.

Didn't matter, open-and-shut case he goes to jail.

I haven't read any details of coroner reports, or statements from the police, or anything else - so I'll assume for now that that information is accurate.

What you (Phil, not John) are then saying is the police heard him complaining about breathing problems, which they took seriously enough to call an ambulance, and then they pulled him out of the car, pushed him to the ground, and put a knee on his neck for 8 minutes - knowing they couldn't find a pulse for the last 3 of those minutes.

The prosecution is going to argue that the police knew this action was dangerous and potentially deadly when they first put him on the ground. That turns it into a murder.

Did the police here know of the guy's identity and record before arresting him?

The police have a right to protect themselves from harm, including from people that they suspect to be violent criminals. But they have a duty to do so with no more than necessary and reasonable force. The police are supposed to be appropriately trained, experienced, armed and defended that they can handle the guy without serious risk to themselves and without serious risk to the person being arrested. There are two police with an out-of-breath guy in handcuffs - he was of no risk, and therefore /no/ force was justifiable.

Absolutely agreed.

Indeed. Strangulation should be viewed like shooting - it /can/ be non-lethal, but it can very quickly be lethal even if that was not the intention.

I would have thought common practice for getting control and putting on the cuffs would be a knee on the shoulder to keep them down - not on the neck unless it was /really/ necessary. (I have no knowledge of police training, in this country or the USA, but enough judo and karate training to know a bit about restraining people and which techniques are unnecessarily dangerous.)

Police need to use as much force as necessary - and not more. A knee on the back of the neck is an effective restraint, but always a dangerous one, and should therefore only be used as a last resort.

It is certainly reasonable to expect that his state before being killed made him more likely to suffer from the knee to the neck. But that doesn't stop the knee being unnecessarily brutal, unnecessarily dangerous, and for unnecessarily long - or that the extra three minutes shows the policemen were not bothered about killing him.

However, if the police knew he had breathing problems before dragging him out of the car and putting a knee on his neck, then it changes from homicide to murder - they knew such treatment would likely be deadly.

Jury selection is a weird process in America - very weird.

------------------

- knowing

One cannot know that before it happens.

Police have immunity if they follow their training.

The officer using his knee was a police instructor.

Have you read this thread at all ?

Of course a f*****ad like you has not bothered.

The police were never in fear of Floyd, they merely wanted him to stop fighting and do as told - same as with ANY arrest !!!!

Wot a dumbfuck troll

..... Phil

In the US cops do not think of shooting as possibly non-lethal. The entire point of shooting is to put an end to any resistance by emptying their gun into center mass. Once they fire one shot, they are supposed to keep firing.

Perhaps you are thinking of a taser. It is not always lethal, but it can be.

US police successfully arrest hundreds of drunk, drugged up and combative people every day and they end up at the precinct alive it's totally routine stuff.

Discussing the what why who how, what was he on what was he doing, what police should use this tool for or that, of George Floyd in particular is all red-herring stuff he wasn't superhuman or some special case. There was nothing remarkable about the incident aside from the fact he died during an otherwise unremarkable incident.

Not much point in discussing boats when a captain crashes his cruise ship on a clear day 50 feet out from the dock.

There have been autopsies.

I am a fool to assume the information /you/ posted was accurate? Yes, I suppose so.

OK - that makes no difference to my point.

(From what I have read of the autopsies, drugs were not mentioned - but I haven't read all the details. Since you say I should not believe what /you/ write, I'll have to wait for someone else to give details.)

So what? Again, it makes no difference.

If you know you can't find a pulse, you do something about it - or try as best you can. You don't wait another 3 minutes to be absolutely sure recovery is out of the question, unless you intentionally want to kill the guy.

What kind of idiotic comment is that?

Firing guns is part of their training - does that mean the police don't know that shooting people can be deadly?

This makes it even worse for him - he /knew/ he was using deadly force.

Again, that makes their case even worse.

A lot of people find replying to your posts to be pointless. I can see why.

Well, that's a convincing argument. Why are your talents wasted here? Clearly you should have a career as a defence lawyer for these killers.

I was thinking more of police in other countries, that use guns with a view of stopping a criminal harming other people, rather than as a way of killing people. If killing them is the only way to stop them, then so be it - but it is not the purpose of the gun.

Still, my point is that strangulation should be viewed as a potentially lethal technique, not a controlling technique, and only used when lethal force is justified. Rank it somewhere between shooting a gun and shooting a taser in terms of risks of death.

--------------------

Nothing like the legal weight of a coroner's report.

Read you own word - f*****ad.

If you actually meant MY words, FFS say "YOUR" information not "that".

Now I see your game is to re-interpret what I posted based purely on your massive ignorance.

Would that be accurate?

As I suspected - you treatt ignorance as equal to knowledge.

Go f*ck your stupid self - wanker. Wot a vile, dumbfuck troll

It very well could be that at the 5 minute mark, he made the decision to kill. Or was it 6 minutes? 7? 8? 9? Any of those is premeditated.

The intent to kill is not required for murder. Every state is different bu t in general first degree is premeditated meaning the act was planned. Sec ond degree is generally a matter of clearly acting in an manner that was a felony and consistent with killing, but not necessarily with the intent to kill. Being in a fist fight and picking up a bat to hit him over the head would be second degree murder in most states.

Clearly kneeling on someone's neck can cause death. It is unclear to me if this is second degree murder or not, but the facts would seem to point to that once you make the call that the act was a felony which the prosecutors have done.

One thing about the protests and the responses is that will further put a f oot on the neck of racism. People like Phil will have a harder time being racist and not being confronted about it.