[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]


As you've probably heard by now, a Minneapolis police officer kept his knee on George Floyd's neck until Floyd died (and didn't remove his knee until well after Floyd was dead).  Was it murder?  I'll await the autopsy report, but it sure as hell looks like murder from what I've seen.  What do you all think?

To quote from another site:
This is a police officer laying his knee on this guys neck until he dies. It’s so fucking obvious that he’s going to die. And the cop still doesn’t move. It’s so obvious that the man has stopped breathing and is clearly not a threat because he’s literally a corpse.

Yet the officer still keeps his knee in the guys neck.

The people are begging these officers to just check his pulse. But he’s still just keeping his knee in his neck.


Honestly, we are mistraining our police officers.

Stuff like this is the result of years of outsourcing police training to organizations that are ideologically focused on training cops to be "warrior officers" and priming them to interpret reality with a paranoid hypervigilant lensz seeing potential monsters in even minor situations. We're literally training our cops to be paranoid and cowardly instead of training them to prioritizing serving their communities rather than training them to think of themselves as like Frank Castle.


Even if it isn't murder, there's no good reason to sit on his neck like that regardless. If it ends up being a drug overdose or such, then they still ought to've administered some aid first.


This. Though, I would disagree with the "warrior officers" aspect, as it seems to me they only engage threats when they know they can win, not simply if people are in danger.

Combine this with a bad culture of protecting eachother, regardless of what they do, and a bad habbit of doing the opposite of whatever someone says, and you get this garbage happening.



It's definitely murder.  It's hard to imagine someone thinking otherwise.  It's all on tape, you can watch the whole thing play out.


File: 1590747686948.png (212.7 KB, 1024x1365, 1024:1365, minuette_eats_donuts_by_ca….png) ImgOps Google

It's interesting that the 4 officers involved were immediately fired.  no paid vacation or any of the typical nonsense you see in cases like this.  Also the FBI is getting involved immediately.

nuggets of valid information buried under a mountain of sophistry


What do you think an autopsy could reveal to make this not murder?


>We are mistraining our police officers.

While I do agree, this restraining maneuver (knee on neck) isn't taught to police officers. He chose to do this (for 8 minutes). This guy has also been charged with brutality several times before.

>We're literally training our cops to be paranoid and cowardly instead of training them to prioritizing serving their communities

We do not train police officers to value human life.


File: 1590788991151.jpg (104.15 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1561606542712.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>What do you think an autopsy could reveal to make this not murder?
It is imaginable (but very improbable) that Floyd just happened to die of something entirely unrelated to the cop's use of force against him.


Well, as you say it's highly improbable) but even if a different cause of death could be ascertained, would it even be possible to prove that the trauma of getting his neck crushed did not exacerbate or expedite things?

Honestly to me, the fact that it being anything but murder being so unlikely, it's kind of insulting to even entertain. It's like also entertaining the idea that he died because leprechauns enchanted his shoes that morning.


It's either murder, a summary state execution, or an accident.

I'll find out in time which judgement is most respectful.


File: 1590798625868.jpg (19.71 KB, 243x290, 243:290, descartes.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>so unlikely, it's kind of insulting to even entertain.
Hold my beer and watch this!  *Doubts the existence of my own body*                                                                                 


Respectful to whom?

Also, it could not be an execution because he was not tried and sentenced by a jury.

It's also not an accident as we have nearly the whole incident on film. The officer kept his knee on Floyd's neck for a total of 8 minutes, well after he was non-responsive and no longer a threat.


>Respectful to whom?
Good question.  In the end, I suppose, the state in the future, which is some kind of proxy for people in the future.  (I can forgo respect and give you my personal moral sentiments, but I am told I am very different, so I'm not sure what good it will do if you're thinking about general issues.)

>he was not tried and sentenced by a jury.

You're mostly right.  Summary execution is a special kind where someone is killed by the state without a trial.

>not an accident

Well, that leaves murder or summary execution.  If the state faces an existential crisis and makes substantial changes to remain legitimate after allowing one of their agents to commit murder while working under the authority of the instition, I would say murder.  If nothing much changes or the state signals approval (and I suppose, a state that can be expected to continue killing is not overthrown and replaced), I think it could be called summary execution.


>Summary execution is a special kind where someone is killed by the state without a trial.

How is that legal? What laws allow it?


>How is that legal?

No, absolutely not.  It violates the idea of American exceptionalism, that America was going to be a beacon of justice where principles like trial by jury stood in the place of imprisonment and execution at the King's pleasure, or at the pleasure of whatever ruffians the King sent.

But 'legal' is just words, important people in the state have to also care about legal for it to matter.  I expect that will happen in this case, although it does seem the killing of unarmed, usually black men, is allowed to be a continued pattern.


>although it does seem the killing of unarmed, usually black men, is allowed to be a continued pattern.

It does but it should NOT be. That is why it is being protested right now.


What's your sense of it, do you think the pattern changes now?  (Or does the state just get better at quenching riots and changing the subject?)


Its going to happen again. Another police officer is going to be recorded using his position of power to execute some helpless person again. And I hope that more riots do not break out, but it's very likely they will.

If you want my personal opinion, I feel like they will try to quell the fires (sometimes literally) vilify the protesters and brush thing all aside... to start. But if it keeps happening and people keep protesting, then it will be impossible to ignore.  And something will have to be done.


The part that makes me doubtful is that his ex-wife was involved in promoting this theory.  There are many cases of ex-wives being vindicate liars.

EDIT: Oops, I replied to the wrong post.  Please disregard this post.


What theory? I'm not sure what your relationship with your wife has to do with my opinions on the matter?


File: 1590994419378.png (442.52 KB, 910x720, 91:72, 1488006298285.png) ImgOps Google

>What theory?
The theory that the police officer is the masked man who broke the windows.  Oh, now I realize that I'm an idiot and replied to the wrong thread.  My post >>5383 was supposed to be a reply to >>5382.


Welp, you should just go ahead and delete it from here and post it there. Since I did not post >>5382 and they may not be looking at this thread.


how it should have been handled:

>subject non-compliant
>armbar C-lock, knee on lower back and base of neck, order subject to turn face away from your voice. Do not remain long in this position as it can cause damage to the subject's neck
>apply cuffs, loop arm under and behind shoulder, order subject to stand, support subject to knees, then feet
>by grasping the trapezius muscle, and controlling the head, you can now lead the subject anywhere you need to.
If you can't get a man into a police car with this technique, call on of the five other officers for help, if you still have trouble, grow a pair.


that's because there's rioting in the streets, which is the only thing money listens to

"pre-existing medical conditions" apparently, but the autopsy commissioned by the state and the family revealed that it was absolutely the pressure on his neck that caused his death, and that the "if you can talk you can breathe" mantra is absolute bullshit

I think a nationwide outcry of this magnitude will force the state's hand to finally begin the process of undoing years of racial prejudice in police funding and training.

I pray riots do not become necessary, but yes, it will become impossible to ignore eventually


>the "if you can talk you can breathe" mantra is absolute bullshit
Not completely.  There are two relevant definitions of "breathe":
(1) to draw air into and expel it from the lungs,
(2) to take in oxygen and expel carbon dioxide through natural processes.

Talking involves exhaling.  If you can talk for a long enough time, it means that you can both inhale and exhale, and thus breathe in sense 1.  But: (1) being able to talk doesn't mean that you can breathe in sense 2 or breathe sufficiently to stay alive, and (2) pressure on the neck can compress arteries and veins, decreasing blood flow potentially to the point of insufficient oxygenation to vital organs, and (3) a subjective feeling of difficulty in breathing can be an indication of physiological problems other than inability to breathe in sense 1 (see, e.g., [1], [2]).

[1] https://www.webmd.com/lung/breathing-problems-diagnosis
[2] https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/16942-shortness-of-breath-dyspnea/possible-causes


In this instance, I don't think it matters if the person means 1 or 2. And if you only goal is to restrain someone, not to kill them, why are you trying to limit their ability to do either?


File: 1591152654219.jpg (135.41 KB, 500x283, 500:283, instant-noodles-enemy-diet.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>In this instance,
I was only discussing the general proposition, not its application to a particular case.


I feel like you should have made that clear to start, because otherwise it give the appearance of making excuses for things that are in excusable.

But even so, talking does not even guarantee 1 is possible, because talking only requires you to exhale. It's possible to get out a short phrase on one's last breath before being able to draw in any more air.


File: 1591153188346.png (454.29 KB, 580x837, 580:837, 258d88b5a832e3ac110adb4ed5….png) ImgOps Google

>I feel like you should have made that clear to start
Oh yeah, I'm often very literal and forget to explicitly disclaim inferences that people might draw.  

>But even so, talking does not even guarantee 1 is possible, because talking only requires you to exhale.
That is true.  I guess I should have been more detailed when I said "If you can talk for a long enough time"; by "long enough", I meant "long enough that the speaker has exhaled all his air and must have inhaled to have continued to talk".


Either way I don't think it should matter because there are very few instances where a police officer should be trying to prevent someone from breathing in either sense. Their goal should be to restrain someone, not prevent them from breathing.


File: 1591215423920.png (156.81 KB, 482x750, 241:375, 549.png) ImgOps Google

>there are very few instances where a police officer should be trying to prevent someone from breathing in either sense. Their goal should be to restrain someone, not prevent them from breathing.
I agree with you.  Again, I was discussing only the general proposition "if you can talk, then you can breathe".  I wasn't commenting on the appropriateness of any actions by police officers.


Why, though? Police officers being mistaken in believing that if someone can talk, then they can breath (in sense 2 you described) does not benefit from establishing that being able to talk does in fact mean that they can breath in some sense of the word. That only serves to muddle the real issue; claims of being unable to breath should always be taken seriously even if the person is verbal. It seems needlessly pedantic with no real benefit.


File: 1591243779425.jpg (118.88 KB, 824x970, 412:485, academy_ahri_2__by_midorin….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Why, though?
The physiological question interested me, so I researched it online.  After researching it, I decided to report my findings.


I saw the following article linked from a user comment on another website.  Probably worthwhile reading if you're interested in the matter:



I kind of wonder what will happen if Derek gets off the hook.

It's a shitty comment, I apologize.

On one side, I do believe there is a structural problem in how officers tend to handle situations, in US with guns but elsewhere as well. Even on the racial side there seems to live a list of ingrained prejudices that seem to affect day to day working and somehow we should be aware of those and make them better. But that's a hard thing to do when it is ingrained. BLM will always have a good reason to come out and be heard.

However, according to the article you should also be very careful in assessing the situation against the cops. While cops should in theory be keeping their cool at all times, they are also just people withntheir life on the line having to assess and handle a situation as they see it present. And a fair number of situations can be hard to assess when you're looking at it from the stories that go on about it. Judgement calls should ideally be made right and accidents to be avoided as best as possible. But it might be far too easy to say "Racist cop killed an innocent black guy because he's a sadist racist bastard."

I hope there's sufficient true evidence to support the sides and that eventually if evidence is present people can calm down and put themselves beside this.


I don't think that applies here. Floyd was already restrained when Chauvin proceeded to suffocate him for over 8 minutes. A police officer's job is to de-escalate situations and restrain suspects, which had already been done. The killing was just icing on the cake for him.


Really shouldn't come as a surprise. We lets cops get away with it, and what kind of people do you think apply to be cops, anyway? The dumb high school jocks and bullies that didn't have the brains to get into college or the skill to get a trade, that's who. Is it any wonder that when you give an asshole a gun and a license to kill that they're inclined to use them?

The police as a whole i think are a necessary evil; That being said, i'd be satisfied if every cop involved in death of George Floyd got the firing squad. He was unarmed, they had him restrained, the situation couldn't have possibly been more under control, yet they took the man's life. They killed this unarmed, cooperating man over a fake bill that he easily could have gotten from someone else and not known. It's completely unconscionable.

The cops involved in the death of George Floyd are monsters that deserve death. Plain and simple. It would be one thing if that's what happened. The reason people are so frustrated is that they'll get off. They won't go to jail, they'll get a few weeks payed vacation and then transfer to another county and might kill again and get away with it again if they feel like it. There was no reason whatsoever for them to do what they did. It was obviously unnecessary. The reason why is clear. They're bloodthirsty monsters. That's why they applied for the job in the first place. If the police want to be trusted, they need to root out the bloodthirsty scum and truly, truly punish them when they see this shit.

Good first step would be obliterating police unions and keeping a federal database on cops that do this shit, accessible to every police county in the country. Maybe take the body cams seriously, too. IF they "malfunction", assume malintent, automatic evidence tampering charge.



When people say "go to jail" they can sometimes mean "be convicted of a crime and serve jail-time for that crime". He's being held in a jail awaiting trial, but he has not been convicted.

"Police" in some capacity are necessary. The police as they exist now are not. It's a corrupt system to its core steeped in systemic racism. There is no such thing as a "good cop" because all cops have to operate within that same corrupt system. You saw it yourself. A bad cop killed George Floyd while three "good" cops stood by and watched. That's the only difference.

That's what "defund the police" is about. It doesn't mean abolish the police. It means move some fund from the police and creating or funding new organizations to deal with things the police should not be dealing with.


Apologies, i mis-spoke. I mean he won't be convicted and sent to prison to serve his sentence. Jail is a holding center until people are convicted, at which point they go to prison, i apologize for my misuse of words.


I think some people's insistence on being pedantic on the semantics of common turns of phrases around here is incredibly annoying. I suspect it is the work of just one or two people doing it on purpose TO annoy.


File: 1593131601886.png (219.01 KB, 507x498, 169:166, cute-human-fluttershy.png) ImgOps Google

Ah, I see.

I wasn't trying to be pedantic.  I interpreted "They won't go to jail, they'll get a few weeks payed vacation" as meaning that the officers wouldn't be incarcerated in any manner.


File: 1593229946096.png (24.87 KB, 259x189, 37:27, 389.png) ImgOps Google

2nd degree murder, yeah.


Why not first?

Intent is clear.  It was not accidental; the perp has training to know its lethal.

Heh heh "tender pony" so true tee hee.


File: 1593298819310.png (24.87 KB, 259x189, 37:27, 1569320966696.png) ImgOps Google

Wasn't premeditated.


Looks like you're right, first degree would be hard to prosecute in that state unless hate, terrorism, etc can be established.



File: 1593300812434.png (911.39 KB, 790x807, 790:807, 1577322460093.png) ImgOps Google

Must be why they went from 3rd degree to 2nd.


Chauvin knew Floyd beforehand, so we can't say for sure it wasn't. But unfortunately we can't prove it was either, so second-degree it is.


File: 1593316085548.png (356.53 KB, 2422x2795, 2422:2795, sweetie-belle-toaster.png) ImgOps Google

>the perp has training to know its lethal.
According to the link in >>5760, he was taught that the neck hold was a non-lethal option.  Based on what I read in that article, I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't satisfy the elements of the murder charge.  He might get convicted of manslaughter though, or might be fully acquitted.  I'd say that the bigger problem anyhow is the police culture and training.  The Minneapolis Police Department should definitely be liable for wrongful death.


If it is bad training, I'd be ok with the deparyment facing the charges rather than the one cop. The fact that the other cops just sat back and watched might support that conclusion. Still odd to think none of them would realise that putting your entire body weight on someone's neck wouldn't be lethal. Seems like common sense to me.


>Seems like common sense to me.
I've heard that some police departments have a policy of rejecting applicants whose IQ is too high.


At a glance any functioning human being see that articles "facts" are unsupported.  Look at this one:
>Chauvin’s neck restraint is unlikely to have exerted a dangerous amount of force to Floyd’s neck. Floyd is shown on video able to lift his head and neck, and a robust study on double-knee restraints showed a median force exertion of approximately approximately 105lbs.

105 pounds pressure based on what imaginary "study"?  Which is more than sufficient to complete a lethal blood choke and if the officer ever had a single entry-level Jujitsu class then he knows.

The first "facts" fall under "cracked vase" causation analysis doctrine:  they knew he was especially vulnerable and so their responsibility for his outcome is even higher.


File: 1596018083053.png (84.79 KB, 546x852, 91:142, 1376881451_scootaloo_by_sp….png) ImgOps Google

I'm not saying that the police were blameless.  I'm saying that the blame lies with the department training and culture.  This distinction is important when seeking a permanent solution to the problem of excessive police violence.  If the training (on potentially deadly use-of-force) is rotten, then addressing racism or other misbehavior of individual police officers won't be an adequate solution.



This is really important.  "All Cops Are Bad" is a nice slogan, but people aren't chanting that because literally everyone who ever wanted to become a police officer is inherently a bad person.  What's bad is "cops".  Their training, their motivations and incentives, and sometimes even their goals.  We don't need to play detective and root out which cops are corrupt, we need to completely overhaul the organization, and possibly the justice system in general.



While the training and culture are problematic, that can never be an excuse for the individual.

There is simply no police training that says to hold a knee on a neck for twice as many minutes as it takes for the brain to die.  That's a false fact and no good-faith reasoning can be based on it.


Im Emu, gess ip changed.

If you want to change police culture then begin by placing the life of perps where it belongs: among human beings whose rights including life are your duty to protect.

Not whose murder its your duty to dismiss/coverup.  When cops get as upset by homicide of ANYONE without exception including seeing the george floyd cop as the murderer he is and the others as the accomplices they are, then this sort of thing wouldn't happen so much.

In short quit hiring sociopaths and quit covering up murders.  Thatd be a good cultural improvement goal.

Im self banning.  This gets me worked up for nothing.  Thx for the chats.


I don't know if it's what you mean to imply or not, and i'm sorry if i'm misunderstanding you, but, personally, for me, trying to use this issue to justify authoritarian communism, which I've seen a lot of, is the kind of rhetoric that makes me kinda reel back a bit from an issue i'm otherwise completely in agreement on. The killing of George Floyd was unforgivable. I think police get away with far more violence than they should ever be allowed to. I 100% agree we should hold cops more accountable, more jail time for offenses, weaker police unions, weakening of protected immunity, a national database for police officers, so that the repeat offenders can't just run town and get another job in a different state when they get canned for violence, higher-ups being punished for the actions of their underlings. These are all things i'd love to see, and personally, i'd be satisfied to see Derek Chauvin get put away for life, and i'd like to see his cronies who just sat there and made sure it happened put away, too.

All that being said, trying to use this to promote authoritarian communism disgusts me. I've seen a lot of media outlets doing this, and so it's hard for me to agree with "overhauling the system", when i suspect that for so many, that's code for "transition from a capitalist republic to an authoritarian communist state". I despise anyone using this tragedy to promote that.

Again, if that's not what you meant, then i formally apologize, but it's bugged me enough lately that i just felt like i should say something, i guess.


That person said "overhaul the organization" and "maybe the justice system too" so i dont think replacing the government was what was being called for.

You're talking about Napoleon who usurped the french revolution and we should be careful about that happening.  For sure.

Not that i'd mind revising the Constitution to remove slavery from the 3/5ths clause to the elective college.  But thats not going to happen.



Definitely not what I meant and I'm not even sure how other people are moving this to a point of authoritarian communism.  If anything I'd be moving towards the opposite extreme.

When I say "overhaul" I mean "rethink what the organization is for".  Right now we use them for a lot of "problems" that don't need to be solved, as well as assigning them to a lot of problems that they aren't especially able to solve.  I don't think I'd support a complete abolishment, if only for a scant few examples where they're absolutely necessary (an active shooter, as an example, that isn't going to stop until confronted).  But really the police should have no more power and equipment than the Fire Department, and should be deployed at a similar rate.


File: 1597209079342.png (1.97 MB, 3000x3000, 1:1, 8g608arxf4931.png) ImgOps Google

TBH, IMHO, decriminalizing all victimless crime (e.g., repealing statutes that criminalize prostitution, drugs, giggle switches, etc.) would be a net gain for society.  Probably should keep some laws that criminalize some merely dangerous behavior (e.g., driving while drunk or texting, or building a nuclear bomb) though.


This reminds me; One of the best ways I think you could improve police-public relations is not having them be the ones enforcing traffic violations.
Honestly, a lot of those should be removed entirely. But, it's a big part of why so many people have a hostile look at police, I feel.
Which, I'd say consequently, makes them have a more hostile look towards the general public. At least in smaller towns and such with lower general crime rates.

Easier to hate the guy slapping you with a hundred dollar ticket for "crossing into the opposing lane" at 2AM on a completely dead street, than the guy who doesn't mess with you unless you're hurting someone.



That definitely should be separated, yeah.  I can imagine how we ended up in a world where the police manage traffic, but I think now that we're here we ought to rethink that decision.


On the one hand, though, aren't a lot of driving behaviors genuinely quite dangerous, justifying police action? Running red lights. Changing lanes without signaling. Speeding a lot. Etc.

I agree in general, though, that we should  get the police out of the business of victimless crime.


I think studies have found that driving with the flow of traffic (even if it above the speed limit) is generally safer for everyone involved than sticking to whatever arbitrary limit is the posted speed limit, at least on limited-access highways.


What studies? I'm curious.


I remember reading a news story about this, but I couldn't manage it find it now.  The best I found was this:
>According to an Institute of Transportation Engineers Study, those driving 10 mph slower than the prevailing speed are six times as likely to be involved in an accident.


I see. Interesting.

[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]