Getting Traded
Banned
No it's not BS, and I'd wager a lot of these murders involve police with combat experience who have underlying PTSD issues. That's why we need to mandate psychological evaluations for everyone hired as a police officer.
Derek Chauvin Murder Trial
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
Getting Traded
Banned
One further word about the police academies. Some of you might know from news reports that in these academies, officers are TRAINED to shoot to kill. That is when they pull their gun they are TRAINED to shoot in the area of largest mass, that is the chest. In other words at the heart, which obviously will kill someone. That needs to change.
The other thing about those stats I posted. They are from a website which I linked. But I have in the past checked these stats and they are correct. I need to emphasize that in the UK with a population of 60 million there are only 50-60 deaths caused by police annually compared to more than a 1,000 in the U.S. Why is that? Because most police there don't carry guns, they carry billy clubs. They also have much stricter gun control laws. It's the same in Japan. This is why their rates for deaths caused by law enforcement are so much lower. And there is less crime in those nations as well.
Of course they are different societies. Their cultures also aren't plagued by the extreme racism that exists here. We have a big problem and we need acknowledge it and do something about it.
The other thing about those stats I posted. They are from a website which I linked. But I have in the past checked these stats and they are correct. I need to emphasize that in the UK with a population of 60 million there are only 50-60 deaths caused by police annually compared to more than a 1,000 in the U.S. Why is that? Because most police there don't carry guns, they carry billy clubs. They also have much stricter gun control laws. It's the same in Japan. This is why their rates for deaths caused by law enforcement are so much lower. And there is less crime in those nations as well.
Of course they are different societies. Their cultures also aren't plagued by the extreme racism that exists here. We have a big problem and we need acknowledge it and do something about it.
DasJazz
Well-Known Member
Also, your airway and trachea are in the front of your neck not the back. While kneeling on the back of the neck will be painful, it will not cut off the airway, hence this being a long standing method of subduing a perp with no deaths as a result.
Couple that with the fact that he was almost immediately saying he couldn't breathe (aĺl the while talking), establishes that he was going into cardiac arrest due to the drugs in his system as the scene unfolded.
Also, Chauvin knew he was being recorded and had a crowd of witnesses. There is no way that this LEO would have performed an act of any kind that would lead to death with literally all eyes on him.
This case, like many others these days is racially motivated and anti-cop. Hallmarks of the woke society.
Getting Traded
Banned
Just came across this article about Chauvin's use of unnecessary force during his police career. It's extremely incriminating, but the judge won't allow the jury to hear about it:
Chauvin's past record of unnecessary use of force not allowed in the trial
Chauvin's past record of unnecessary use of force not allowed in the trial
Beer
Well-Known Member
Either your both are stupid, which is likely, or you are both deliberately ignoring that part of Thrillers post I called BS. Yes, police training can be better, yes police can do better at not escalating, no a vast majority of police aren't power hungry racists who couldn't even get a job at Mcdonalds.
Beer
Well-Known Member
Per my previous post. I guess you are just stupid.
homeytennis
Well-Known Member
It seems to me Floyd had the coronary arteries of a 90 year old man. I think it might be a tough sell to say the cop's actions were the proximate cause of George Floyd's death. Particularly since the hold was approved by the City of Minneapolis and the State of Minnesota at the time.
The hold may have been approved, but in what context? Floyd was far beyond the point of resisting. The officers were in full control without the knee on Floyd's neck. It was odd and disturbing for the people who witnessed it happening. It did not seem reasonable or necessary, even to the EMTs. So yeah, the hold was approved, but approved to accomplish a specific purpose that in this instance it was not being used for.
I don't think it's a tough sell AT ALL to say that Chauvin's actions were the direct cause of death of Floyd. The coroner ruled this a homicide, which means Floyd's death was caused by a person. That person is Chauvin. Minus the completely unnecessary act of pressing his knee into Floyd's neck for over 9min Floyd would have not died in that encounter.
That is what the jury has to determine. If he had a lot of drugs in his system, coupled with a bad heart, it may be hard to say. With the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt, can the jury determine that Chauvin kneeling on his caused his death?
I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't be surprised if he is found not guilty.
homeytennis
Well-Known Member
I'm glad I'm not on the jury. They know if they find the cop not guilty the city will explode again, but if they follow the law they may have no other choice.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
But the glove didn't fit.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Post it here.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
What needs to change is absolutely NOT where they aim. If it's important enough to use a gun they damn well better make it effective and as safe for bystanders as possible, so shooting center mass is the only thing that makes sense.
What needs to change is they need far far far more training on de-escalation and peaceful resolution of difficult situations so they greatly minimize any need to ever use that gun in the first place.
I have been over this very issue with you at least a couple times.
First, police are trained to Stop The Threat.
Let's talk about that. If the use of potentially lethal force is justified it is because someone posses an imminent threat to the life or limb of another person. In that situation there is only one correct option, which is to stop the threat as quickly and safely as possible. So the training is and will continue to be to stop the threat because that is 100% the right thing to do.
You might imagine that police officers are master marksmen. Let me help you shed yourself of that concept. They are not. Not all of them even have the capacity to become master marksmen even if they dedicated every second of their police training to shooting drills. Obviously using a firearm is a tiny fraction of a police officers job, so we cannot have them focus solely on their firearm skills.
Police shooting situations happen in all sorts of circumstances. It might be dark, you might be in a person's house in tight quarters, you might be standing next their car window, etc.. The decision to use lethal force will often be one that is made literally in a split second. This is not a situation where the police have the time to have an internal debate as to which fingernail they want to shoot off the subject's left hand. This is a binary decision of do I fire my gun or not. Period. That's as complex as you can reasonably make this decision in the timeframe it needs to be made.
Once that decision to fire is made it needs to have the intended effect of stopping the threat as safely and quickly as possible. So let's talk about doing this safely, ok? Every shot that misses goes somewhere else, which has the potential to hurt innocent people or property. That's a chance you have to accept to a certain degree, but it's not a chance that you should multiply on purpose. So you MUST take the safest shot possible, which is the shot most likely to strike the threat and only the threat, which is center mass.
You are also trying to stop a person from harming life or limb of another person. So it is absolutely essential that you stop that threat and do so as quickly as possible within reasonable safety concerns. So again, shots that actually strike the threat are of the highest importance. Shots that strike the threat in a way as to eliminate the threat they pose to others is equally important. This means that the best place to fire is at center mass.
Second, let's talk about the nightmare that shooting a knee or hand or arm would be.
These "disabling" shots are going to miss frequently, very frequently. Which means the threat has not been stopped. If the failure to stop a threat that could otherwise be stopped results in an innocent person being seriously injured or killed I think the officer who did not do everything in their power to stop the threat, opting for a much lower probability higher risk shot bares some blame for that.
Even if a leg or an arm is shot the threat may continue.
The bigger issue, in my mind, is that when you try to use a firearm in a "less than lethal" way you open up a very messy can of worms. Police may now be MORE inclined to use their firearm, even in situations where deadly force is clearly not justified, because afterall they are only trying to disable a person. That is completely unacceptable. We need a clear bright line between situation where lethal force is justified or it is not. That's an ideal and not entirely possible, but we certainly don't need to intentionally blur that line to such an extreme by allowing the use of firearms for less than lethal purposes.
Finally, guns have the potential to cause death when they are fired at a person. Shots do not always land where you intended them to, especially in a stressful, potentially life or death situation where there are a lot of moving parts. You may think that you are simply trying to disable a person by shooting them in the leg, and you might actually just hit them in the leg... and they still might die. Firearms are always a form of lethal force.
So by not shooting center mass you have several potential worse outcomes. First, you dramatically increase the reaction time of the office. You reduce the accuracy of their very dangerous projectiles. You increase the risk to innocent people of both being injured or killed by errant police shots, but also from an assailant who has not been stopped. You have the potential that use of firearms becomes a more casual decision and one that could be made in a situation where lethal force is not justified. You have the potential to still kill a person even if the intent was to disable.
So please STFU about this. Please let this be the last time you suggest this absolute nonsense.
P.S. @Eenie-Meenie my post telling you to stop with the DMs WAS NOT an invitation for you to DM me. I've asked you several times to not DM me. I meant it. I did not and will not read your DMs, ever.
Last edited:
Yeah, it wasn't hard to see that this would result in EM DMing me... sigh.
Not at all true. If his use of that hold was excessive and was not in line with normal protocols then he can very easily be convicted under the law.
For example, police salaries are pretty much in line with firefighters, which they also do not require a college degree. The comparison with just educators seems overblown.
I agree with this, and the following parts, to a large degree.