(06-02-2020 11:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The fact that he likely didn’t intend to kill him is part of the problem.

Would you define the "problem" for me? The only problem I see this being a part of is the problem of convicting him of first degree murder.

Quote:nor did it result in the other officers doing the same. I’ve watched part of the video, and you see what appear to be multiple officers indifferent to a man pleading for air.

For the other three, I would have to know the chain of command. Who was senior, and who was in charge. If one of the other three was senior, he should have intervened. But if they were subordinate to him, then there would be a strong inclination not to interfere. You ever hear a PFC tell a SGT he was doing it wrong? Noninterference does not prove indifference, and even if it did, indifference would not prove racism, and even if it did, it would prove systemic racism in that department, and even if it did, it would not prove systemic racism in every department coast to coast.

Just a lot of people reading stuff into the video that may not be true. But if I, as a juror, have to consider if that video proves intent, or indifference , or racism, that is likely a bridge too far. I bet even 93 would have trouble accepting that.

(06-02-2020 11:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The fact that he likely didn’t intend to kill him is part of the problem.

Would you define the "problem" for me? The only problem I see this being a part of is the problem of convicting him of first degree murder.

Quote:nor did it result in the other officers doing the same. I’ve watched part of the video, and you see what appear to be multiple officers indifferent to a man pleading for air.

For the other three, I would have to know the chain of command. Who was senior, and who was in charge. If one of the other three was senior, he should have intervened. But if they were subordinate to him, then there would be a strong inclination not to interfere. You ever hear a PFC tell a SGT he was doing it wrong? Noninterference does not prove indifference, and even if it did, indifference would not prove racism, and even if it did, it would prove systemic racism in that department, and even if it did, it would not prove systemic racism in every department coast to coast.

Just a lot of people reading stuff into the video that may not be true. But if I, as a juror, have to consider if that video proves intent, or indifference , or racism, that is likely a bridge too far. I bet even 93 would have trouble accepting that.

(06-02-2020 12:35 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The fact that he likely didn’t intend to kill him is part of the problem.

Would you define the "problem" for me? The only problem I see this being a part of is the problem of convicting him of first degree murder.

Quote:nor did it result in the other officers doing the same. I’ve watched part of the video, and you see what appear to be multiple officers indifferent to a man pleading for air.

For the other three, I would have to know the chain of command. Who was senior, and who was in charge. If one of the other three was senior, he should have intervened. But if they were subordinate to him, then there would be a strong inclination not to interfere. You ever hear a PFC tell a SGT he was doing it wrong? Noninterference does not prove indifference, and even if it did, indifference would not prove racism, and even if it did, it would prove systemic racism in that department, and even if it did, it would not prove systemic racism in every department coast to coast.

Just a lot of people reading stuff into the video that may not be true. But if I, as a juror, have to consider if that video proves intent, or indifference , or racism, that is likely a bridge too far. I bet even 93 would have trouble accepting that.

I don't follow.

(06-02-2020 12:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 12:35 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The fact that he likely didn’t intend to kill him is part of the problem.

Would you define the "problem" for me? The only problem I see this being a part of is the problem of convicting him of first degree murder.

Quote:nor did it result in the other officers doing the same. I’ve watched part of the video, and you see what appear to be multiple officers indifferent to a man pleading for air.

For the other three, I would have to know the chain of command. Who was senior, and who was in charge. If one of the other three was senior, he should have intervened. But if they were subordinate to him, then there would be a strong inclination not to interfere. You ever hear a PFC tell a SGT he was doing it wrong? Noninterference does not prove indifference, and even if it did, indifference would not prove racism, and even if it did, it would prove systemic racism in that department, and even if it did, it would not prove systemic racism in every department coast to coast.

Just a lot of people reading stuff into the video that may not be true. But if I, as a juror, have to consider if that video proves intent, or indifference , or racism, that is likely a bridge too far. I bet even 93 would have trouble accepting that.

I don't follow.

I wonder if one issue we sometimes have is that some posters discuss issues from a strictly legal sense, while others in more of, for lack of a better word, layman's sense.

(06-02-2020 12:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 12:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Part of what people are protesting is a culture in some parts of law enforcement that makes this an acceptable action for someone who has potentially written a bad check.

This is an example of unproductive and actually harmful 'virtue'.

I don't think I can name one person who supports putting someone on the ground and under physical restraint (beyond cuffs, and many wouldn't even support that) for writing a bad check.

So you're (the collective you, using your example) 'protesting' something that didn't happen here, and essentially nobody supports... and when you say that here and people disagree with 'that', it creates a situation where we're now in disagreement about something when we never were before. I'm going to tune you out/turn you off and you're going to say/imply/believe it's because I'm racist and think George deserved it and the cop was just doing his job.... when we all know that isn't remotely true, but the controversy gets 'you' attention/power etc

Myth, Power, Value baby.

In this instance your talking about explicit support (asking people if they support the actions), but what I’m talking about is implicit support (whether or not these types of actions occur without questioning/stopping). Somehow, the officer felt this was an acceptable action and so did his fellow officers. If they hadn’t, they would have restrained George in another way.

So either they weren’t taught correctly, weren’t provided better tools, or were not previously reprimanded for excessive force. Those are all ways that this was implicitly acceptable. I ask you, if no one would explicitly support these actions, then why did we end up in a situation where a man was restrained like that?

I think this is a key issue to understand for all sides here - implicit vs explicit. That issue is fundamental to a lot of disagreements on this board, often when it comes to Donald Trump.

I frankly don’t see the “virtue” connection to pointing out that the system these officers operated in was one where they felt that this restraint was correct.

(06-02-2020 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  One thing you learn in jobs where you work around dangerous equipment is that ANYONE has stop work authority if they see someone working in an unsafe manner.

If LEOs do not have the same policy, they need to re-evaluate their policies. Everyone can make a mistake, and no one should be forced to participate in, or accept, unsafe or harmful behaviors.

There is inherently indifference here because there were multiple officers watching and they did not stop the restraint. Proving that intent or race played a role is impossible, and not a factor in any of my posts.

(06-02-2020 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Part of what people are protesting is a culture in some parts of law enforcement that makes this an acceptable action for someone who has potentially written a bad check.

(06-02-2020 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The fact that he likely didn’t intend to kill him is part of the problem.

Would you define the "problem" for me? The only problem I see this being a part of is the problem of convicting him of first degree murder.

Quote:nor did it result in the other officers doing the same. I’ve watched part of the video, and you see what appear to be multiple officers indifferent to a man pleading for air.

For the other three, I would have to know the chain of command. Who was senior, and who was in charge. If one of the other three was senior, he should have intervened. But if they were subordinate to him, then there would be a strong inclination not to interfere. You ever hear a PFC tell a SGT he was doing it wrong? Noninterference does not prove indifference, and even if it did, indifference would not prove racism, and even if it did, it would prove systemic racism in that department, and even if it did, it would not prove systemic racism in every department coast to coast.

Just a lot of people reading stuff into the video that may not be true. But if I, as a juror, have to consider if that video proves intent, or indifference , or racism, that is likely a bridge too far. I bet even 93 would have trouble accepting that.

One thing you learn in jobs where you work around dangerous equipment is that ANYONE has stop work authority if they see someone working in an unsafe manner.

If LEOs do not have the same policy, they need to re-evaluate their policies. Everyone can make a mistake, and no one should be forced to participate in, or accept, unsafe or harmful behaviors.

There is inherently indifference here because there were multiple officers watching and they did not stop the restraint. Proving that intent or race played a role is impossible, and not a factor in any of my posts.

(06-02-2020 12:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 12:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 12:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Part of what people are protesting is a culture in some parts of law enforcement that makes this an acceptable action for someone who has potentially written a bad check.

This is an example of unproductive and actually harmful 'virtue'.

I don't think I can name one person who supports putting someone on the ground and under physical restraint (beyond cuffs, and many wouldn't even support that) for writing a bad check.

So you're (the collective you, using your example) 'protesting' something that didn't happen here, and essentially nobody supports... and when you say that here and people disagree with 'that', it creates a situation where we're now in disagreement about something when we never were before. I'm going to tune you out/turn you off and you're going to say/imply/believe it's because I'm racist and think George deserved it and the cop was just doing his job.... when we all know that isn't remotely true, but the controversy gets 'you' attention/power etc

Myth, Power, Value baby.

In this instance your talking about explicit support (asking people if they support the actions), but what I’m talking about is implicit support (whether or not these types of actions occur without questioning/stopping). Somehow, the officer felt this was an acceptable action and so did his fellow officers. If they hadn’t, they would have restrained George in another way.

So either they weren’t taught correctly, weren’t provided better tools, or were not previously reprimanded for excessive force. Those are all ways that this was implicitly acceptable. I ask you, if no one would explicitly support these actions, then why did we end up in a situation where a man was restrained like that?

I think this is a key issue to understand for all sides here - implicit vs explicit. That issue is fundamental to a lot of disagreements on this board, often when it comes to Donald Trump.

I frankly don’t see the “virtue” connection to pointing out that the system these officers operated in was one where they felt that this restraint was correct.

Which has nothing to do with writing checks.... which was your claim.

This is why I so often say that (when it comes to Trump AND this) that you have zero chance of convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with you.... because you just created a straw man that many simply cannot bring themselves to support.... so now we're arguing, even when we agree... because you CHOSE to make an absurd example. That's the 'virtue' signaling... that people who simply can't accept the ridiculous extensions are somehow racists, or in the tank for Trump.... because you are so enlightened that you don't differentiate between 'this' and 'writing a bad check'. It's a way of passive-aggressive way of 'bullying' people who don't agree with you.

Quote:

(06-02-2020 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  One thing you learn in jobs where you work around dangerous equipment is that ANYONE has stop work authority if they see someone working in an unsafe manner.

If LEOs do not have the same policy, they need to re-evaluate their policies. Everyone can make a mistake, and no one should be forced to participate in, or accept, unsafe or harmful behaviors.

There is inherently indifference here because there were multiple officers watching and they did not stop the restraint. Proving that intent or race played a role is impossible, and not a factor in any of my posts.

What you said here doesn't conflict with what OO said. Both can and usually are true. Certainly even a military member is allowed to refuse an unlawful order, but they are going to be hesitant to do so, unless they're sure. They work around more dangerous equipment than anyone else.

(06-02-2020 12:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The fact that he likely didn’t intend to kill him is part of the problem.

Would you define the "problem" for me? The only problem I see this being a part of is the problem of convicting him of first degree murder.

Quote:nor did it result in the other officers doing the same. I’ve watched part of the video, and you see what appear to be multiple officers indifferent to a man pleading for air.

For the other three, I would have to know the chain of command. Who was senior, and who was in charge. If one of the other three was senior, he should have intervened. But if they were subordinate to him, then there would be a strong inclination not to interfere. You ever hear a PFC tell a SGT he was doing it wrong? Noninterference does not prove indifference, and even if it did, indifference would not prove racism, and even if it did, it would prove systemic racism in that department, and even if it did, it would not prove systemic racism in every department coast to coast.

Just a lot of people reading stuff into the video that may not be true. But if I, as a juror, have to consider if that video proves intent, or indifference , or racism, that is likely a bridge too far. I bet even 93 would have trouble accepting that.

One thing you learn in jobs where you work around dangerous equipment is that ANYONE has stop work authority if they see someone working in an unsafe manner.

If LEOs do not have the same policy, they need to re-evaluate their policies. Everyone can make a mistake, and no one should be forced to participate in, or accept, unsafe or harmful behaviors.

There is inherently indifference here because there were multiple officers watching and they did not stop the restraint. Proving that intent or race played a role is impossible, and not a factor in any of my posts.

Criminal liability is predicated on actions --- not on failures to act. That doesnt seem to be a factor in the analysis you put forward.

(06-02-2020 12:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Part of what people are protesting is a culture in some parts of law enforcement that makes this an acceptable action for someone who has potentially written a bad check.

Bluntly, anyone being arrested should be cuffed. In the earlier days of my practice doing legal aid, there were way too many instance I can denote someone busted on even a minor charge going apeshit. Cuffing a detainee is simply common sense practice.

Then this case isnt the poster child for the state of doing this as a matter of course for someone busted for a bad check. Floyd was initially cuffed and sat next to the building. They moved him from the building, and he complained of breath issues and collapsed one time. Okay, so far, no harm no foul.

They led him to the cruiser, and he stated he had claustophobia, stated he had shortness of breath, and became agitated.

Here is the factual rub: correct, no one deserves to be 'hog tied' for a bad check. That typically does not happen, in fact, almost never for that apart and alone. Your comment leaves off in a complete sense the concept of resistance to the arrest. I think you can recognize that, and, with that point taken in consideration (as it should) becomes at least a tad over the top. At what point does agitation become the overriding factor?

In this case, Floyd resisted being put into the cruiser. Reports are that he thrashed around as he was being put into the cop car. Reports have it that Chauvin opened the opposite door and yanked him out, then proceeded with the now infamous restraint. Where is any cop malfeasance up until the knee comes down?

If you have a resist, then yes, restraint is needed. The problem was the entire extent of restraint imposed at the end. But again, had there not been the agitation nor resistance of being put into the car -- none of this would have happened.

Please dont take that last line as a 'he had it coming, he resisted', not at all. But the cycle of escalation had more than Chauvin as a driver.

(06-02-2020 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 12:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The fact that he likely didn’t intend to kill him is part of the problem.

Would you define the "problem" for me? The only problem I see this being a part of is the problem of convicting him of first degree murder.

Quote:nor did it result in the other officers doing the same. I’ve watched part of the video, and you see what appear to be multiple officers indifferent to a man pleading for air.

For the other three, I would have to know the chain of command. Who was senior, and who was in charge. If one of the other three was senior, he should have intervened. But if they were subordinate to him, then there would be a strong inclination not to interfere. You ever hear a PFC tell a SGT he was doing it wrong? Noninterference does not prove indifference, and even if it did, indifference would not prove racism, and even if it did, it would prove systemic racism in that department, and even if it did, it would not prove systemic racism in every department coast to coast.

Just a lot of people reading stuff into the video that may not be true. But if I, as a juror, have to consider if that video proves intent, or indifference , or racism, that is likely a bridge too far. I bet even 93 would have trouble accepting that.

One thing you learn in jobs where you work around dangerous equipment is that ANYONE has stop work authority if they see someone working in an unsafe manner.

If LEOs do not have the same policy, they need to re-evaluate their policies. Everyone can make a mistake, and no one should be forced to participate in, or accept, unsafe or harmful behaviors.

There is inherently indifference here because there were multiple officers watching and they did not stop the restraint. Proving that intent or race played a role is impossible, and not a factor in any of my posts.

Criminal liability is predicated on actions --- not on failures to act. That doesnt seem to be a factor in the analysis you put forward.

It's because I'm not talking about how this situation will play out in a court of law.

(06-02-2020 01:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think you're going a wee bit overboard here and reading far too into the issue - especially once you go on the attack about me being "enlightened" or being "passive aggressive."

Quote:So you take issue with the connection of the restraining method to the original accused crime? It's hard to tell with the diatribe at the end.

Do you take issue because it doesn't account for any interaction between the two events (original crime - it was an alleged counterfeit bill I just learned) and the eventual restraint method? If so, I can understand that perspective, as it can miss crucial actions that could have led to the initiation of such a forceful restraint method.

But I don't see how it's an absurd example or virtue signaling, when the facts state that George Floyd was initially stopped for a potentially counterfeit $20 and he was restrained with a knee to the neck during the same stop. I would be fine with saying it's not complete, but I thoroughly disagree with the remaining criticisms.

(06-02-2020 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Exactly, but OO focused solely on the chain of command as a way to legitimize the inaction by the other LEOs. If the other LEOs had felt the knee-to-neck restraint was inappropriate and potentially deadly, the chain of command is irrelevant.

(06-02-2020 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I ask you, if no one would explicitly support these actions, then why did we end up in a situation where a man was restrained like that?"

(06-02-2020 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The fact that he likely didn’t intend to kill him is part of the problem.

Would you define the "problem" for me? The only problem I see this being a part of is the problem of convicting him of first degree murder.

Quote:nor did it result in the other officers doing the same. I’ve watched part of the video, and you see what appear to be multiple officers indifferent to a man pleading for air.

For the other three, I would have to know the chain of command. Who was senior, and who was in charge. If one of the other three was senior, he should have intervened. But if they were subordinate to him, then there would be a strong inclination not to interfere. You ever hear a PFC tell a SGT he was doing it wrong? Noninterference does not prove indifference, and even if it did, indifference would not prove racism, and even if it did, it would prove systemic racism in that department, and even if it did, it would not prove systemic racism in every department coast to coast.

Just a lot of people reading stuff into the video that may not be true. But if I, as a juror, have to consider if that video proves intent, or indifference , or racism, that is likely a bridge too far. I bet even 93 would have trouble accepting that.

One thing you learn in jobs where you work around dangerous equipment is that ANYONE has stop work authority if they see someone working in an unsafe manner.

If LEOs do not have the same policy, they need to re-evaluate their policies. Everyone can make a mistake, and no one should be forced to participate in, or accept, unsafe or harmful behaviors.

There is inherently indifference here because there were multiple officers watching and they did not stop the restraint. Proving that intent or race played a role is impossible, and not a factor in any of my posts.

(06-02-2020 12:35 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The fact that he likely didn’t intend to kill him is part of the problem.

Would you define the "problem" for me? The only problem I see this being a part of is the problem of convicting him of first degree murder.

Quote:nor did it result in the other officers doing the same. I’ve watched part of the video, and you see what appear to be multiple officers indifferent to a man pleading for air.

For the other three, I would have to know the chain of command. Who was senior, and who was in charge. If one of the other three was senior, he should have intervened. But if they were subordinate to him, then there would be a strong inclination not to interfere. You ever hear a PFC tell a SGT he was doing it wrong? Noninterference does not prove indifference, and even if it did, indifference would not prove racism, and even if it did, it would prove systemic racism in that department, and even if it did, it would not prove systemic racism in every department coast to coast.

Just a lot of people reading stuff into the video that may not be true. But if I, as a juror, have to consider if that video proves intent, or indifference , or racism, that is likely a bridge too far. I bet even 93 would have trouble accepting that.

I don't follow.

(06-02-2020 01:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Exactly, but OO focused solely on the chain of command as a way to legitimize the inaction by the other LEOs. If the other LEOs had felt the knee-to-neck restraint was inappropriate and potentially deadly, the chain of command is irrelevant.

(06-02-2020 01:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 12:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 11:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Would you define the "problem" for me? The only problem I see this being a part of is the problem of convicting him of first degree murder.


For the other three, I would have to know the chain of command. Who was senior, and who was in charge. If one of the other three was senior, he should have intervened. But if they were subordinate to him, then there would be a strong inclination not to interfere. You ever hear a PFC tell a SGT he was doing it wrong? Noninterference does not prove indifference, and even if it did, indifference would not prove racism, and even if it did, it would prove systemic racism in that department, and even if it did, it would not prove systemic racism in every department coast to coast.

Just a lot of people reading stuff into the video that may not be true. But if I, as a juror, have to consider if that video proves intent, or indifference , or racism, that is likely a bridge too far. I bet even 93 would have trouble accepting that.

One thing you learn in jobs where you work around dangerous equipment is that ANYONE has stop work authority if they see someone working in an unsafe manner.

If LEOs do not have the same policy, they need to re-evaluate their policies. Everyone can make a mistake, and no one should be forced to participate in, or accept, unsafe or harmful behaviors.

There is inherently indifference here because there were multiple officers watching and they did not stop the restraint. Proving that intent or race played a role is impossible, and not a factor in any of my posts.

Criminal liability is predicated on actions --- not on failures to act. That doesnt seem to be a factor in the analysis you put forward.

It's because I'm not talking about how this situation will play out in a court of law.

Fair enough. The discussion has split into a 'criminal charge' prism put forth by OO, and 'moral/process checks and balances' issue that you are talking about.

(06-02-2020 02:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 01:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Exactly, but OO focused solely on the chain of command as a way to legitimize the inaction by the other LEOs. If the other LEOs had felt the knee-to-neck restraint was inappropriate and potentially deadly, the chain of command is irrelevant.

Really?? That's what you read when I wrote this:

For the other three, I would have to know the chain of command. Who was senior, and who was in charge. If one of the other three was senior, he should have intervened. But if they were subordinate to him, then there would be a strong inclination not to interfere. You ever hear a PFC tell a SGT he was doing it wrong?

(06-02-2020 02:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 02:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2020 01:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Exactly, but OO focused solely on the chain of command as a way to legitimize the inaction by the other LEOs. If the other LEOs had felt the knee-to-neck restraint was inappropriate and potentially deadly, the chain of command is irrelevant.

Really?? That's what you read when I wrote this:

For the other three, I would have to know the chain of command. Who was senior, and who was in charge. If one of the other three was senior, he should have intervened. But if they were subordinate to him, then there would be a strong inclination not to interfere. You ever hear a PFC tell a SGT he was doing it wrong?

You literally stated why the chain of command matters by talking about who was senior and asking is I've ever heard of a lower-ranking officer telling a higher-ranking on they were doing it wrong. That is providing a rationale as to why the officer's rank was relevant. How else is that supposed to be taken?

My point is that stop work authority in blue collar jobs is available to anyone, regardless of their level. That is hammered home in safety meetings so that, say, rig hands do not feel like they can't employ it if they see the site manager doing something that could lead to a fatality.