The 2020 George Floyd/BLM/Police Brutality Protests Discussion Thread

[Keef]

While this trial is going on.
Last night.
10 miles away.
In Brooklyn Center.
Police shot and killed a black man during a traffic stop.



https://www.aol.com/news/police-vehicles-vandalized-man-shot-020456802-082654452.html

200 protesters rioted through the night.

While he did have warrants and actually tried to use force.

Quoting for visiblity.

Apparently they used the ol' "Little Trees air freshener" trick to pull this guy over. Some states have laws banning things hanging from the rear view mirror but of course they're only creatively enforced and effectively amount to racial/economic/age profiling.

 

[UKMikey]

 

[G.T.Ace]

Wow, that's one of the most ridiculous excuses I have ever heard.
Even if that would be true, she'd be unfit to carry any firearm whatsoever.

 

[Keef]

The gun and taser are on opposite sides of the belt. A taser could have been a reasonable response to keep the man from leaving.

Regardless, if true it displays utter incompetence. This would be like a pilot pulling up to recover a stall and driving straight into the ground...which has happened, and which killed people. You can imagine that pilots like that don't keep their licenses very long if they're still alive to have them suspended.

 

[TJ13]

So today they released the name of the officer that shot and killed in brooklyn center.
I won't go on and do the name.
But 26 years as a police officer.
26 years and you mistaken your weapon for a taser?

So now it comes down to this.
Was it really an accident or was this something more serious?

 

[ShiftingGears]

My wife's a diabetic (type 1), she eats biscuits (with sugar in them), do you know how much immediate danger eating a biscuit poses to a diabetic (type 1 or 2), its zero. His levels were high, and guess what some of the effects of that can be (and I know these first hand) confusion, a lack of coordination and at times aggression. Exposing people in hyperglycemia to stress (and they certainly did) can make the hyperglycaemia worse.


I've both read it and watched the bodycam footage, what is undisputable is that they ignored him saying he couldn't breath, used the myth that 'if you can talk you can breath' and administer a sedative to someone who clearly and repeatedly stated they were unable to breath. Given that sedatives suppress breathing to someone complaining they can't breath and are in a hyperglycaemic state is utterly negligent.

And inadequate medical training was concluded by the coroner. And I don't think this qualifies as police brutality.

I disagree, public officials should be held publically accountable and that includes transparency.

Let's agree to disagree about what that threshold is.

It doesn't mean its not either.

True, but then you need evidence that it is systemic.

Assumes the reasons for the outcomes are all the same.

Which is the default position to take when there's no evidence to the contrary.

They (as in the police and the medical facility) had multiple opportunities to spot it, they failed to do so because they didn't listen to her or treat her contains of being in pain seriously. That's negligence.

Agreed.

It's a standard most people adopt, and as long as its proportionate that shouldn't be an issue.

That's the problem, people assume it is disproportionate because they dont even bother to know what that statistic comprises of.

Yet in your very post you defend one simple thing that would be a step along this path, transparency for accountability of public figures.

There is transparency provided in the inquest reports which I think is adequate.

It's also quite clear even from outside the country that plenty of Australians don't support those programmes, and that casual racism is still far to prevalent within the country. Pauline Hanson and her parties ability to gain seats are indicative of that.

I'm fine with people not supporting those programmes, I don't expect everyone to know everything and frankly a lot of the programmes that have been tried have been a complete waste of taxpayer money.

That people vote for One Nation is, on the scheme of things, not a big deal. And all of this is a long way from Police Brutality in the first place.

 

[Scaff]

And inadequate medical training was concluded by the coroner. And I don't think this qualifies as police brutality.

First thing is that the inadequate provision of training that results in a death has a cause, its negligence and as such someone or more likely a group of people are responsible. What accountability occurred in that regard? I know that as a manager if one of my staff or clients died as a direct result of an inadequate provision regarding a known risk factor I would be held criminally responsible for that death, I would not have a shield of anonymity and would almost certainly face rather severe penalties. Now my team currently delivers system training, but back when it was vehicle launch training and driver skills training it was a very real concern and that accountability has a very real way of focusing the mind (oh and legal were quite clear to let us know that the disclaimers we got people to sign were worthless if we were not able to show we had do everything to minimize and remove the known risks).

In this situation a know risk was not correctly trained (which should raise further questions as to why a RN was not aware of those risks, nor was the person they consulted) which resulted in the use of force in a situation that required de-escalation. In common with the George Floyd case, multiple opportunities' to re-assess and change course were missed or ignored, again in favour of the application of excessive force resulting in the loss of life. That is brutality, it doesn't need to be deliberate. His rights were denied to him, and even as a prisoner he had the right to not be killed due to the negligence of the prison staff.

Let's agree to disagree about what that threshold is.

Why? What purpose does shielding them have, other than making it look like the state is trying to hide something. Private individuals don't have that right, so why should public officials, who should be held to the highest level of transparency and accountability, as if they are not it aids, rather that avoids, abuses of power.

True, but then you need evidence that it is systemic.

How much do you honestly want before the fact that the judicial system in Australia has a problem is required?

https://tr.uow.edu.au/uow/file/64419d5f-d183-49c2-90d9-d81c8dc44f17/1/2005-blagg-1-210.pdf
https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-ne...onal-racism-evident-australian-justice-system
https://www.croakey.org/addressing-racism-embedded-within-the-criminal-justice-system/
https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/speeches/institutional-racism
https://www.researchgate.net/public...System_Some_Conceptual_and_Explanatory_Issues

Which is the default position to take when there's no evidence to the contrary.

Yet evidence does exist of institutional bias within the Australian judicial system, which would indicate a very big miss in that report.

That's the problem, people assume it is disproportionate because they dont even bother to know what that statistic comprises of.

No people conclude its disproportionate because of the volume of evidence showing its disproportionate, not because of a single report that doesn't even factor it in as a possibility. Nor does a single report definitively end a line of questioning, as is clear from the recent government report in the UK that somehow concluded that racism isn't really a problem at all in the UK and that the UK is in fact a beacon of how to be integrated. A report that was clearly written to meet a pre-required outcome and one that is at odds with almost every other data point available. Nor can just raw statistics be used, as time and time again these have been fudged, faked or simply not recorded accurately.

Nor does a seemingly equal level of treatment in one part of the justice system indicate all is well with the rest of it, in the UK the Criminal Prosecution Service is (based on data) reasonably neutral when it comes to race (a factor believed to exists because its make-up, across all levels, closely matches the racial demographic of the UK), however the rest of the system has a clear and measurable bias.

Finally, and most importantly, even if, once you account for all factors, the Australian prison service comes out as un-biased in regard to race, does it mean that you can conclude that excessive use of force doesn't exist within it or the wider policing body, after all, death is not the starting point for police brutality, its the end point.

There is transparency provided in the inquest reports which I think is adequate.

I disagree and return to the point that public servants are shielded in a manner that private ones are not (within the same report), when they should be held to a higher standard. If the transparency is not equal then it's a long way from being even adequate.

I'm fine with people not supporting those programmes, I don't expect everyone to know everything and frankly a lot of the programmes that have been tried have been a complete waste of taxpayer money.

Well that's quite the shift of tone!

That people vote for One Nation is, on the scheme of things, not a big deal. And all of this is a long way from Police Brutality in the first place.

That people hold far right views are not a big deal? An Australian who held those views was responsible for 51 deaths, those kind of views saw the Australian government create the 'Pacific solution' to immigration, which was the very opposite of public transparency and a quite clear systemic abuse of peoples rights.

Sorry, but the people that hold those views are a big deal, particularly if those views are popular enough to get them into public office.

 

[ShiftingGears]

hy? What purpose does shielding them have, other than making it look like the state is trying to hide something. Private individuals don't have that right, so why should public officials, who should be held to the highest level of transparency and accountability, as if they are not it aids, rather that avoids, abuses of power.

I don't think revealing the names of corrections officers working within prisons when they are not charged with any crime serves any purpose. It might appease twitter activists, but it does not really change anything.

How much do you honestly want before the fact that the judicial system in Australia has a problem is required?

https://tr.uow.edu.au/uow/file/64419d5f-d183-49c2-90d9-d81c8dc44f17/1/2005-blagg-1-210.pdf
https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-ne...onal-racism-evident-australian-justice-system
https://www.croakey.org/addressing-racism-embedded-within-the-criminal-justice-system/
https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/speeches/institutional-racism
https://www.researchgate.net/public...System_Some_Conceptual_and_Explanatory_Issues

Yet evidence does exist of institutional bias within the Australian judicial system, which would indicate a very big miss in that report.

You didn't read those links, did you? Half of them are just complete fluff and contain even less information than what we have already discussed.

No people conclude its disproportionate because of the volume of evidence showing its disproportionate, not because of a single report that doesn't even factor it in as a possibility. Nor does a single report definitively end a line of questioning, as is clear from the recent government report in the UK that somehow concluded that racism isn't really a problem at all in the UK and that the UK is in fact a beacon of how to be integrated. A report that was clearly written to meet a pre-required outcome and one that is at odds with almost every other data point available. Nor can just raw statistics be used, as time and time again these have been fudged, faked or simply not recorded accurately.

Apologies, I thought you were applying it to any statistic I mentioned.

Yes if your UK statistic shows black women are more likely to die during childbirth, yes it should be investigated, and no it does not automatically mean racism is to blame.

Nor does a seemingly equal level of treatment in one part of the justice system indicate all is well with the rest of it, in the UK the Criminal Prosecution Service is (based on data) reasonably neutral when it comes to race (a factor believed to exists because its make-up, across all levels, closely matches the racial demographic of the UK), however the rest of the system has a clear and measurable bias.

Finally, and most importantly, even if, once you account for all factors, the Australian prison service comes out as un-biased in regard to race, does it mean that you can conclude that excessive use of force doesn't exist within it or the wider policing body, after all, death is not the starting point for police brutality, its the end point.

I didn't say it doesn't exist at all, I just don't see any evidence indicating it exists on any scale warranting some global outcry.

Well that's quite the shift of tone!

I can disagree with someone without getting hysterical at them. A lot of people agree with welfare, so long as it actually is being used as a hand up, not a hand out.

That people hold far right views are not a big deal? An Australian who held those views was responsible for 51 deaths, those kind of views saw the Australian government create the 'Pacific solution' to immigration, which was the very opposite of public transparency and a quite clear systemic abuse of peoples rights.

Sorry, but the people that hold those views are a big deal, particularly if those views are popular enough to get them into public office.

I think Pauline Hanson is an idiot, but voting for her does not make you the equivalent of a terrorist. That is just ridiculous.

 

[Scaff]

I don't think revealing the names of corrections officers working within prisons when they are not charged with any crime serves any purpose. It might appease twitter activists, but it does not really change anything.

I've already explained what implications it has and why changing it would have a positive impact far beyond 'twitter activists', but your use of that phrase speaks volumes. People hand waving away a clear issue with public transparency and accountability gives licence to those who wish to abuse a system, either deliberately or unconsciously.

It makes it almost impossible for independent investigation, either via the press, NGO's or other bodies to be carried out, and given the Australian governments history with a lack of transparency in detention centers, that's a massive red-flag.

You didn't read those links, did you? Half of them are just complete fluff and contain even less information than what we have already discussed.

I most certainly did read them, and many others, I would post them, but you seems happy to dismiss them pretty much out of hand.

Apologies, I thought you were applying it to any statistic I mentioned.

The same bias may be in place with the data you have supplied.

Yes if your UK statistic shows black women are more likely to die during childbirth, yes it should be investigated, and no it does not automatically mean racism is to blame.

I've not said it does, however given the research that has been done (and is ongoing) a large degree of unconscious bias seems to be one of the causes.

I didn't say it doesn't exist at all, I just don't see any evidence indicating it exists on any scale warranting some global outcry.

So what is the acceptable level?

I can disagree with someone without getting hysterical at them. A lot of people agree with welfare, so long as it actually is being used as a hand up, not a hand out.

You shifted from them all basically being idiots to actually some of them have a point, it's quite a shift in position.

I think Pauline Hanson is an idiot, but voting for her does not make you the equivalent of a terrorist. That is just ridiculous.

Good job I didn't come close to saying that then. Not everyone who agrees with her will become a far right terrorist, but the all the far-right terrorists do agree with her. As such that makes her views and the views of her supporters something that can't just be dismissed as 'not a big deal'.

I have to ask, do you actually believe that Australia has a history of racial in-equality, and a continuing problem with it?

 

[HenrySwanson]

It's going to have many causes, but even factors such as higher possibility of pre-eclampsia don't account for the difference

I dunno....you have to look at all the possible contributing factors to a mother dying during pregnancy. These things will be based on physiological, anatomical and social factors and will not be limited to just pre-eclampsia.

The fact that Chinese women do better than white women and Asians are significantly less at risk than black mothers means the answer is probably not related to racial bias as much as may appear at first glance.

 

[Scaff]

I dunno....you have to look at all the possible contributing factors to a mother dying during pregnancy. These things will be based on physiological, anatomical and social factors and will not be limited to just pre-eclampsia.

The fact that Chinese women do better than white women and Asians are significantly less at risk than black mothers means the answer is probably not related to racial bias as much as may appear at first glance.

That would assume racial biases are all exactly the same, the preliminary work has indicated that racial bias (unconscious mainly) is a factor, but the full NHS report will need to be looked at when its published.

 

[Joey D]

Kim Potter, the officer who killed Daunte Wright in the traffic stop over the weekend in Minnesota, has resigned from the police force. The only thing I can think of is that if I "mistakenly" killed someone on the job I wouldn't have to resign, I'd be immediately terminated and then arrested.

 

[TexRex]

The only thing I can think of is that if I "mistakenly" killed someone on the job I wouldn't have to resign, I'd be immediately terminated and then arrested.

What, there isn't a current of toxic tribalism flowing through the healthcare field?

 

[Scaff]

So today they released the name of the officer that shot and killed in brooklyn center.
I won't go on and do the name.
But 26 years as a police officer.
26 years and you mistaken your weapon for a taser?

So now it comes down to this.
Was it really an accident or was this something more serious?

A US Police Officers view on how unlikely it is to do this accidently

Kim Potter, the officer who killed Daunte Wright in the traffic stop over the weekend in Minnesota, has resigned from the police force. The only thing I can think of is that if I "mistakenly" killed someone on the job I wouldn't have to resign, I'd be immediately terminated and then arrested.

Yep.

 

[Dave A]

I think there are a number of issues with policing in the US, I watched a bodycam video yesterday of a man in an SUV being stopped for not haivng a rear license plate and it escalated extremely quickly.

I think part of the problem seems to be that the police assume the other person is armed or has a lethal weapon in close proximity. No doubt they'll be trained to get in and secure the situation, but that doesn't explain why a situation may continue to escalate even when the suspects hands are clearly visible and sticking out the side window.

From that point I obsevered two notable things (notable to me at least), firstly police officers who were massively overreacting to the numberplate issue (which ended up not being an issue as it was a new car and had a cardboard plate stuck the rear window) and a suspect who while not seeming agreessive at any time refused to exit the car when asked. There's a clear over-agressiveness in the way some police deal with certain situation and there's a clear distrust of the police from certain sections of society. I can't genuinely identify with that, I'm middle class and white, if a police officer asks me to do something I do it and I have no fear that I will be mistreated in any way. I do sometimes question if members of the black community need to fear and distrust the police as much as they do, but I cannot answer that as I've never experinced what they experience.

Also I don't beleive the way police officers react to situations in the UK is comparable to the way they deal with situations in the US, and while there is still a distrust of the police here, the police do not assume everyone is armed and that reduces the need for instant or quick escalation.

There is no way a driver being pulled over for a missing numberplate should be faced with two armed police officers pointing weapons at them, that's immediate overraction and wouldn't normally happen here.

I think the worst thing to do is refuse to cooperate with the police, but at the same time as I make that statement I also aknowledge that I can't truely understand the fear or distrust of the police some sections of society have, that's just alien to me.

In the Floyd case, what I am uncertain of is if he will be found guilty of murder as that requires intent. I find it very hard to believe that he intended to kill Floyd infront of a crowd of witnesses who were filming him. But there's a definite case for manslaughter. But then the whole affair didn't need to escalate to the level it did, although it didn't escalate quite as quickly as the video I watched yesterday it did ultimately escalate further.

But you see the same two issues, overraction from the police and lack of cooperation from the suspect. The lack of cooperation certainly doesn't mean he got what he deserved, but had he cooperated he wouldn't be dead. By that same logic though, had Chauvin not reacted to the situation in the manner he had, Floyd wouldn't be dead. But also, Floyd may have been high and had attempted to spend a counterfeit note, but the situation didn't call for the escalation that occurred when Chauvin and the other officers arrived.

Whatever you think or beleive about how justified or not the officers were in believing his claims he couldn't breath, Floyd absolutely wasn't a threat to anyone (though I beleive (but correct me if I'm wrong) that faking ilness when being arrested was something highlighted in the trial as farily common).

The whole situation is a mess, but it's raised important issues and though I don't like the rioting that accompanied that, the defacing and pulling down statues here in the UK etc. the issues needed to be adressed, and outside of the headlines they were largly done in a peaceful manner. By that same token we do also have to realise that for every polcie officer who overreacts or acts extremely improperly one day there will be a huge percentage who have done thier job properly and reasonably. That doesn't mean you excuse the improper behaviour, but I wouldn't want to tar all police officers with the same brush as the bad ones just as I wouldn't tar all BLM protesters with what the rioters did.

 

[FuriousDemon]

The way police react to simple traffic stops, especially when dealing with non-white people, is pretty crazy. I guess that’s true that the thought is anyone can have a gun at any time, which is another pretty crazy thing. I think in the UK some (or a lot) of the police don’t even have lethal weapons on them, is that right? The whole gun culture and obsession of population with guns around here is definitely a part of the problem.

 

[Danoff]

I think there are a number of issues with policing in the US, I watched a bodycam video yesterday of a man in an SUV being stopped for not haivng a rear license plate and it escalated extremely quickly.

I think part of the problem seems to be that the police assume the other person is armed or has a lethal weapon in close proximity. No doubt they'll be trained to get in and secure the situation, but that doesn't explain why a situation may continue to escalate even when the suspects hands are clearly visible and sticking out the side window.

From that point I obsevered two notable things (notable to me at least), firstly police officers who were massively overreacting to the numberplate issue (which ended up not being an issue as it was a new car and had a cardboard plate stuck the rear window) and a suspect who while not seeming agreessive at any time refused to exit the car when asked. There's a clear over-agressiveness in the way some police deal with certain situation and there's a clear distrust of the police from certain sections of society. I can't genuinely identify with that, I'm middle class and white, if a police officer asks me to do something I do it and I have no fear that I will be mistreated in any way. I do sometimes question if members of the black community need to fear and distrust the police as much as they do, but I cannot answer that as I've never experinced what they experience.

Also I don't beleive the way police officers react to situations in the UK is comparable to the way they deal with situations in the US, and while there is still a distrust of the police here, the police do not assume everyone is armed and that reduces the need for instant or quick escalation.

There is no way a driver being pulled over for a missing numberplate should be faced with two armed police officers pointing weapons at them, that's immediate overraction and wouldn't normally happen here.

I think the worst thing to do is refuse to cooperate with the police, but at the same time as I make that statement I also aknowledge that I can't truely understand the fear or distrust of the police some sections of society have, that's just alien to me.

In the Floyd case, what I am uncertain of is if he will be found guilty of murder as that requires intent. I find it very hard to believe that he intended to kill Floyd infront of a crowd of witnesses who were filming him. But there's a definite case for manslaughter. But then the whole affair didn't need to escalate to the level it did, although it didn't escalate quite as quickly as the video I watched yesterday it did ultimately escalate further.

But you see the same two issues, overraction from the police and lack of cooperation from the suspect. The lack of cooperation certainly doesn't mean he got what he deserved, but had he cooperated he wouldn't be dead. By that same logic though, had Chauvin not reacted to the situation in the manner he had, Floyd wouldn't be dead. But also, Floyd may have been high and had attempted to spend a counterfeit note, but the situation didn't call for the escalation that occurred when Chauvin and the other officers arrived.

Whatever you think or beleive about how justified or not the officers were in believing his claims he couldn't breath, Floyd absolutely wasn't a threat to anyone (though I beleive (but correct me if I'm wrong) that faking ilness when being arrested was something highlighted in the trial as farily common).

The whole situation is a mess, but it's raised important issues and though I don't like the rioting that accompanied that, the defacing and pulling down statues here in the UK etc. the issues needed to be adressed, and outside of the headlines they were largly done in a peaceful manner. By that same token we do also have to realise that for every polcie officer who overreacts or acts extremely improperly one day there will be a huge percentage who have done thier job properly and reasonably. That doesn't mean you excuse the improper behaviour, but I wouldn't want to tar all police officers with the same brush as the bad ones just as I wouldn't tar all BLM protesters with what the rioters did.

I agree with most of what you said there, but I do want to pick at something. You imply that lack of cooperation is properly met with force - so you put lack of cooperation directly against police over reaction. But I'm not sure that it's a safe assumption that lack of cooperation should be met with force. I think that's what our police are being taught, but I also think that there a ton of highlighted instances where lack of cooperation was due to incorrect police perception, fear, or medical issues. Perhaps the police should be trained to use force as a last resort, and should instead be using altogether different techniques to deal with non-cooperative people.

My brain is headed right back to a tie-in with the spanking thread here. It does not come naturally to a lot of people to deal with non-cooperation with some empathy. But we have a fair number of highlighted cases where hard nosed authority is not the right response to people who aren't cooperating or are incapable of cooperating. Maybe we need to err on the side of more effort and money put into apprehending fewer people, rather than making sure that fewer officers can get the job done with a little elbow grease. Step 1 on that goal would be trying to apprehend fewer people. John Oliver just did a bit on police raids, which highlights exactly the kind of unnecessary police interaction that results in unintended deaths, injury, and property damage.

Probably way more important than actually succeeding in arresting someone on the spot, especially someone who is not behaving violently, is identifying someone on the spot. If they get away, we can still find them, and in some cases they'll turn themselves in.

 

[TexRex]

I think part of the problem seems to be that the police assume the other person is armed or has a lethal weapon in close proximity. No doubt they'll be trained to get in and secure the situation, but that doesn't explain why a situation may continue to escalate even when the suspects hands are clearly visible and sticking out the side window.

If my assumption that you're referring to the Caron Nazario stop in Virginia is correct, I'm compelled to note that Nazario was, in fact, in possession of a registered firearm in a compartment in the vehicle within reach from the driver's seat, and it was a non-issue. Virginia law permits possession of a firearm in a private vehicle and those in possession when stopped are only required to notify law enforcement if asked.

 

[Northstar]

Kim Potter, the officer who killed Daunte Wright in the traffic stop over the weekend in Minnesota, has resigned from the police force. The only thing I can think of is that if I "mistakenly" killed someone on the job I wouldn't have to resign, I'd be immediately terminated and then arrested.

She was apparently one of the top people in the police union and had assisted other officers involved in shootings.

https://kstp.com/news/veteran-offic...-was-also-head-of-police-union/6074283/?cat=1

 

[ScottPuss20]

In the Floyd case, what I am uncertain of is if he will be found guilty of murder as that requires intent. I find it very hard to believe that he intended to kill Floyd infront of a crowd of witnesses who were filming him. But there's a definite case for manslaughter. But then the whole affair didn't need to escalate to the level it did, although it didn't escalate quite as quickly as the video I watched yesterday it did ultimately escalate further.

Intentional or not, it happened and justice must be served. That's all there is to it.

 

[Dave A]

I agree with most of what you said there, but I do want to pick at something. You imply that lack of cooperation is properly met with force - so you put lack of cooperation directly against police over reaction. But I'm not sure that it's a safe assumption that lack of cooperation should be met with force. I think that's what our police are being taught, but I also think that there a ton of highlighted instances where lack of cooperation was due to incorrect police perception, fear, or medical issues. Perhaps the police should be trained to use force as a last resort, and should instead be using altogether different techniques to deal with non-cooperative people.

No I'm not saying the lack of cooperation justifies the escalation seen in some of these cases, I'm just saying the lack of cooperation doesn't help and highlights an issue with the relationship between the person and the police, but it certainly doesn't justify what I saw the other day or Floyd ending up having his kneck compressed for 9 minutes.

If a person is uncoperative then it's reasonable to expect the police to respond to that in some way, but where the person remains non-threatening to the police I don't see why it should escalate to the degrees it sometimes does and it can escalate extremely quickly.

I think you have to take into consideration how agressive and how much of a threat the person is and in both the Floyd case and the other one I watched, neither appeared to be a threat. I know it doesn't happen this way every time, but the number of videos out there showing routine stops being treated as agressively as you may handle apprehending a person who is suspected of killing someone is not reasonable force in my opinion. If I came across as suggesting otherwise about the lack of cooperation that's due to my poor explanation.

Intentional or not, it happened and justice must be served. That's all there is to it.

I agree entirely.

 

[Scaff]

In the Floyd case, what I am uncertain of is if he will be found guilty of murder as that requires intent. I find it very hard to believe that he intended to kill Floyd infront of a crowd of witnesses who were filming him. But there's a definite case for manslaughter. But then the whole affair didn't need to escalate to the level it did, although it didn't escalate quite as quickly as the video I watched yesterday it did ultimately escalate further.

Intent doesn't quite work as it may first seem in criminal law (in the US at least).

If his intent was to apply a forcible restraint to Floyd that he knew was dangerous and a risk to life (which it was) then if the result is Floyds death (which is was) then his intended actions resulted in death and are murder. Intent in that form combined with pre-meditation lead to different grades of murder (beyond the obvious you intended to kill someone of course).

Think of intent as a transferable characteristic of crime. If you plan to rob a petrol/gas station and kill someone in the process then you're pre-meditation and intent transfer from the armed robbery to the death and its first-degree murder. If however you had decided to rob it on the spur of the moment, the pre-meditation is gone however the intent remains, and its second degree murder.

It is however not an automatic transfer (it used to be in some states), but rather the courts apply what is know as a hybrid test to it, which is:

A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,

• (a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reasons only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but
• (b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.

So it requires the person to, based on all the information they had, know that the death could be foreseen with all of the evidence available to them at the time.

This is why the prosecution are going in heavy on the number of opportunities the officers had to change course, but failed to do so, the refusal of the officers to let a trained first responder assist, the delay in medical treatment once the EMTs arrived, the lack of provision of medical assistance once George Floyd was unresponsive and the continued application of force once he had had a fit and was unresponsive. They are looking to ensure the evidence passes this hybrid test.

Conversely the defense are attempting to cast doubt on that, which is why they are attempting to characterize the crowd as unruly and threating.

You then also have 'third degree murder', which doesn't exist in all states, but importantly does in Minnesota, which is described in Minnesota as:

"without intent to effect the death of any person, caus[ing] the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life"

However both second and third degree murder are high bars to pass (unfortunately even more so if the defendant is a police officer), which is why Chauvin has been charged with Second-degree Murder, Third-degree murder and Manslaughter.

I would also disagree that the George Floyd case didn't escalate quickly, it did, and then remained escalated for an absurdly long period of time, despite many opportunities to de-escalate it. That for me it was makes it so heinous and should make the bar easier to pass, this wasn't a spur of the moment choice that had to be made, but a long drawn out process. A process in which every opportunity to correct course was willfully ignored, well beyond the point at which it could be called negligent or accidental (which would lower it to manslaughter).

The way police react to simple traffic stops, especially when dealing with non-white people, is pretty crazy. I guess that’s true that the thought is anyone can have a gun at any time, which is another pretty crazy thing. I think in the UK some (or a lot) of the police don’t even have lethal weapons on them, is that right? The whole gun culture and obsession of population with guns around here is definitely a part of the problem.

Police in the UK (outside of a few specific branches) do not routinely carry firearms. Some are trained in the use of Tasers and carry them, but use of them is quite low.

To put some numbers to that.

UK 2020: 4 people shot by police, with a population of 66.65M, that's one per 16.65M people
US 2020: Roughly a 1,000 (no central database exists), with a population of 328m, that's one per 0.328M People

So yes its a significant difference, particularly as the 1,000 in the case of the US is likely to be a low estimate.

The lack of threat, de-escalation training, and the accountability an officer is held to should them discharge a Taser or firearm are also quite rigorous and strict in the UK.

https://www.pfoa.co.uk/articles/police-involved-shooting

It is important to note however that doesn't and hasn't removed issues with the inappropriate use of force by the police in the UK.

 

[Dave A]

Thanks for that explanation @Scaff, very insightful.

Just one note, maybe due to my poor wording again regarding this:

I would also disagree that the George Floyd case didn't escalate quickly, it did, and then remained escalated for an absurdly long period of time, despite many opportunities to de-escalate it. That for me it was makes it so heinous and should make the bar easier to pass, this wasn't a spur of the moment choice that had to be made, but a long drawn out process. A process in which every opportunity to correct course was willfully ignored, well beyond the point at which it could be called negligent or accidental (which would lower it to manslaughter).

I agree the Floyd case escalated too quickly, I didn't say (or mean to imply) it didn't ecalate quickly, just not as quickly as the other video I watched the other night. Both situations did however escatale too far too quickly.

 

[UKMikey]

Expert: Ex-cop justified in pinning George Floyd to pavement

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The defense for a former police officer charged in George Floyd’s death challenged the heart of the case against the officer, calling a use-of-force expert who testified that Derek Chauvin was justified in pinning Floyd and said it might have gone easier if the Black man had been “resting comfortably” on the pavement.

Taking the stand Tuesday at Chauvin’s murder trial, Barry Brodd, a former Santa Rosa, California, officer, stoutly defended Chauvin’s actions, even as a prosecutor pounded away at the witness, banging the lectern at one point during cross-examination and growing incredulous over Brodd’s use of the “resting comfortably” phrase.

“It’s easy to sit and judge ... an officer’s conduct,” Brodd testified. “It’s more of a challenge to, again, put yourself in the officer’s shoes to try to make an evaluation through what they’re feeling, what they’re sensing, the fear they have, and then make a determination.”

He said he doesn’t believe Chauvin and the other officers used deadly force when they held Floyd down on his stomach, his hands cuffed behind his back and Chauvin’s knee on his neck or neck area for what prosecutors say was 9 1/2 minutes.

Brodd likened it instead to a situation in which officers use a Taser on someone fighting with officers, and the suspect falls, hits his head and dies: “That isn’t an incident of deadly force. That’s an incident of an accidental death.”

Several top Minneapolis police officials, including the police chief, have testified that Chauvin used excessive force and violated his training. And medical experts called by prosecutors have said that Floyd died from a lack of oxygen because of the way he was restrained.

But Brodd said: “I felt that Officer Chauvin’s interactions with Mr. Floyd were following his training, following current practices in policing and were objectively reasonable.”

 

[Scaff]

Brodd likened it instead to a situation in which officers use a Taser on someone fighting with officers, and the suspect falls, hits his head and dies: “That isn’t an incident of deadly force. That’s an incident of an accidental death.”

One of those things is not like the other!

 

[Imari]

One of those things is not like the other!

It does not take 9 and a half minutes to have an accident.

 

[Joey D]

Of course, a fellow officer would say that it was "reasonable". Look I get that not all cops are bad, but even if you don't harm a suspect if you're a cop and don't speak out on the actions of bad cops, that makes you a bad cop too.

It also seems weird they'd use a cop from California to make their case. Wouldn't it sound better to the jury if it was someone from Minnesota? Brodd is also a terrible expert too since he apparently testified in the case of Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke who was accused of excessive force against Laquan McDonald. Van Dyke went on to be found guilty of second-degree murder.

 

[Scaff]

 

[Joey D]

Kim Potter has been charged with second-degree manslaughter.

Minnesota cop will be charged in shooting of Black motorist

The charges make sense considering what happened and, in theory at least, should be pretty easy to prove in a court of law.

 

[Danoff]

Kim Potter has been charged with second-degree manslaughter.

That's gonna cost 'em the house cup.

Too soon?