LOCKED: George Floyd

I really think it wasn’t the guy on his neck that killed him so much as the two other guys putting the compression on his back/chest. When you can’t put your arms down it would be impossible to breathe. Although the knee on the neck I’m sure didn’t help. 

#BREAKING: Officer Derek Chauvin has been taken into custody by state authorities, Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington says.

https://twitter.com/Lukewearechange/status/1266417978947645443

Invisible magazines?

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/05/29/derek-chauvin-arrested-george-floyd-death-minneapolis-police-officer/

Going off the "how/why?" stuff from last night, I'd say there are two big reasons contributing to cops like this dude being able to coast through complaints with no incident for a long time.

1. As said before, the police unions tend to be a big problem because they take the "represent our people" too far, where the only thing that matters is protecting them -- essentially turning the profession into a mafia-style thing where, once you're part of the "family", you are gold. Look at the aftereffects of the Eric Garner killing. The minute action was taken against the cop who killed him, the union heads went full retard, acting like they're now facing dire consequences for just doing their job like the dude was in trouble for no reason at all.

2. The overabundance of love/respect for the badge. Whenever some incident happens, you can count on a lot of people taking the "I lean towards always giving them the benefit of the doubt" more often than they would if a member of a more civilian profession fucked up at his job. Always found that weird. They're human and, therefore, they're capable of mistakes AND they're in an often-stressful job, which can easily lead to mistakes and cause those mistakes to snowball into big incidents. So, placing them on some sort of pedestal where they automatically deserve the benefit of the doubt in what looks to be an unnecessarily violent situation seems to be choosing to be willfully blind.

So, you have a profession with a strong union that will go all-out to protect them and a populace who will gravitate towards taking their side unless what they did was so over-the-top there's no logical way to justify it. I'd think that would lead to problems with most people, being in a position where you have power and public opinion on your side the vast majority of the time -- makes it pretty easy to slide into doing what you want instead of what you should do.

posted by Heretic

Going off the "how/why?" stuff from last night, I'd say there are two big reasons contributing to cops like this dude being able to coast through complaints with no incident for a long time.

1. As said before, the police unions tend to be a big problem because they take the "represent our people" too far, where the only thing that matters is protecting them -- essentially turning the profession into a mafia-style thing where, once you're part of the "family", you are gold. Look at the aftereffects of the Eric Garner killing. The minute action was taken against the cop who killed him, the union heads went full retard, acting like they're now facing dire consequences for just doing their job like the dude was in trouble for no reason at all.

2. The overabundance of love/respect for the badge. Whenever some incident happens, you can count on a lot of people taking the "I lean towards always giving them the benefit of the doubt" more often than they would if a member of a more civilian profession fucked up at his job. Always found that weird. They're human and, therefore, they're capable of mistakes AND they're in an often-stressful job, which can easily lead to mistakes and cause those mistakes to snowball into big incidents. So, placing them on some sort of pedestal where they automatically deserve the benefit of the doubt in what looks to be an unnecessarily violent situation seems to be choosing to be willfully blind.

So, you have a profession with a strong union that will go all-out to protect them and a populace who will gravitate towards taking their side unless what they did was so over-the-top there's no logical way to justify it. I'd think that would lead to problems with most people, being in a position where you have power and public opinion on your side the vast majority of the time -- makes it pretty easy to slide into doing what you want instead of what you should do.

I mentioned it before, but you've teased it out better here: Not only might it make it easy to slide into that, but it seems like it might even attract people who would already rather do things that way anyway.

posted by Heretic

Going off the "how/why?" stuff from last night, I'd say there are two big reasons contributing to cops like this dude being able to coast through complaints with no incident for a long time.

1. As said before, the police unions tend to be a big problem because they take the "represent our people" too far, where the only thing that matters is protecting them -- essentially turning the profession into a mafia-style thing where, once you're part of the "family", you are gold. Look at the aftereffects of the Eric Garner killing. The minute action was taken against the cop who killed him, the union heads went full retard, acting like they're now facing dire consequences for just doing their job like the dude was in trouble for no reason at all.

2. The overabundance of love/respect for the badge. Whenever some incident happens, you can count on a lot of people taking the "I lean towards always giving them the benefit of the doubt" more often than they would if a member of a more civilian profession fucked up at his job. Always found that weird. They're human and, therefore, they're capable of mistakes AND they're in an often-stressful job, which can easily lead to mistakes and cause those mistakes to snowball into big incidents. So, placing them on some sort of pedestal where they automatically deserve the benefit of the doubt in what looks to be an unnecessarily violent situation seems to be choosing to be willfully blind.

So, you have a profession with a strong union that will go all-out to protect them and a populace who will gravitate towards taking their side unless what they did was so over-the-top there's no logical way to justify it. I'd think that would lead to problems with most people, being in a position where you have power and public opinion on your side the vast majority of the time -- makes it pretty easy to slide into doing what you want instead of what you should do.

Also body cams get turned off and without video the officer can put whatever he wants on the police report and it is accepted as factual. You could sneeze and he can say resisting ect.. Even with body cam footage it takes years to get a copy most of the time.. it is only released quickly if it helps the police. We need to make sure body cams can’t be turned of and also are available to the lawyer of the person arrested. 

posted by Heretic

Going off the "how/why?" stuff from last night, I'd say there are two big reasons contributing to cops like this dude being able to coast through complaints with no incident for a long time.

1. As said before, the police unions tend to be a big problem because they take the "represent our people" too far, where the only thing that matters is protecting them -- essentially turning the profession into a mafia-style thing where, once you're part of the "family", you are gold. Look at the aftereffects of the Eric Garner killing. The minute action was taken against the cop who killed him, the union heads went full retard, acting like they're now facing dire consequences for just doing their job like the dude was in trouble for no reason at all.

2. The overabundance of love/respect for the badge. Whenever some incident happens, you can count on a lot of people taking the "I lean towards always giving them the benefit of the doubt" more often than they would if a member of a more civilian profession fucked up at his job. Always found that weird. They're human and, therefore, they're capable of mistakes AND they're in an often-stressful job, which can easily lead to mistakes and cause those mistakes to snowball into big incidents. So, placing them on some sort of pedestal where they automatically deserve the benefit of the doubt in what looks to be an unnecessarily violent situation seems to be choosing to be willfully blind.

So, you have a profession with a strong union that will go all-out to protect them and a populace who will gravitate towards taking their side unless what they did was so over-the-top there's no logical way to justify it. I'd think that would lead to problems with most people, being in a position where you have power and public opinion on your side the vast majority of the time -- makes it pretty easy to slide into doing what you want instead of what you should do.

These are really good points.  I cannot understand why more cops are not vocal in condemning this stuff.  Yes, it would violate that "blue line" crap.  But that is where we are and what's needed.  There are too many decent men and women in this profession to not have more of a movement from frontline cops condemning this stuff.

Whenever these incidents happen, I understand where the rage comes from (anger, not smashing property and stealing liquor).  But for the life of me, I cannot understand the lack of outrage in the black community when it comes to black-on-black crime and murder.  I just don't understand it and maybe I just never will.  

Looks like they charged him with 3rd-degree murder, maximum of 25 years. 

posted by geeblock

Also body cams get turned off and without video the officer can put whatever he wants on the police report and it is accepted as factual. You could sneeze and he can say resisting ect.. Even with body cam footage it takes years to get a copy most of the time.. it is only released quickly if it helps the police. We need to make sure body cams can’t be turned of and also are available to the lawyer of the person arrested. 

Most of this is a non-issue. 99% of the time body camera footage is evidence and there are strict guidelines as to what can and cannot be released as a public record, which is why there is usually a delay in the release in footage. Evidence to active cases are almost always non-releasable. It depends on state statute as to whether it is allowed to be released or not. 

Attorneys are entitled to see it as part of the discovery process for ongoing cases. 

Yeah, an officer could simply "turn it off" but *most* departments have strict guidelines as to when cameras should be activated (it's almost always). 

I worked closely with this technology and could answer any questions as it pertains to them (if anyone cares).

posted by justincredible

Invisible magazines?

Not surprised.

As they wield the state of the art M16's......

They are just a deterrence and leadership wont trust most to have a loaded magazine in the weapon.  They may not even have any magazines on them.

posted by thavoice

Not surprised.

As they wield the state of the art M16's......

 

They are just a deterrence and leadership wont trust most to have a loaded magazine in the weapon.  They may not even have any magazines on them.

That was my thought as well. They sure look official if you don't know anything about guns.

O-Trap, I am not about to quote that entire post lol. But, I had a gun pulled on me in South Toledo when I was 16/17. Was sneaking into my girlfriends house at around 2am, and so had parked my car like 10 houses down. Obviously sneaking around the back of a house, a cop rolled up and two guns pointed straight at me. Nearly shit my pants. They had some calls about break-ins that week, and everytime one of these situations arises, I think how lucky I am to have been white. 
 

If I was black, not sure how it would’ve gone down. I had no way of proving I was going to visit my gf, and no phone or anything to call to have her come out and explain. I was still 3 houses away, so at best I would’ve been arrested and charged with all the crimes of the last week. Worst case? Potentially shot.

Thin Blue Line/Us Against Them

posted by justincredible

That was my thought as well. They sure look official if you don't know anything about guns.

Absolutely.

Most look at that and see the authority and the thoughts that the person has been to war and shot people.

A closer look on their right arm they are slick sleeves so they have never been on a deployment and are likely more afraid of the rioters than may rioters are of them...

posted by Laley23

O-Trap, I am not about to quote that entire post lol. But, I had a gun pulled on me in South Toledo when I was 16/17. Was sneaking into my girlfriends house at around 2am, and so had parked my car like 10 houses down. Obviously sneaking around the back of a house, a cop rolled up and two guns pointed straight at me. Nearly shit my pants. They had some calls about break-ins that week, and everytime one of these situations arises, I think how lucky I am to have been white. 
 

If I was black, not sure how it would’ve gone down. I had no way of proving I was going to visit my gf, and no phone or anything to call to have her come out and explain. I was still 3 houses away, so at best I would’ve been arrested and charged with all the crimes of the last week. Worst case? Potentially shot.

Exactly.  Crazy, right?

I had just bought a new car, and I woke up late, so I didn't have time to put the temp tags on the license plate holder.  Instead, I propped it up in the back window.

When I got close to work, I got pulled over.  When I came to a stop, I noticed that the temp tag had fallen into the back seat.  It was completely innocent, and I wasn't thinking anything of it, but I reached back to grab the tag, because after I spoke to the officer, I was going to put it back up.  That was when he showed up at my side window, gun drawn and pointed at me, telling me to put my hands on the wheel.

Not sure I've ever been that scared in my life.
 

posted by Gardens35

Thin Blue Line/Us Against Them

 

What is this in response to?  What's the context here?

Have any of you seen the pdf of the charges filed?  3 things that stood out:

1) He was saying he couldn’t breathe prior to being on the ground

2) The ME stated that strangulation was not the cause of death and that he had heart conditions (so heart attack?)

3) The fuck sat on his neck for almost 9 minutes, 3 of which Floyd was unresponsive.

They are also charging with 2nd degree manslaughter. I’m not making a comment on any of the above, just that it was in it and stuck out to me. Obviously laying on the dudes artery probly caused the death.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6933246/Derek-Chauvin-Complaint.pdf

posted by iclfan2

Have any of you seen the pdf of the charges filed?  3 things that stood out:

1) He was saying he couldn’t breathe prior to being on the ground

2) The ME stated that strangulation was not the cause of death and that he had heart conditions (so heart attack?)

3) The fuck sat on his neck for almost 9 minutes, 3 of which Floyd was unresponsive.

They are also charging with 2nd degree manslaughter. I’m not making a comment on any of the above, just that it was in it and stuck out to me. Obviously laying on the dudes artery probly caused the death.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6933246/Derek-Chauvin-Complaint.pdf

Probably caused the death? LOL

I was wondering when we’d see these kinds of posts. “He couldn’t breathe prior to being strangled by the cop”

Haha okay..

posted by SportsAndLady

Probably caused the death? LOL

I was wondering when we’d see these kinds of posts. “He couldn’t breathe prior to being strangled by the cop”

Haha okay..

I want the guy in jail. From a legal standpoint, you don’t think they’ll argue that he said it prior that he couldn’t breathe? These cases have gone sideways numerous times bc of technicalities. I literally didn’t opine on any of it, try to be less of a cunt ffs.

Lord help us if that cop is acquitted.