Poll of the Day > Teacher says Floyd would be ALIVE if he just COMPLIED and Dressed APPROPRIATELY

(+) Yeah! (+)

Alaska Heifer who is only referred to as "Ms Gardner" who teaches at Lathrop High School is put on leave after she told students that George Floyd would still be alive if he had only COMPLIED with POLICE and to NOT dress like a THUG if they don't want to be targeted by cops!!

In a 15 minute diatribe that was posted by a parent on Youtube shows her telling students about police killing black people and said if they only complied with police they would be less likely shot at!!

She says "If George Floyd had at the beginning when they got him out of the car and went to put him in the police car, if he had just sidled into the car and slid in there and let them put his legs in, he would be alive today. You know that's true"

The Fairbanks North Star Borough School District sent out a letter notifying her suspension as their website only showed one name with her surname who is a special education teacher named Connie Gardner

It's unclear what prompted the conversation where it starts with her talking about a lot of shootings with people of colour and why the reason they don't hear about it though is because it doesn't fit the "angry white male narrative"

She said "It's not just crazy white men who do shootings. The only reason they come back alive is because they comply"

She then turn her attention to Ma'Khia Bryant who was shot by an officer and said it was terrible she was shot but said the officer had no choice cause she was going to stab another victim

She doesn't believe in reform but rather "training" and then told students they should just comply with police officers even if they are being arrested unjustly and said "I'm an old white lady and if the cops came up to me and said ma'am, put your hands behind your back, you're going to jail, i'm putting my hands behind my back"

Gardner then says if students would just DRESSED NICELY and don't look like THUGS with their pants around their knees, they wouldn't be targeted as she suggests they wear PRESENTABLE clothes if they want respect from police.

At one point a woman named Liz identifies herself and interjects and said she doesn't feel comfortable with the conversation and said police should be trained not to kill people even if they don't comply and to not judge people on their skin colour no matter how they dress.

Another parent then speaks up and says she is uneducated on the subject and should end the conversation period

The teacher will now be represented by a union represented by a union advocate while an investigation continues.

The youtube video has SPLIT viewers where conservatives AGREE with her and liberals disagree

Do you think everybody should comply with police even if you are targeted unfairly?

https://i.imgur.com/6OGLJiF.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/6VSzBVp.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/2o86z9y.jpg
---

Its always the fucking heifers, man.

---

mrduckbear posted...

and to NOT dress like a THUG if they don't want to be targeted by cops!!

...so she didn't say it had something to with how he was dressed? Meaning that the topic title was an intentionally misleading remark designed solely to troll?


---

mrduckbear posted...

At one point a woman named Liz identifies herself and interjects and said she doesn't feel comfortable with the conversation

People should have uncomfortable conversations.

mrduckbear posted...

Another parent then speaks up and says she is uneducated on the subject and should end the conversation period

How is anyone suppose to learn anything if the subject can't be discussed?

mrduckbear posted...

The youtube video has SPLIT viewers where conservatives AGREE with her and liberals disagree

I'm sure plenty of liberals and moderates also agree. They juist get labeled conservative if they make it known.

mrduckbear posted...

Do you think everybody should comply with police even if you are targeted unfairly?

Use that as your defense when you get your day in court. Resisting arrest wont help you any.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Use that as your defense when you get your day in court. Resisting arrest wont help you any.

IF you get your day in court if they want to keep blasting everybody

---

He wouldn't have died if he'd just not been born in the first place, jeeeeez

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Use that as your defense when you get your day in court.

most people never even get a fair trial, do you realize how ridiculously backed up US court systems are nowadays? You either take a plea deal even if you know you are innocent or you face a trial where everyone is pissed off that you didnt just plead guilty. Not to mention that if someone is denied bail they could spend months or even years in jail before getting their day in court.

The entire system is a lot more broken than you realize. Police should not simply be trusted to be good people, because far too many of them are angry and corrupt. They have to wear bodycams in most departments now for good reason.

---

The statement itself is correct. Fight it in court, not w/ the police officer. You'll always lose the latter.

But not the application. Floyd was already cuffed and apprehended when Chauvin decided to murder him. Even if he had resisted earlier, he was cuffed by then. It's not the police's job to get "revenge" after the fact.

So in conclusion... fuck her.

That's getting tired and lame. The fact is when 2 or more cops have someone subdued, that should it right there and if a person in custody says they're having trouble breathing, you need to ease up.

This crap is getting ridiculous.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Use that as your defense when you get your day in court. Resisting arrest wont help you any.

People that don't resist arrest still get brutalised or shot dead so...


---

MeteoricBurst posted...

People that don't resist arrest still get brutalised or shot dead so...

That might happen if you cooperate. That will happen if you resist, so...

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That will happen if you resist, so...

It should not.

---

Mead posted...

It should not.

People shouldn't die from getting hit by lightning. Is that a reason to increase the odds of it happening?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

People shouldn't die from getting hit by lightning. Is that a reason to increase the odds of it happening?

Its a reason to put lightning rods in some places

So youre suggesting we use some kind of poor black scarecrows with drugs in their pockets to distract law enforcement so regular poor black folks can just safely live their lives?

Not the worst idea Ive heard. I think your heart is in the right place.

---

TheSlinja posted...

IF you get your day in court if they want to keep blasting everybody

Oh lawdy.

streamofthesky posted...

But not the application. Floyd was already cuffed and apprehended when Chauvin decided to murder him. Even if he had resisted earlier, he was cuffed by then.

He didn't "decide to murder him." He couldn't get Floyd into the cruiser because Floyd was resisting, so he attempted to subdue him on the ground. Chauvin had probably used that same technique to subdue dozens if not hundreds of people in the past, none of whom died. There was no intention to kill Floyd. Had he been looking to murder him, he certainly wouldn't have killed him in a public setting.

MeteoricBurst posted...

People that don't resist arrest still get brutalised or shot dead so...

Bullshit. And people going along peacefully are absurdly unlikely to get "brutalized" either. Even a lot of guys who mouth off to cops, and lay hands on them during the arrest usually don't get much more than taken down to the ground and subdued. There are a *lot* of arrest videos out there where you watch people decide to forcibly resist arrest which only end with them on the ground rather than them being "brutalized".

I'm not even sure if the classic "watch your head" is anywhere near as common as people pretend.

---

Ah yes the classic, kneel on an unconscious person for several minutes after youve been told they dont have a pulse technique. Which week at the academy do they teach that again, or do they focus on it through both of them?

---

Mead posted...

So youre suggesting we use some kind of poor black scarecrows with drugs in their pockets to distract law enforcement so regular poor black folks can just safely live their lives?

I'm sorry. I had forgotten that you have difficulty with analogies. I'm not suggesting you lure police into a trap using drug laden scarecrows.

If you are going to be in a lightning storm anyway it's not a good idea to stand in a puddle while waving around an aluminum bat and yelling that the gods are bastards.

Likewise, if you are going to have an encounter with the police anyway it's not a good idea to put them any more on edge than they already are.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Likewise, if you are going to have an encounter with the police anyway it's not a good idea to put them any more on edge than they already are.

yeah cause ones like Chauvin are murderers

I bet we can save a lot more lives by holding murderers accountable for when they murder people rather than by scolding their victims and declaring that they should have been better behaved

---

Not complying with the cops isn't a death sentence so that's just stupid

The only time cops should kill someone is if it's the last resort to protect themselves/innocent people

---

Zeus posted...

Bullshit.

Wouldn't expect you to remember (more likely you conveniently "forgot") but there's been multiple cases where people complied (or attempted to) and still got killed. Philando Castile, Daniel Shaver, Charles Kinsey. The last one is especially absurd because the officer admits even he doesn't know why he shot the guy. Thankfully that one lived but others are not so lucky. Now do you have anymore of your bullshit to spew? As per usual?

---

Mead posted...
Okay, so how does increasing the likelihood that you will be the person they're held responsible for killing help the situation? If the assumption is that will probably kill you anyway why remove the slim chance that they won't?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Okay, so how does increasing the likelihood that you will be the person they're held responsible for killing help the situation? If the assumption is that will probably kill you anyway why remove the slim chance that they won't?

it really says something that you are so adamantly focused on assigning blame on victims of murder

---

Muscles posted...

Not complying with the cops isn't a death sentence so that's just stupid

The only time cops should kill someone is if it's the last resort to protect themselves/innocent people

Mead posted...

it really says something that you are so adamantly focused on assigning blame on victims of murder

These two posts are related. A significant portion of the US are gun/police worshippers and clearly disagree with the bolded statement above. As such don't expect any to change fundamentally regardless of this and that protests.


---

Mead posted...

it really says something that you are so adamantly focused on assigning blame on victims of murder

Not at all. If someone dies while in police custody the police should be held acountable for that. What I'm questioning is why the individual in police custody should increase the liklihood of their death.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

What I'm questioning is why the individual in police custody should increase the liklihood of their death.

what a strange thing to so energetically fixate on when the most serious issue at hand is that we have a bunch of murderers running free facing no consequences

---

The fact of the matter is the US Police (a lot of it) are on the same level as corrupt crime ridden 3rd world countries like Brazil. I was just reading a BBC article about the latest scandal over there involving police, accusing them of massive extrajudicial killings in the favelas dealing with drug rings.

---

Mead posted...

what a strange thing to so energetically fixate on when the most serious issue at hand is that we have a bunch of murderers running free facing no consequences

I'm putting no energy into this at all.
The issue we're discussing is the teachers comment on complying with the police.
Even if there are "murderers running free facing no consequences" how would compliance make the situation any worse?

---

If they had been more polite while I was mistreating them, I might not have mistreated them so much.

---

Mead posted...

If they had been more polite while I was mistreating them, I might not have mistreated them so much.

What should the individual do in that situation?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

What should the individual do in that situation?

not be mistreated

---

Mead posted...

not be mistreated

Will resisting the police lead to that outcome?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

What should the individual do in that situation?

I mean, realistically, just get fucked regardless of how they act

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Will resisting the police lead to that outcome?

It shouldnt

---

Mead posted...

It shouldnt

Then we agree that resisting the police leads to additional mistreatment. So to minimine mistreatment the individual should not resist.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

What should the individual do in that situation?

Shoot the cop first? Seems like the most reliable option, really, provided they're a good enough shot to kill (or at least fully incapacitate) them on the first try.

---

I mean, technically he might be alive if he went into the cop car. Doesn't make Chauvin any less guilty of murder.

---

adjl posted...

Shoot the cop first?

So when more police are called and kill the individual they'll be justified in doing it. I suppose it would no longer be mistreatment.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Then we agree that resisting the police leads to additional mistreatment. So to minimine mistreatment the individual should not resist.

We dont agree on that. Resisting police should result in a reasonable amount of force to subdue and arrest them. That isnt mistreatment.

---

Mead posted...

We dont agree on that.

What should the individual do in that situation?
not be mistreated

Will resisting the police lead to that outcome?
It shouldnt

So resisting the police shouldnt lead to the outcome of not mistreating the individual.
Allowing the negatives in your responses to cancel out this means resistance should lead to mistreatment. We've been assuming that the police will mistreat the individual either way. We're looking for advice on how the individual can minimize the mistreatment done to them.

Mead posted...

Resisting police should result in a reasonable amount of force to subdue and arrest them.

I'm getting from this that killing them is now a reasonable amount of force.
Unless you think the police were already going to kill the individual and resistence de-escalates the situation to a point where they won't do that.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

We've been assuming that the police will mistreat the individual either way.

I propose that we dont do that and that they should be in a bunch of trouble when they do

---

Mead posted...

I propose that we dont do that and that they should be in a bunch of trouble when they do

Also
Mead posted...

Police should not simply be trusted to be good people, because far too many of them are angry and corrupt.

Let's say these angry corrupt people are not suppose to kill individuals but have a high chance of making mistakes which will lead to an individual's death. The angrier they get the higher the chance they will make mistakes. So to avoid being killed that individual should avoid making them any angrier. This goal can be met by complying with them. Do you still think the individual is better off resisting?


---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Do you still think the individual is better off resisting?

against, as you describe, angry individuals who very easily accidentally kill people? Yes they and everyone else should resist that as much as possible

---

Mead posted...

against, as you describe, angry individuals who very easily accidentally kill people? Yes they and everyone else should resist that as much as possible

Resisting arrest will lead to more mistakes which results in more individuals being killed. I thought killings was something you wanted to put a stop to.

If while resisting arrest the individual poses a threat to the police or the public then lethal force is justified. The police are allowed and even required to kill someone if doing so saves the life of someone else. The police will not be held accountable for the individual's death. I thought holding them accountable was something you wanted to happen.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So when more police are called and kill the individual they'll be justified in doing it. I suppose it would no longer be mistreatment.

Justified in killing somebody who used lethal force because they reasonably felt their life was unjustly threatened? That's not how self-defense works.

Victim blaming is only ever a band-aid solution. Victims taking steps to reduce their likelihood of being victimized may help prevent the issue on a personal level, but that's very unreliable, and the logic of leaving it entirely to them can only lead to escalation if followed through to its natural conclusion (that is, taking whatever steps are necessary to minimize the risk). If you want to solve the problem, you need to treat the root of it, which is eliminating cops that are prone to inappropriate violence. That's really all there is to it.

---

adjl posted...

they reasonably felt their life was unjustly threatened

It's not reasonable to think the police are out to kill you.

adjl posted...

the logic of leaving it entirely to them can only lead to escalation if followed through to its natural conclusion

There are two sides of the interaction and both need to be addressed. Just because we're discussing one side in this topic doesn't meant anyone is advocating that the other side be ignored. On the part of the individual the advice is to not antagonize the police. On the part of the police, departments need more funding, officers need better training, more officers should be hired in order to give other officers more time off. Also something should be done about the laws such that if the individual is about to overdose on a controlled substance they can feel safe in asking the police for help without worrying about going to prison. But people would rather defund or abolish the police so those things aren't going to happen. Since the police won't get what they need to address their deficiencies more responsibility for influencing the interaction is placed on the individual.

adjl posted...

If you want to solve the problem, you need to treat the root of it, which is eliminating cops that are prone to inappropriate violence. That's really all there is to it.

My mistake. Apparently you're advocating that the other side of the interaction be ignored.

adjl posted...

Nobody's complaining about reasonable mistakes.

A cop was just convicted for making the mistake of restraining someone instead of just throwing them in the car, ignoring their plea for help, and taking them to the precinct to be booked where they might have died of a drug overdose anyway. The other cops that were at the scene are now facing charges for the mistake of not tazing the person to subdue him before the other cop even arrived. People complain because a cop made the mistake of pulling their gun when they meant to pull their tazer. People complain when the police don't make a mistake and do their job as intended.

adjl posted...

investigating legitimate mistakes, but it's unlikely to result in prosecuting them

Why would you prosecute for a legitimate mistake? Oh right, the riots.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Why would you prosecute for a legitimate mistake?

To determine the legitimacy of the claim that it was a mistake and not intentional abuse.

Both happen.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

It's not reasonable to think the police are out to kill you.

But it is reasonable to suggest that people shouldn't resist because that minimizes the risk that police will randomly decide to kill them? You're the one that's established the premise that that is an acceptable risk.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

There are two sides of the interaction and both need to be addressed.

There really aren't. It's widely accepted that resisting arrest is bad. There's no debate there, that's not the problem. The problem is that resisting arrest is treated as carte blanche to execute the person. It should not be. Ever. If police are permitted to use force to carry out the law, then they must be held accountable for ensuring that that force is reasonable. Period.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

A cop was just convicted for making the mistake of restraining someone instead of just throwing them in the car, ignoring their plea for help, and taking them to the precinct to be booked where they might have died of a drug overdose anyway.

No, a cop was just convicted for committing murder (presuming you're talking about the case at hand and not another one). You know, because he murdered a dude. I understand that you want to sugarcoat that boot you're licking, since I doubt it tastes very good, but you'd really be better off eating actual food instead.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

People complain because a cop made the mistake of pulling their gun when they meant to pull their tazer.

You quoted me saying "reasonable mistake." How insanely deluded does somebody have to be to think that using a gun instead of a taser is a reasonable mistake?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Why would you prosecute for a legitimate mistake?

You generally wouldn't, which is why I explicitly said exactly that. The only cases where you would see that would be ones where the investigation was unable to conclude that the mistake wasn't negligent or otherwise illegitimate, meaning it went to court for a more thorough review by third parties, with the conclusion of it being a legitimate mistake coming in the form of an acquittal.

---

Kurt angle won the olympics with a broken freakin neck

---

Mead posted...

To determine the legitimacy of the claim that it was a mistake and not intentional abuse.

I think that's something that should be determined before you prosecute. As in the prosecutor should have a case before bringing it to trial.

adjl posted...

the risk that police will randomly decide to kill them

I think it was streamofthesky who said that. I've been discussing the risk that police will make a mistake.

adjl posted...

You're the one that's established the premise that that is an acceptable risk.

My approach is that anything which reduces that risk however much is a good idea. Anything which increases that risk however much is a bad idea. I wouldn't advise people to increase that risk.

adjl posted...

No, a cop was just convicted for committing murder

My understanding of the trial precedings and the actual charges against him lead me to disagree. You're being insulting about it. And this is getting off track from the original discussion which I don't see a way back to from here. Let's agree to drop this point.

adjl posted...

How insanely deluded does somebody have to be to think that using a gun instead of a taser is a reasonable mistake?

I guess one was right next to the other on the cops belt and there wasn't enough time to check that the correct one was grabbed.

adjl posted...

it went to court for a more thorough review

This is one of the things I find wrong with the legal system. If a case needs further review it shouldn't be brought to trial. Earlier it was mentioned that people spend lengthy amounts of time sitting in jail waiting for their day in court. This is one of the problems contributing to that.

---