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

(+) Yeah! (+)

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I've been discussing the risk that police will make a mistake.

Excessive violence is not a "mistake." At best, it's incompetence. More commonly, it's outright malice, a reckless disregard for the lives they have been trusted with, or a matter of trying to use a hammer to solve a problem that isn't a nail.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

My understanding of the trial precedings and the actual charges against him lead me to disagree.

You think it was a mistake to kneel on his neck for nine minutes? Nine seconds, sure. That happens during physical altercations. But nine minutes?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You're being insulting about it.

If you're going to genuinely suggest that Chauvin made a mistake, you deserve to be insulted. Not only is that flagrantly at odds with the the commonly-known facts of the case (again, nine minutes. If you're making a mistake like that, you don't sustain it for nine minutes), it ignores the fact that Chauvin has not shown remorse or regret for his actions, which is what any responsible person would do after making a serious mistake. Chauvin is a murderer, and he has been convicted accordingly.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

And this is getting off track from the original discussion which I don't see a way back to from here.

Not remotely. Excusing police brutality as "a mistake" and not treating it like the criminal assault it most commonly is is exactly the problem here. Employing a disproportionate, unnecessary violent response is not an accident. It's a consequence of employing police officers that believe it's their job to beat suspected criminals into compliance by any means necessary, who lack the problem-solving and emotional regulation ability to resolve situations any other way. That's then further exacerbated by rarely holding them responsible for such conduct when they harm people.

Yes, police officers need to be able to employ violence - including lethal force - to do their job. But if they are granted that permission without oversight, training, and accountability that holds them to a higher standard for having that privilege, the result is inevitably going to be the suffering and death of people that are (at least as far as the death penalty is concerned) innocent. America lacks that oversight and accountability, which is why American police end up killing so many people each year. Chauvin's conviction is one step toward that goal.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

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.

You "guess" that, but you don't "guess" that every single police officer that is even allowed to strap on a gun should have received sufficient training as to completely eliminate the risk of such a mistake? To allow an officer into the field that is capable of making such a massive mistake is grossly negligent, to say nothing of the negligent incompetence of the officer herself. That is not a reasonable mistake. I don't know what bizarre compulsion you're trying to satisfy by attempting to spin it into one, but it is not, nor will it ever be.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

If a case needs further review it shouldn't be brought to trial.

That's... exactly what courts are for. They provide a forum for the arbitration of issues that can't otherwise be resolved. Ideally, issues should be resolved out of court (see: the "investigation" I mentioned earlier), but if they can't, that's the reason courts exist.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

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.

No, I don't think criminal charges against abusive cops are making a significant difference in court wait times. They don't happen very often (thanks mostly to how often abuse gets swept under the rug). Most of that is a consequence of the for-profit prison system benefiting from pushing for incarceration regardless of how appropriate it is, particularly in regards to drug charges.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
I wouldn't advise people to increase that risk.

You seem to be missing a very important part of the issue here: resisting arrest generally is not a rational decision. You can say "it makes sense not to resist" all you want, but rational thinking does not help people that are not thinking rationally. More often than not, resisting is a matter of panicking, being confused, or being in some manner of mental health crisis (as was the case with Floyd). Heck, in many cases, it's not even a matter of fighting back, it's a matter of just not complying with orders quickly enough in an extremely high-stress situation that they may not understand.

This is why there are calls to defund the police: because this sort of "resistant" suspect doesn't respond well to shouting and violence, and that's what police bring to the table. As such, it makes more sense to reallocate funding to professionals that know how to handle and defuse the situation at hand than to keep buying hammers that are big enough to not care whether or not something is a nail.

---

Most people here thinks this is how it works
cop: you stay right there let me make sure I get out my taser
person: sure would you like me to help you get it out.
cop: no but thank you anyway.
person gets taser.
cop: lovely weather out right now
person: bzzzzzzz yea it is sorry for being silly with my antics
cop: apology accepted how about we take the cruiser and get some icecream!
person: *eating his icecream* this sure is tasety

---

ArvTheGreat posted...

Kurt angle won the olympics with a broken freakin neck

Oh its damn true.

---

adjl posted...

At best, it's incompetence.

Incompetence leads to mistakes. I've been discussing the risk that police will demonstrate incompetence.

adjl posted...

You think it was a mistake to kneel on his neck for nine minutes?

The trial demonstrated that his knee was on the man's neck at some. The trial also demonstrated that he shifted his knee to the man's should for some of the time he used the restraint. The claim that he knelt on the neck for the whole 9 minutes of the restraint is false.

adjl posted...

Employing a disproportionate, unnecessary violent response is not an accident.

Going back to the trial example, a witness for the prosecution testified that the cop was justified in using greater force and that the restraint used was the lesser option.

adjl posted...

Excusing police brutality as "a mistake" and not treating it like the criminal assault

I'm not excusing malice or intent as mistakes. If you can demonstrate this was the motive then it's not included in my statement. I'm referring to scenarios where there was a mistake.

adjl posted...

you don't "guess" that every single police officer that is even allowed to strap on a gun should have received sufficient training as to completely eliminate the risk of such a mistake?

Heck no, the police are lazy, incompetent, and prone to making mistakes. All the more reason to be cautious when dealing with them.

adjl posted...

I don't think criminal charges against abusive cops are making a significant difference in court wait times.

I'm not talking about just cops. I'm talking about any scenario where someone is arrested and the prosecution hasn't already built a case against them. People have a right to a quick and speedy trial. If they're still being investigated to see if there is a case against them at that point then they are being denied that. You're just arresting innocent people on the chance that they might be charged with something later.

adjl posted...

rational thinking does not help people that are not thinking rationally

The police are no more rational than the people they deal with. Irrationality leads to more irrationality. I'm saying don't give the police the opportunity to act irrationally.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The police are no more rational than the people they deal with.

They have a sworn responsibility to be. Anyone that can't meet that standard shouldn't be a cop, which is exactly the systematic problem people want to address.

---

adjl posted...

They have a sworn responsibility to be.

No they don't.

Law Enforcement Oath of Honor
On my honor, I will never betray my badge,
my integrity, my character, or the public trust.
I will always have the courage to hold myself
and others accountable for our actions.
I will always uphold the constitution
my community and the agency I serve.

I would have thought something about serve and protect the public was in there but apparently that's a misconception about police as well.
If you want rational thinking look to a physicist or mathematician.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No they don't.

Then perhaps that's where police reform ought to start, because being more rational than a panicked meth head is a very reasonable prerequisite to apply to somebody that's being trusted with permission to use force to solve problems.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No they don't.

Law Enforcement Oath of Honor
On my honor, I will never betray my badge,
my integrity, my character, or the public trust.
I will always have the courage to hold myself
and others accountable for our actions.
I will always uphold the constitution
my community and the agency I serve.

Interesting

---

adjl posted...
I have no problem with that. I'd just like to suggest that while working on that reform the panicked meth head should also be encouraged to not steal the cops tazer and point it at them.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'd just like to suggest that while working on that reform the panicked meth head should also be encouraged to not steal the cops tazer and point it at them.

A suggestion which will accomplish exactly nothing because - as I mentioned before - panicked meth heads aren't exactly thinking rationally enough to consider such suggestions.

---

adjl posted...

panicked meth heads aren't exactly thinking rationally enough to consider such suggestions.

Maybe that example was a bit extreme. Just anyone who has an encounter with the police should be given that encouragement. Maybe one of them will be receptive enough to save their life by following it.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

On my honor, I will never betray my badge,
my integrity, my character, or the public trust.
I will always have the courage to hold myself
and others accountable for our actions.
I will always uphold the constitution
my community and the agency I serve.

I'm sorry; did you somehow think that went against adjl's point?

---

keyblader1985 posted...

I'm sorry; did you somehow think that went against adjl's point?

It doesn't say anything about being rational.

---

It's one hundred percent impossible to consistently uphold those oaths without being rational. Or did you think it doesn't count because the word "rational" doesn't appear anywhere in there?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Maybe that example was a bit extreme. Just anyone who has an encounter with the police should be given that encouragement. Maybe one of them will be receptive enough to save their life by following it.

Again, most instances of resisting arrest (virtually all of the ones where a violent response is being objected to) are not rational decisions. They're a matter of people being panicked, confused, scared, in pain, and/or in some manner of mental crisis (including being on drugs), and having that response overwhelm their ability to consider and respond to the situation rationally. There are no risk analyses being made. There's just a fight-or-flight response, and neither of those options is going to satisfy a cop that wants to arrest them.

Quite simply, your attempts at armchair theorizing your way through a police encounter are meaningless, and your "advice" utterly useless.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

It doesn't say anything about being rational.

I dunno about you, but as a member of the public, I certainly feel that my trust has been betrayed if a cop succumbs to irrational fits of violence when they're supposed to be serving my community. Sure, the word "rational" isn't in there, but surely you're not going to suggest that "my oath doesn't explicitly say I have to be rational, so it's fine for me to kill people in fits of irrational rage" is even a remotely reasonable mindset for a cop to approach their job with.

---

The oath sets a goal. Rational and irration describe how one pursues that goal. They can in theory pursue it in an irrational overly emotional manner. Or they can pursue those goals in a hyper rational manner, concluding that if they have never had any integrity, character, or public trust then they cannot betray those things and can safely ignore that part while still maintaining the oath. I expect either extreme would be bad.

---

What did attire have to do with anything?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Rational and irration describe how one pursues that goal.

In this context, they're just describing behaviours. You're trying way too hard to come up with some way that irrational violent outbursts should be considered acceptable behaviour for police.

---

adjl posted...

come up with some way that irrational violent outbursts should be considered acceptable behaviour for police.

Not what I'm doing.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Not what I'm doing.

you absolutely are even if its indirect

---

Mead posted...

you absolutely are even if its indirect

Explain.

---

Chauvin murdered him deliberately on camera in front of many witnesses. He had worked with Floyd before and knew him. You really think Floyd would have been safe and sound if Chauvin had been able to get him somewhere private?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Not what I'm doing.

You're suggesting that it's more reasonable to expect people who are panicked beyond the point of making rational risk analyses than to hold police to a higher standard of self-control and respect for the privileges their position offers them. That's exactly what you're doing, so if you think otherwise, you really need to take a step back and reassess what you're saying and what your position actually is.

---

Personally I think cops should be trained to NEVER draw a gun, unless a gun has been drawn on them, or is already in play (not even if the "think" they see a gun on a person".

In addition, training to take down people without risking their lives should be one of the primary things they learn. I did it for years, just from taking Judo, I was able to take down multiple oponents safely, and keep one locked down in a hold until they gave/up wore themselves out (or in a police officers case till backup arrived).

Add in tasers, and even tranq guns, and you should almost NEVER have to use a gun, and certainly not nearly as much as is done today.

Meanwhile kneeling on someone's neck, even for a moment is a good way to paralyze em for life, or possibly kill them. Why would you EVER train an officer to do that (or not tell them it's a prohibited move (they shouldn't need to be told).

I mean, a good question to have when testing to see if someone is going to be a good officer is "If you have a perp who is resisting arrest and you get him down on the ground, do you kneel on their neck to make them more compliant?"

If the new recruit says yes, you don't freaking hire them.

Many other civilized countries do fine without the cops having guns at all. I'm not saying that cops shouldn't have them (since so many citizens do), but I am saying they should be the last resort, not the first option.

---

Mead posted...

Chauvin murdered him deliberately

Not according to what he was convicted of.

Mead posted...

You really think Floyd would have been safe and sound if Chauvin had been able to get him somewhere private?

No, I think he would have died of a drug overdose anyway. That's what the medical examiner said it looked like.

adjl posted...

You're suggesting that it's more reasonable

Not what I'm doing.

adjl posted...

than to hold police to a higher standard of self-control

I want both. You're treating it like it's one or the other.

adjl posted...

you really need to take a step back and reassess what you're saying and what your position actually is.

Police reform is going to take time. While that is being worked on there are measures people can take to not exacerbate the problem.

wolfy42 posted...

Personally I think cops should be trained to NEVER draw a gun, unless a gun has been drawn on them, or is already in play (not even if the "think" they see a gun on a person".

I would even go further. There are regular police and there are swat. Why do regular police have to always carry a gun? If need be call for armed backup but never start an encounter armed.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Not according to what he was convicted of.

"Murder" is inherently deliberate. Murder 2 just means it wasn't premeditated, not that it was an accident.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No, I think he would have died of a drug overdose anyway. That's what the medical examiner said it looked like.

Then perhaps it was a bad idea to sit on him for ten minutes before trying to get him medical assistance.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Not what I'm doing.

That is what this teacher is doing, and you've come in here with the position that they're right. That may not be a comprehensive description of your position, but it's definitely the one you're presenting. If that's not what you mean, you should be more careful in how you communicate.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I want both. You're treating it like it's one or the other.

As outlined earlier, one of them's basically impossible. You are never going to get a world where nobody ever resists arrest, any more than you're ever going to be able to have a nursing home where nursing staff don't have to deal with combative, violent dementia patients. Nursing homes prepare for that inevitability by training staff and providing resources to handle such patients in a manner that is safe for both staff and the patients, and as a result, it's exceedingly rare to hear about a LTC worker killing a patient (and completely unheard of to see people responding to such an incident with "he had it coming because he was violent"). Police (at least in the US) do not, and there's an extremely pervasive cultural attitude that they shouldn't have to, hence we get all of these stories of police brutality.

It'd be nice to have a fallback option to rely on while the necessary police reform takes shape, but unfortunately, "just don't resist!" isn't going to help the vast majority of people that are assaulted for "resisting," because they generally are not in a mental state where taking reasonable advice is an option.

---

adjl posted...

Murder 2 just means it wasn't premeditated, not that it was an accident.

From wikipedia...
"charges were amended to include second-degree murder, specifically unintentional second-degree murder while attempting to commit felony assault"
The other charges were third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.
Manslaughter is broken down between voluntary and involuntary. Could be Constructive or Negligent Manslaughter under the involuntary category.
Essentially what the conviction means is that he committed a different crime and that crime lead to a death either as a result of the crime itself or from demonstrated indifference to human life. So no, it was not deliberate.

adjl posted...

perhaps it was a bad idea to sit on him for ten minutes before trying to get him medical assistance

That's what I said. I'm glad we agree.

adjl posted...

If that's not what you mean, you should be more careful in how you communicate.

I happen to think the teacher makes a valid point. I don't think the point suggested that irrational violent outbursts should be considered acceptable behavior for police.

adjl posted...

one of them's basically impossible

Eh, both of them are basically impossible. We'll never see police reform because no one can agree what reform looks like, whether to provide funding for more training or to defend the police, and whether the police should exist at all or be abolished. By the logic you displayed that means we shouldn't advocate for police reform either.

adjl posted...

"just don't resist!" isn't going to help the vast majority of people

So the problem is that it won't help enough people. Their lives just aren't worth saving in small quantities. Well, I would be pleased if it helped one person.

---