Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Options
1…290291293295296…334

Comments

  • Options
    #8762
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,571 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Carfacemandog wrote: »
    If everyone agrees there is an issue with systemic racism in the US, would that include you and what do you think should be done about it?

    I think everyone is agreed the killing of George Floyd was wrong, unnecessary and avoidable. It will be investigated, a fair trial will be held and police training will almost certainly remove that method of restraint.

    As for systematic racism, what do you even mean? If the system is the media, the wealthy, the political classes, law enforcement and the great and good then its entirely clear their agenda and those the 'protestors' are aligned. Every assistance the system can offer to the 'protestors' is made.


  • Options
    #8763
    moon2
    Registered Users Posts: 705 ✭✭✭moon2


    Sand wrote: »
    Who said anything about bad apples? The police officer in question, by kneeling on his neck, was following his training.

    Excessive force is not following training. It's an indefensible event. You don't need force to apprehend or restrain a compliant person.

    In any normal country this would be a clear cut guilty verdict.


  • Options
    #8764
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,571 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    moon2 wrote: »
    Excessive force is not following training. It's an indefensible event. You don't need force to apprehend or restrain a compliant person.

    In any normal country this would be a clear cut guilty verdict.

    All reports confirm that Floyd, while initially compliant and handcuffed, resisted being placed in the police car and that 2-4 police officers were struggling with him for several minutes. The police officer in question will almost certainly point to his training (or lack thereof) in his own defence, so experts and a court will decide if it was excessive or just training. Either way, that method of restraint will be removed from training.


  • Options
    #8765
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,939 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Sand wrote: »
    All reports confirm that Floyd, while initially compliant and handcuffed, resisted being placed in the police car and that 2-4 police officers were struggling with him for several minutes. The police officer in question will almost certainly point to his training (or lack thereof) in his own defence, so experts and a court will decide if it was excessive or just training. Either way, that method of restraint will be removed from training.

    Is that method of restraint in training? I mean we've known that was dangerous for a while. If that is on training I reckon the entire training program will have to be reexamine to see what other disasters are in there and after that thousands of officers will need retraining with the updated techniques.

    Even more reason for the protests to force reform if they are that badly run.


  • Options
    #8766
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,571 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Is that method of restraint in training? I mean we've known that was dangerous for a while. If that is on training I reckon the entire training program will have to be reexamine to see what other disasters are in there and after that thousands of officers will need retraining with the updated techniques.

    Even more reason for the protests to force reform if they are that badly run.

    It is, but surely wont make it to the next version of the handbook. It's considered a less lethal form of restraint. As I noted earlier, most PDs in that state have banned the practise, but its still employed by that PD. There are caveats around its usage but those details are what this police officers defence or conviction will hinge on.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8767
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,247 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    We've reached peak gymnastic rhetoric here, excusing murder.

    But but but, just give over. One man murdered another and you're saying it's all ok


  • Options
    #8768
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,571 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    duploelabs wrote: »
    We've reached peak gymnastic rhetoric here, excusing murder.

    But but but, just give over. One man murdered another and you're saying it's all ok

    Peak hysteria maybe.

    'Wrong, unnecessary and avoidable' is how I described it. A trial will determine the facts.


  • Options
    #8769
    StringerBell
    Registered Users Posts: 14,150 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Sand wrote: »
    I'm representing my own views - you understand that, correct? Other people can represent their own. Clearly people choose to interpret events as best suits their own views, but others don't have to accept their interpretation.

    We agree completely on all points there.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Options
    #8770
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,939 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Sand wrote: »
    It is, but surely wont make it to the next version of the handbook. It's considered a less lethal form of restraint. As I noted earlier, most PDs in that state have banned the practise, but its still employed by that PD. There are caveats around its usage but those details are what this police officers defence or conviction will hinge on.

    So essentially all higher ups in the pd need to be fired if they are that behind the times, obviously unfit for the job.

    If you are right the the entire handbook may need a complete rewrite for the next edition plus plenty of training. PDs across the country will need their training audited by 3rd parties. If this stayed in the then who knows what garbage is in there!

    Deleting a line of a handbook won't be enough.


  • Options
    #8771
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,247 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    Sand wrote: »
    Peak hysteria maybe.

    'Wrong, unnecessary and avoidable' is how I described it. A trial will determine the facts.

    No police force has the power to enact justice on a suspect, they're not Judge Dredd. Do you think that George Floyd deserved it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8772
    StringerBell
    Registered Users Posts: 14,150 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Are you sure that's in the training manual? Kneeling on someone in that manner? For that length of time, even after no pulse detected on that victim actually? Is that following training? I'd be surprised as we have heard nothing but that move is not taught in any training manual but open to correction if you can link me to where you have read that or seen it maybe?

    It also raises the question, why was this man fired if he was simply following training and how could they charge with second degree murder and his accomplices with aiding and abetting that charge?

    Surely he would have a wrongful dismissal case, the police are very slow to take action against officers but this was pretty much an instant firing and charges brought very quickly. Please direct me to where I can read about this in the training manual, genuinely interested.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Options
    #8773
    Hermy
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 11,367 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hermy


    Sand wrote: »
    ...a fair trial will be held...
    You don't know that.
    Sand wrote: »
    A trial will determine the facts.
    You don't know that either.
    Sand wrote: »
    The police officer in question will almost certainly point to his training (or lack thereof) in his own defence

    "I deliberately killed a man because I wasn't given sufficient training."

    Interesting defence.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Options
    #8774
    Midlife
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭Midlife


    Sand wrote: »
    All reports confirm that Floyd, while initially compliant and handcuffed, resisted being placed in the police car and that 2-4 police officers were struggling with him for several minutes. The police officer in question will almost certainly point to his training (or lack thereof) in his own defence, so experts and a court will decide if it was excessive or just training. Either way, that method of restraint will be removed from training.


    That won't work though. The thing about being permitted to use force is that you have to maintain control and be able to judge the situation.

    Kneeling on the neck of a handcuffed man until he loses consciousness and then staying there until paramedics arrive and then staying for a further minute.

    That's straight up murder. Police are thought to perceive threats and use force in accordance with what they perceive. That's why the 'we shot him because we thought he had a gun' makes sense. There's no way he can say the unconscious handcuffed man was a threat. It wasn't a split second decision.

    Training doesn't come into it. He lost control and killed someone.


  • Options
    #8775
    Carfacemandog
    Registered Users Posts: 2,042 ✭✭✭Carfacemandog


    Sand wrote: »
    I think everyone is agreed the killing of George Floyd was wrong, unnecessary and avoidable. It will be investigated, a fair trial will be held and police training will almost certainly remove that method of restraint.

    As for systematic racism, what do you even mean? If the system is the media, the wealthy, the political classes, law enforcement and the great and good then its entirely clear their agenda and those the 'protestors' are aligned. Every assistance the system can offer to the 'protestors' is made.
    I mean the policing and judicial systems in the US being racist. That is what the initial point of these protests was about, and you have said 'everyone agrees' when questioning why there are even protests occurring.

    So if you agree that it is an issue and are under the assumption everyone else also does, then what do you think should be done about this systemic racism in American law enforcement?


  • Options
    #8776
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,571 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Christy42 wrote: »
    So essentially all higher ups in the pd need to be fired if they are that behind the times, obviously unfit for the job.

    If you are right the the entire handbook may need a complete rewrite for the next edition plus plenty of training. PDs across the country will need their training audited by 3rd parties. If this stayed in the then who knows what garbage is in there!

    Deleting a line of a handbook won't be enough.

    There will assuredly be reforms. It is unlikely police will be abolished though. And placing non-compliant suspects into custody using force will still be part of the job for police officers. So while more dangerous manoeuvres (like this one) will be removed, there will still be training on restraints and use of force.
    duploelabs wrote: »
    No police force has the power to enact justice on a suspect, they're not Judge Dredd. Do you think that George Floyd deserved it?

    I point you again to 'wrong, unnecessary and avoidable'.
    StringerBell wrote: »
    Are you sure that's in the training manual?

    Yes, it's widely reported as being in the training manual for that PD. USA Today. NBC.
    Kneeling on someone in that manner? For that length of time, even after no pulse detected on that victim actually? Is that following training?

    Those questions will be what the police officer's court case hinges on. Was the manoeuvre appropriate, was it carried out correctly, was the officer trained to use it, at what point should the officer have ceased using it, etc,etc.
    I'd be surprised as we have heard nothing but that move is not taught in any training manual but open to correction if you can link me to where you have read that or seen it maybe?

    I'm not surprised. People live in media bubbles and consume only the news they want to hear.
    It also raises the question, why was this man fired if he was simply following training and how could they charge with second degree murder and his accomplices with aiding and abetting that charge?

    The police chief is a political appointee of the mayor. Regardless of the facts, the politically expedient thing to do was fire those cops. There is nothing to be gained by shielding them from the tsunami of media, corporate and political power that was descending upon them.
    Surely he would have a wrongful dismissal case.

    He might if he successfully defends himself. If he is convicted, then he wont.
    Hermy wrote: »
    You don't know that.

    True, it will be very hard for the police officer to get a fair trial as he's been convicted in the media already. But I believe there is still a chance of a fair trial.
    You don't know that either.

    There have been injustices in court before, true, but largely speaking courts do get to the facts of the case.

    "I deliberately killed a man because I wasn't given sufficient training."

    Interesting defence.

    Your framing of the defence is interesting.


  • Options
    #8777
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,571 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Midlife wrote: »
    That won't work though. The thing about being permitted to use force is that you have to maintain control and be able to judge the situation.

    Oh, its a long shot alright. The cops called for that ambulance because Floyd started coughing up blood. They were also shouting at him to get up and get in the car. He said clearly that he would get in the car, but that he couldn't get up with the officer's knee on his neck.

    Both these points are decision points and the cop will have to explain why he kept restraining Floyd when he said he would get in the car. But that will be the basis of his defence.


  • Options
    #8778
    StringerBell
    Registered Users Posts: 14,150 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    I'm on the mobile and quoting that whole thing to respond seems a bit mad to me so I'll come back to this later :)

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Options
    #8779
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,571 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Carfacemandog wrote: »
    I mean the policing and judicial systems in the US being racist.

    If you're going to make an assertion like that you need to support it.


  • Options
    #8780
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,579 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Wait. If its part of the training then doesn't that mean that all the other cops, you know the ones that haven't killed people, have been wrong?

    There is gun training , that doesn't mean a cop can shoot anyone they like.


  • Options
    #8781
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,579 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Sand wrote: »
    Who said anything about bad apples? The police officer in question, by kneeling on his neck, was following his training. The manoeuvre is banned by most police departments in that state, because its seen as far too dangerous, but it is permitted by the that police department. And you can be sure that will be the basis of that police officers defence.

    What will happen is the training will be changed, and that manoeuvre will be banned there as well and likely in other police forces.

    You are lumping all protesters in as one group, I was saying that should be treat all police officers as potential murderers. That is the logic you are using.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8782
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,571 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Wait. If its part of the training then doesn't that mean that all the other cops, you know the ones that haven't killed people, have been wrong?

    No, it doesn't.
    There is gun training , that doesn't mean a cop can shoot anyone they like.

    Correct.


  • Options
    #8783
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,247 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    Can't reply properly to your post Sand but 'wrong, unnecessary and avoidable' when someone is killed would be appropriate if they died subject to a shark attack or something similar. Not from an interaction with a public official who is there to 'Serve and Protect'.


    Protect.


    Protect from harm.


    Not murder, which would quite the opposite


  • Options
    #8784
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,571 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    You are lumping all protesters in as one group, I was saying that should be treat all police officers as potential murderers. That is the logic you are using.

    No, it isnt.


  • Options
    #8785
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,571 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    duploelabs wrote: »
    Can't reply properly to your post Sand but 'wrong, unnecessary and avoidable' when someone is killed would be appropriate if they died subject to a shark attack or something similar. Not from an interaction with a public official who is there to 'Serve and Protect'.


    Protect.


    Protect from harm.


    Not murder, which would quite the opposite

    The police were called to protect the public from Floyd at the time they arrested him.

    Floyd was a convicted armed robber (carried out a home invasion, threatening a pregnant woman's unborn child with a gun) who was high on fentanyl, had recently used meth and had just robbed a shop.

    His arrest should absolutely not have resulted in his death, and the continued use of restraint after Floyd agreed to get in the car was wrong and unnecessary in my inexpert view. This isnt Judge Dredd or whatever other hysteria you might believe.


  • Options
    #8786
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,247 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    Sand wrote: »
    The police were called to protect the public from Floyd at the time they arrested him.

    Floyd was a convicted armed robber (carried out a home invasion, threatening a pregnant woman's unborn child with a gun) who was high on fentanyl, had recently used meth and had just robbed a shop.

    His arrest should absolutely not have resulted in his death, and the continued use of restraint after Floyd agreed to get in the car was wrong and unnecessary in my inexpert view. This isnt Judge Dredd or whatever other hysteria you might believe.

    Wait. You say he's been convicted, did he serve his time for those crimes? Does he deserve to be executed for robbing the shop?


  • Options
    #8787
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,571 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    duploelabs wrote: »
    Wait, has these facts that you attest to been proven in a court of law? Does he deserve to be executed for those crimes?

    I point you again to 'Wrong, unnecessary and avoidable'

    And yes, he was convicted for his role in the home invasion. The fentanyl in his system and the signs of recent meth use was verified by the medical examiner back last Monday.


  • Options
    #8788
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,247 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    Sand wrote: »
    I point you again to 'Wrong, unnecessary and avoidable'

    Ah yes, the sh!t happens defence when you run someone over


  • Options
    #8789
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,247 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    Sand wrote: »
    I point you again to 'Wrong, unnecessary and avoidable'

    And yes, he was convicted for his role in the home invasion. The fentanyl in his system and the signs of recent meth use was verified by the medical examiner back last Monday.

    So because he has drugs in his system he's a violent criminal?


  • Options
    #8790
    extra gravy
    Registered Users Posts: 22,625 ✭✭✭✭extra gravy


    Sand wrote: »
    The police were called to protect the public from Floyd at the time they arrested him.

    Yeah he must have been really scary waving that $20 dollar bill around.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8791
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,571 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    duploelabs wrote: »
    Ah yes, the sh!t happens defence when you run someone over

    Are you American? Did you know Floyd personally? Or are you just this agitated about the event because the media says you ought to be?

    Where was this energy when 7 year old Emily Jones was practically decapitated in front of her parents? Of course the media framing on that was very different. No systematic issue to investigate there.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement