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

Minnesota officer shoots dead another innocent black victim

Options
1…171819202123»

Comments

  • Options
    #662
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 52,009 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Again, what criminal act that he was convicted for are you referring to?
    I believe the warrant was for breaking the terms of his bond, nothing more.


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Link to his conviction perhaps?
    Your definition of a threat that requires using lethal force to stop clearly differs from mine.

    Your whole case is based on its, buts and maybes, I find it incredible that you can't see this.

    Considering the *warrant* (note that this is different than a conviction) for the incident dates back to 2019, at what point does he stop being a dangerous gun wielding thug who must be restrained via lethal force? Is it perhaps when he doesn't actually have a gun?

    It's a wonder the judge didn't just order his execution and bypass all this awkward trial stuff.

    Where did I mention a conviction in those posts?
    Maybe if he had shown up for court he would have been convicted for the violent robbery of that poor woman, but he didn’t show hence the warrant.
    Well he’s too late showing up now 😂😂


  • Options
    #663
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 38,529 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    GreeBo wrote:
    Link to his conviction perhaps? Your definition of a threat that requires using lethal force to stop clearly differs from mine.
    The intent was to use a taser not a gun. If the officer had used the proper weapon we wouldn't be talking about it.
    This is a case of a mistake being made. It was negligence, officer should lose her job over it.
    There was no intent to kill.
    Obviously that mistake means the whole way these things are carried has to be looked at. Has to be a completely different release mechanism for a taser than a firearm to ensure this doesn't ever happen again.


  • Options
    #664
    Fandymo
    Registered Users Posts: 4,177 ✭✭✭Fandymo


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    If you want to judge the victim for issues in his past and imply a threat, we can similarly judge the cop for her involvement in a police cover up and imply that she is more than capable of covering her tracks.

    This wasn't an issue in his past. It was a current case and he had skipped his court date. He was a fugitive at the time he was pulled over.


  • Options
    #665
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,164 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Where did I mention a conviction in those posts?

    "The victim was a threat. He had previously robbed a woman at gunpoint. It was therefore very likely and probably suspected by the police officers that he had a gun in the car. He was already proven to be a dangerous thug."

    I presume you can back up these assertions by linking to his convictions for these alleged crimes?
    tayto lover wrote: »
    Maybe if he had shown up for court he would have been convicted for the violent robbery of that poor woman, but he didn’t show hence the warrant.
    Maybe if he was a dragon he could have flown away?
    tayto lover wrote: »
    Well he’s too late showing up now 😂😂
    Hilarious dead kid jokes.


  • Options
    #666
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    GreeBo wrote: »
    deliberately pulled a firearm and squeezed the trigger and quite frankly in a slightly hysterical way.

    I am not exactly old and experienced but I have to say I have never met a single person in a highly tense situation who was "hysterical" and "deliberate" at the exact same time. They have always in my limited experience been exclusively one or the other. Though I have no doubt there are exceptions somewhere - it certainly leaves me skeptical about any such vicarious evaluation of events there. Events I know nothing about myself so I only have the evaluation of others to go by.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    thats why police are trained to deal with these scenarios without using lethal force.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    The difference between them and everyone else is that they are trained to deal with these situations, precisely because they are tense
    GreeBo wrote: »
    He'd also be alive if that cop had actually used her training...

    I have to plead near total ignorance here. I honestly do not know what "training" cops over there get. Hell I do not even know what cops _here_ get.

    The most I know is that it seems to differ quite wildly state to state. So we can not really make any sweeping generalizations about what training they have or should or should not use.

    But you seem to refer to their training quite often. Seeming to indicate you know more. So could you enlighten us? What exact training do they get? Both overall and in general - but also specifically training on diffusing and evaluating highly tense situation - the use of lethal force and weaponry - the use of nonlethal force and weaponry - and the distinction between when and how each should be employed or withheld? What are the total number of hours training a cop gets? What is the break down as to what that curriculum entails?

    Again not sure if what I read was true or if I understood it but I read in California for example its something like 600 or 800 hours of training to become a cop. For comparison The California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology requires 1500 hours there to become a barber.

    The reason I ask is that what little I have read / know on the subject suggests that cops in at least one state - maybe more - get 4 hours training on that _every two years_. And of that 4 hours much of it is spent at a desk learning about policy rather than anything practical.

    But my ignorance is such that I do not know how true that is or if I have understood what I read on the subject. So perhaps you know more.

    What I do know however after near 15 years training is how to fight and teach those styles of fighting to newbies. And if I wanted to train a cop in nonlethal techniques without weapons I would want a minimum of 1 hour per week - not 4 hours per year - before I would feel confident in their abilities or expect them to feel confident in their own. I have been training my 10 year old daughter to fight since she was 3. If what I read about the training cops get in the US is true I can honestly say that if a cop there attempted to restrain my daughter - I can with absolutely no confidence suggest he will succeed in doing so. In fact depending on the cop - I would say a significant % of the time it would be him finding himself restrained by her. A suspicion born out from the entertainment value I get from watching her frail little form do exactly that to pretty much all of my grown adult male friends and the burning red face of embarrassment they are left with after it happens :)
    GreeBo wrote: »
    Right, and what's wrong with restraining via non lethal force?

    I would hope that the US allow their police to do just that. However - again with my relative ignorance about National level and state level laws - I am not really feeling great about what little I have read there. For example I read that recently New York signed policy in that criminalizes some of the most basic "Non lethal force" moves the average cop would want to use. Merely sitting on the torso of a criminal seemingly criminalizes the cop. Let alone the most basic rear hold choke.

    These are moves I rush to point out that I almost daily train my 10 year old daughter to apply - and I apply them on her.

    Daily. Since she was 4.

    These are not things that are going to injure let alone kill a 10 year old girl. Let alone a grown adult. And yet their use by a cop risks that cop bringing criminal prosecution on themselves if what I read is true. But again - ignorance here - I have not read that much about it nor am I 100% sure I understood what I read. But if I did understand what I read there then New York have basically castrated their cops ability to be effective and have essentially incentivized the use of more violent or even more lethal methods of force. Which is certainly not a good thing if true.

    That said as someone who knows how to fight with nearly 15 years of training it is worth understanding what you even mean by "Nonlethal force". There are a number of different categories. But I expect the two that are most relevant to cop on suspect scenarios are going to be "restraint" and "pain compliance techniques".

    I repeat that I would hope the former is exactly what the cops are allowed do and are trained to do. But again with my relative ignorance on the subject I do not like what little I have read on both their ability and their mandate to do so.

    And alas "pain compliance" is not really ideal in most situations but even more so for cops. Because it simply does not always work. Especially in cases of people who are mentally unstable deranged or compromised. Someone on drugs or in a heightened state of anxiety or rage for example. Or - as one person in the thread mentioned (actually was it you, I forget?) - the escalation of violence against suspects who are mentally impaired medically or naturally in some way. In fact not only can pain compliance fail on such people - it can in fact go entirely the opposite direction and positively effect a lack of compliance or even heightened ability and incentive to resist compliance. Or what people refer to as "pain compliance becoming pain defiance".

    So yea I repeat once again where my areas of ignorance and knowledge separate here and I do not know what I am talking about - while you seem to indicate a few times you do - so I would welcome some education on the matter.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #667
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,164 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I am not exactly old and experienced but I have to say I have never met a single person in a highly tense situation who was "hysterical" and "deliberate" at the exact same time.
    Well she didn't accidentally pull a weapon and accidentally squeeze the trigger, so then it was deliberately. She may have meant to pull a different weapon but her plan was to a pull a lethal weapon and use it it on the victim. I dont think thats in doubt? It certainly hasnt been raised anywhere I have read.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    The most I know is that it seems to differ quite wildly state to state. So we can not really make any sweeping generalizations about what training they have or should or should not use.
    We can't comment on their training of lack thereof?
    There are countless reports on how they are trained to keep gun and taser on different sides, specifically to avoid this situation, you can see the other officers all have them as guided.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    But you seem to refer to their training quite often. Seeming to indicate you know more. So could you enlighten us? What exact training do they get? Both overall and in general - but also specifically training on diffusing and evaluating highly tense situation - the use of lethal force and weaponry - the use of nonlethal force and weaponry - and the distinction between when and how each should be employed or withheld? What are the total number of hours training a cop gets? What is the break down as to what that curriculum entails?
    Ah ha!, Gotcha! I cant give you the hourly breakdown thus my point is invalid?
    I think we can agree that the training at the very least includes "this metal thing is a gun, this yellow thing is a taser"?
    In fact her training manual states
    "The Brooklyn Center police manual states that officers must position Tasers "in a reaction-side holster on the side opposite the duty weapon." It also says officers need to be trained at least annually, and the training should include "performing reaction-hand draws or cross-draws to reduce the possibility of accidentally drawing and firing a firearm.""
    Deleted User wrote: »

    The reason I ask is that what little I have read / know on the subject suggests that cops in at least one state - maybe more - get 4 hours training on that _every two years_. And of that 4 hours much of it is spent at a desk learning about policy rather than anything practical.

    But my ignorance is such that I do not know how true that is or if I have understood what I read on the subject. So perhaps you know more.
    I have no further details, other than what I have shared above.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    What I do know however after near 15 years training is how to fight and teach those styles of fighting to newbies. And if I wanted to train a cop in nonlethal techniques without weapons I would want a minimum of 1 hour per week - not 4 hours per year - before I would feel confident in their abilities or expect them to feel confident in their own. I have been training my 10 year old daughter to fight since she was 3. If what I read about the training cops get in the US is true I can honestly say that if a cop there attempted to restrain my daughter - I can with absolutely no confidence suggest he will succeed in doing so. In fact depending on the cop - I would say a significant % of the time it would be him finding himself restrained by her. A suspicion born out from the entertainment value I get from watching her frail little form do exactly that to pretty much all of my grown adult male friends and the burning red face of embarrassment they are left with after it happens :)



    I would hope that the US allow their police to do just that. However - again with my relative ignorance about National level and state level laws - I am not really feeling great about what little I have read there. For example I read that recently New York signed policy in that criminalizes some of the most basic "Non lethal force" moves the average cop would want to use. Merely sitting on the torso of a criminal seemingly criminalizes the cop. Let alone the most basic rear hold choke.
    I dont think anyone would disagree that they need more training in the core competencies that they would need, what they dont need more training is in how to drive a armoured vehicle, for example.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    These are moves I rush to point out that I almost daily train my 10 year old daughter to apply - and I apply them on her.

    Daily. Since she was 4.

    These are not things that are going to injure let alone kill a 10 year old girl. Let alone a grown adult. And yet their use by a cop risks that cop bringing criminal prosecution on themselves if what I read is true. But again - ignorance here - I have not read that much about it nor am I 100% sure I understood what I read. But if I did understand what I read there then New York have basically castrated their cops ability to be effective and have essentially incentivized the use of more violent or even more lethal methods of force. Which is certainly not a good thing if true.

    That said as someone who knows how to fight with nearly 15 years of training it is worth understanding what you even mean by "Nonlethal force". There are a number of different categories. But I expect the two that are most relevant to cop on suspect scenarios are going to be "restraint" and "pain compliance techniques".
    As I already asid, I would have started with pepper spray to incapacitate the victim.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I repeat that I would hope the former is exactly what the cops are allowed do and are trained to do. But again with my relative ignorance on the subject I do not like what little I have read on both their ability and their mandate to do so.
    I think its naive to think that cops are going to have the same level of training as someone who trains daily since the age of 4 and as such, I'm not really sure of the value of such comparisons?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    And alas "pain compliance" is not really ideal in most situations but even more so for cops. Because it simply does not always work. Especially in cases of people who are mentally unstable deranged or compromised. Someone on drugs or in a heightened state of anxiety or rage for example. Or - as one person in the thread mentioned (actually was it you, I forget?) - the escalation of violence against suspects who are mentally impaired medically or naturally in some way. In fact not only can pain compliance fail on such people - it can in fact go entirely the opposite direction and positively effect a lack of compliance or even heightened ability and incentive to resist compliance. Or what people refer to as "pain compliance becoming pain defiance".

    So yea I repeat once again where my areas of ignorance and knowledge separate here and I do not know what I am talking about - while you seem to indicate a few times you do - so I would welcome some education on the matter.
    Again, I'd start with pepper spray, why do they carry it if not to use it?


  • Options
    #668
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Well she didn't accidentally pull a weapon and accidentally squeeze the trigger, so then it was deliberately.

    Again I know nothing about the incident so I can not comment. All I was saying is that the description of someone being "Deliberate" and "hysterical" at the same time leaves me somewhat skeptical for no other reason than it is far outside any personal experience I have ever had. Not saying it can not happen or anything like that. It just does not sit with me as something I could take at face value.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    We can't comment on their training of lack thereof?

    Not close at all to what I said no. I said we can not make any sweeping comments about training in the US - given the differences from state to state. Saying we can not make sweeping comments is quite a different thing to saying we can not make any comments.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    Ah ha!, Gotcha! I cant give you the hourly breakdown thus my point is invalid?

    Also not even remotely close to what I said no. You are being very defensive here as if I am somehow on the attack - trying to catch you out - or trying to undermine you. You have gone on the defensive without cause and I am rather confused by it.

    What I am saying is that _I_ know next to nothing about their training - you have commented on their training a lot - so I was testing the water to see what knowledge you actually have on the matter that you might be able to pass on to me. Your instant leap to this defensive attitude is rather unwarranted.

    But if we are going to keep seeing comments like "They should have used their training" or "they are trained for this" then it seems like a useful first move would be to find out what training they actually get - to what extent - and to what repetition. What little I have read _so far_ on the subject suggests the answer to this question is far from heartening.

    The handbook you quote for example gives me the chills. "performing reaction-hand draws or cross-draws to reduce the possibility of accidentally drawing and firing a firearm." is done "annually"? Once a year? I would hope that the aim is to train certain things to be muscle memory and second nature in a cop even under duress or stress. You are not going to achieve that result in a non-stressed class room once a year or even once a month. Drilling instant reactions into a person in a nonstress situation to the point it will be as close to 100% natural in a duress situation needs to be done a _loooot_ more than that.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    I think its naive to think that cops are going to have the same level of training as someone who trains daily since the age of 4 and as such, I'm not really sure of the value of such comparisons?

    The purpose of the comparison is actually to establish a continuum of competency rather than a direct comparison. The difference between daily training and 4 hours training every two years is incredible. However my point would be that I think expecting cops to be at _either_ end of that continuum should be considered somewhat ridiculous. I am not making a comparison as you say therefore - so much as establishing the limits of the conversation space within which their training could be usefully discussed and evaluated.

    However as I said in another part of my (admittedly long) post - if you gave me a room full of cops for one hour a week I would be fairly confident of reducing incidents with poor outcomes across the board in cop on suspect interactions. And in fact judging by something I just read in the last hour where in fact this was tried in Marietta - I might be somewhat justified in that confidence.

    Again - if what I read earlier today is true the cops get something around _half_ the number of hours training as a barber does in at least one state. That is chilling to me even before realizing that significant %s of that training will not even be hands on training but sitting at a desk learning things like law and policy.


  • Options
    #669
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,164 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Again I know nothing about the incident so I can not comment. All I was saying is that the description of someone being "Deliberate" and "hysterical" at the same time leaves me somewhat skeptical for no other reason than it is far outside any personal experience I have ever had. Not saying it can not happen or anything like that. It just does not sit with me as something I could take at face value.
    But unless the argument is that she didnt mean to pull any weapon then I dont understand your point?
    Taking her at face value, she pulled the wrong one, but she still made the decision to pull a lethal weapon (taser being a lethal weapon)
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not close at all to what I said no. I said we can not make any sweeping comments about training in the US - given the differences from state to state. Saying we can not make sweeping comments is quite a different thing to saying we can not make any comments.
    Im very comfortable making the sweeping statement that they are all trained to distinguish between a gun and a taser.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Also not even remotely close to what I said no. You are being very defensive here as if I am somehow on the attack - trying to catch you out - or trying to undermine you. You have gone on the defensive without cause and I am rather confused by it.

    What I am saying is that _I_ know next to nothing about their training - you have commented on their training a lot - so I was testing the water to see what knowledge you actually have on the matter that you might be able to pass on to me. Your instant leap to this defensive attitude is rather unwarranted.

    But if we are going to keep seeing comments like "They should have used their training" or "they are trained for this" then it seems like a useful first move would be to find out what training they actually get - to what extent - and to what repetition. What little I have read _so far_ on the subject suggests the answer to this question is far from heartening.

    The handbook you quote for example gives me the chills. "performing reaction-hand draws or cross-draws to reduce the possibility of accidentally drawing and firing a firearm." is done "annually"? Once a year? I would hope that the aim is to train certain things to be muscle memory and second nature in a cop even under duress or stress. You are not going to achieve that result in a non-stressed class room once a year or even once a month. Drilling instant reactions into a person in a nonstress situation to the point it will be as close to 100% natural in a duress situation needs to be done a _loooot_ more than that.
    I dont disagree, but I would suggest that tha handbook gives the minimum. Officers should be training on the own also, but I'd wager that most extra-curricular training involves a gun range...
    Deleted User wrote: »


    The purpose of the comparison is actually to establish a continuum of competency rather than a direct comparison. The difference between daily training and 4 hours training every two years is incredible. However my point would be that I think expecting cops to be at _either_ end of that continuum should be considered somewhat ridiculous. I am not making a comparison as you say therefore - so much as establishing the limits of the conversation space within which their training could be usefully discussed and evaluated.

    However as I said in another part of my (admittedly long) post - if you gave me a room full of cops for one hour a week I would be fairly confident of reducing incidents with poor outcomes across the board in cop on suspect interactions. And in fact judging by something I just read in the last hour where in fact this was tried in Marietta - I might be somewhat justified in that confidence.

    Again - if what I read earlier today is true the cops get something around _half_ the number of hours training as a barber does in at least one state. That is chilling to me even before realizing that significant %s of that training will not even be hands on training but sitting at a desk learning things like law and policy.
    Again, 100%. But this is really what defund the police is about, its not about cutting training, its about getting the cops to spend the time on money on the things they need to be good cops.
    Not marriage counsellors or an army unit.


  • Options
    #670
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,146 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Fandymo wrote: »
    This wasn't an issue in his past. It was a current case and he had skipped his court date. He was a fugitive at the time he was pulled over.

    It was an issue in his past - just like the cop's shady behaviour.

    The warrant that was out for him had nothing to do with the robbery incident.


  • Options
    #671
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,146 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    tayto lover wrote: »
    By implying that about her for a current issue is at least jumping he gun ( no pun intended ����) unless you can provide a link to when she committed a criminal act previously which you somehow forgot to do. If you can then I’d like to read it. It might sway my opinion if she had previously been convicted of a violent act.

    She was convicted of the crime as much as the victim in this case was - is it suddenly a different standard for cops?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #672
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 52,009 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    GreeBo wrote: »
    "The victim was a threat. He had previously robbed a woman at gunpoint. It was therefore very likely and probably suspected by the police officers that he had a gun in the car. He was already proven to be a dangerous thug."

    I presume you can back up these assertions by linking to his convictions for these alleged crimes?


    Maybe if he was a dragon he could have flown away?


    Hilarious dead kid jokes.

    Everything you need to know is in the thread. That’s where I read it all. You can do the same.
    I’m not doing your homework for you,

    A quick synopsis though - warrant in existence for armed robber.
    Armed robber stopped by police.
    Armed robber resists.
    Officer goes for taser.
    Officer mistakenly pulls out gun and shoots him once.
    Officer says she pulled gun by mistake.
    He dies.
    Poor work from the officer but clearly an accident.
    Police officer will be sacked and might be convicted of manslaughter.
    Manslaughter = unlawful killing without malice aforethought.


  • Options
    #673
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    GreeBo wrote: »
    But unless the argument is that she didnt mean to pull any weapon then I dont understand your point? Im very comfortable making the sweeping statement that they are all trained to distinguish between a gun and a taser.

    Again - no point. Other than what I said about "hysterical" and "deliberate" not being too states I have ever heard or seen someone described in simultaneously before. It's just surprising to me to hear.

    I know nothing about any specific incident so we risk talking past each other as I talk in generalities while you talk about the specifics of a single incident however.

    Certainly it would be no surprise to me to hear that someone hysterical - even to a small degree - might fail to distinguish under duress something they would easily and automatically distinguish under classroom conditions. I have seen myself many times in life (in non life threatening situations) just what a modicum of stress or duress can do to the poorly trained - or even well trained people who have had the wrong kind of training. But so far what little I am reading makes me feel the average cop over there is no more _significantly_ trained than any average member of the public with no training.

    Humans are essentially animals and it takes a lot less than you would expect to turn them into rabbits frozen in a set of headlights. In fact as someone who practices a lot of close up magician stuff and "mentalism" style magic - a serious chunk of my performance is reliant on just how easy it is to derail the thought processes of the average human being. So I have learned in ways many people have not just how unwarranted expectations of peoples performances are if you put them in situations even minutely outside their normal comfort zone or competencies.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    I'd wager that most extra-curricular training involves a gun range... Again, 100%. But this is really what defund the police is about, its not about cutting training, its about getting the cops to spend the time on money on the things they need to be good cops. Not marriage counsellors or an army unit.

    I do not like to "wager" on basic data. I like to know specifics and realities. Which is why I asked you to educate me because your posts gave the impression you knew more. But I think you probably know around as much as me if we are being fair? Or at least that is now the impression I am now being left with. So it seems both of us could do with someone in the know to come along and educate us more on the subject. Actually I see there is currently an AMA with a US Cop over on the AMA forum? I haven't read it yet but perhaps I should pop over and see if that issue was covered.

    It seems to me that there is a gulf between the training and competency the public over there expect or "wager" the police get - and the reality. And a lot of the public backlash the cops get - especially to viral you tube videos of police incidents - seem to be grounded in that expectancy disparity. The higher the expectancy a public has of a persons performance in any field at all - the lower their evaluation is naturally going to be of any incident they come to parse. It could not be otherwise really.

    An incident of a cop shooting a drunk firefighter springs to mind as a good example of the public coming out with a lot of very ignorant "Why did the cop not just - " type comments. Comments that someone trained to fight like myself get nothing from other than a clear picture that the keyboard warrior in question has never been in a fight themselves much less been trained to do so. And I have a strong feeling that had I been training that exact cop myself for an hour a week for even half a year before that incident - it would have ended very differently indeed.

    So now what they seem to have over there is an all time low in applications to the force - an all time high in requests for transfer or retirement - a perfect storm for the kind of people who now will apply to the force being exactly the kind we would not want getting that kind of job - and ridiculous laws in places like New York that say they can now no longer sit kneel or stand on a suspects torso and never use a choke hold or head lock which basically incentivize more extreme forms and levels of physical force other than the actual ones we would want cops to be using. Criminalizing the mount position? Or their ability to incapacitate a suspect with a rear naked choke?

    That is - insanity in my opinion. In fact let me put it more explicitly than that. If I positively _wanted_ the cops to have more violent encounters with suspects and positively _wanted_ to reduce public confidence in the abilities of the cops and to sow dissent and division - criminalizing the mount position is probably the first thing that would spring to mind to do! Because now they have incentivized more use of the gun. The baton. The tazer. Objects synonymous with death or neurological damage as you pointed out yourself.

    I can barely think of a policy more effective to line up with these absolutely reversed set of priorities and incentives. And whats worse a public not trained to fight like I am - probably think such new policy is a good thing and makes them, the average joe, safer if they ever have a cop encounter when in fact the opposite could not be more true! They probably actually applaud this new policy thinking they are now safer in physical altercations with a cop. If only they knew.

    It's ridiculous and chilling and I can say I expect nothing from the US cop/public relations and incidents except to see it get quite a bit worse before it starts to get at all better. Unless that is some common sense prevails and programs like those trialed in Marietta actually start to catch on. Which there is some noises I am seeing to suggest it actually might be. So - here's hoping is all I can say. But it's a bad world indeed where a relative ignorant amateur sitting at a keyboard in Maynooth Ireland like myself can could probably come up with significantly better policy and training than what the boards and policy makers over there are.


  • Options
    #674
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,603 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    Doue to lockdown I have been watching RTE news daily. Every single mention of the this court case only reports on the prosecution. Zero coverage of the defence's arguments, except where the prosecution dismisses their argument. Unbelievable. Really poor form


  • Options
    #675
    Real Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 1,614 ✭✭✭Real Donald Trump


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    Doue to lockdown I have been watching RTE news daily. Every single mention of the this court case only reports on the prosecution. Zero coverage of the defence's arguments, except where the prosecution dismisses their argument. Unbelievable. Really poor form

    RTE virtue signalling ? no surprise there

    Pathetic station tbh


  • Options
    #676
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,146 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    Doue to lockdown I have been watching RTE news daily. Every single mention of the this court case only reports on the prosecution. Zero coverage of the defence's arguments, except where the prosecution dismisses their argument. Unbelievable. Really poor form

    I'm not surprised a foreign news source reported it that way because their case was incredibly weak and was daily torn apart during cross examination which led to such a quick verdict.

    There wasn't even a decent potential excuse of a split second decision like the case in this thread.


  • Options
    #677
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,603 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    I'm not surprised a foreign news source reported it that way because their case was incredibly weak and was daily torn apart during cross examination which led to such a quick verdict.

    There wasn't even a decent potential excuse of a split second decision like the case in this thread.

    As I mentioned elsewhere as you dont seem to know the case, i) there is a lot of bodycam evidence that his knee was on his shoulder, not neck, this evidence was presented on trial, ii) Floyd had enough drugs inside him to kill a horse, iii) Floyd was saying he can't breathe for 10 mins before hand as he didnt want to go in the car. When he said he cant breathe on the ground it is reasonable to think that he crying wolf. iiii) there is evidence that Chauvin's actions were well within code of conduct. v) reconstructions of the maneuver didn't hurt a health person when tried.


  • Options
    #678
    penny piper
    Registered Users Posts: 524 ✭✭✭penny piper


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    As I mentioned elsewhere as you dont seem to know the case, i) there is a lot of bodycam evidence that his knee was on his shoulder, not neck, this evidence was presented on trial, ii) Floyd had enough drugs inside him to kill a horse, iii) Floyd was saying he can't breathe for 10 mins before hand as he didnt want to go in the car. When he said he cant breathe on the ground it is reasonable to think that he crying wolf. iiii) there is evidence that Chauvin's actions were well within code of conduct. v) reconstructions of the maneuver didn't hurt a health person when tried.


    You should look at the case of Tony Timpa he died in 2016 in Texas ...exact same autopsy result...homicide....those officers all back on duty......his death was caused by cardiac arrest/ toxic effect of drugs/death and the stress associated with physical restraint..... no difference to chauvan/floyd situation ...


  • Options
    #679
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 52,009 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    penny piper wrote: »
    You should look at the case of Tony Timpa he died in 2016 in Texas ...exact same autopsy result...homicide....those officers all back on duty......his death was caused by cardiac arrest/ toxic effect of drugs/death and the stress associated with physical restraint..... no difference to chauvan/floyd situation ...

    Was there not evidence that there was history between them too?
    Haven’t actually followed the case myself.


  • Options
    #680
    penny piper
    Registered Users Posts: 524 ✭✭✭penny piper


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Was there not evidence that there was history between them too?
    Haven’t actually followed the case myself.

    Not that I know of ...he was a guy who was taking drugs (happened in... august 2016),
    called 911...he told the despatcher that he feared for his safety as he suffered from anxiety/schizophrenia... a private security guard had hancuffed him before
    the police officers turned up..he was unarmed and barefoot...the police officers pinned him to the ground ....for atleast 14mins
    The police officers never checked his pulse...joked when he became unresponsive that he would be late for school (he was 32}...the guy was dead within an hour of that phonecall. When he was been transported to the ambulance one of the officers said "I hope I haven't killed him".

    Those officers apart from 1 are still in the police dept....that guy's death was ruled a homicide...cardiac arrest/drugs/restraint.

    The judge Godbey, ruled that qualified immunity shields " all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law".
    Henley the family's lawyer said the judge "discounted" cases across the us where
    courts ruled against officers who killed people with the "prone restraint".
    You can actually utube the video showing the dallas police officers /actions ...these people..his family have been forgot about ...
    Tony Timpa Dallas ...


  • Options
    #681
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Potter got a sentence of 24 months, far lower than the prosecution sought. Chu, the presiding judge said it was the saddest case she’s seen in the 20 years she’s been on the bench.

    Can’t help but feel that potter is the victim of a political witch-hunt. I wonder will she have to spend her time in solitary too since she was an officer. The pound of flesh was had.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #682
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,758 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Should have lost her job but not given a jail sentence. This was nothing more than a terrible mistake.



  • Options
    #683
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,099 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118657105#Comment_118657105

    she is not the victim of anything.

    she screwed up, vialated the law and got jail nothing more.

    that's not being a victim of anything, especially some supposed political or other witch hunt, it's just the law.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #684
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,099 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118658790#Comment_118658790

    mistakes have consequences, especially when those mistakes were avoidable if one did what they were supposed to do.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #685
    10000maniacs
    Registered Users Posts: 4,917 ✭✭✭10000maniacs


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118657105#Comment_118657105

    Victim? Victim of what exactly? Her own stupidity? If I did what she did and snuff out a life for no good reason, I would accept whatever was given to me and be thankful to god I was not a black police officer.



  • Options
    #686
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118661499#Comment_118661499

    She was well within her rights to use lethal force, she went for the taser to help the criminal. She mistakenly took out the gun instead. What message does this send to future officers? Don’t use the taser, go straight for the gun.



Advertisement