United States Minnesota; Man, George Floyd, dies during arrest, cause being a cop kneeling on his neck

2) The cops around him would most likely *not* have been able to realize that he'd screwed it up, at no point were any of them close enough to determine that he was doing it wrong and for most of the video they aren't even looking in the right direction. Humans are not equipped with x-ray vision (to see through either the cruiser or the kneeling officer).
There are reports of there being an alternative video shot from a different perspective which shows three of the cops kneeling on Mr. Floyd. I haven't seen either video myself nor do I intend to, but that would obviously change things for how guilty those other cops are.
 
There are reports of there being an alternative video shot from a different perspective which shows three of the cops kneeling on Mr. Floyd. I haven't seen either video myself nor do I intend to, but that would obviously change things for how guilty those other cops are.


There's also reports that the cops themselves are running around looting and setting things on fire to frame the protesters, because of course there have never been cases where black people riot and set things on fire after a case of alleged police misconduct.

At this point, I would basically assume anything anyone says is wrong until proven otherwise by reliable evidence.
 
It is entirely reasonable to arrest someone for passing counterfeit money, whether or not they know (or more accurately, claim to know) it's counterfeit or not.
Actually, no. You only arrest people if they are a danger to others. You need to either have probable cause or a warrent out for their arrest. For non violent crime you are supposed to issue a citation and order them to appear at court at a later date.
 
Breaking news:
George Floyd died Monday from a combination of preexisting health conditions exacerbated by being held down by Minneapolis officers, not from strangulation or asphyxiation, based on the medical examiner’s initial report.
 
Actually, no. You only arrest people if they are a danger to others. You need to either have probable cause or a warrent out for their arrest. For non violent crime you are supposed to issue a citation and order them to appear at court at a later date.

I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Just on a quick google of news articles and police blotters, I'm seeing lots of people being arrested for shoplifting, noise offense, DUI, etc.
 
Breaking news:
Do you have a source that isn't the Washington Times? They are a classic fake news site, run by moonies.
Can't you shoot looters on your own property to defend it? I would figure if you own the land/building 100% outright and it isn't a franchise or something, you could have a gun to take out people who run in. Maybe not people who throw something at a window and run away, but people actually running in and trying to steal stuff?
Sadly, not in Minnesota. There is no stand your ground law, and if you aren't in your domicile, you don't get castle doctrine. So even if you feel threatened, you need to retreat.
 
Do you have a source that isn't the Washington Times? They are a classic fake news site, run by moonies.
 
Thanks!
 
Do you have a source that isn't the Washington Times? They are a classic fake news site, run by moonies.
Citation needed on them being fake news. It's a popular thing to claim they aren't a legitimate paper, but the Washington Times has been around for decades going back to the 1980s and generally has been regarded in its distribution area (Washington DC and its suburbs) as a legitimate newspaper, as and has a better reputation that the New York Post has in New York, and while their editorial pages are consistently conservative I've never seen significant evidence that they

Saying that it's "run by moonies" is nothing more than a guilt by association / ad hominem attack it as a source.
 
Breaking news:
Wellookie there....

Also we are watching Rome burn.

Never been more happy to he in Korea.

These rioters see really asking for the Guard to be mobilized arnt they?
 
A national police force is even less receptive to public pressure and has less incentive even PR incentive to care about what the community wants or thinks.

Not to mention it would be probably the greatest reorganization of the government since..1789? 1865?

To make every police department a national one.

Police departments are localized to deal with local problems-Alaska police officers and NYPD have very different challenges in terms of volume, social, climate, etc...

I can not support the nationalization of the police. It would further weaken the states and make them into provinces or departments.

From what I can tell-police and the national guard aren’t doing much to actually suppress the rioting, just cordoning it and letting it burn itself out.
The guard have not been mobilized yet. They are standing back
So not murder then. Maybe this is why we should wait and see before declaring it murder. Maybe less demagoguery over “murder” might have resulted in less rioting and mayhem.
EXACTLY! Always wait for the investigation. he should still be tried for negligence and fired and his officer license taken away.
 
The guard have not been mobilized yet. They are standing back

EXACTLY! Always wait for the investigation. he should still be tried for negligence and fired and his officer license taken away.
Right, it may still be manslaughter, but once again we must wait and see and let the jury decide such things; not an angry mob or the media liars inciting them.
 
Citation needed on them being fake news. It's a popular thing to claim they aren't a legitimate paper, but the Washington Times has been around for decades going back to the 1980s and generally has been regarded in its distribution area (Washington DC and its suburbs) as a legitimate newspaper, as and has a better reputation that the New York Post has in New York, and while their editorial pages are consistently conservative I've never seen significant evidence that they

Saying that it's "run by moonies" is nothing more than a guilt by association / ad hominem attack it as a source.
I value it much less than the NY Post. Like, I'm fine with citations to a lot of papers, I hold the Washington Times as specifically bad, about at the level I'd expect out of Gawker's affiliates.

I'm not just saying this casually, you can check the wikipedia page for more sources. Don't just trust the wikipedia page though, look at the sources, then their sources, and eventually, you'll find a Washington Times article claiming Obama is a Muslim and born in Kenya, or common a contributor that also writes for a white nationalist magazine, or another by a guy who wants the south to rise again (Oh, wait, that's the editor in chief). They denied the Ozone Layer science in 2000, which was pretty iron clad, along with other science, including second hand smoke. They wrote that a seismic event in Russia was a nuclear test, with absolutely no evidence. Turned out it was an earthquake. I could go on.
 
So not murder then. Maybe this is why we should wait and see before declaring it murder. Maybe less demagoguery over “murder” might have resulted in less rioting and mayhem.
Nope, that's murder. You don't have to intend to cause it for 3rd degree to qualify. Let's look at the definition:
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.
Had it not been for the knee on the back of the neck, George Floyd would be alive today. That means that the cop caused the death. It doesn't matter if the guy caused him to die by asphyxiation or caused in part by underlying health conditions but triggered by the cops.

A knee on the back of the neck for 8 minutes is "eminently dangerous to others".

And "the depraved mind, without regard for human life is also present" is shown by the knee being on the guys back even after the guy was no longer responsive. It might be that the jury won't convict for 3rd degree because juries defer to cops, but the guy is clearly guilty. @Doomsought posted a video that goes into detail about it and is well worth a watch:

Out favorite defense attorney has done a breakdown of the charges filed against Derek Chauvin.



TLDR: Murder in the 3rd because they think they can prove it, and manslaughter as a backup.
 
Nope, that's murder. You don't have to intend to cause it for 3rd degree to qualify. Let's look at the definition:

Had it not been for the knee on the back of the neck, George Floyd would be alive today. That means that the cop caused the death. It doesn't matter if the guy caused him to die by asphyxiation or caused in part by underlying health conditions but triggered by the cops.

A knee on the back of the neck for 8 minutes is "eminently dangerous to others".

And "the depraved mind, without regard for human life is also present" is shown by the knee being on the guys back even after the guy was no longer responsive. It might be that the jury won't convict for 3rd degree because juries defer to cops, but the guy is clearly guilty. @Doomsought posted a video that goes into detail about it and is well worth a watch:

I still think 3rd degree murder is a stretch but 2nd degree manslaughter should be a slam dunk if the jury isn’t completely stacked in favour of the cop.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top