ChatterBank0 min ago
Derek Chauvin.... Interesting History....
Seeing as some seem quick to defend the actions of Derek Chauvin et al during the arrest and subsequent killing of George Floyd because of his past, I would like to know what your feelings are on the past history of the man arrested for the second degree murder of Mr Floyd?
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
Answers
divegirl - // The man was dead and still no one cared... you cannot defend that surely? // Retrocop could be said to be having a good go at it! Although he denies such defence, and I accept his view on that.
18:11 Sat 06th Jun 2020
A very daunting and disturbing scenario. Obviously many questions to be answered. I have to ask, if ,as they state on there presentation,that Floyd told police he couldn't get into their police car after handcuffed and arrested because he suffered from claustrophobia how come he was not claustrophobic in his pal's car when the first police car attended the scene? Did that destroy any credence in what he protested thereafter? Not defending but just asking.
''Get a grip Divegirl, this happened a continent away to somebody who means nothing to you and you say “...it is something I am really struggling with right now.”
I believe this is called having empathy... or maybe I just have really strong mirror neurons with a touch of compassion thrown in as a side...
Just trying to learn from the mistakes of others really
I believe this is called having empathy... or maybe I just have really strong mirror neurons with a touch of compassion thrown in as a side...
Just trying to learn from the mistakes of others really
//@Retrocop this has been posted before, My Floyd did not resist arrest according to video footage. He seems to be compliant.//
No argument from me there. But he apparently,according to the script, was not compliant when told to get into the police car and claimed he suffered claustrophobia. He was in his pal's car from the onset across the road where he is alleged to have tendered a forged $20 bill for cigarettes. Odd that he could sit in a private car but not a police vehicle. Must be an allegy.
No argument from me there. But he apparently,according to the script, was not compliant when told to get into the police car and claimed he suffered claustrophobia. He was in his pal's car from the onset across the road where he is alleged to have tendered a forged $20 bill for cigarettes. Odd that he could sit in a private car but not a police vehicle. Must be an allegy.
-- answer removed --
retrocop - // A very daunting and disturbing scenario. Obviously many questions to be answered. I have to ask, if ,as they state on there presentation, that Floyd told police he couldn't get into their police car after handcuffed and arrested because he suffered from claustrophobia how come he was not claustrophobic in his pal's car when the first police car attended the scene? Did that destroy any credence in what he protested thereafter? Not defending but just asking. //
I think you are defending, and your posts thus far have been defending - maybe you feel affinity for a fellow policeman, I don't know.
I do know that you have a seriously difficult job in trying to defend this officer's actions.
There has been a lot of nonsensical 'background' about both parties, which matters nothing, because it is the circumstances of Mr Floyd's death that are pertinent, not whether or not he loved his mother, or whether Mr Chauvin had the DNA of Martin Luther King in his system.
The circumstances come down to simple biology - namely, it is not that easy or quick to cut off someone's air supply sufficient that they die.
The all important point is, before death comes unconsciousness.
Now if the officer is subduing a suspect, and the suspect goes unconscious, as Mr Floyd must have done first, then that is the moment when restraint ceases because it is no longer required - the suspect is now still, and can be handcuffed and so on.
If the officer continues to apply pressure to the suspect's neck beyond unconsciousness, and for at least several minutes thereafter, then death is likely to be the result, as it was here.
I am not a doctor, I don't know the length of time it takes for unconsciousness to result in death, but I will take an educated guess that it is a lot longer than the five seconds or so it takes to realise that the suspect is no longer moving, and is therefore no longer a threat, so the restraint manoeuvre can safely be ceased.
The news reports suggest that Mr Chauvin knelt on Mr Floyd's neck for around nine minutes.
Now if you want to try and defend his behaviour, let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and say it took two whole minutes for Mr Floyd to go into unconsciousness, and let's give Mr Chauvin a full further minute to realise that Mr Floyd is no longer a threat - and that is being seriously generous on both timescales.
That still gives Mr Floyd six - count them - six minutes to lie unconscious with a police officer 'restraining' him even though he is not moving, to the point at which he expires from lack of oxygen.
If you would like to try and defend that as reasonable conduct, then go ahead, but you'll forgive me if I find your argument untenable.
I think you are defending, and your posts thus far have been defending - maybe you feel affinity for a fellow policeman, I don't know.
I do know that you have a seriously difficult job in trying to defend this officer's actions.
There has been a lot of nonsensical 'background' about both parties, which matters nothing, because it is the circumstances of Mr Floyd's death that are pertinent, not whether or not he loved his mother, or whether Mr Chauvin had the DNA of Martin Luther King in his system.
The circumstances come down to simple biology - namely, it is not that easy or quick to cut off someone's air supply sufficient that they die.
The all important point is, before death comes unconsciousness.
Now if the officer is subduing a suspect, and the suspect goes unconscious, as Mr Floyd must have done first, then that is the moment when restraint ceases because it is no longer required - the suspect is now still, and can be handcuffed and so on.
If the officer continues to apply pressure to the suspect's neck beyond unconsciousness, and for at least several minutes thereafter, then death is likely to be the result, as it was here.
I am not a doctor, I don't know the length of time it takes for unconsciousness to result in death, but I will take an educated guess that it is a lot longer than the five seconds or so it takes to realise that the suspect is no longer moving, and is therefore no longer a threat, so the restraint manoeuvre can safely be ceased.
The news reports suggest that Mr Chauvin knelt on Mr Floyd's neck for around nine minutes.
Now if you want to try and defend his behaviour, let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and say it took two whole minutes for Mr Floyd to go into unconsciousness, and let's give Mr Chauvin a full further minute to realise that Mr Floyd is no longer a threat - and that is being seriously generous on both timescales.
That still gives Mr Floyd six - count them - six minutes to lie unconscious with a police officer 'restraining' him even though he is not moving, to the point at which he expires from lack of oxygen.
If you would like to try and defend that as reasonable conduct, then go ahead, but you'll forgive me if I find your argument untenable.
Margie - // You're wasting your time daisy, the do-gooders on here will NEVER change their views, i.e. defending a thug! //
I am not a 'do-gooder' and I am certainly not 'defending a thug!' as you put it.
I am putting forward an argument that excessive force resulted in a man's death, and his status as a 'thug' or a 'saint' is not the issue here - unless you are someone who believes that being a 'thug' means that death at the hands of the police is simply an occupational hazard?
I am not a 'do-gooder' and I am certainly not 'defending a thug!' as you put it.
I am putting forward an argument that excessive force resulted in a man's death, and his status as a 'thug' or a 'saint' is not the issue here - unless you are someone who believes that being a 'thug' means that death at the hands of the police is simply an occupational hazard?
