Motoring1 min ago
Chauvin's History
I don't think I've seen anything further about him here. But it was interesting that on AB, the past of the victim seemed more important than the past of the perpetrator..
With 18 complaints plus disciplinaries for violent behaviour behind him.... has anyone changed their mind (or willing to admit) that if you give a violent control freak too much power, they will abuse it?
https:/
With 18 complaints plus disciplinaries for violent behaviour behind him.... has anyone changed their mind (or willing to admit) that if you give a violent control freak too much power, they will abuse it?
https:/
Answers
I maintain my earlier point, a handcuffed man cannot easily get to his feet, much less start causing trouble - as much trouble as you can cause without use of your hands - without being easily restrained. Had Mr Floyd managed to get up - and give it a try, just lie down, lace your fingers together behind your back and see how easy it isn't to get to your feet - any one of...
16:29 Fri 30th Apr 2021
// I haven’t changed my mind. The outcome of the trial was as I expected - a matter of political expediency rather than justice.//
another expectation contrary to fact. Juries are notoriously independent - that is why dictators do without them, durr.
Instances - are the Ponting case - jury failed to convict. Secrets law was changed after that. Americans call it jury nullification - we dont. We call it a travesty.
"The judge fined the jury for contempt of court for returning a verdict contrary to their own findings of fact and removed them to prison " Few years ago - 1689 The case that Penn of Pennsylvania was involved in
https:/
case came up when a jury failed to convict on the instruction of a judge because - - - they thought he was not guilty ( manslaughter not his fault)
ho hum - bank holiday on AB I observe
another expectation contrary to fact. Juries are notoriously independent - that is why dictators do without them, durr.
Instances - are the Ponting case - jury failed to convict. Secrets law was changed after that. Americans call it jury nullification - we dont. We call it a travesty.
"The judge fined the jury for contempt of court for returning a verdict contrary to their own findings of fact and removed them to prison " Few years ago - 1689 The case that Penn of Pennsylvania was involved in
https:/
case came up when a jury failed to convict on the instruction of a judge because - - - they thought he was not guilty ( manslaughter not his fault)
ho hum - bank holiday on AB I observe
Naomi - //
AH, I know what you believe. You've told us. //
If you know, then there is no need to confirm the fact, any more than there is need to assume that you are spokesperson for the AB - with your 'You told us'.
Anyone can read or not read anything I post, and make up their own mind - they don't require unsolicited adjudication from you.
Any danger of you addressing the point made, so we can get the thread back on track?
AH, I know what you believe. You've told us. //
If you know, then there is no need to confirm the fact, any more than there is need to assume that you are spokesperson for the AB - with your 'You told us'.
Anyone can read or not read anything I post, and make up their own mind - they don't require unsolicited adjudication from you.
Any danger of you addressing the point made, so we can get the thread back on track?
hughes
roy - // Scumbag killed by a scumbag. //
A somewhat simplistic view in my opinion.
Only one of the 'scumbags' was an individaul charged with upholding the law as his profession.
___________________________________
http://
you think one of the individuals wasn't a scumbag then.
roy - // Scumbag killed by a scumbag. //
A somewhat simplistic view in my opinion.
Only one of the 'scumbags' was an individaul charged with upholding the law as his profession.
___________________________________
http://
you think one of the individuals wasn't a scumbag then.
fcc - // andy-hughes,if you think a man in handcuffs can do no harm ,check out what happened in croydon to a police custody sergeant. //
That has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made.
The croydon prisoner was left standing at all times, and had access to the concealed weapon he was carrying.
Mr Floyd was placed on the ground, and my point was, and is, that a handcuffed man cannot easily regain his feet, certainly not fast enough not to be restrained by any of the officers standing around.
There was, and is, no need further to retrain a handcuffed individual by kneeling on their neck, with the rresults we have all seen.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made.
The croydon prisoner was left standing at all times, and had access to the concealed weapon he was carrying.
Mr Floyd was placed on the ground, and my point was, and is, that a handcuffed man cannot easily regain his feet, certainly not fast enough not to be restrained by any of the officers standing around.
There was, and is, no need further to retrain a handcuffed individual by kneeling on their neck, with the rresults we have all seen.
fcc - // andy-hughes,at 16:29 you said a man in handcuffs could do no harm,
the guy in croydon was handcuffed and killed someone. //
No, what I actually said was - // ... a handcuffed man cannot easily get to his feet, much less start causing trouble - as much trouble as you can cause without use of your hands - without being easily restrained. //
The point I am making is that a man who is prone on the ground cannot easily get to his feet and then cause trouble without easily being retrained by officers in attendence.
The issue is not that Mr Floyd was handcuffed, but that he was prone and handcuffed, whic is an entirely different situation.
If you want to re-read my full answer, and thereby understand the point I am making, and not edit out the bit that doesn't suit your comparison - feel free - it's just at the top of this page.
the guy in croydon was handcuffed and killed someone. //
No, what I actually said was - // ... a handcuffed man cannot easily get to his feet, much less start causing trouble - as much trouble as you can cause without use of your hands - without being easily restrained. //
The point I am making is that a man who is prone on the ground cannot easily get to his feet and then cause trouble without easily being retrained by officers in attendence.
The issue is not that Mr Floyd was handcuffed, but that he was prone and handcuffed, whic is an entirely different situation.
If you want to re-read my full answer, and thereby understand the point I am making, and not edit out the bit that doesn't suit your comparison - feel free - it's just at the top of this page.
If you watch any of the plethora of police reality shows, and observe someone who has been taken to the ground and then handcuffed, in every single case, without exception, the individal is helped to his feet by at least two officers.
There is a very good reason for that, trying to get to your feet with your hands cuffed behind your back is almost impossible without assistance.
There is a very good reason for that, trying to get to your feet with your hands cuffed behind your back is almost impossible without assistance.
