Talk of The Villages Florida
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   The Villages, Florida, Non Villages Discussion (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-non-villages-discussion-93/)
-   -   Law to Stop Video of Police Abuse (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-non-villages-discussion-93/law-stop-video-police-abuse-318942/)

blueash 04-24-2021 08:05 AM
Law to Stop Video of Police Abuse
 
Chauvin sits in jail now, not because of citizen complaints, not because of his own body camera, not because his peers reported his behavior. He is only in jail because of the video taken by a teenager who then posted her video on the internet. The Federal Courts have held that police could not prohibit citizens from filming their behavior. It had been common for police to seize cameras back in the good old days. This protected right to film in public is actually is new, only in the last 15 years.

In response to this ability to hold bad cops responsible for bad behavior, the Oklahoma legislature is in the process of finalizing a law that will make it illegal to put a video of a cop online if it might make him really unhappy or cost him his job.
The law is supposedly to prevent doxing. No problem with that as a goal. But then it sneaks a couple extra lines into the language. You can read the bill HERE

It is very short. It prohibits web publication if such would
Quote:
cause substantial emotional distress or financial loss to the law enforcement officer, or to the family
Clearly if a video like that of Chauvin were made in Oklahoma after this passes, the person who shot the video, Darnella Frazier, would be charged. Chauvin and his family certainly suffered emotional distress and financial loss.

You say I must be making this up. Read the bill. It prohibits publication of

Quote:
"Personally identifiable information" includes, but is not limited to:
a. name,
b. birth date,
c. address,
d. telephone number,
e. driver license number,
f. Social Security number,
g. place of employment,
h. mother's maiden name, or
i. a photograph or any other realistic likeness of the person.
Under this law if your video or still photo showed the name of the cop, his name tag, you are in violation. If it shows what police department he works for, you are in violation, if it shows his face you are in violation. Who is pushing this agenda? Why are the members of the Oklahoma legislature putting this through? Lines A, G, and I have only one goal, preventing the public from being able to police bad police.

If you want to prevent doxing, get rid of several of these items. Many on this forum have suggested that no one wants to protect the bad cops. Apparently a lot of people in Oklahoma have no problem with a law that will do just that, until of course the courts overturn this attempt to punish the public for providing documentation of those cops.

tvbound 04-24-2021 08:20 AM
There are plenty of officials, who don't want their misdeeds, bias', racism/bigotry or just outright ineptitude recorded. In a similar vein, this former retired chief medical examiner (who testified for the defense and suggested the ridiculous carbon monoxide red herring) is now having 17 years of cases he was in charge of reviewed.

Maryland in-custody deaths to be reviewed after former medical examiner testified in Chauvin trial

"The letter to the Maryland attorney general and others came from former Washington, D.C., chief medical examiner Roger A. Mitchell and was signed by over 400 doctors, according to The Sun."

Along with the brave young lady that showed the world Chauvin's actions, recording the trial has also flushed out some of the injustices done in the past and hopefully will lead to them being reduced in the future.

graciegirl 04-24-2021 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1934455)
Chauvin sits in jail now, not because of citizen complaints, not because of his own body camera, not because his peers reported his behavior. He is only in jail because of the video taken by a teenager who then posted her video on the internet. The Federal Courts have held that police could not prohibit citizens from filming their behavior. It had been common for police to seize cameras back in the good old days. This protected right to film in public is actually is new, only in the last 15 years.

In response to this ability to hold bad cops responsible for bad behavior, the Oklahoma legislature is in the process of finalizing a law that will make it illegal to put a video of a cop online if it might make him really unhappy or cost him his job.
The law is supposedly to prevent doxing. No problem with that as a goal. But then it sneaks a couple extra lines into the language. You can read the bill HERE

It is very short. It prohibits web publication if such would


Clearly if a video like that of Chauvin were made in Oklahoma after this passes, the person who shot the video, Darnella Frazier, would be charged. Chauvin and his family certainly suffered emotional distress and financial loss.

You say I must be making this up. Read the bill. It prohibits publication of



Under this law if your video or still photo showed the name of the cop, his name tag, you are in violation. If it shows what police department he works for, you are in violation, if it shows his face you are in violation. Who is pushing this agenda? Why are the members of the Oklahoma legislature putting this through? Lines A, G, and I have only one goal, preventing the public from being able to police bad police.

If you want to prevent doxing, get rid of several of these items. Many on this forum have suggested that no one wants to protect the bad cops. Apparently a lot of people in Oklahoma have no problem with a law that will do just that, until of course the courts overturn this attempt to punish the public for providing documentation of those cops.
I think it is entirely possible that Derek Chauvin was an unprincipled person. I feel almost sure that George Floyd was an unprincipled person. I know, I know, we need to give everyone a new chance. George Floyd was arrested and sentenced to a penitentiary for several years for breaking into a private home and holding a gun to the belly of a pregnant woman, allowing three accomplices in to rob the home. He moved to Minnesota for a "new start". The police were called because he tried to pass a counterfeit twenty dollar bill. The camera's inside the store showed him swaying slightly and appearing to be under the influence of something. He got into a car with several other people who later refused to answer questions and took the fifth amendment as reason. I have to think they were somehow involved with buying or selling drugs, or they could have just been very private and did not want to answer questions. At the time that Derek Chauvin allowed George Floyd to die with neck pressure, that maneuver was allowed as a means of restraint. Clearly the other means of restraint used by FOUR MEN were not working. I don't know what I would have done if it had been MY job to arrest him. I believe in my heart that it would have been a dilemma whether or not he was high on drugs, and even if he was a skinny white Episcopalian. Derek Chauvin was there to arrest him and he continued to struggle hard physically. I think this has been made a racist issue above all other considerations. AND maybe it is. I am skeptical.

I am skeptical about whether this issue of "doxing" could be a red herring. I am thinking a lot of scary thoughts. Maybe because I think that people who are generally responsible and ethical worry about being at the mercy of people who are not generally responsible and ethical.

blueash 04-24-2021 08:38 AM
This law will only protect law enforcement. If you are a private citizen who misbehaves in a public park, saying yelling at a Black family for playing music too loud.. Your behavior can be recorded and posted on the internet. Or you are shopping at Walmart in your curlers or revealing clothes, there is a whole genre of online posting of those people. No protecting for your face or body from this legislation.

If you are a firefighter, no protection. If you are a paramedic, no protection. What is there about police that they need special protection against being caused emotional distress when their actions are exposed to the public? Don't want to be embarrassed? Don't do something that will reflect badly on you. Simple. This is a radical knee jerk reaction to an evil cop getting caught by the public. We need more of that, not less.

Taltarzac725 04-24-2021 08:49 AM
Looks like a bad law written by mediocre politicians and directed at getting more support from the worst of their backers.

blueash 04-24-2021 09:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1934471)
I think it is entirely possible that Derek Chauvin was an unprincipled person. I feel almost sure that George Floyd was an unprincipled person. I know, I know, we need to give everyone a new chance. George Floyd was arrested and sentenced to a penitentiary for several years for breaking into a private home and holding a gun to the belly of a pregnant woman, allowing three accomplices in to rob the home. He moved to Minnesota for a "new start". The police were called because he tried to pass a counterfeit twenty dollar bill. The camera's inside the store showed him swaying slightly and appearing to be under the influence of something. He got into a car with several other people who later refused to answer questions and took the fifth amendment as reason. I have to think they were somehow involved with buying or selling drugs, or they could have just been very private and did not want to answer questions. At the time that Derek Chauvin allowed George Floyd to die with neck pressure, that maneuver was allowed as a means of restraint. Clearly the other means of restraint used by FOUR MEN were not working. I don't know what I would have done if it had been MY job to arrest him. I believe in my heart that it would have been a dilemma whether or not he was high on drugs, and even if he was a skinny white Episcopalian. Derek Chauvin was there to arrest him and he continued to struggle hard physically. I think this has been made a racist issue above all other considerations. AND maybe it is. I am skeptical.
Gracie, I think you try to be fair and even. But you are guilty of both siderism. It does not matter what George Floyd's past criminal history might have been. It does not matter what the other people were doing in the car. Clearly they were using drugs. What mattered in the Chauvin case was that he killed Floyd well after any need to subdue him existed.
The knee : " that maneuver was allowed as a means of restraint." You are 100% wrong about that. His own chief of police testified about the technique Chauvin was using and for how long he used it. It was only permitted for seconds not for nine minutes. The trainer for the city testified "That's not what we train" Please stop making up false facts to fit your preference.
If a cop is allowed to punch you once to gain control, that does not mean he can punch you for nine minutes until you stop breathing and your heart stops beating and then claim that throwing a punch is allowed.

I know you are not a pharmacologist but the drug he had in his system are sedatives not agitators. Fentanyl will not make you violent. He was not a danger to Chauvin because of the drugs he took. He was not resisting once he was on the ground.

One of the other officers checked Floyd for a pulse several minutes into the time Chauvin was on his neck. The other officer reported that there was no pulse. What did Chauvin do? He never moved. He stayed on the neck of Floyd even when a fellow office told him the man had no pulse. Did he release his pressure. No, Did he start CPR, no. Instead he continued to apply neck pressure in a way NOT approved by the Minneapolis Police. And he did not move until the EMT's ordered him to move.

Gracie, your inability to see Mr Floyd as a human being is sad to me because I'd expect you to know that even people with problems deserve respect if not love.

This sentence tells me you are failing to grasp the truth when it is right in front of you

Quote:
Derek Chauvin allowed George Floyd to die
He did not "allow" him to die. He murdered him.

And now the State of Oklahoma is passing a law to make it easier for the next Chauvin to get away with murder.

tvbound 04-24-2021 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1934486)
Gracie, I think you try to be fair and even. But you are guilty of both siderism. It does not matter what George Floyd's past criminal history might have been. It does not matter what the other people were doing in the car. Clearly they were using drugs. What mattered in the Chauvin case was that he killed Floyd well after any need to subdue him existed.
The knee : " that maneuver was allowed as a means of restraint." You are 100% wrong about that. His own chief of police testified about the technique Chauvin was using and for how long he used it. It was only permitted for seconds not for nine minutes. The trainer for the city testified "That's not what we train" Please stop making up false facts to fit your preference.
If a cop is allowed to punch you once to gain control, that does not mean he can punch you for nine minutes until you stop breathing and your heart stops beating and then claim that throwing a punch is allowed.

I know you are not a pharmacologist but the drug he had in his system are sedatives not agitators. Fentanyl will not make you violent. He was not a danger to Chauvin because of the drugs he took. He was not resisting once he was on the ground.

One of the other officers checked Floyd for a pulse several minutes into the time Chauvin was on his neck. The other officer reported that there was no pulse. What did Chauvin do? He never moved. He stayed on the neck of Floyd even when a fellow office told him the man had no pulse. Did he release his pressure. No, Did he start CPR, no. Instead he continued to apply neck pressure in a way NOT approved by the Minneapolis Police. And he did not move until the EMT's ordered him to move.

Gracie, your inability to see Mr Floyd as a human being is sad to me because I'd expect you to know that even people with problems deserve respect if not love.

This sentence tells me you are failing to grasp the truth when it is right in front of you



He did not "allow" him to die. He murdered him.

And now the State of Oklahoma is passing a law to make it easier for the next Chauvin to get away with murder.

" Please stop making up false facts to fit your preference."

Exactly. In the aftermath of the just verdict, this is becoming popular among a large demographic. Now we just have to wait and see during the sentencing, whether the judge is part of that same demographic.

bob47 04-24-2021 09:45 AM
I just read a book by John Grisham, "The Innocent Man". Written in 2006, it is his first non-fiction novel, based on criminal cases in Oklahoma in the 1980s. It is claimed to be meticulously researched.

It gives some insight into how a few, not totally upstanding citizens, were abused by a corrupt criminal justice system. Perhaps unfair treatment by the criminal justice system in Oklahoma is not so uncommon.

OrangeBlossomBaby 04-24-2021 09:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob47 (Post 1934501)
I just read a book by John Grisham, "The Innocent Man". Written in 2006, it is his first non-fiction novel, based on criminal cases in Oklahoma in the 1980s. It is claimed to be meticulously researched.

It gives some insight into how a few, not totally upstanding citizens, were abused by a corrupt criminal justice system. Perhaps unfair treatment by the criminal justice system in Oklahoma is not so uncommon.
Perhaps? Heh. I see a lot of "maybe" and "I think possibly" and "perhaps" when it comes to the notion that one segment of the population commits atrocities upon another segment of the population.

And then when looking at that other segment, I see a lot of "well he had it coming" and "he was on drugs" or "he committed crimes before" or "he was already a bad man."

Lots of excuses and perhapses and maybes about why one group would commit atrocities on another. Lots of head-nodding about how obviously the victims belonging to that other group deserved it.

jimbomaybe 04-24-2021 10:36 AM
perhaps you are right ,but would in not be informative if all of the police body camera videos would be made public showing how experience guides the action of law enforcement ? I am unaware of any jurisdiction that allows the release of day to day body camera videos, police officers are public officials on public business why not release the videos if not needed for prosecution and why not after ?

graciegirl 04-24-2021 11:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1934486)
Gracie, I think you try to be fair and even. But you are guilty of both siderism. It does not matter what George Floyd's past criminal history might have been. It does not matter what the other people were doing in the car. Clearly they were using drugs. What mattered in the Chauvin case was that he killed Floyd well after any need to subdue him existed.
The knee : " that maneuver was allowed as a means of restraint." You are 100% wrong about that. His own chief of police testified about the technique Chauvin was using and for how long he used it. It was only permitted for seconds not for nine minutes. The trainer for the city testified "That's not what we train" Please stop making up false facts to fit your preference.
If a cop is allowed to punch you once to gain control, that does not mean he can punch you for nine minutes until you stop breathing and your heart stops beating and then claim that throwing a punch is allowed.

I know you are not a pharmacologist but the drug he had in his system are sedatives not agitators. Fentanyl will not make you violent. He was not a danger to Chauvin because of the drugs he took. He was not resisting once he was on the ground.

One of the other officers checked Floyd for a pulse several minutes into the time Chauvin was on his neck. The other officer reported that there was no pulse. What did Chauvin do? He never moved. He stayed on the neck of Floyd even when a fellow office told him the man had no pulse. Did he release his pressure. No, Did he start CPR, no. Instead he continued to apply neck pressure in a way NOT approved by the Minneapolis Police. And he did not move until the EMT's ordered him to move.

Gracie, your inability to see Mr Floyd as a human being is sad to me because I'd expect you to know that even people with problems deserve respect if not love.

This sentence tells me you are failing to grasp the truth when it is right in front of you



He did not "allow" him to die. He murdered him.

And now the State of Oklahoma is passing a law to make it easier for the next Chauvin to get away with murder.
Doctor, I think you try to be fair and even. This sentence tells me that you are failing to grasp the truth when it is right in front of you.

"It does not matter what George Floyd's past criminal history might have been. "

It really DOES matter to everyone; to fathers worrying about the people their children date, to people trying to find honest contractors, to people who live alone, to people who allow children to go to play at other people's homes. To people who want to live in a safe area, To people who want to trust everyone. To people who do not have a criminal history because they made choices that were sometimes quite difficult.

Maybe the judge can keep that information from the jurors, but it does matter. It always matters. It REALLY matters. It matters, Doctor. YOU have your opinion and your summary judgement, and I have mine.

blueash 04-24-2021 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbomaybe (Post 1934528)
perhaps you are right ,but would in not be informative if all of the police body camera videos would be made public showing how experience guides the action of law enforcement ? I am unaware of any jurisdiction that allows the release of day to day body camera videos, police officers are public officials on public business why not release the videos if not needed for prosecution and why not after ?
That's easy. Police by the nature of their job see the worst of human behavior. They have a responsibility to protect and serve, not to make public the video of you being at your worst. You might be naked in your home when they enter, you might be an innocent bystander at an event where you wouldn't want your boss to know you were present. There is a real need for body cameras, both to show what a criminal was doing and to show what the cop was doing. Only in situations where there is a need to prove a situation happened as it was described is release in the public interest.

I present a real case where release was needed but it was very embarrassing for an innocent person. A call was make by a woman claiming a man was violating a restraining order by being near her. She gave only a general description of the area and nothing about the man. The caller disconnected before the 911 operator got these important details. The cops drove down the street, jumped out of the car and grabbed the first black man they saw as he took out his garbage to the street. They did not calmly question him, they manhandled him and his girlfriend saw it. She came out in her bathrobe and in the struggle was undressed completely, the cops camera now on the ground is pointing up at her crotch, fully visible on the video. This has now been released without any pixelating or privacy. The cops grabbed a totally innocent man and undressed a woman trying to protect her man from being manhandled.

No, all video should not be public. I would support that the object of the video should be able to immediately get access to the video, not only once the police have reviewed it and deemed it appropriate.

Bill14564 04-24-2021 11:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1934545)
Doctor, I think you try to be fair and even. This sentence tells me that you are failing to grasp the truth when it is right in front of you.

"It does not matter what George Floyd's past criminal history might have been. "

It really DOES matter to everyone; to fathers worrying about the people their children date, to people trying to find honest contractors, to people who live alone, to people who allow children to go to play at other people's homes. To people who want to live in a safe area, To people who want to trust everyone. To people who do not have a criminal history because they made choices that were sometimes quite difficult.

Maybe the judge can keep that information from the jurors, but it does matter. It always matters. It REALLY matters. It matters, Doctor. YOU have your opinion and your summary judgement, and I have mine.
Count me I the group who feels a human being should not have been treated that way in that situation. What he might have done previously does not matter and does not justify what was done in that situation.

blueash 04-24-2021 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1934545)
Doctor, I think you try to be fair and even. This sentence tells me that you are failing to grasp the truth when it is right in front of you.

"It does not matter what George Floyd's past criminal history might have been. "

It really DOES matter to everyone; to fathers worrying about the people their children date, to people trying to find honest contractors, to people who live alone, to people who allow children to go to play at other people's homes. To people who want to live in a safe area, To people who want to trust everyone. To people who do not have a criminal history because they made choices that were sometimes quite difficult.

Maybe the judge can keep that information from the jurors, but it does matter. It always matters. It REALLY matters. It matters, Doctor. YOU have your opinion and your summary judgement, and I have mine.
Gracie, you know the context of my statement that Mr Floyd's history does not matter, and you KNOW I meant in context to Chauvin's actions.

If, as a father, he came to pick up my daughter for a date, and I knew his history I still don't have a right to kill him. If I am hiring a contractor and he bids on it and I learn his history, I don't have a right to kill him. If I live in a "safe" neighborhood and he is walking down the street wearing a sign that says "I AM A DRUG USING CRIMINAL" I don't have a right to kill him.

Is this sinking in yet? His past history does not impact how Chauvin's nine minutes on his neck are judged. I know, big scary Black man right? It does not matter. Neither you, nor I, nor convicted murderer Chauvin have the right to kill him.

graciegirl 04-24-2021 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 1934553)
Count me I the group who feels a human being should not have been treated that way in that situation. What he might have done previously does not matter and does not justify what was done in that situation.
I will count you as such.

I will also say that what he had done previously does matter. When someone says "He is a known felon" that does sway the opinion of most people. DEREK CHAUVIN may have not been a great cop, in fact may have been a lousy police officer, but he did not deliberately aim to kill the man. He was trying to restrain him. He was trying to restrain him. George Floyd would be alive today in a cell somewhere, if he had sit when he was told to SIT.

WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE EXACTLY, in that situation if it was you and George Floyd, Bill???????????? Pretend he is white. Pretend he is Asian. Pretend he is Australian Aboriginal. Pretend he is a Pacific Islander. I don't see race as a factor here. But maybe YOU do???

graciegirl 04-24-2021 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1934556)
Gracie, you know the context of my statement that Mr Floyd's history does not matter, and you KNOW I meant in context to Chauvin's actions.

If, as a father, he came to pick up my daughter for a date, and I knew his history I still don't have a right to kill him. If I am hiring a contractor and he bids on it and I learn his history, I don't have a right to kill him. If I live in a "safe" neighborhood and he is walking down the street wearing a sign that says "I AM A DRUG USING CRIMINAL" I don't have a right to kill him.

Is this sinking in yet? His past history does not impact how Chauvin's nine minutes on his neck are judged. I know, big scary Black man right? It does not matter. Neither you, nor I, nor convicted murderer Chauvin have the right to kill him.

Please do NOT talk down to me.

Bill14564 04-24-2021 11:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1934563)
I will count you as such.

I will also say that what he had done previously does matter. When someone says "He is a known felon" that does sway the opinion of most people. DEREK CHAUVIN may have not been a great cop, in fact may have been a lousy police officer, but he did not deliberately aim to kill the man. He was trying to restrain him. He was trying to restrain him. George Floyd would be alive today in a cell somewhere, if he had sit when he was told to SIT.

WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE EXACTLY, in that situation if it was you and George Floyd, Bill???????????? Pretend he is white. Pretend he is Asian. Pretend he is Australian Aboriginal. Pretend he is a Pacific Islander. I don't see race as a factor here. But maybe YOU do???
At the VERY least, when he stopped moving, when he stopped breathing, when the other officer could not find a pulse, I would have pivoted to trying to save the life of the human being.I

EDIT: Imply that I may be racist just once more and my ignore list will grow again.

graciegirl 04-24-2021 12:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvbound (Post 1934494)
" Please stop making up false facts to fit your preference."

Exactly. In the aftermath of the just verdict, this is becoming popular among a large demographic. Now we just have to wait and see during the sentencing, whether the judge is part of that same demographic.
Sir/Madam. It is apparent that YOU are part of a large demographic that seems to walk in lock-step as well. Watch your thinking. It is bigoted to think of groups as all thinking alike. For instance;.... Many people think of a group that does not get vaccinated against Covid-19. Sumter county who is largely from that group .... has the highest vaccination percentage of all of the counties in Florida.

Aces4 04-24-2021 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1934573)
Sir/Madam. It is apparent that YOU are part of a large demographic that seems to walk in lock-step as well. Watch your thinking. It is bigoted to think of groups as all thinking alike. For instance;.... Many people think of a group that does not get vaccinated against Covid-19. Sumter county who is largely from that group .... has the highest vaccination percentage of all of the counties in Florida.
I agree with you, Gracie, that other demographic which insists you follow their creed in this matter borders on the ridiculous. As they all sit in the just about lily-white Villages and would be the first to call the police if they felt threatened. They wouldn’t dream of living in the poorest areas of inner city neighborhoods, building their homes there to lift the communities or invite people in those neighborhoods to dine and socialize with them. Yet they have no problem assessing punishment for the death of a man who was already struggling in the car to breathe from his fatal ingestion of drugs. If you want to school people about how to live their lives, do what their doing. Roll up your sleeves and get to work. Stop pontificating.

lkagele 04-24-2021 01:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 1934553)
Count me I the group who feels a human being should not have been treated that way in that situation. What he might have done previously does not matter and does not justify what was done in that situation.
Agree and disagree. Absolutely correct. No person should be treated in that manner.

Past history not mattering? It does to me. There's no history of turning his life around. He was being investigated for doing something wrong; not because he was doing good. I will not kneel 9 minutes for him. I will not consider him a martyr or a saint. I will not mourn his death. The criminal responsible for his death is going to jail and that's enough for me.

jimbomaybe 04-25-2021 04:22 AM
"No, all video should not be public. I would support that the object of the video should be able to immediately get access to the video, not only once the police have reviewed it and deemed it appropriate."
__________________ I think it would be informative if video of any and all arrest situation were made public. clearly a public matter with the public having a right to know

Skunky1 04-25-2021 04:48 AM
Oklahoma lawmakers are a bit messed up. They are trying to pass a law or maybe already passed to allow protesters to be run over by cars trucks etc.

If you see something get out your camera and video record what’s going on and post it as soon as you can.

The new saying is ,see something ,record it and report it.

Cobullymom 04-25-2021 05:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1934545)
Doctor, I think you try to be fair and even. This sentence tells me that you are failing to grasp the truth when it is right in front of you.

"It does not matter what George Floyd's past criminal history might have been. "

It really DOES matter to everyone; to fathers worrying about the people their children date, to people trying to find honest contractors, to people who live alone, to people who allow children to go to play at other people's homes. To people who want to live in a safe area, To people who want to trust everyone. To people who do not have a criminal history because they made choices that were sometimes quite difficult.

Maybe the judge can keep that information from the jurors, but it does matter. It always matters. It REALLY matters. It matters, Doctor. YOU have your opinion and your summary judgement, and I have mine.
Agreed, it does matter, if he had been an upstanding citizen, he would have never been there in the first place, nor been completely wacked out on multiple drugs, nor resisting arrest, nor yelling while standing there “I can’t breathe”, nor fighting them about getting in the car, they obviously became aware at one point he was a repeat felony offender and was violent...I believe that some of these videos aren’t telling the whole story, just a clip of a bigger event and can become inflammatory because they don’t know the whole story and we see what reactions had became of this mess...If you believe it’s ok for a portion of citizens to burn, riot, trash, destroy and murder others in retaliation you are the problem...

BillY41 04-25-2021 05:11 AM
If you are in your car and surrounded by the non-peaceful demonstrators whom intend harm to you; you now attempt to flee the er protestors and knock one down with your vehicle. Who gets arrested? Yes, you. This law will prevent that. Sign the law!

Tom2172 04-25-2021 05:11 AM
Censored Discussion no longer permitted that’s where we are now!
Nothing matters it’s all BS

BillY41 04-25-2021 05:16 AM
Our police have an arduous job enough without someone anoying them with a cell phone camera. I bet those keyboard commandos wouldn't get out of their home or car and record a crime in progress. Heck, many wouldn't even dial 911. Police are a microcosm of our society most good some not.

J1ceasar 04-25-2021 05:30 AM
There are about 18,000 deaths of blacks by blacks yearly . About 250 by police . If I was black, I'd worry alot more about my friends

tsmall22204 04-25-2021 05:31 AM
He is in jail for murdering a man. He deserves to be there. If a cop does his job correctly he will not fear a video.

Debra Freeman 04-25-2021 06:01 AM
I think you need to read Oklahoma’s law being proposed again. It refers to officer’s and their release of certain videos. It is as follows:

OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) – The Oklahoma Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that prohibits law enforcement agencies from releasing audio or video of an officer dying in the line of duty unless a court orders it released in specific cases.

Senate Bill 968 prohibits the release of audio/video of an officer dying in the line of duty, as well as events leading to the officer’s death. However, such a video can be released if a court finds that either public interest or individual interest outweighs the reason for denial, a Senate Communications Division news release states.

crash 04-25-2021 06:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1934471)
I think it is entirely possible that Derek Chauvin was an unprincipled person. I feel almost sure that George Floyd was an unprincipled person. I know, I know, we need to give everyone a new chance. George Floyd was arrested and sentenced to a penitentiary for several years for breaking into a private home and holding a gun to the belly of a pregnant woman, allowing three accomplices in to rob the home. He moved to Minnesota for a "new start". The police were called because he tried to pass a counterfeit twenty dollar bill. The camera's inside the store showed him swaying slightly and appearing to be under the influence of something. He got into a car with several other people who later refused to answer questions and took the fifth amendment as reason. I have to think they were somehow involved with buying or selling drugs, or they could have just been very private and did not want to answer questions. At the time that Derek Chauvin allowed George Floyd to die with neck pressure, that maneuver was allowed as a means of restraint. Clearly the other means of restraint used by FOUR MEN were not working. I don't know what I would have done if it had been MY job to arrest him. I believe in my heart that it would have been a dilemma whether or not he was high on drugs, and even if he was a skinny white Episcopalian. Derek Chauvin was there to arrest him and he continued to struggle hard physically. I think this has been made a racist issue above all other considerations. AND maybe it is. I am skeptical.

I am skeptical about whether this issue of "doxing" could be a red herring. I am thinking a lot of scary thoughts. Maybe because I think that people who are generally responsible and ethical worry about being at the mercy of people who are not generally responsible and ethical.
Wow watch the video and believe your eyes. Know one deserves a death sentence for passing a counterfeit bill. His past also does not deserve the death sentence. There was a trained paramedic there that said he wasn’t breathing and offered her service to check him and was ordered back on the sidewalk. He totally stopped moving and breathing but the choke hold was continued. Chauvin had 17 prior complaints of excess force. There are bad cops and we need to make it possible to get rid of them not the entire police force. This law is a case of shoot the messenger.

ithos 04-25-2021 06:22 AM
Regarding the obligation of rendering medical aid by the police, it is interesting to note that even the paramedics refused to do so at the scene.

Bravinder said a crowd of people had gathered on the sidewalk and they appeared very “upset” and were yelling.

"We wanted to get away from that" because trying to resuscitate someone can be difficult and requires focus, he said.

Bravinder parked the ambulance about two blocks away. Once in back of the ambulance, he saw the cardiac monitor showing a flat line – indicating no heart activity.

tvbound 04-25-2021 06:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1934556)
Gracie, you know the context of my statement that Mr Floyd's history does not matter, and you KNOW I meant in context to Chauvin's actions.

If, as a father, he came to pick up my daughter for a date, and I knew his history I still don't have a right to kill him. If I am hiring a contractor and he bids on it and I learn his history, I don't have a right to kill him. If I live in a "safe" neighborhood and he is walking down the street wearing a sign that says "I AM A DRUG USING CRIMINAL" I don't have a right to kill him.

Is this sinking in yet? His past history does not impact how Chauvin's nine minutes on his neck are judged. I know, big scary Black man right? It does not matter. Neither you, nor I, nor convicted murderer Chauvin have the right to kill him.
"Is this sinking in yet? His past history does not impact how Chauvin's nine minutes on his neck are judged. I know, big scary Black man right? It does not matter. Neither you, nor I, nor convicted murderer Chauvin have the right to kill him."

For all too many, it will never sink in that a cop who has no idea at the time of a person's previous history, of whom are unarmed and that they have completely under control, doesn't give them the right to murder them. The attempt to justify Chauvin having the authority to act as judge, jury and executioner, is primarily driven as you stated because he was "a big scary black man." The "Chauvin probably killed him, BUT he had it coming" crowd - is pretty sickening.

tvbound 04-25-2021 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1934573)
Sir/Madam. It is apparent that YOU are part of a large demographic that seems to walk in lock-step as well. Watch your thinking. It is bigoted to think of groups as all thinking alike. For instance;.... Many people think of a group that does not get vaccinated against Covid-19. Sumter county who is largely from that group .... has the highest vaccination percentage of all of the counties in Florida.
"Watch your thinking."

"Watch my thinking?" My thinking is that there are a lot of people, whether they mean to or not, are showing their true colors when it comes to racism and bigotry. I choose to research and make up my own mind and have never needed to try and join any particular group, just to feel like I belong, nor do I change the subject or use examples that are not germane to the discussion at hand.

kenoc7 04-25-2021 06:45 AM
Gracie, you have many irrelevant pieces of information. Putting his knee on Floyd's neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds including 3 minutes after he was non-responsive wasn't necessary restraint, it was murder. Period.

tvbound 04-25-2021 06:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenoc7 (Post 1934776)
Gracie, you have many irrelevant pieces of information. Putting his knee on Floyd's neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds including 3 minutes after he was non-responsive wasn't necessary restraint, it was murder. Period.
No question about it. And trying to justify the murder after the fact, is disgusting. Period.

GrumpyOldMan 04-25-2021 06:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by J1ceasar (Post 1934749)
There are about 18,000 deaths of blacks by blacks yearly . About 250 by police . If I was black, I'd worry alot more about my friends
Seriously? What do the two have to do with each other? If something is a crime should we decide the seriousness of the crime based on other crimes?

holmesperdue 04-25-2021 06:59 AM
Way back, in the late sixties, I had the privilege of attenditang the US Army CID school. Of all the things that we learned was simply: if you took someone into custody you became responsible for their well being. It really is just that simple...

baramu 04-25-2021 07:35 AM
George Floyd died a herendous death at the hands of an evil cop. Sure, he did not have a stellar history but a lot of people don’t. Along with shooting people for protesting, all of this smacks of a totalitarian government. I suggest if anyone believes these laws are okay, see if there’s a plane to Russia and just get out. I prefer democracy which is slowly slipping away. Traitors in our government and traitors in our people.

diva1 04-25-2021 07:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1934563)
I will count you as such.

I will also say that what he had done previously does matter. When someone says "He is a known felon" that does sway the opinion of most people. DEREK CHAUVIN may have not been a great cop, in fact may have been a lousy police officer, but he did not deliberately aim to kill the man. He was trying to restrain him. He was trying to restrain him. George Floyd would be alive today in a cell somewhere, if he had sit when he was told to SIT.

WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE EXACTLY, in that situation if it was you and George Floyd, Bill???????????? Pretend he is white. Pretend he is Asian. Pretend he is Australian Aboriginal. Pretend he is a Pacific Islander. I don't see race as a factor here. But maybe YOU do???
Obviously, nothing will change your mind. I've got that. But Chauvin was not 'trying to restrain him' for 9 minutes. Not for 8 minutes. Or maybe 7. He was murdering him at that point. Period.

Chitown 04-25-2021 08:13 AM
Not excusing the behavior of a few police officers, anyone interested in becoming a police officer today needs to have their heads examined. If I was already a police officer today I would answer my mandatory 911 calls dispatched to me and nothing else. No traffic stops, no issuing traffic citations, no stopping citizens, no interaction with the public at all. Maybe, just maybe you might make it to retirement.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:35 AM.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.