[blueash]

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

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

"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]

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]

Originally Posted by blueash

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]

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]

Looks like a bad law written by mediocre politicians and directed at getting more support from the worst of their backers.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

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

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]

Originally Posted by blueash

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]

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]

Originally Posted by bob47

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]

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]

Originally Posted by blueash

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]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

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]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

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]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

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]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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???