Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man part II

[Kutnupe14]

In a better world, he would have been dispatched when he was involved in the armed robbery while jamming a pistol into the abdomen of a preagnant woman.

I wont disagree. But in this nation, we’re supposed to punish people for the committed and not yet been held on account for.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Let me see.....a innocent 100 lb.WOMAN calls 911...cops respond....100 lb.woman goes up to police to show them ally where attack has taken place....cop shoots innocent 100 lb.woman for absolutely no reason...........no comparison............
Try new bait.......

 

[Kutnupe14]

Let me see.....a innocent 100 lb.WOMAN calls 911...cops respond....100 lb.woman goes up to police to show them ally where attack has taken place....cop shoots innocent 100 lb.woman for absolutely no reason...........no comparison......View attachment 134053......
Try new bait.......

...and I love a tall tale as next as the next person.

 

[Denny347]

My thoughts if I were a juror:

1. Floyd was a walking dead man from before first contact.

2. Floyd lied repeatedly about health issues.

3. His associates chimed in with health-related red herrings.

4. At no point did any of these people say a word about the drugs Floyd had just ingested.

Taking this into consideration in the context of the point you raised, doesn't this amount to Officer Chauvin being on trial for lacking clairvoyant powers?

Obviously my prediction is long before the trial is concluded so it is based on what they could be able to prove. In the end, it is possible that the defense fails to convince the jury of these 4 points. Even if they do, it's a jury of humans that could rule how they feel. I think I'd rather have a trial before a judge. Obviously we are not psychic and a guilty verdict will have to show that death by Chauvin's actions were foreseeable.

 

[Denny347]

Lt. Zimmerman, head of the homicide division, said the knee on neck restraint should not be used. I don't understand that since it was in the training manual.

The Lt is the longest active officer on the department, like 35yrs on the department. It is not unusual that someone in rank with that much time on has lost touch with what is/has been taught to younger officers. I see it at work time and time again. Rank coming to my office telling us a subordinate violated some policy in their use of force only to find out that the officer did nothing wrong and the Ranking supervisor was applying 20yr old thinking to a modern use of force. The IMPD shooting of Aaron Bailey in 2017 is a recent example of this. You had senior administrators condemning Dennison/Howard based on feelings and "should haves" rather than policy, or lack thereof. The administrators were shredded on the stand by defense. Having an opinion that the force is excessive is very different from proving it was excessive.

 

[Leadeye]

Out of curiosity, what causes a training manual to be revised and who makes that decision? I keep seeing that coming up, but have never been involved in police work. In manufacturing I've found that written instructions or procedures get revised fairly often.

 

[Denny347]

Out of curiosity, what causes a training manual to be revised and who makes that decision? I keep seeing that coming up, but have never been involved in police work. In manufacturing I've found that written instructions or procedures get revised fairly often.

Weeeelllll, it depends. The buck stops with the Chief but in reality, it really can be just the person in charge of their physical tactics for the department, officer, Sgt, Lt, etc. The Chief might not even understand the changes and leaves that to their subordinates to sort out. Nothing better than teaching a new and controversial change to the use of force general orders to the department and when the Chief comes through for his day at training, have no idea what the changes were......

 

[actaeon277]

Viva Frei and Barnes Law with a live discussion going on about the trial

Live video discussion

 

[IndyDave1776]

Weeeelllll, it depends. The buck stops with the Chief but in reality, it really can be just the person in charge of their physical tactics for the department, officer, Sgt, Lt, etc. The Chief might not even understand the changes and leaves that to their subordinates to sort out. Nothing better than teaching a new and controversial change to the use of force general orders to the department and when the Chief comes through for his day at training, have no idea what the changes were......

Am I correctly hearing tones of "How many of them were there? Which way did they go? I need to know. I am their leader."?

 

[KittySlayer]

Well it could the the Lt. and others testifying simply did not like Chauvin and were happy to throw him under the knee bus. Early on a year ago when everyone was Monday morning quarterbacking Chauvin struck me as a bully/rebel that may have had enemies on the force. Someone referred to him as the Big Dog who got his way regardless of rank.

 

[actaeon277]

I think the Lt. was looking for a promotion.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well it could the the Lt. and others testifying simply did not like Chauvin and were happy to throw him under the knee bus. Early on a year ago when everyone was Monday morning quarterbacking Chauvin struck me as a bully/rebel that may have had enemies on the force. Someone referred to him as the Big Dog who got his way regardless of rank.

So the Lt commits a crime, in front of the whole world, along with two other officers, to stick it to Chauvin?

 

[KG1]

Seems to me that the Lt. can't make the argument that the knee restraint technique wasn't a part of training (clearly it was) only that he disagrees with the application in this instance. Strictly a matter of opinion.

 

[BugI02]

So the Lt commits a crime, in front of the whole world, along with two other officers, to stick it to Chauvin?

So Chauvin commits a crime, along with three other officers, in front of the whole world - because why, exactly? Racism?

That is even less likely than the other

 

[Kutnupe14]

So Chauvin commits a crime, along with three other officers, in front of the whole world - because why, exactly? Racism?

That is even less likely than the other

Perjury is a willful crime. I haven’t seen anyone suggest the Chauvin intentionally, or in his belief, think he was committing a crime.

 

[KittySlayer]

So the Lt commits a crime, in front of the whole world, along with two other officers, to stick it to Chauvin?

Not outright perjury. But from the highlights (*) it seems once they get done with facts (page ## of the training manual) it drifts into opinions which can ride along that wide gray ribbon between hard fact and outright perjury.

(*) I have a full time job so lack endless hours to watch the trial.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Not outright perjury. But from the highlights (*) it seems once they get done with facts (page ## of the training manual) it drifts into opinions which can ride along that wide gray ribbon between hard fact and outright perjury.

(*) I have a full time job so lack endless hours to watch the trial.

I haven’t watched more than a few minutes of the trial. Has the training manual even been brought up?

 

[Denny347]

Well it could the the Lt. and others testifying simply did not like Chauvin and were happy to throw him under the knee bus. Early on a year ago when everyone was Monday morning quarterbacking Chauvin struck me as a bully/rebel that may have had enemies on the force. Someone referred to him as the Big Dog who got his way regardless of rank.

I think the Lt. was looking for a promotion.

So the Lt commits a crime, in front of the whole world, along with two other officers, to stick it to Chauvin?

It's not likely even that deep. I'm sure the Lt is telling the truth, or at least what he BELIEVES the truth to be. It is curious that they turn to the head of the dept's Homicide unit to testify and not the department's Use of Force subject matter expert that teaches the officers use of force. I know that if I had a UoF question, I sure as hell wouldn't ask Homicide. Also, what seems to be missing from Prosecutors witness list were Dr's making a clear link between Chauvin's actions and Floyd's death. Drawing a clear line for the jurors. Also missing, experts to testify what kind of pressure it takes to someone's back/neck to kill them. Reason? Prosecutors lack the physical evidence and are relying on emotional opinions and responses to sell their charges. It won't be enough for murder but it might sway the jury to a lesser charge.

 

[SwikLS]

Funnily enough, it was never proven, that the bill was counterfeit.

actually it was. it was a scam Georgie boy and his buddy was trying to run.

 

[nonobaddog]

So the Lt commits a crime, in front of the whole world, along with two other officers, to stick it to Chauvin?

What crime are you talking about? Opinions aren't crimes... yet.