Agnostic.com

29 29

How did you, or do you react to these 2 photos, and the stories behind them?

MLK's daughter makes this observation:

"If you're unbothered or mildly bothered by the 1st knee, but outraged by the 2nd, then, in my father's words, you're 'more devoted to order than to justice.' And more passionate about an anthem that supposedly symbolizes freedom than you are about a Black man's freedom to live."

[upworthy.com]

josephr 7 May 27
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

29 comments (26 - 29)

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Interesting update:
Reading the full news article indicates that a case for justified use if force is already being built.
Amazing.

The man was in cuffs, a total non threat. I cannot see how it could possibly have been necessary for the cop to cut off the man's oxygen.

And underlying health issue? If he can't breathe, he can't breathe. Is the cop's defense going to be that he was too stupid to know he was cutting off the guy's oxygen?

The article lists actions and facts that will certainly be used in defense of the four police involved in this. I'm not supporting either side, just indicating that there's probably enough "evidence" to either get these guys off, or stop the prosecuting office from even bringing charges.

Dear Sir,
Mr. Bigpawbullets,
Your source is the Washington Times which was/is owned by Reverand Sun Myong Moon of the Unification Church better known as the Moonies. So I do not find your source credible. The kneeling officer had bad blood with Floyd so the whole power struggle factor injects emotion into one of the most difficult jobs other than guard at Cook County jail, the police officer. I would attempt to corroborate this bit of "news".....perhaps?

1

I have no problem with the second picture but I'll await the coroners report before rendering judgement on the first.

I can render judgement on the first right picture now.

I've been in Corrections almost 21 years, and once an individual in restrained, you get him up. No two ways about it. Someone in restraints in under control.

I would be out of a job if I put my knee near a person's neck. On the shoulder, in the middle of the back, those are acceptable control positions while you and your partner are putting someone in restraints. And then, as I said, you each take an elbow and stand the individual up. No waiting. No excuses. There were four officers on the scene and they had a vehicle to put him in.

There is no excuse. None. Whatsoever. And I'm famous around here for saying "wait until you know both sides". On this, there's no other side. They were unprofessional as hell. This is a black eye to law enforcement everywhere, and we all have to live with guilt by association. The professionals who know what we're doing will be looked down on and second-guessed every time we go to take someone down, because of these clowns. For years to come.

I'm beyond angry to just quietly infuriated. If they end up in prison, I have no sympathy. This behavior tells me they've been screwing up for years, this time it went south on them.

@Paul4747
Problem is that your experience is not federally mandated AFAIK. AFAIK, there is no restraint prohibited and it's up to departmental policy to say what is and isn't allowed. Hence, this practice may cost you your job in one place but you may be fired if you don't do it in others.

My point is that if that hold is legally part of their culture, then it's not the officers fault for following procedure but the departments fault for condoning it in the first place. A stain on law enforcement either way but if I'm right, firing or jailing these 4 will do nothing because the culture is still in place.

@TheMiddleWay True, my experience is based on the standards of the American Correctioons Association manual. But it's not a stretch to believe that these standards are similar across departments, especially in view of the Minneapolis PD Use Of Force policy, which I happen to have a link to right here.

[minneapolismn.gov]

I call attention especially to these excerpts:

"“Because the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including:

The severity of the crime at issue,
Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and;
Whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

...

Whenever reasonable according to MPD policies and training, officers shall use de-escalation tactics to gain voluntary compliance and seek to avoid or minimize use of physical force. (06/01/12) (07/28/16)

  1.  When safe and feasible, officers shall:

a. Attempt to slow down or stabilize the situation so that more time, options and resources are available.

i. Mitigating the immediacy of threat gives officers more time to call additional officers or specialty units and to use other resources.

ii. The number of officers on scene may make more force options available and may help reduce overall force used.

b. Consider whether a subject’s lack of compliance is a deliberate attempt to resist or an inability to comply based on factors including, but not limited to:

· Medical conditions
· Mental impairment
· Developmental disability
· Physical limitation
· Language barrier
· Influence of drug or alcohol use
· Behavioral crisis

Such consideration, when time and circumstances reasonably permit, shall then be balanced against incident facts when deciding which tactical options are the most appropriate to resolve the situation safely.

  1.  De-escalation tactics include, but are not limited to:

    ...
    · Avoidance of physical confrontation, unless immediately necessary (e.g. to protect someone or stop dangerous behavior).
    · Using verbal techniques to calm an agitated subject and promote rational decision making.
    · Calling additional resources to assist, including more officers, CIT officers and officers equipped with less-lethal tools.

  2. Officers shall use reasonableness, sound tactics and available options during encounters to maximize the likelihood that they can safely resolve the situation.

  3. A lack of reasonable or sound tactics can limit options available to officers, and unnecessarily place officers and the public at risk.

Any sworn MPD employee who uses force shall comply with the following requirements:

Medical Assistance: As soon as reasonably practical, determine if anyone was injured and render medical aid consistent with training and request Emergency Medical Service (EMS) if necessary."

I submit that the officers appear to have done none of the above, and if reports are to be believed, escalated the situation rather than de-escalating. They most certainly didn't render medical assistance consistent with their training.

@Paul4747
The language in the above is very loosely goosey... "as soon as reasonably practical" may be hard to achieve in the 6 mins the incident took place. Further, I have to believe that other culprits placed in a similar, even non-knee situation, have used the "I can't breathe" line to try and get the upper hand on the officer. I would also not be in the least bit surprised that there are stories passed around of a culprit that got away because an officer fell for that. It just seems reasonable given human nature.

All to say that unless this specific technique is explicitly, obviously, plainly made illegal, this will happen again.

@TheMiddleWay if you're a cop, quit. You make too many excuses for inexcusable behavior that killed an apparently innocent man. Again. I submit to you that whatever fucked up culture exists in Minneapolis WILL change when a few of those asshole cops get fucked up in prison, where they belong. Waiting for a coroners report? My ass!

@Stilltrying1964
If I were a cop, I certainly wouldn't quit on the say so of a random internet stranger. 😉

Regardless, cops have gone to jail countless times in the past and the culture seemingly doesn't change.
So yes, I'll wait for the full story which includes the coroners report so we factually know what killed him and we don't spread uneducated guesses as to what killed him.

@TheMiddleWay Countless cops? That's an arm-waving generality if ever I saw one! I'll bet you are a cop. And a bad one, who lacks good judgment and should not be trusted by the public to think on your feet. It is so f** obvious what's happening in that picture, but you want to see a Coroner's report! You should be working at a 7-Eleven where the biggest threat you pose is selling beer to minors! Countless cops?

@Stilltrying1964
>>Countless cops?<<
Re-read: I said countless times not countless cops.
Yet despite that, the culture doesn't change as evidenced by this article.

California’s criminal cops: Investigation finds 630 officers convicted of misdemeanors. Many are still working
[desertsun.com]

@Stilltrying1964
>>"I'll bet you are a cop."<<
I'll take that bet.
What are your terms?

@TheMiddleWay you stop defending the indefensible and then I might have something more to say to you. Goodbye

@Stilltrying1964 Okay, I am a cop and countless people have used the "I can't breathe" line on me. Frequently at the top of their lungs, which pretty much gives the lie to not being able to breathe.

The point I'm making is that, as I was trained (and @TheMiddleWay probably makes a valid point about other departments being different), putting a knee on a neck is not "pressure points", it's deadly force. And there's no excuse to use deadly force on someone in handcuffs who is incapable of resisting at that point. Deadly force is also defined as "likely to cause serious physical injury". They didn't control the guy. They didn't control themselves.

@Stilltrying1964 The whole world saw what happened!!!! All four MUST BE CHARGED WITH MURDER!!!!

@Paul4747 The knee restraint move is a legitimate tool to subdue a suspect. In this case he was already restrained. I was also amazed that Off Chauvin had his hands in his pockets for several minutes. To me this was sadistic behavior. This is from MplPD guidelines. The actions of the officer went against these guidelines justifying termination

The Unconscious Neck Restraint shall only be applied in the following circumstances:

On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or;

For life saving purposes, or;

On a subject who is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject; and if lesser attempts at control have been or would likely be ineffective.

Neck restraints shall not be used against subjects who are passively resisting as defined by policy.

@barjoe Thank you for that research. If those are their guidelines, well, that's what it is. They're talking about two different situations. I'm talking about a leverage position used while applying restraints, to keep a subject prone. They're talking about gaining control in the first place over someone who is actively combative, which I guess I can see... but the risk of putting your weight on someone's neck is something I wouldn't want to do.

But the last line you quoted vitiates their whole encounter, as he is using this move on someone who is already restrained and no threat, for several minutes, as you say.

@barjoe
Excellent, that's Bar. Those are the specifics I was talking about, that the move is not illegal... but it was illegally applied as per department policy.

And to Paul's point, he was already subdued and even the crowd knew that putting him in the back of the car was an option. "Why don't you put him in the back?" one yells. "We tried to for 10 mins and he resisted." they rely. Fair enough. But here is the fundamental problem: with this technique it's impossible to tell resisting arrest from desperately trying to get in a position to breathe! These aren't doctors after all. So when he is struggling for air, I bet you in the officers brain he is still struggling.

Methinks it's just safest and best to do away with that particular technique. It's not like there is a rampage of restraint related deaths in the country (A quick review found between 1 to 5 people die a year from illegal restraints) but if it's preventable, it's way too many.

@TheMiddleWay Knee Restraint is legal but it wasn't applied according to guidelines it wasn't indicated in this case. The officers were justifiably terminated. It's hard to step up and talk down another officer but that's indicated per departmental policy. For that reason all four were culpable. There may be circumstances for the other 3 but not for Officer Chauvin.

@barjoe 'I was also amazed that Off Chauvin had his hands in his pockets for several minutes. To me this was sadistic behavior."

I thought this at first too, but if you look closer, his hand is on his leg, but it is hard to tell because it is gloved. Nevertheless, he was a savage asshole.

0

The first photo is an outrage not because the man being murdered is black but because the police have been empowered to use excessive force, commit murder and get away with it. The same happens to white, brown, red, european, hispanic, african, asian, aboriginal, etc ... people. I bet if I took the time, I could find examples and photos of the same thing of every race. I believe the images, video and messages that are constantly being pushed into our faces are used to manipulate, distract and control.

The law enforcers and the people by whom they are employed (i.e. not you nor the general public) are generally not held accountable. The fact that this is being promoted as a race issue only empowers and enriches those in a position to profit from such a thing and serves to further divide society.

0

Both are repugnant.

Both are repugnant? The flag is not a sacred object, only a representation of an idea (one that is merely an illusion for many who live under it). People that are so offended by a man taking a knee in support of a worthy cause need to reevaluate their priorities and ask how it is they got so brainwashed.

@Goldylockes
Yes. Both are repugnant.

@bigpawbullets explain your position please.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:500151
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.