Crosswords0 min ago
Chauvin's History
I don't think I've seen anything further about him here. But it was interesting that on AB, the past of the victim seemed more important than the past of the perpetrator..
With 18 complaints plus disciplinaries for violent behaviour behind him.... has anyone changed their mind (or willing to admit) that if you give a violent control freak too much power, they will abuse it?
https:/
With 18 complaints plus disciplinaries for violent behaviour behind him.... has anyone changed their mind (or willing to admit) that if you give a violent control freak too much power, they will abuse it?
https:/
Answers
I maintain my earlier point, a handcuffed man cannot easily get to his feet, much less start causing trouble - as much trouble as you can cause without use of your hands - without being easily restrained. Had Mr Floyd managed to get up - and give it a try, just lie down, lace your fingers together behind your back and see how easy it isn't to get to your feet - any one of...
15:29 Fri 30th Apr 2021
Zacs - // I've no idea of the force necessary to restrain people and neither do you, Pix. //
I have no idea either, but i am pretty sure that if you have your hands fastened behind you r back, getting to your feet from a prone position is going to be pretty tricky.
It would certainly take long enough for a police officer easily to be able to restrain you, simply by holding onto the handcuffs - it would not necessitate kneeling on your neck to prevent you from being any kind of a problem.
That's even assuming that the officer is alone, with no support - in this case there were other officers there.
It's clear that at no time was Mr Floyd a threat of any description in terms of either resisiting arrest, or being able to cause harm to anyone in the vicinity.
I have no idea either, but i am pretty sure that if you have your hands fastened behind you r back, getting to your feet from a prone position is going to be pretty tricky.
It would certainly take long enough for a police officer easily to be able to restrain you, simply by holding onto the handcuffs - it would not necessitate kneeling on your neck to prevent you from being any kind of a problem.
That's even assuming that the officer is alone, with no support - in this case there were other officers there.
It's clear that at no time was Mr Floyd a threat of any description in terms of either resisiting arrest, or being able to cause harm to anyone in the vicinity.
I maintain my earlier point, a handcuffed man cannot easily get to his feet, much less start causing trouble - as much trouble as you can cause without use of your hands - without being easily restrained.
Had Mr Floyd managed to get up - and give it a try, just lie down, lace your fingers together behind your back and see how easy it isn't to get to your feet - any one of the officers on scene had simply to hold his handcuffs, and hey pretso, he is disabled and unable to do anything.
The idea that he needed to be knelt on at all is simply not valid - leaving out the length of time and force used, which was judged inappropriate to the point of being illegal.
Had Mr Floyd managed to get up - and give it a try, just lie down, lace your fingers together behind your back and see how easy it isn't to get to your feet - any one of the officers on scene had simply to hold his handcuffs, and hey pretso, he is disabled and unable to do anything.
The idea that he needed to be knelt on at all is simply not valid - leaving out the length of time and force used, which was judged inappropriate to the point of being illegal.
Mozz, you and your fellow virtue signalling friends on AB keep saying that some ABers kept bringing George's past up.
It was part of the trial. Are we only allowed to discuss parts of a trial approved of by the vacantly vocal.
It's long been predicted that when fascism returns it will be cloaked in Liberalism, How right they were.
It was part of the trial. Are we only allowed to discuss parts of a trial approved of by the vacantly vocal.
It's long been predicted that when fascism returns it will be cloaked in Liberalism, How right they were.
// Spicerack: "Pretty sure you can't bring a defendant's past history into play in any trial, girls, keen as you are/were to do so."//
well it is called bad character evidence
and there is a bit here
https:/
for the second time - ho hum
yeah yeah and someone will warble but dat not common law
and inva common on law of X state, it is not admissible
point is it can be admissible in some jursidictions in some circustances
so what?
so the statement "I am pretty sure....." should be "I am pretty sure but wrong, girls, ...."
just saying
well it is called bad character evidence
and there is a bit here
https:/
for the second time - ho hum
yeah yeah and someone will warble but dat not common law
and inva common on law of X state, it is not admissible
point is it can be admissible in some jursidictions in some circustances
so what?
so the statement "I am pretty sure....." should be "I am pretty sure but wrong, girls, ...."
just saying
no mozz that is NOT a rule of law
but hey stand for parliament, get elected, and get a private bill to do so
equally armed in front of the law is an idea but largely disregarded: police have infinite resources and so does the CPS in comparison to a defendant
Put anuvva way - floyds past has a direct bearing on the case - and the Chauvins doesnt ( on the facts )
In 'our' case - the judge went froo three days evidence on Day 1 - dont need that, dont need this dont need the third
and then said - this should be over by Wed....
but hey stand for parliament, get elected, and get a private bill to do so
equally armed in front of the law is an idea but largely disregarded: police have infinite resources and so does the CPS in comparison to a defendant
Put anuvva way - floyds past has a direct bearing on the case - and the Chauvins doesnt ( on the facts )
In 'our' case - the judge went froo three days evidence on Day 1 - dont need that, dont need this dont need the third
and then said - this should be over by Wed....
"Sorry pixie, I see no point in discussing this tragedy, black man killed by white policeman, what could possible be wrong there .?"
You're making the mistake of thinking because it was white on black it was racism - you're not the first.
It may well have been fuelled by racism, but you don't know that - the only person in the whole world who knows whether racism was a factor, is Chauvin.
You're making the mistake of thinking because it was white on black it was racism - you're not the first.
It may well have been fuelled by racism, but you don't know that - the only person in the whole world who knows whether racism was a factor, is Chauvin.
naomi - // The outcome of the trial was as I expected - a matter of political expediency rather than justice. //
Your view appears to infer that the two concept are mutually exclusive.
I would suggest that they are not, and the justice was served, and political expediency benefited in the process - but that is not the same as suggesting tha political expediencey was the prime driving force in the verdict that was reached. I believe that was a result of overwhemling evidence.
Your view appears to infer that the two concept are mutually exclusive.
I would suggest that they are not, and the justice was served, and political expediency benefited in the process - but that is not the same as suggesting tha political expediencey was the prime driving force in the verdict that was reached. I believe that was a result of overwhemling evidence.
