Can't even debate what's going on, you have to pivot to something that didn't happen, and pretend what I would have done....

Pathetic.

You ought to see the force that medical professionals have to incorporate when the patient is resisting. You all would be appalled.

IHIV, you think that suggesting that the cops used "maximum force" with regards to what is justified, was a joke statement.

That suggests righty that you think more could have been done and still been ok, if you think calling that the maximum force justifiable is a joke.

I actually think Pepper Spray is the gentler way to go with an old and frail body 80lb woman. Physically taking them down can easily end up in a broken hip that or pelvis or worse that never heals properly.

Just got hope she still has two good lungs.

it is a serious question.

What would the cops need to have done that you would say 'OK they used disproportionate force and thus this was wrong'?

Will you answer that question?

Wait, you're going to argue that medical orderlies couldn't get an 80 pound dementia patient in restraints without breaking bones and dislocating joints ?

Just to be clear though, the cops’ actions would still be correct if she had dementia, correct?

"Correct"? I don't know how to hell you get somebody with dementia to comply, if they don't want to, who's also broken the law and not listening to police. I guess you just let them go when they want to, but I don't think cops are able to diagnose dementia in less than 1 - 5 minutes.

https://www.crisisprevention.com/Blo...ical-Restraint

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2759276

Get more injuries with healthcare than you do with interactions with police.

So I was correct, thanks for clarifying.

LOL

So we're going to compare the harmful effects of being restrained (which are psychological) with broken bones of an 80 pound, 73 year old woman ?

Apples and oranges but, okay. If you're appalled by medical restraint why are you so callous about hard force in the field ?

So you have to dislocate their shoulder and break bones/bruise them and charge them with a felony or let them go ?

No other options ? In my mind all the options in between those two extremes are what separate highly paid, trained professionals from mall cops.

JFC, when you play football there's a risk of you breaking your bones. When cops deal with a resistor, there's chance the bones are going to break, when physical force is applied. If the person is not listening to the cop and doesn't stop, they have to use physical force. Literally, the only other option is just to let them do whatever they're going to do.

Breaking or bending the rules is as American as apple pie. And so is targeting some kinds of criminals while others operate with near impunity.

This is an offensive comparison: mall cops usually act like professionals and don’t tackle 70-year-olds.

That's true.

The other mall cops would judge. The cops seem fine with anything.

If we're going go by what the prosecution says, they have charged Chauvin with murder.

Chokehold is just non-English me who doesn't know the names of HTH-techniques in English. Anything that puts pressure or blocks air to the lungs or blood to the brain is a no-go for a pro-longed amount of time, unless you aim to kill. 7 minutes is insane. Going on beyond unconsciousness is very difficult to understand, keeping at it when the subject doesn't breathe and there is no pulse to be found is absurd.

Your proposed argument is essentially stating that 4 police officers with the suspect in handcuffs and on the ground needed to slowly choke him to death over 9 minutes in order to safely control the situation. I mean, maybe a jury can be confused into buying that, but it is not a good argument at all.

And all these responses you seem to miss some context. Why do they keep him restrained? Because he was previously resistant, and they were waiting for EMS to arrive, and there was concerns about the crowd, all of which a reasonable officer would consider when deciding to keep the restraint on, and many would.

Where the prosecution should have focused on was when he decided to not turn him to his side. However, they're trying to get the murder conviction, so they're trying to paint the entire thing as criminal. The defense is exploiting that, and I really don't think the prosecution put a strong argument as to the use of the restraint being unlawful.

You also taking it as fact that the reason he died was because he was suffocated as a result of the position he was in, but there's other factors that call into question was it really the position or was it Floyd's physical condition coupled with his drug use that caused him to suffocate.

the manslaughter charge on chauvin is a slam dunk. but the murder charges are tougher. 2nd degree murder seems unlikely, although intent is not necesary according to minnesota law. 3rd degree depraved is possible.

even if convicted of 2nd degree murder it looks like he gets about 12 years and people will not be satisfied so expect riots

They don't have to use physical force unless it's reasonably necessary. And if it is necessary they're supposed to use the minimal amount of force possible. That's in the policy and it's why this lady is getting a settlement in the hundreds of thousands.

But sure, if you play football you may get hurt. You're choosing to play football. This lady didn't choose to get dementia and get confused at a store and have a cop torture her for hours on end while refusing to give her the medical attention she needed. That was on him and his supervisor.

No personal accountability for you Trump fans. So funny.

they "asphyxiated" him. not choked him. checkmate NOT GUILTY

What's the minimum amount of force in this situation? Wouldn't you agree that most police departments training states to put the person on the ground? That requires a tackle of some sort. What's the policy when they resist you all on the ground, restrict the use of their hands.

against an unarmed female septuagenarian?

eta- at worst guilty of a misd. that generally doesn't even carry jail time in most jurisdictions...

IHIV, they're just ****ing with you.

The batch of posts about the 13 year old gang banger were particularly mind-boggling. I can only imagine what sort of gems got deleted.

Ihiv really going for it

Inso to the rescue

What do you think should've been done with this old lady in this situation Insoo?

Tame, IHIV is literally and honestly expressing his view that even if an old woman looks like this one on the left,...

.
... and she does not comply with instructions, the cops are justified in using great physical force including hard take downs to get them to comply and stop them.

HJis argument is 'how else are you going to get them to comply?', and 'what else are the police to do? Let here just walker off?'


There is not hint of hyperbole in my post. IHIV is clearly saying this is his position. Age and frailty mean nothing in the equation.

God help her if she happens to be deaf.

The minimum is none.

Time and distance are both legitimate tactics.