What's new
By:

Derek Chauvin Murder Trial

Red said:
I look at the way he seemed while in the store. Did it look like he was likely to die anytime soon? No inherent medical condition was poised to kill him after he left that store. If the cop does not kneel on his neck for 9+ minutes, he would not have died that day.
Click to expand...
Agreed
I have seen overdoses up close and personal. I have never seen an overdose occur while someone kneeled on their neck though.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Gameface said:
The hold may have been approved, but in what context? Floyd was far beyond the point of resisting. The officers were in full control without the knee on Floyd's neck. It was odd and disturbing for the people who witnessed it happening. It did not seem reasonable or necessary, even to the EMTs. So yeah, the hold was approved, but approved to accomplish a specific purpose that in this instance it was not being used for.

I don't think it's a tough sell AT ALL to say that Chauvin's actions were the direct cause of death of Floyd. The coroner ruled this a homicide, which means Floyd's death was caused by a person. That person is Chauvin. Minus the completely unnecessary act of pressing his knee into Floyd's neck for over 9min Floyd would have not died in that encounter.
Click to expand...
Couldn't have said it better
 
Gameface said:
I have been over this very issue with you at least a couple times.

First, police are trained to Stop The Threat.

Let's talk about that. If the use of potentially lethal force is justified it is because someone posses an imminent threat to the life or limb of another person. In that situation there is only one correct option, which is to stop the threat as quickly and safely as possible. So the training is and will continue to be to stop the threat because that is 100% the right thing to do.

You might imagine that police officers are master marksmen. Let me help you shed yourself of that concept. They are not. Not all of them even have the capacity to become master marksmen even if they dedicated every second of their police training to shooting drills. Obviously using a firearm is a tiny fraction of a police officers job, so we cannot have them focus solely on their firearm skills.

Police shooting situations happen in all sorts of circumstances. It might be dark, you might be in a person's house in tight quarters, you might be standing next their car window, etc.. The decision to use lethal force will often be one that is made literally in a split second. This is not a situation where the police have the time to have an internal debate as to which fingernail they want to shoot off the subject's left hand. This is a binary decision of do I fire my gun or not. Period. That's as complex as you can reasonably make this decision in the timeframe it needs to be made.

Once that decision to fire is made it needs to have the intended effect of stopping the threat as safely and quickly as possible. So let's talk about doing this safely, ok? Every shot that misses goes somewhere else, which has the potential to hurt innocent people or property. That's a chance you have to accept to a certain degree, but it's not a chance that you should multiply on purpose. So you MUST take the safest shot possible, which is the shot most likely to strike the threat and only the threat, which is center mass.

You are also trying to stop a person from harming life or limb of another person. So it is absolutely essential that you stop that threat and do so as quickly as possible within reasonable safety concerns. So again, shots that actually strike the threat are of the highest importance. Shots that strike the threat in a way as to eliminate the threat they pose to others is equally important. This means that the best place to fire is at center mass.

Second, let's talk about the nightmare that shooting a knee or hand or arm would be.

These "disabling" shots are going to miss frequently, very frequently. Which means the threat has not been stopped. If the failure to stop a threat that could otherwise be stopped results in an innocent person being seriously injured or killed I think the officer who did not do everything in their power to stop the threat, opting for a much lower probability higher risk shot bares some blame for that.

Even if a leg or an arm is shot the threat may continue.

The bigger issue, in my mind, is that when you try to use a firearm in a "less than lethal" way you open up a very messy can of worms. Police may now be MORE inclined to use their firearm, even in situations where deadly force is clearly not justified, because afterall they are only trying to disable a person. That is completely unacceptable. We need a clear bright line between situation where lethal force is justified or it is not. That's an ideal and not entirely possible, but we certainly don't need to intentionally blur that line to such an extreme by allowing the use of firearms for less than lethal purposes.

Finally, guns have the potential to cause death when they are fired at a person. Shots do not always land where you intended them to, especially in a stressful, potentially life or death situation where there are a lot of moving parts. You may think that you are simply trying to disable a person by shooting them in the leg, and you might actually just hit them in the leg... and they still might die. Firearms are always a form of lethal force.

So by not shooting center mass you have several potential worse outcomes. First, you dramatically increase the reaction time of the office. You reduce the accuracy of their very dangerous projectiles. You increase the risk to innocent people of both being injured or killed by errant police shots, but also from an assailant who has not been stopped. You have the potential that use of firearms becomes a more casual decision and one that could be made in a situation where lethal force is not justified. You have the potential to still kill a person even if the intent was to disable.

So please STFU about this. Please let this be the last time you suggest this absolute nonsense.

P.S. @Eenie-Meenie my post telling you to stop with the DMs WAS NOT an invitation for you to DM me. I've asked you several times to not DM me. I meant it. I did not and will not read your DMs, ever.
Click to expand...
You make good points. What I disagree about is the need to use guns and for police to use them when lethal force is not necessary. I have seen it too many times in videos. So, your point about where to shoot I will agree with. My main concern is the need to use the guns. Police in the UK seldom use their guns, but at the same time they have strict gun control laws which makes their job less dangerous. I don't see why law enforcement doesn't get behind stricter gun control legislation. It will make their job easier and it will save lives.

I also didn't recall you saying not to PM but now that you bring it up, ok, I won't do it again ...
 
fishonjazz said:
Agreed
I have seen overdoses up close and personal. I have never seen an overdose occur while someone kneeled on their neck though.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
I knew someone who died of a meth overdose. Was fine for a while, then suddenly had breathing issues. Cause of death was cardiac arrest caused by overdose.

Meth is a horrible drug.
 
TheGoldStandard said:
I knew someone who died of a meth overdose. Was fine for a while, then suddenly had breathing issues. Cause of death was cardiac arrest caused by overdose.

Meth is a horrible drug.
Click to expand...
Sorry for your loss.
I done that one a couple of times. It's definitely horrible but also can feel pretty great.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top