billsfan1959

Good post, LS. The use of body cams is good for everyone, and it does not support narratives like the one Tibs is pushing...

So, tell us, just what percentage of police officers are thugs who engage in brutality in their interactions with citizens? Please provide some links...

What is "this stuff" that cops got away with easily? Killing people? What the officers did in this particular instance is on them. It is not a representation of all law enforcement and it is a rarity - with or without video cameras.

Unfortunately, there is no need for evidence. If a black man is killed by a police officer, there are two automatic assumptions of "truth:" (1) Law enforcement agencies in this country are inherently racist institutions and a black man cannot walk the streets without the fear of being murdered by law enforcement officers (2) The responses of wholesale destruction of communities, theft, arson, threats, assaults, and generally terroristic behaviors are encouraged, tolerated, and justified.

I ran a simple algorithm across threads and this is what the data indicated:

There are four officers involved: Officer Chauvin (the one who had his knee on Floyd's neck), Officer Thao (the one standing in the video), Officer Lane, and Officer Kueng. From the video I have seen, it appears as if Officers Lane and Kueng are the arresting officers. You are right, they arrest Floyd and place handcuffs on him at a vehicle. They then lead him onto the sidewalk. At no point, did I see anything that suggested to me that Floyd was resisting. Then there is surveillance footage showing those two officers leading Floyd to a patrol vehicle across the street. As Floyd steps off the curb, he falls. At that point, he is on the ground on the driver's side of the vehicle. The next time he is seen on video is the bystander video where Floyd is now face down on the ground on the passenger side of the vehicle. Officer Chauvin has his knee on Floyd's neck, Officer Thao is standing over them, and Officers Lane and Kueng are at Floyd's feet. Like you, I have no idea what happened in between. There is surveillance video that captured all of it; however, only part of it has been released. This is a news clip that shows the surveillance camera video from across the street. I don't know how much was released to the media, but, the news only shows it up to the point Floyd falls stepping off the curb.

Things are often more complicated than they seem on the surface. I agree, charges are likely to be coming. However, they need to be the right charges, against the right officers, and need to be based on the facts and the law.

Yeah, not defending them either. Just acknowledging there are a lot of variables involved with respect to the other officers (primarily the two officers at Floyd's feet). To me, Chauvin, the one with his knee on FLoyd's neck, and Thao, the one standing, are the officers whose complete (Chauvin) or primary (Thao) focus was on Floyd . They should have recognized the seriousness of FLoyd's complaints. But, we have to begin with the fact that there was absolutely no need for Chauvin to even apply that kind of force at all - much less for eight minutes. Floyd was down, handcuffed, and didn't represent any kind of a threat. From the time he was arrested and handcuffed, I never saw anything in Floyd's behavior, on the various videos to warrant what Chauvin was doing. I have already read that both Chauvin and Thao had histories of complaints and each had been sued. Thao's lawsuit included particularly brutal accusations and was settled out of court. Don't know the details of any of the complaints, so, I don't want to speculate too much. However, my initial sense of it is that it is less about race and more about the characters of Chauvin and Thao. Just a feeling. Like you said, we will be learning a whole lot more.

Perhaps he can remind us all again that what happened to poor Tawana Brawley was real, and that a Grand Jury just "saw it differently"

I think it is human nature to stand with someone you know and like when they do something wrong, no matter the profession. But there are distinctions and limits. There is no general pressure, as a law enforcement officer, to stand by and allow a fellow officer to cause the death of somebody. None. If it occurs in a specific situation, it is driven by the dynamics of that situation and those involved. I really cannot tell you why the other officers did not intervene. I could only see two officers in the video. My guess, if you are interested, is that, as it was transpiring, the gravity of the situation really didn't register with them. It is easier to see in hindsight. As for officers lives being ruined for testifying against fellow officers, if it happens, it is a rarity - particularly in a situation where an officer's actions were reckless or intentional and resulted in someone's death.

I'm sure they have been, or will be, asked that very question. How is that relevant to how the other 800,000 or so law enforcement officers in this country think, are motivated, or view this kind of behavior?

Correct, they are all wrong. I don't believe anyone is equating the taking of a human life with arson or theft. You can condemn all those behaviors in the same sentence without it being some sort of statement on the equivalency of the acts. I don't believe it is murder either. Probably 2nd degree manslaughter in Minnesota - although not sure about their specific homicide laws.

Link? To extrapolate the actions of specific individuals into how people in an entire profession think, what motivates their behaviors, or that they outright condone this type of behavior is beyond ridiculous.

His post was"Tongue in cheek" no doubt. However, he does have a point. Can you condemn the actions of the officer(s) and condemn criminal behavior on the part of those committing arson, assault, theft, vandalism, etc.? It would seem to me to be a very reasonble stance. If you disagree, why?

Well, it wasn't a curb stomping. It was an officer using excessive force in the performance of official duties. It certainly doesn't make it right, nor defensible. Those are different scenarios. If it was an intentional "curb stomping," my guess is that the officer would be in custody. My personal opinion, based soley on the video evidence is that charges should be brought. I am sure they will. As I stated earlier, I am not a fan of the legal process being driven by emotion. Nor should you be. BTW, there are plenty of instances in which somone does something that results in a death and is not immediately arrested. Let the process work as it is designed.

The medical examiner rules on the manner of the death (natural, accidental, suicide, homicide, or undetermined) and cause of death (specific injuries that caused the death). The legal system determines whether it was murder. That process has just started.

I am not defending the officer(s). I fully understand why people are upset. It upsets me as well. However, there is a process and I am not a fan of that process, or any legal process, being driven by societal pressure. It should be driven by facts and the law.

Right. I have no problem holding law enforcement officers accountable for their behavior. What I detest is: (1) The use of the actions of specific individuals to justify the attribution of motives to an entire group, (2) the use of that attribution as justification for completely unrelated , violent, criminal activity, and (3) the instantaneous use of a tragedy for political purposes.

Actually, I believe this is a point on which we do agree. I have no problem with her statements being legally sufficient on their own to support the allegation. I have never argued that. It is precisely a weight issue, which, as you know, is entirely within the purview of the jurors - which, in this instance is us. That is where we really differ: What we choose to give weight to and how much weight we choose to give it. Those differences do make things interesting.

No angst here, either. I always enjoy these types of discussions. I actually have no problem with a differing opinion, and the fact that you happen to believe her is fine by me. I have a number of close friends that share the same opinion. I absolutely support your right to have whatever opinion you want. My disagreement is with statements like, "...her testimony alone is enough to support her contention." I do not agree with that. However, I am growing bored as well, so, until the next issue we disagree upon (which I am sure will be right around the corner), Cheers

Do you need a hug, my friend? Why so aggressive? What arena is it that I don't have the guts to get into? You can get as aggressive as you want. It doesn't change the fact that you believe Ford because you want to. You cannot provide a shred of evidence to show har accusation has any credibility to it at all. I'm sorry this is causing you so much angst. It is what it is. Just let it go

You lost the argument. You have been proven to not be able to understand the critical underlying facts of the issues of which you feel the need to constantly, and in such a condescending manner, share your opinion - and always based on your vast legal experience. Honestly, how could you have not known that she lied about making a contemporaneous disclosure? You really should never again chastize anyone for offering an opinion on legal issues: Chances are they have a greater understanding of the facts than you. Now you are just embarrasing yourself. Peace out, Hamilton Burger. Better luck on your next case

Please explain to all of us how, with all your experience in your careful watching of Ford's testimony and the rest of the hearings, you missed such a critical fact as her statement that she made a contemporaneous disclosure to her best friend and her best friend said it never happened - and that she didn't believe Ford's accusation? Seriously. Nobody with any experience in this field at all would have missed that information in an assessment of credibility. Nobody. I certainly didn't miss it. You did miss it. My experience: 1 Your experience: 0 Don't you ever tire of being exsposed as the fraud that you are? That's a rhetorical question. Narcissistic people have little ability for introspection.

This is classic you. Providing an analysis without having an actual grasp on the facts. Which then makes your analysis irrelevant. She stated she did make a contemporaneous disclosure and was pretty specific about it. Her best friend, the one Ford stated she made the disclosure to, stated Ford never made the disclosure and that she didn't believe Ford. If you don't actually know the facts of a case. Maybe you should refrain on offering any analyses. It would save the rest of us the time in having to point it out.