Thank goodness for that.
I'm no expert on the case, but despite the defence claims, I struggled to see how there's any way his actions were "procedure".
Any secondly, I don't want to think about the backlash would have triggered .... and that term may have been all too literal.
Sentence to be passed in 8 weeks.
A lesson learned from PeterB about dignity in adversity, so Peter, In Memorium, "Onwards and Upwards".
Murders a start, be interesting to see what he actually gets sentenced too though..
I just hope the authorities don't just think "cop found guilty, job done." Seems to me there are bigger issues at play than 1 mans actions.
He's probably going to end up in a cushy jail, if he goes into genpop he'll get killed.
They had folk on Newsnight talking about it last night. 3 rounds of appeal likely, but he is in prison at the moment and will be from hereonin until they decide otherwise. One of the legal people was saying the court will probably push for higher than guidance sentencing terms due to a raft of reasons including:
- offence committed in presence of minor witnesses
- offence committed on duty
- offence committed in uniform
- offence was a breach of duty and oath of office
- offence committed in collusion with other officers
- etc
There is a whole raft of stuff coming his way that apparently if all placed consecutively could see him imprisoned for life. Minnesota is more commonly applied concurrently so he may get more like 20-30 years but either way hardly an appealling prospect.
I do wonder if he's been made a scapegoat, not that i think the judgment was wrong, it's just i wonder if after this it will just be back to business as usual.
It will be back to business as usual, the American police just seem to do what they want as and when, and it only turns into something else larger once every few years..
Star Trek actor has correct take on verdict...
https://twitter.com/levarburton/stat...45558824886281
LeVar Burton
@levarburton
·
15h
On this historic day, George Floyd and his family are the beneficiaries of what Black people have referred to for generations, as “White people’s justice.”
hexus trust : n(baby):n(lover):n(sky)|>P(Name)>>nopes
Be Careful on the Internet! I ran and tackled a drive by mining attack today. It's not designed to do anything than provide fake texts (say!)
This is why I put the "I'm no expert on the case" bit in my post. I haven't followed the details, and certainly not all the defence arguments, so it's hard for me to really judge (carefully chosen word) whether the verdict is justice or not. I mean, there might be some rational explanation for why he acted as he did.Originally Posted by Corky34
But short of it being spoon-fed to me, I'm damned if I can come up with any circumstances under which his actions were justified. I mean, even hypothetically, how the hell that was anything other than outright murder escapes me. That said, I guess I have to consider that I'm not a cop, much less an American cop, and have no real idea what they deal with, day to day.
But no matter how I try to rationalise to myself how it wasn't murder, even hypothetically, I just can't.
I've seen (like everybody) some VERY off-looking cases, where the cop ended up acquitted and can see how in some circumstances, at least hypothetically and certainly not in evidence on the publicised footage there might be something that explains the acquittal, even if I can't imagine what it is. But this one seems so ludicrously beyond any possibility of justifiable action that it beats me if the sysem is equitable how there was any chance of acquittal.
And yet the number of people at least half-expecting (and fearing) he would be acquitted raises some very real concerns about how equitable the system actually is.
Is this thing now over? I sure as hell hope not, because frankly, if he is used as a scapegoat and the authorities take the "all done, nothing left to see, move on folks" attitude, and try to shrug off the wider questions, then I wonder how much longer before the powder keg really explodes?
A lesson learned from PeterB about dignity in adversity, so Peter, In Memorium, "Onwards and Upwards".
I'm no expert either, but I guess that's where the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" comes in...
The Rodney King beating is a case in point. None of the police involved were found guilty of a crime iirc...
I'm not sure if you saw that part of the trial, but this method of restraint was in the training manual, before it was changed after this incident. The knee to the back is a safe method of restraint, when necessary for a violent offender.
There are some very reasonable grounds of appeal, not least a member of congress demanding people riot if the verdict is not-guilty. It's hard to believe the Jury weren't influenced by a year of rioting and media bias.
No doubt quite a few others here, perhaps including you, have done juryservice. I certainly have. And it was a sobering experience in that you know your vote will potentially be part of, and possibly the deciding part of, the decision on whether someone is guilty. You may also know, depending on the offence(s) involved thata guilty verdict is likely to, or certain to, result in them being deprived of their liberty.
I found it quite an onerous responsibility.
Discussion on a forum, or even the thought process in my own head, though is (self-evidently) a lot different in that neither can or will result in either someone being found guilty, or not being.
I find that quite a bit more liberating in that it means I don't have to consider quite what is, or is not, "reasonable" doubt. With the Floyd case, and with the proviso that I didn't see much of the case beyond the rather harrowing video, and by the way, not watching it was a conscious choice, I don't feel bound by how reasonable or unreasonable a given doubt might be. That gives me some freedom of thought and, admittedly with the previously stated and delibarately stated ignorance of the background to the case, I still can't see the corcumstances under which it wasn't murder, reasonable or unreasonable doubt notwithstanding.
A lesson learned from PeterB about dignity in adversity, so Peter, In Memorium, "Onwards and Upwards".
I didn't watch the trial at all, but yes, I was aware that kneeling like that was a method of restraint. How safe it is would depend on how it's done, and for how long. Based solely on watching the video, I can;t see any way it wasn't way overdone, and/or for way too long, and what circumstances maintaining that pressure for that long was justified.
Force, including reasonable force, to restrain violent offenders is clearly a thing. It did also cross my mind that police officers can never be quite sure what they're dealing with, whether the person they're restraining is at all rational, may be armed. may even be high on drugs with significant physiological impact (like 'roid rage) or even perception-altering. That's part of what I meant by the conceivable circumstances I couldn't see. Even allowing for all that, I can't see how it wasn't murder.
And I'm not exactly an easy-going liberal-minder wimp, on law and order. If reasonable force is necessary, then it is, and I give any and all police officers a much wider scope in that entirely because they voluntarily put their butts on the line doing a job I sure wouldn't want to do, and they (usually) don't know the background of those they're dealing with .... or their drug status. Even then, I still can't see it as other than either deliberate, or at least, monumentally negligent.
On the point about media coverage, I completely agree. I wasn't aware members of congress had said that (and I'm not doubting you) then it says more about their suitability to be members of congress than it does about the case. They ought to keep their yap shut and let due process run it's course, or they undermine due process.
That might be a valid grounds for appeal, and it may even work, but either way, for my purposes it doesn't alter the nature of the cop's actions. How can it? It's post-event. There would be a certain nasty irony though, if it was congressmen (or women) with a penchant for lynch mob mentality, that rersulted in acquital on appeal because it destroyed a fair trial. Maybe that will convince those motor-mouths to shut it next time ... if there is a next time.
A lesson learned from PeterB about dignity in adversity, so Peter, In Memorium, "Onwards and Upwards".
Something that I picked up on was the very clear statement from the Judge about how the Jury were to return their verdicts: They were to return them based on the law as the Judge had explained it to them during the trial - not on any other understanding of the law, and uninfluenced by consequence of their verdict.
That basically means we can't really comment on the verdict unless we were privy to everything the jury were and how the Judge had directed them to return verdicts. My natural inclination is of course to try and think about whether someone is guilty or not based on my understanding of the law, but that's not what a jury is asked to do (in this case at least, I don't know if that's common for these things).
Being an opinionated person who's all too willing to share it with other people, sometimes whether they want me to or not, I disagree.
I understand the MPD used to consider a knee to the neck/back was a valid method of restraint for a violent offender, personally i disagree with that, maybe if you were on your own then i could see it being used but if you can't restrain someone when you've got a 4+ (wo)man advantage against someone with their hands already cuffed behind their back it does raise questions.
IDK if it's standard for UK police with uncooperative offenders but tying their legs and (wo)manhandling them into the back of a paddy waggon is something I've seen being done multiple times, IIRC that's how they carted Julian Assange off.
Quite so, on the 4 or 5 to 1, plus restrained, thing.Being an opinionated person who's all too willing to share it with other people, sometimes whether they want me to or not, I disagree.
I understand the MPD used to consider a knee to the neck/back was a valid method of restraint for a violent offender, personally i disagree with that, maybe if you were on your own then i could see it being used but if you can't restrain someone when you've got a 4+ (wo)man advantage against someone with their hands already cuffed behind their back it does raise questions.
IDK if it's standard for UK police with uncooperative offenders but tying their legs and (wo)manhandling them into the back of a paddy waggon is something I've seen being done multiple times, IIRC that's how they carted Julian Assange off.
As I understand it, using leg restraints isn't standard in the UK, but they are certainly carried and permissible, for example, if the suspect is trying to kick officers arresting him (or, more rarely, her) at which point they can just be picked up and carried to the back of a transport van. Similarly, spit hoods.
The argument can certainly be made that both are degrading, but avoiding them is easy - don;t try to kick or spit on the arresting officers.
And that, of course, is one reason why I would not want be (or be accepted as) as policeman. Someone kicks me I'm likely to kick them back and any suspect spitting at me better have a good dental plan. Which, of course, would not go down well and get me in trouble, and of that that is precisely why those doing it know they can get away with it. And precisely why I couldn't be a cop. I'm wholeheartedy glad some people can. And do.
A lesson learned from PeterB about dignity in adversity, so Peter, In Memorium, "Onwards and Upwards".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
