The Trial of Derek Chauvin

[billvon 2,395]

10 hours ago, nwt said:

I disagree--lunging at someone with a deadly weapon*** is about as justifiable as it gets for lethal force. I think a taser would have been inappropriate if that were the situation.

We'll see.  If the department has a policy of responding with lethal force first and less-than-lethal force second - perhaps the policy, rather than the officer, has the problem.

[wmw999 2,120]

11 minutes ago, billvon said:

We'll see.  If the department has a policy of responding with lethal force first and less-than-lethal force second - perhaps the policy, rather than the officer, has the problem.

Part of that evaluation has to include how much personal risk officers are expected to take. We expect our soldiers to be willing to lay down their lives because of direct command, uproar of battle, and pretty much anything else. Even if the country we're fighting for isn't any great shakes from a human rights point of view, and even if they want us gone. The cause comes first.

Our police officers have their fraternity at a higher priority than their protection of the (sometimes less-than-stellar) people they are supposed to help protect. If we want to consider policing to be as selfless as military is currently considered, then maybe that needs a change. It's not a hard line, and people will be unhappy no matter where the line between protecting the people and self-protection is.

Wendy P.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

20 minutes ago, billvon said:

We'll see.  If the department has a policy of responding with lethal force first and less-than-lethal force second - perhaps the policy, rather than the officer, has the problem.

Where was the good girl with a knife? It's not an Indiana Jones movie,  right? Gun beats knife but so does Taser and Karate. 

[billvon 2,395]

33 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

If we want to consider policing to be as selfless as military is currently considered, then maybe that needs a change. It's not a hard line, and people will be unhappy no matter where the line between protecting the people and self-protection is.

Agreed.  This is something that should be talked about (and decided on) at a higher level than it is now.

[Phil1111 910]

For all law enforcement a knife is considered a deadly weapon. In their training another officer is given a practice knife(orange plastic) and they start a training scenario about three yards apart. Usually some talking(yelling) and distractions on the part of the attacker is the preamble. Then the attacker goes for a slash on the throat, head or another area outside a vest. After rushing the uke of course.

The entire scenario is used to illustrate that an attacker with a knife can be on an officer in less than two seconds and inflict potentially fatal injuries. The only remedy to prevent a shooting is for the officer to back away to give additional time to react to attack. Where other civilians are close by as in this incident. The safety of bystanders needs to be an utmost consideration.

I'm not sure what training there is in Europe for a knife wielding potential assailant.But from the video released the cop reacted directly the way he was likely trained.

Its all a terrible waste.

[nwt 131]

2 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

wrong.  it is the perfect situation for a taser, depending on some variables.  1.  she was the one who called the cops, but was merely still fighting when they arrived.  2.  she had lunged with a knife, so had she been about 5 or 10 feet or more from the target a taser would have most likely stopped her with no harm to the target. 

that is from a purely armchair perspective, and i am not disagreeing that he was justified in lethal force.  i disagree that the taser would not be good.  in my opinion, the best reform, or at least the first, for cops should be deescalation coupled with non-lethal techniques to subdue suspects.  mandatory aikido also.  if most of these cops were more confident in their self defense ability, they wouldn't be so scared.  if they were confident in their ability to deescalate a situation, they wouldn't be so scared.  this won't take care of everything, but it will go a long way.

You might be right. Literally everything I know about this situation I've gotten from a few posts in this thread.

[nwt 131]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

We'll see.  If the department has a policy of responding with lethal force first and less-than-lethal force second - perhaps the policy, rather than the officer, has the problem.

What I'm saying is if someone is about to be murdered, then lethal force is the correct first action, second action, and third action, etc. until the threat is neutralized.

[sfzombie13 307]

1 hour ago, nwt said:

You might be right. Literally everything I know about this situation I've gotten from a few posts in this thread.

same here.  if she was too close. shooting is the only option.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, nwt said:

What I'm saying is if someone is about to be murdered, then lethal force is the correct first action, second action, and third action, etc. until the threat is neutralized.

That assumes a level of foresight that rarely exists. Like in this case, a confrontation has been going on long enough for 911 to be called and the police to arrive and the people involved are still uninsured.... but at that moment it has definitely just escalated to murder? It’s a heck of an assumption.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

33 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

same here.  if she was too close. shooting is the only option.

See below. "Too close" is a lot further out than many people realize.

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

For all law enforcement a knife is considered a deadly weapon. In their training another officer is given a practice knife(orange plastic) and they start a training scenario about three yards apart. Usually some talking(yelling) and distractions on the part of the attacker is the preamble. Then the attacker goes for a slash on the throat, head or another area outside a vest. After rushing the uke of course.

The entire scenario is used to illustrate that an attacker with a knife can be on an officer in less than two seconds and inflict potentially fatal injuries. The only remedy to prevent a shooting is for the officer to back away to give additional time to react to attack. Where other civilians are close by as in this incident. The safety of bystanders needs to be an utmost consideration.

I'm not sure what training there is in Europe for a knife wielding potential assailant. But from the video released the cop reacted directly the way he was likely trained.

Its all a terrible waste.

^This.

A knife is a deadly weapon.
As a slight aside, there have been 2 fatal stabbings in the past month or so local to me. 

In this case, the dead girl apparently went for another person (not the cop) with the knife.
The cop responded to that threat of deadly force with deadly force of his own.

The idea that karate or a Taser is an appropriate response to a knife wielding individual is not realistic. 

 

It is starting to come out that the dead girl may have been the one who called the cops. That she may have been defending herself against the others.

If that's true, this is then perhaps a case of mistaken identity.
That doesn't change the rules of engagement the cop was operating under.

 

One thing that is emphasized very heavily in concealed carry classes is this idea.
That the cops see a gun (or a knife) as a threat. 
They don't have time to sort out who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. 

They have to address the threat as they perceive it at the time. 

I'm one of the most vociferous critics of police misconduct on here. 
If the cop is wrong, I'm one of the first to call for accountability.

But I don't see that here. 

[nwt 131]

13 minutes ago, jakee said:

That assumes a level of foresight that rarely exists. Like in this case, a confrontation has been going on long enough for 911 to be called and the police to arrive and the people involved are still uninsured.... but at that moment it has definitely just escalated to murder? It’s a heck of an assumption.

I've explicitly stated that I don't know the details of this case, so I don't know why you're accusing me of making "hecks" of assumptions.

All I did was describe the conditions under which I believe lethal force is justified. If all your saying is that those conditions are not always present, or that they were not present in this case, then we have no disagreement.

[billvon 2,395]

2 hours ago, nwt said:

What I'm saying is if someone is about to be murdered, then lethal force is the correct first action, second action, and third action, etc. until the threat is neutralized.

I disagree.  It is a good last resort.  It is a poor first resort.

[jakee 1,254]

28 minutes ago, nwt said:

I've explicitly stated that I don't know the details of this case, so I don't know why you're accusing me of making "hecks" of assumptions.

All I did was describe the conditions under which I believe lethal force is justified. If all your saying is that those conditions are not always present, or that they were not present in this case, then we have no disagreement.

Not you, the cop. You said when someone is about to be murdered. But we don’t know that, and if you always use deadly force based on the worst case assessment of a scenario then at what point do the consequences of using deadly force outweigh the consequences of not using it?

[nwt 131]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

if you always use deadly force based on the worst case assessment of a scenario

I never suggested that and I won't--No idea where it came from. Obviously it's a judgement call and the decision can't be made perfectly every time.

 

1 hour ago, billvon said:

I disagree.  It is a good last resort.  It is a poor first resort.

In scenarios where there will be continued opportunity (time, etc.) for a definitive intervention after a failed less invasive one, I agree completely. In cases where you only have one shot, surely you see the problem?

It's definitely a last resort, but that doesn't imply that you must try other things first in all situations. Should a cop be expected to tase someone who is drawing a gun? 

[billvon 2,395]

5 minutes ago, nwt said:

It's definitely a last resort, but that doesn't imply that you must try other things first in all situations. Should a cop be expected to tase someone who is drawing a gun? 

Depends on the situation, of course.  Is it someone who is drunk and is fumbling around in their jacket?  Then a taser might be the best approach.  Is it someone who just shot someone else, they see you and they draw their weapon?  Then deadly force would likely be the best choice.

There are absolutely cases where deadly force is appropriate.  It is also used as a first resort far too often (IMO.)

[nwt 131]

36 minutes ago, billvon said:

Depends on the situation, of course.  Is it someone who is drunk and is fumbling around in their jacket?  Then a taser might be the best approach.  Is it someone who just shot someone else, they see you and they draw their weapon?  Then deadly force would likely be the best choice.

There are absolutely cases where deadly force is appropriate.  It is also used as a first resort far too often (IMO.)

Yeah, I think we are pretty much in agreement.

[jakee 1,254]

47 minutes ago, nwt said:

I never suggested that and I won't--No idea where it came from. Obviously it's a judgement call and the decision can't be made perfectly every time.

Again - you said when someone is about to murdered. If you're going to insist that this is completely relevant to this specific situation and shouldn't be questioned then I've changed my mind. You are making a massive assumption over what was about to happen.

Quote

 In cases where you only have one shot, surely you see the problem?

How many times do you know you only have one shot? How many times do you only have one shot because you decided you needed to shoot?

Surely you see the problem?

Quote

It's definitely a last resort,

That is definitely not what you said.

[nwt 131]

47 minutes ago, jakee said:

Again - you said when someone is about to murdered.

Right, and what I must have meant by that is that I expect a cop to have telepathic powers.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

[ryoder 1,381]

Cops body-cam video starts at 0:45:

Lousy as hell video quality.

[ryoder 1,381]

After Chauvin's conviction for Floyd murder, DOJ weighs charging him for 2017 incident involving Black teen: Source

The videos, from Sept. 4, 2017, allegedly showed Chauvin striking a Black teenager in the head so hard that the boy needed stitches, then allegedly holding the boy down with his knee for nearly 17 minutes, and allegedly ignoring complaints from the boy that he couldn't breathe.

"Those videos show a far more violent and forceful treatment of this child than Chauvin describes in his report [of the incident]," Matthew Frank, one of the state prosecutors, wrote in a court filing at the time.

Now, the U.S. Justice Department may do something that state prosecutors never did: charge Chauvin for the 2017 incident.

[mistercwood 287]

47 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Cops body-cam video starts at 0:45:

Lousy as hell video quality.

Jesus. I don't know what else people were expecting the cop to do, there was literally no time to de-escalate anything, he'd barely even arrived.

I'm all for an investigation, but I don't see the officer in the wrong here, procedurally. It's a shitty, shitty outcome for everyone though.

[gowlerk 1,905]

It certainly looked like she was about to stab and possibly kill the other woman in mere seconds.

[billvon 2,395]

2 hours ago, mistercwood said:

Jesus. I don't know what else people were expecting the cop to do, there was literally no time to de-escalate anything, he'd barely even arrived.

I'm all for an investigation, but I don't see the officer in the wrong here, procedurally. It's a shitty, shitty outcome for everyone though.

Yep.  Based on that I'd agree.  It's defensible, even if a different outcome was possible.

[jakee 1,254]

7 hours ago, nwt said:

Right, and what I must have meant by that is that I expect a cop to have telepathic powers.

So what are you actually saying? I've said several times now that cops don't know what's about to happen yet you keep finding a reason to argue. Why?

[sfzombie13 307]

some folks like to argue, i do.  some like to get the last word in, not me.  some just like to troll, some call it playing devil's advocate like i used to, i still troll sometimes.  sometimes it's propaganda, either paid or unwitting participants.  hard to say really.