Derek Chauvin Murder Trial is on

It is only true if you have full control on the suspect. Police officers did not have that luxury.

 

It's demonstrably true. It is illegal in every single state in the US.

 

irrelevant

he was entirely subdued and in no way a threat.

 

because I'm pointing out what actually happened, as captured on video? lol

I don't need to. it's irrelevant.

abject nonsense.

a subdued, handcuffed and face down laying suspect is in no way what so ever a danger.

 

A cop can kneel on your neck holding you down all day long and if you don't die there are no consequences. It's just another arrest that got unpleasant when you fought

 

correct. it's not murder until the victim dies. In other news, water is wet.

 

Are you or have you ever been a cop or enforcement official of any kind?

 

Then how does this imaginary statute you keep quoting read?

 

no relevance what so ever

 

murder 3 statutes are not imaginary, lol. Just ask Chauvin.

 

Quote the one that describes the act Chauvin was accused of. There was nothing outside his training till the last 3 minutes, if that.

 

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195

it's why he's in prison.

 

If simple logic is irrelevant to you and you have no counter logic to offer then all your arguments means nothing.
We, the normal people operate by logic and common sense, not by some degenerate progressive ideas.

 

I'm pointing out the law to you, and showing you why you are incorrect.

lol

 

Your interpretation of law is absolutely irrelevant.
We are done with the laws.

The discussion is about whether the law has been applied correctly.
Apparently it was not and you have nothing to offer to support correct implementation of the law, other then - "lol"

 

I didn't interpret the law. I quoted the law.

obviously, as you are demonstrably incorrect, as the law points out.

which we know it has been.

I've refuted every point you've made. There's nothing left to do other than laugh at the continued detachment from reality you guys are suffering from.

 

Your quote of the law is absolutely irrelevant.
Knowledge without any supporting evidence = zero.
Baseless opinion is also has no value in our discussion.
Your rebuttals are laughable because they have no content.

 

lol, it's the central issue

I have multiple videos showing the murder.

which is why I've cited the law and the video evidence.

my refutation of your argument is supported by the statute, and the video evidence.

 

The subject who died do you know his name? Do you know how long he took to die? Do you know what he was doing while the knee was on his neck and how long the knee was on his neck before he stopped having a pulse? Do you know how many times the subject said he could not breath while the knee was on his neck? Have you read the police manual on force the police officer was trained in and limited to use? Do you know why when the subject reported he had claustrapohobia and having a panic attack the police officer did not follow his manual and call for a paramedic and/or fire department support before determining the next step? Can you explain how this man who was cuffed and not resisting while on his stomach was put in a knee hold when nothing in the manual allows it?

Will you ask such questions? Of course not. You clea4rly don't care about the police manual which forms the basis for determining what would constitute excessive and therefore negligent force in criminal and civil courts. You ignore all these iwhich were asked and answered in trial and led to the conclusion of criminal negligence and will form the basis of civil negligence in a civil wrongful death law suit.

You ignore all that because it does not suit your own pre-determined subjective opinion as to what you think is reasonable force. You do not represent or speak for any police officers as you pose in your response.

For that matter neither do I. I only speak to their actual training manual and legal issues directly germaine to the determination leading to the judgement.

 

We shouldn't be viewing this only by what the outcome was.

Police would probably implement the same restraint procedure used here in many similar types of situations.

 

Utterly illogical and false. An officer who does not follow the guidelines as to reasonable use of force as per his or her training manual is subject to disciplinary action leading to suspension, dismissal and exposure to criminal and civil liability against themselves personally and the state they represent.

 

The police manual would be a strong factor given much weight, but not properly following the manual does not necessarily constitute grounds for the death to be considered a murder.

Trying to say "He did something he wasn't supposed to do which caused a death, so it must be murder" is illogical.

 

No, not following the manual is not necessarily enough by itself to expose the officer to civil or criminal liability.

Actions can be "justified" in one way but not in another. Or, actions might not even be adequately justified but may constitute an honest and reasonable mistake, which combined with the fact that the victim had responsibility for the situation, can mean no criminal/civil liabilities.

 

Again your response is illogical. The supporting evidence for the basis of the positon Rah provided was the police training manual which has been posted on this thread, the video, the testimony of the police and witnesses.

So his comments are necessarily based on all the above and can not be baseless or absent of content.

In fact the only thing baseless and illogical for that matter, is your response. You responded above with a subjective rebuttal based on denying he presented things on the thread anyone can read.

If you disagree with his conclusions, pretending they don't exist or the basis for them not existing because you do not know how to rebutt them with evidence, as you have done, won't make them go away.

 

well tell all of that to the police because they know you're full of ****. the fact that you think that flies directly in the face to all current law enforcement training. that statement is trollishly hilarious. https://www.policemag.com/363711/handcuffed-suspects-are-still-a-threat