George Floyd Death - Derek Chauvin Guilty of Murder

[CaaC (John)+]

44 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I know @CaaC (John) was in the military and while that may have been a very long time ago... I'm pretty sure they had guns and he's been trained to use one. So maybe he can confirm that most people who are trained to use guns are trained that they're killing weapons, first and foremost.

Believe it or not, I have been shot at in NI in 1974 but never shot back because I had 'hit the deck' as the saying goes and landed on the ground and put a round into my rifle with the safety catch off, but never saw the sniper to shoot back, or our 4 man VCP patrol never seen the sniper, I can tell you now that being shot at was a horrible feeling and the hairs on my head and arms stood up. 

I can't say too much about the training routine we had then as that is against the secret services acts we sign on enlistment and I could end up in nick but all we really had as a deterrent was a greener gun or rubber bullet gun but we were trained to shoot at the lower parts of the body and not the head area but that method was really only used in street riots.

Holding a loaded rifle is a horrible feeling knowing you had a weapon in your hands that could kill but lucky enough I have never shot back in anger or shoot someone when you did a patrol you had to be a 100% focused as many a time on a cold and dark evening you might suddenly see young kids with toy pistols playing around or some old boy pointing a walking stick at you as if to shoot you and if you were only 95% switched on then that 5% could be lethal with your reactions. 

[Cicero]

12 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

I think I've posted something similar on here before, but there are a few problems with "shoot to wound". What are you aiming for? Probably legs. Legs are quite a bit smaller than your torso and they're probably moving quickly, which makes it a much harder shot. No guarantee they incapacitate your target either so you'll fire off a few shots. It'd take far too long to fire, wait and assess how that's gone, then fire again, wait, etc. Legs also have some pretty big arteries, so your target may well bleed out anyway (especially if hit multiple times). There's also the issue of missing and hitting someone/something else. Guns are not something to be fucked around with, basically.

If you train officers to shoot to wound instead of only using their firearms as a last resort, you'll get a lot more shootings, and I think you'll get a lot more deaths. And a lot more officers getting off on qualified immunity.

I think you need to treat each situation case by case and manage the risk. What's a taser going to do here exactly? The bloke in Kenosha, Wisconsin literally just walked away after multiple taser shots. Police shouldn't be gambling their lives and the lives of people in that vicinity by using a taser when a man, who is clearly deranged, is after them with a knife. 

Why is it that only SWAT and the Military are trained specifically on these controlled shots but the police aren't? Surely its a much better solution than to fire endlessly until the target is down? 

[Bluewolf]

7 minutes ago, CaaC (John) said:

Believe it or not, I have been shot at in NI in 1974

 Fuck that... lucky man to survive 

Also, to think that you got hit there and yet when you were all storming Carthage back in the day you didn't get hit by even one stray arrow... you sure are lucky mate.. 

[CaaC (John)+]

2 minutes ago, Bluewolf said:

 Fuck that... lucky man to survive 

Luck of the gods really but our weapons training was done on open or indoor ranges, pistol and rifle or the greener gun on a range with tin cans.

When I was de-mobbed I had a chance to join the police force or prison service but I needed a break from uniforms and loaded weapons and walking into mortuaries doing body checks etc which gave me flashbacks for 5 years after I was de-mobbed and managed to pull through the nightmares and crying in my sleep, sweating thanks to the wife who would wake me up and calm me down, they are gone now at my age but will always be there at the back of my mind.

[Bluewolf]

10 minutes ago, CaaC (John) said:

Luck of the gods really but our weapons training was done on open or indoor ranges, pistol and rifle or the greener gun on a range with tin cans.

When I was de-mobbed I had a chance to join the police force or prison service but I needed a break from uniforms and loaded weapons and walking into mortuaries doing body checks etc which gave me flashbacks for 5 years after I was de-mobbed and managed to pull through the nightmares and crying in my sleep, sweating thanks to the wife who would wake me up and calm me down, they are gone now at my age but will always be there at the back of my mind.

All sounds pretty horrible mate... 

[Burning Gold]

14 minutes ago, Cicero said:

I think you need to treat each situation case by case and manage the risk. What's a taser going to do here exactly? The bloke in Kenosha, Wisconsin literally just walked away after multiple taser shots. Police shouldn't be gambling their lives and the lives of people in that vicinity by using a taser when a man, who is clearly deranged, is after them with a knife. 

Why is it that only SWAT and the Military are trained specifically on these controlled shots but the police aren't? Surely its a much better solution than to fire endlessly until the target is down? 

Of course you do, but you're relying on individuals exercising judgement in a stressful situation. We already have officers pulling out and firing weapons when they shouldn't; if you lower the bar for when that's acceptable, it'll skyrocket

I'll admit I haven't heard about SWAT and the military being trained on controlled shots, but they're generally much better trained (and more skilled) than police officers anyway. Frankly with the number of cops America has (needs?) it just isn't realistic to expect them to reach that standard. I guess SWAT and the military are also a lot more likely to be in a situation where they need someone alive for questioning as well which, like it or not, is more valuable than apprehending someone on the street.

[Cicero]

9 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

Of course you do, but you're relying on individuals exercising judgement in a stressful situation. We already have officers pulling out and firing weapons when they shouldn't; if you lower the bar for when that's acceptable, it'll skyrocket

I'll admit I haven't heard about SWAT and the military being trained on controlled shots, but they're generally much better trained (and more skilled) than police officers anyway. Frankly with the number of cops America has (needs?) it just isn't realistic to expect them to reach that standard. I guess SWAT and the military are also a lot more likely to be in a situation where they need someone alive for questioning as well which, like it or not, is more valuable than apprehending someone on the street.

So you're saying the police, in this situation, shouldn't of fired at all? 

[CaaC (John)+]

3 minutes ago, Bluewolf said:

All sounds pretty horrible mate...

That's all in the past now buddy and this world has gone fucking crazy with all the shooting and knifings and I still admire the police in the UK as all they have is maybe a truncheon and laser gun plus a body vest but the body vests could not stop some of the rifles & pistol bullets they have nowadays.

I have said this before and no disrespect to our American members here but the USA still live in the past with there gun laws as if they are still in the Wild West with there guns and holsters and the Wyatt Earp, Pat Garrett syndrome chasing the Billy the Kids & Johnny Ringos etc, but they won't change the laws as it is something to do with the 5th amendment thing.

[Bluewolf]

2 minutes ago, CaaC (John) said:

That's all in the past now buddy and this world has gone fucking crazy with all the shooting and knifings and I still admire the police in the UK as all they have is maybe a truncheon and laser gun plus a body vest but the body vests could not stop some of the rifles & pistol bullets they have nowadays.

I have said this before and no disrespect to our American members here but the USA still live in the past with there gun laws as if they are still in the Wild West with there guns and holsters and the Wyatt Earp, Pat Garrett syndrome chasing the Billy the Kids & Johnny Ringos etc, but they won't change the laws as it is something to do with the 5th amendment thing.

It's this... 

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 

[CaaC (John)+]

I think from what I have read that a lot of American police officers are ex-military who had served in the Gulf, Afganistan etc and have had military experience and CV's saying they have had training in the proper use firearms so, in reality, they have had training in the firearm action(s).  

[Burning Gold]

22 minutes ago, Cicero said:

So you're saying the police, in this situation, shouldn't of fired at all? 

The Philly one? I'm only going off your account, but if he's charging at them with a knife and ignoring orders to stop... what other option is there but to shoot?

I do think more should be done to encourage the use of non-lethal options like tasers, etc. but they're not going to be right in every situation

[CaaC (John)+]

1 hour ago, Cicero said:

SWAT and Military are trained to take these injury shots. I cannot understand how its not in the realm of possibility to effectively train police officers to do the same. 

A lot of American police officers are ex vets who have already been trained in the military on the use of weapons and body shots, a lot of the shoot to kill syndrome if you could call it that but as I have mentioned you have to be a 100% focused when holding a loaded weapon, being only 5% not focused then you think a sudden movement is life-threatening to you and others around you then your reactions go out the window.

 

[Stan]

Chauvin's trial starts today...

[Cicero]

What's the charge now? Think I mentioned previously that 1st degree was never going to stick. 

[Stan]

39 minutes ago, Cicero said:

What's the charge now? Think I mentioned previously that 1st degree was never going to stick. 

Murder and manslaughter. 

[Cicero]

2 minutes ago, Stan said:

Murder and manslaughter. 

2nd or 3rd?

[Stan]

25 minutes ago, Cicero said:

2nd or 3rd?

Unintentional 2nd.

And 3rd degree murder. 

[Cicero]

9 minutes ago, Stan said:

Unintentional 2nd.

And 3rd degree murder. 

And he plead not guilty on those. The balls on him as those will likely stick. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

3 hours ago, Cicero said:

And he plead not guilty on those. The balls on him as those will likely stick. 

I think 3rd degree murder might stick:

A person can be charged with third-degree murder if they unintentionally cause “the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.” - stolen from some website after I googled his case.

Considering one of the cops seemed to be concerned about whether or not the chokehold Chauvin had him in might lead to him dying and expressed that concern to Chauvin, as well as other instances of Chauvin choking people out in the past - that might fit the "act eminently dangerous to others" and "evincing a depraved mind"... as well as the "without regard for human life."

I think the manslaughter charge is nailed on though.

[Scouse_Mouse]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think 3rd degree murder might stick:

A person can be charged with third-degree murder if they unintentionally cause “the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.” - stolen from some website after I googled his case.

Considering one of the cops seemed to be concerned about whether or not the chokehold Chauvin had him in might lead to him dying and expressed that concern to Chauvin, as well as other instances of Chauvin choking people out in the past - that might fit the "act eminently dangerous to others" and "evincing a depraved mind"... as well as the "without regard for human life."

I think the manslaughter charge is nailed on though.

You're probably right but the cnut deserves much more.

[Cicero]

3 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

You're probably right but the cnut deserves much more.

At the very least a life sentence. 

[Scouse_Mouse]

1 minute ago, Cicero said:

At the very least a life sentence. 

You would like to think that's going to be the case, even after casually looking at the circumstances. 

It's the USA though so who knows what will happen.

[Cicero]

3 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

You would like to think that's going to be the case, even after casually looking at the circumstances. 

It's the USA though so who knows what will happen.

I think based on all the factual evidence and when you reference it to what he's charged with, it all sticks. I would be surprised if a jury doesn't find him guilty along with a life sentence. 

[Scouse_Mouse]

1 minute ago, Cicero said:

I think based on all the factual evidence and when you reference it to what he's charged with, it all sticks. I would be surprised if a jury doesn't find him guilty along with a life sentence. 

Hopefully true, I'm kind of in the "wait and see" camp though right now. 

He should be held accountable and it should be a straightforward decision for any jury, I've just seen these kind of verdicts go wrong so many times in the US.

[DeadLinesman]

Proof beyond reasonable doubt and a unanimous decision to convict. Basically, he’s walking.