‘He’s not getting out’: Calls for Trump to pardon Derek Chauvin slammed by state AG who says former cop ‘still owes Minnesota 22 1/2 years’

[SNOWFLAKE]

Chauvin could have killed Floyd and his family in cold blood and might still have defenders here.

AND we know what kinds of people his defenders would be.

 

[Jagged]

No, it hasn't proven false.
Per Jagged Post:

Specifically "an illustration of how to administer MRT and that image came from Chauvin's own training manual."


No, I'm not.

This is from the court documents.
View attachment 67572175

Doctor who performed George Floyd autopsy stands by homicide conclusion

The medical examiner who performed the autopsy on George Floyd after last May's deadly arrest explained how he concluded the death was a homicide at the hands of police in testimony on Friday at former Minneapolis policeman Derek Chauvin's murder trial.

www.reuters.com

Hard to tell from the training manual image as it doesn't clearly show where the person's neck is, but appears to be right by the knee, and I'm sure opinions will differ whether they are the same or not.


<blah><blah><blah>, sorry, but no.

<laughing>

Your desperation is noted and laughed at. The illustration is clearly on the person's shoulder, not their neck.

Whereas Chauvin is so clearly on Floyd's neck, his knee is touching Floyd's ear. Where that's not the case in the illustration.

Furthermore, the illustration shows the officer kneeling and leaning back, his thigh at about a 45⁰ angle. Whereas Chauvin's thigh is almost 90⁰, putting most of his weight on Floyd's neck.

 

[eohrnberger]

Floyd is a legitimate symbol, much as Rodney King was. Neither was a saint. But I repeat a friends saying, “Human rights are not rewards for good behavior. They are inalienable.”

This is not in dispute.

Most Americans should know this.

But can we face facts about this thread? Chauvin could have killed Floyd and his family in cold blood and might still have defenders here.

This unsubstantiated opinion.

The facts which some seem to ignore is that the restraint hold used was in the training manual, and appears to have been appropriately applied, per the sketch image from the training manual and the court documented drawing / sketch.

This does is not a justification for the length of time which that restraint was used, which clearly was excessive, nor the lack of following the other parts of the protocol in the training manual, which was changing to the 'recovery position' in a timely fashion - it wasn't. There's plenty to find Chauvin accountable for, but the mere application of the restraint hold isn't one of them, as it was not banned at the time - these the most popular myths the left keeps pushing - as the posting here will attest to.

 

[Jagged]

This is not in dispute.




This unsubstantiated opinion.

The facts which some seem to ignore is that the restraint hold used was in the training manual, and appears to have been appropriately applied, per the sketch image from the training manual and the court documented drawing / sketch.

This does is not a justification for the length of time which that restraint was used, which clearly was excessive, nor the lack of following the other parts of the protocol in the training manual, which was changing to the 'recovery position' in a timely fashion - it wasn't. There's plenty to find Chauvin accountable for, but the mere application of the restraint hold isn't one of them, as it was not banned at the time - these the most popular myths the left keeps pushing - as the posting here will attest to.

Sadly, you're still lying. <smh>

His technique was not in his manual. I showed you the differences. His knee was on Floyd's neck, when it shouldn't have been. Most of his body weight was on Floyd, when it shouldn't have been. He should have been monitoring Floyd's pulse, but he didn't. Had he, he wouldn't have still be kneeling on Floyd's neck for two minutes AFTER Floyd died. He should have placed Floyd in the recovery position, he didn't.

But the most salient testimony in this regard came from 2 of the department's trainers, who both said Chauvin was not trained to kneel on someone's neck. And they know better than you.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Sadly, you're still lying. <smh>

His technique was not in his manual. I showed you the differences. His knee was on Floyd's neck, when it shouldn't have been. Most of his body weight was on Floyd, when it shouldn't have been. He should have been monitoring Floyd's pulse, but he didn't. Had he, he wouldn't have still be kneeling on Floyd's neck for two minutes AFTER Floyd died. He should have placed Floyd in the recovery position, he didn't.

But the most salient testimony in this regard came from 2 of the department's trainers, who both said Chauvin was not trained to kneel on someone's neck. And they know better than you.

You can argue the finer points till you are blue in the face. This is not the first thread posted about the George Floyd incident, and in each one of the previous threads, it was the SAME cast of characters, none of whom attended the trial, heard or saw the evidence, that still insist something ELSE killed George Floyd.
It's simple: for a certain segment of the population George Floyd was a black man and Chauvin was a white cop. So something ELSE had to have killed Floyd, there just had to be. THEY will never accept any facts or details and we know why.

 

[eohrnberger]

Sadly, you're still lying. <smh>

No, not at all.

His technique was not in his manual. I showed you the differences. His knee was on Floyd's neck, when it shouldn't have been.

As I pointed out, the training image you provided does not show the man being restrained's neck, nor any sign of where it might be. It is not as conclusive as you are pretending it is.

Most of his body weight was on Floyd, when it shouldn't have been.

This also unclear, and this also your continued pretending.

He should have been monitoring Floyd's pulse, but he didn't.

No dispute with this point.

Had he, he wouldn't have still be kneeling on Floyd's neck for two minutes AFTER Floyd died. He should have placed Floyd in the recovery position, he didn't.

Again not disputed.

But the most salient testimony in this regard came from 2 of the department's trainers, who both said Chauvin was not trained to kneel on someone's neck. And they know better than you.

Fine. But still doesn't support your claim that that particular restraint method was illegal and wasn't in the training manual, which it clearly was, and it this, which is my point.

 

[Jagged]

No, not at all.


As I pointed out, the training image you provided does not show the man being restrained's neck, nor any sign of where it might be. It is not as conclusive as you are pretending it is.


This also unclear, and this also your continued pretending.


No dispute with this point.


Again not disputed.


Fine. But still doesn't support your claim that that particular restraint method was illegal and wasn't in the training manual, which it clearly was, and it this, which is my point.

I never said Chauvin's ad-hoc technique was illegal. You're lying about that too. I'm not that familiar with the law. What I do say is his ad-hoc technique is what caused Floyd's death, which is why he was convicted as he was never trained to do what he did.

And it was not in the training manual. You're lying about that too. Two trainers testified to that, and again, they know better than you.

As far as Chauvin's weight, again, he was trained to lean back, as seen in the illustration. Instead, he stood straight up on his knees, putting more body weight on Floyd's neck. Even worse, at times, his left foot came up off the ground, pressing even more weight on Floyd's neck.

 

[eohrnberger]

Why aren’t you raising the facts of Chauvin’s history of abuses and misconduct? After all he killed someone. Floyd never did.

The only points which I've been arguing are:

1. the restraint hold wasn't illegal or banned (it was in the police training manual for Christ's sake!), and
2. that Floyd's history doesn't warrant the canonization of glorification which the Dems, Libs, and Progs have conferred on him
3. the left's canonization of glorification of Floyd was driven by their political agenda

Is Chauvin’s history relevant to these points? I didn't think so.

 

[Nickyjo]

The only points which I've been arguing are:

1. the restraint hold wasn't illegal or banned (it was in the police training manual for Christ's sake!), and
2. that Floyd's history doesn't warrant the canonization of glorification which the Dems, Libs, and Progs have conferred on him
3. the left's canonization of glorification of Floyd was driven by their political agenda

Is Chauvin’s history relevant to these points? I didn't think so.

No one is calling Floyd a saint. The activism surrounding his fate suggests that what happened to him is symbolic of what some people, particularly young minorities, have to fear at the hands of police all too often. I was mistaken for Puerto Rican and almost shot by plain clothes cops who didn’t identify themselves. When the dust settled, I found them to be quite nice despite their blunder.

But how would Chauvin’s history not be relevant in considering this case?

 

[SavannahMann]

The only points which I've been arguing are:

1. the restraint hold wasn't illegal or banned (it was in the police training manual for Christ's sake!), and
2. that Floyd's history doesn't warrant the canonization of glorification which the Dems, Libs, and Progs have conferred on him
3. the left's canonization of glorification of Floyd was driven by their political agenda

Is Chauvin’s history relevant to these points? I didn't think so.

Actually yes, Chauvin’s history is relevant. He had been disciplined more than once for excessive force. He had nearly a dozen citizen complaints with most of them upheld, in other words he had done it and his superiors knew it.

 

[eohrnberger]

Actually yes, Chauvin’s history is relevant. He had been disciplined more than once for excessive force. He had nearly a dozen citizen complaints with most of them upheld, in other words he had done it and his superiors knew it.

Chauvin’s history is relevant, just not to the points which have been under discussion in which I've been participating.

 

[eohrnberger]

No one is calling Floyd a saint.

Saint = Glorifying.
Your claim is bullshit, as shown in #131.

The activism surrounding his fate suggests that what happened to him is symbolic of what some people, particularly young minorities, have to fear at the hands of police all too often. I was mistaken for Puerto Rican and almost shot by plain clothes cops who didn’t identify themselves. When the dust settled, I found them to be quite nice despite their blunder.

What you try to white wash as 'activism' in reality burned down large sections of cities, the burning out and abandonment of a police station, and a large number of looting cases, and God knows what all else in real damages, with Democrat political leaders support those riots.

But how would Chauvin’s history not be relevant in considering this case?

Not to the points which were under discussion, which focused on the canonization and glorification of Floyd (as demonstrated in post #131), and whether the restraint being used was banned (it wasn't), illegal (it wasn't), and whether it was in the police training manual during Chauvin's time on the police force (it was).

 

[Jagged]

Saint = Glorifying.
Your claim is bullshit, as shown in #131.


What you try to white wash as 'activism' in reality burned down large sections of cities, the burning out and abandonment of a police station, and a large number of looting cases, and God knows what all else in real damages, with Democrat political leaders support those riots.


Not to the points which were under discussion, which focused on the canonization and glorification of Floyd (as demonstrated in post #131), and whether the restraint being used was banned (it wasn't), illegal (it wasn't), and whether it was in the police training manual during Chauvin's time on the police force (it was).

It wasn't in his training manual. Two trainers testified under oath he was not trained to do what he did. Your continued lying is shameful, but revealing.

 

[eohrnberger]

It wasn't in his training manual.

Didn't you post this?

That is false. Chauvin did not perform a department approved MRT. Chauvin's own training manual showed the knee goes on the shoulder. Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck. The office is supposed to kneel & lean back. Chauvin stood upright on his knee, his foot sometimes lifting off the ground, applying most of his body weight on Floyd's neck. The officer is supposed to regularly check the suspects pulse. Chauvin didn't do that. If the suspect appears in distress, the officer is supposed to move the suspect out of the prone position and onto their side. Chauvin didn't do that either. In court, a superior officer testified under oath that Chauvin did not properly follow his training.

Apparently the restraint was in the training manual. Gee, and you posted that it was.

Am I now not to take your word (or your posts) for accurate or consistent any longer?

Two trainers testified under oath he was not trained to do what he did.

This has nothing to do with whether the restraint was in the training manual or not.

Your continued lying is shameful, but revealing.

This just your continued bullshit.

 

[Jagged]

Didn't you post this?

Apparently the restraint was in the training manual. Gee, and you posted that it was.

Am I now not to take your word (or your posts) for accurate or consistent any longer?


This has nothing to do with whether the restraint was in the training manual or not.


This just your continued bullshit.

The position of that officer in that illustration is not the same position in which Chauvin pinned down Floyd.

Two trainers testified to that in his trial. Post proof that they were lying.

 

[eohrnberger]

The position of that officer in that illustration is not the same position in which Chauvin pinned down Floyd.

The poor quality of image from the training manual its hard to see where the person's neck is.
Some see it one way, other see it the other way.

Two trainers testified to that in his trial. Post proof that they were lying.

Was this conclusion of theirs based on the drawing which was in the court documents?

No, I'm not going to call them liars, and seems you have some sort of fixation with that word and a tendency of calling people that.

Appearances are 'Either parrot me or you are a liar' type of attitude.

 

[Jagged]

The poor quality of image from the training manual its hard to see where the person's neck is.
Some see it one way, other see it the other way.


Was this conclusion of theirs based on the drawing which was in the court documents?

No, I'm not going to call them liars, and seems you have some sort of fixation with that word and a tendency of calling people that.

Appearances are 'Either parrot me or you are a liar' type of attitude.

I'm calling you a liar because you're lying. The illustration shows the knee not touching the ear, whereas Chauvin's knee was against Floyd's ear.

And the illustration shows the officer leaning back, keeping much of the body weight off of the suspect, whereas Chauvin was nearly vertical on Floyd's neck, pressing down with much more body weight.

Saying the position Chauvin maintained is the same as that illustration is a lie.

"I don't know what kind of improvised position that is. That's not what we train." ~ Katie Blackwell, MPD Inspector

 

[eohrnberger]

I'm calling you a liar because you're lying.

"There you go again"

The illustration shows the knee not touching the ear, whereas Chauvin's knee was against Floyd's ear.

The illustration isn't clear enough, sorry.

And the illustration shows the officer leaning back, keeping much of the body weight off of the suspect, whereas Chauvin was nearly vertical on Floyd's neck, pressing down with much more body weight.

Saying the position Chauvin maintained is the same as that illustration is a lie.n't know what kind of improvised position that is. That's not what we train." ~ Katie Blackwell, MPD Inspector

"There you go again"

 

[Jagged]

"There you go again"


The illustration isn't clear enough, sorry.


"There you go again"

The illustration is absolutely clear enough. You can clearly see the knee is not high enough to reach the ear. You can clearly see the officer is leaning back.

""I don't know what kind of improvised position that is. That's not what we train." ~ Katie Blackwell, MPD, Inspector.

 

[Nickyjo]

Saint = Glorifying.
Your claim is bullshit, as shown in #131.


What you try to white wash as 'activism' in reality burned down large sections of cities, the burning out and abandonment of a police station, and a large number of looting cases, and God knows what all else in real damages, with Democrat political leaders support those riots.


Not to the points which were under discussion, which focused on the canonization and glorification of Floyd (as demonstrated in post #131), and whether the restraint being used was banned (it wasn't), illegal (it wasn't), and whether it was in the police training manual during Chauvin's time on the police force (it was).

Again, he is not being canonized as other than a symbol of what can happen all too often in our society. His rights were violated in the most extreme of ways. Many of the people lynched in the South back in the day were guilty of something, were not nice people. But do you fault the NAACP for honoring them with a flag outside their offices in New York each time that happened? Ditto the National Memorial for Peace and Justice in Alabama where I saw the names of those lynched placed in places of honor. An unjust killing, whether of a flawed person such as Floyd, or of a man we honor with a holiday, Martin Luther King, brings forth the same memories of our flawed history.

 

[eohrnberger]

The illustration is absolutely clear enough.

Apparently not.

You can clearly see the knee is not high enough to reach the ear. You can clearly see the officer is leaning back.

The training manual image is of such poor quality that you can't even see where the restrained' s neck is in relation to the knee.

""I don't know what kind of improvised position that is. That's not what we train." ~ Katie Blackwell, MPD, Inspector.

 

[eohrnberger]

Again, he is not being canonized as other than a symbol of what can happen all too often in our society.

Bullshit, as I have shown in my previously referenced post.

The left doing this for no other reason than to gain perceived political advantage, and nothing more, as they always do in every situation. The left constantly injects politics where politics doesn't belong, such as girl's locker rooms and biological female athletics. Its what they do, and constantly at that.

His rights were violated in the most extreme of ways. Many of the people lynched in the South back in the day were guilty of something, were not nice people. But do you fault the NAACP for honoring them with a flag outside their offices in New York each time that happened? Ditto the National Memorial for Peace and Justice in Alabama where I saw the names of those lynched placed in places of honor. An unjust killing, whether of a flawed person such as Floyd, or of a man we honor with a holiday, Martin Luther King, brings forth the same memories of our flawed history.

 

[Nickyjo]

Bullshit, as I have shown in my previously referenced post.

The left doing this for no other reason than to gain perceived political advantage, and nothing more, as they always do in every situation. The left constantly injects politics where politics doesn't belong, such as girl's locker rooms and biological female athletics. Its what they do, and constantly at that.

What political advantage would the left get from honoring Floyd? He’s dead. His killer is in jail. The system worked, showing us that no one is above the law. Now if Trump we’re to pardon Chauvin, that might give democrats some political advantage in an upcoming election, but I haven’t heard of any groundswell of republicans demanding this, as I assume most of the party - aside from the post’s mention of some pundits and (surprise!) Elon Musk - is content with what happened.

 

[SavannahMann]

Chauvin’s history is relevant, just not to the points which have been under discussion in which I've been participating.

Actually it is quite relevant. The most violent person there was Chauvin. The one who consistently violated procedures and utilized excessive force. The one who was told he could use the knee but only until a suspect was restrained.

If you shoot an intruder in your home. That shooting will probably be justified depending on the laws within your state. That shooting stops being justified if you empty two magazines into the corpse. You are authorized to use force up to a point. In the old days that was the reasonable person standard. Now it isn’t called that but that remains the way we judge such things. Would a reasonable person in your shoes dump thirty rounds in a person laying on the ground and not moving?

Chauvin had no reason to use the knee. It was authorized only to get the person restrained. Floyd was in cuffs before Chauvin arrived. The disagreement was Floyd didn’t want to get in the police car. Pinning Floyd to the ground do not further the effort to get him into the car. So as the Instructors, Trainers, and Superiors said. The Knee was not authorized.

It was not authorized because it was not appropriate for the situation. Just as shooting through your door at a Pizza Delivery guy is not justified as defending your home.

As I explained before. If you are going to use force you need to be able to justify it. Chauvin was in the wrong from the moment he arrived. His own experts admitted it under Cross Examination.

Floyd was sitting on the edge of the seat. He was refusing to get into the car. Violent Thug Chauvin threw Floyd to the ground and knelt on him. That was not an authorized use of the hold. Chauvin was told that it could cause positional asphyxiation. Chauvin did not follow procedure of rolling the suspect, Floyd, on his side when breathing was raised by Floyd. Chauvin increased the pressure.

It was a cold blooded murder. It was a thug with a long history of violence who finally went too far getting his jollies hurting people.

 

[eohrnberger]

What political advantage would the left get from honoring Floyd?

You'd have to ask the Democrat party leaders who were supporting those riots and those rioters.

Have you already forgotten?

WATCH: Walz’s Wife Said She Kept Windows Open To Smell ‘Burning Tires’ During George Floyd Riots

The wife of Democrat VP-pick Tim Walz said during an interview in 2020 that she kept her windows open for as long as she could so she could smell the burning of tires rioters set on fire during the Minneapolis-area riots in response to the death of George Floyd.During the 2020 riots, cities like...

www.dailywire.com

Have you already forgotten?

Biden staff donate to group that pays bail in riot-torn Minneapolis​

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us/biden-staff-donate-to-group-that-pays-bail-in-riot-torn-minneapolis-idUSKBN2360SY/

Harris' backing of bail fund during George Floyd protests dampens Trump 'prosecutor' campaign pitch​

Harris' backing of bail fund during George Floyd protests dampens Trump 'prosecutor' campaign pitch

Vice President Kamala Harris is working overtime to prove she has what it takes to not only defeat former President Donald Trump in the 2024 election but also in the courtroom.

www.foxnews.com

He’s dead. His killer is in jail. The system worked, showing us that no one is above the law.

Good. I have no issue with that.

Now if Trump we’re to pardon Chauvin, that might give democrats some political advantage in an upcoming election, but I haven’t heard of any groundswell of republicans demanding this, as I assume most of the party - aside from the post’s mention of some pundits and (surprise!) Elon Musk - is content with what happened.

Chauvin went across the line, by a large margin, and he's being held accountable. I have no issue with that, as I've previously posted.

I don't think pardoning Chauvin is being taken seriously by anyone other than the left, to re-politicize what they had previously politicized, for the same reasons both times: Politics. They are, after all, the 'Politics Uber Alles' party.