AND we know what kinds of people his defenders would be.Chauvin could have killed Floyd and his family in cold blood and might still have defenders here.
<laughing>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.
This is not in dispute.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.”
Most Americans should know this.
This unsubstantiated opinion.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.
Sadly, you're still lying. <smh>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.
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.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.
No, not at all.Sadly, you're still lying. <smh>
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.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.
This also unclear, and this also your continued pretending.Most of his body weight was on Floyd, when it shouldn't have been.
No dispute with this point.He should have been monitoring Floyd's pulse, but he didn't.
Again not disputed.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.
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.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.
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.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.
The only points which I've been arguing are:Why aren’t you raising the facts of Chauvin’s history of abuses and misconduct? After all he killed someone. Floyd never did.
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.The only points which I've been arguing are:
Is Chauvin’s history relevant to these points? I didn't think so.
- the restraint hold wasn't illegal or banned (it was in the police training manual for Christ's sake!), and
- that Floyd's history doesn't warrant the canonization of glorification which the Dems, Libs, and Progs have conferred on him
- the left's canonization of glorification of Floyd was driven by their political agenda
The only points which I've been arguing are:
Is Chauvin’s history relevant to these points? I didn't think so.
- the restraint hold wasn't illegal or banned (it was in the police training manual for Christ's sake!), and
- that Floyd's history doesn't warrant the canonization of glorification which the Dems, Libs, and Progs have conferred on him
- the left's canonization of glorification of Floyd was driven by their political agenda
Chauvin’s history is relevant, just not to the points which have been under discussion in which I've been participating.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.
Saint = Glorifying.No one is calling Floyd a saint.
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.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.
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).But how would Chauvin’s history not be relevant in considering this case?
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.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).
Didn't you post this?It wasn't in his training manual.
Apparently the restraint was in the training manual. Gee, and you posted that it was.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.
This has nothing to do with whether the restraint was in the training manual or not.Two trainers testified under oath he was not trained to do what he did.
This just your continued bullshit.Your continued lying is shameful, but revealing.
The position of that officer in that illustration is not the same position in which Chauvin pinned down Floyd.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 poor quality of image from the training manual its hard to see where the person's neck is.The position of that officer in that illustration is not the same position in which Chauvin pinned down Floyd.
Was this conclusion of theirs based on the drawing which was in the court documents?Two trainers testified to that in his trial. Post proof that they were lying.
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.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.
"There you go again"I'm calling you a liar because you're lying.
The illustration isn't clear enough, sorry.The illustration shows the knee not touching the ear, whereas Chauvin's knee was against Floyd's ear.
"There you go again"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
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.
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.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).
Apparently not.The illustration is absolutely clear enough.
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.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.
Bullshit, as I have shown in my previously referenced post.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.
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.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.
Chauvin’s history is relevant, just not to the points which have been under discussion in which I've been participating.
You'd have to ask the Democrat party leaders who were supporting those riots and those rioters.What political advantage would the left get from honoring Floyd?
Good. I have no issue with that.He’s dead. His killer is in jail. The system worked, showing us that no one is above the law.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?