‘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’

[eohrnberger]

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.

As he expands the topic / subject beyond the points which I didn't.

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.

 

[Jagged]

Apparently not.


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 can't help you don't know what an ear is.

 

[SavannahMann]

As he expands the topic / subject beyond the points which I didn't.

I’m just putting your points in context. Showing that by focusing on like a microscope you purposely ignored the relevant facts.

 

[Nickyjo]

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

Good. I have no issue with that.


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.

So someone keeping the windows open in that context gives democrats a political advantage? Check your logic.

And what is wrong with backing a bail fund for people who have yet to be convicted? How does that compare with pardoning the already convicted and sentenced Jan 6 rioters?

 

[joluoto]

I don't think people understand what the presidential pardon is. I also think it has been overused in the last 10 years.

Much longer than that.

 

[eohrnberger]

I’m just putting your points in context.

No, you are pettifogging the specific point under discussion, this being the legality of, and the training of, that specific restraint hold.

Showing that by focusing on like a microscope you purposely ignored the relevant facts.

 

[eohrnberger]

So someone keeping the windows open in that context gives democrats a political advantage? Check your logic.

'Love the smell of riots', as well as supporting riots and rioters is the point, not the window.

And what is wrong with backing a bail fund for people who have yet to be convicted? How does that compare with pardoning the already convicted and sentenced Jan 6 rioters?

Bailing out rioters so they can go and continue to riot, burn and destroy property and continue to commit crimes meets with your approval?

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

So someone keeping the windows open in that context gives democrats a political advantage? Check your logic.

And what is wrong with backing a bail fund for people who have yet to be convicted? How does that compare with pardoning the already convicted and sentenced Jan 6 rioters?

Time to let him have the last word. He will beat this dead horse for infinity.

 

[Hamish Howl]

'He's not getting out': Minnesota AG throws cold water on Derek Chauvin pardon push

Minnesota's attorney general says ongoing efforts to petition President Trump for a federal pardon of Derek Chauvin are irrelevant when it comes to his state conviction and prison sentence.

lawandcrime.com

Clear case of "lawfare". Besides, Chauvin didn't kill Floyd, Floyd died of a drug overdose, right? And besides that, Floyd was one big scary looking black dude, so obviously a "thug."

Good to hear he will remain in prison to rot.

Floyd was under the influence and was medically compromised due to his prior drug use, both of which were factors in his death.
To ignore these factors would simply not be credible.

If you strangle a man who is dying of a drug overdose, it is still murder.

 

[SavannahMann]

No, you are pettifogging the specific point under discussion, this being the legality of, and the training of, that specific restraint hold.

Okay. That hold was authorized to be used to get the suspect restrained. Correct?

 

[eohrnberger]

Okay. That hold was authorized to be used to get the suspect restrained. Correct?

This appears to be the case, yes.
Having said that, it is also apparent that Chauvin applied it for far too long, much longer than necessary.
That's on Chauvin.

 

[SavannahMann]

This appears to be the case, yes.
Having said that, it is also apparent that Chauvin applied it for far too long, much longer than necessary.
That's on Chauvin.

Okay. Good. We are getting somewhere. Now true or false, Floyd was in handcuffs when Chauvin arrived.

 

[bythoughts]

I don't know why everybody has to jump from one extreme to another. Chauvin obviously did something very wrong, because people aren't supposed to die in custody. But Floyd with his counterfeit and his fentanyl was not the kind of person we need to be building statues of. There was never any proof that Chauvin was anything more, or less, than homicidally reckless or incompetent in the line of duty. All this partisan extremism over low drama...

 

[eohrnberger]

Okay. Good. We are getting somewhere. Now true or false, Floyd was in handcuffs when Chauvin arrived.

I have no idea, and wasn't anything to do with whether the restraint was illegal or banned, or not (turns out not).

So what else is the left not being 'forthcoming' (lying / distorting / narrative pushing) about related to this case?
That's the wonder.

 

[SavannahMann]

I have no idea, and wasn't anything to do with whether the restraint was illegal or banned, or not (turns out not).

So what else is the left not being 'forthcoming' (lying / distorting / narrative pushing) about related to this case?
That's the wonder.

Floyd was in handcuffs. He was sitting on the edge of the back seat of the patrol car. He was refusing/resisting getting into the car claiming Claustrophobia. Floyd was restrained.

Chauvin threw Floyd to the ground and began to kneel on him. In direct violation of the policy and his training. Floyd was restrained before Chauvin got there. From the moment of his arrival Chauvin was violating the law. It is called Assault when you use violence against someone in an unlawful manner. Chauvin had a dozen complaints over his career. Most of them were upheld.

Those dozen complaints showed a pattern of abuse and excessive force. Most of them the superiors couldn’t claim that there was no evidence. They said he did it. He was “retrained” and “Reprimanded” but he kept doing it.

Chauvin had a use of force expert on his defense team. That expert testified about the legality and use of the knee to shoulder technique. Then under cross examination admitted that Chauvin did it wrong, and used it when he wasn’t supposed to.

 

[eohrnberger]

Floyd was in handcuffs. He was sitting on the edge of the back seat of the patrol car. He was refusing/resisting getting into the car claiming Claustrophobia. Floyd was restrained.

Chauvin threw Floyd to the ground and began to kneel on him. In direct violation of the policy and his training. Floyd was restrained before Chauvin got there. From the moment of his arrival Chauvin was violating the law. It is called Assault when you use violence against someone in an unlawful manner. Chauvin had a dozen complaints over his career. Most of them were upheld.

Those dozen complaints showed a pattern of abuse and excessive force. Most of them the superiors couldn’t claim that there was no evidence. They said he did it. He was “retrained” and “Reprimanded” but he kept doing it.

Chauvin had a use of force expert on his defense team. That expert testified about the legality and use of the knee to shoulder technique. Then under cross examination admitted that Chauvin did it wrong, and used it when he wasn’t supposed to.

For which Chauvin was convicted and sentenced.
You wrongly seem to think that my position is he should be pardoned. It's not my position, as I've posted earlier in this thread (at least I think it was this thread).

My point in this thread, has always been, the wrongly asserting that the use of that restraint hold was illegal (it wasn't) or was banned (it wasn't).

 

[SavannahMann]

For which Chauvin was convicted and sentenced.
You wrongly seem to think that my position is he should be pardoned. It's not my position, as I've posted earlier in this thread (at least I think it was this thread).

My point in this thread, has always been, the wrongly asserting that the use of that restraint hold was illegal (it wasn't) or was banned (it wasn't).

Well. It sort of was. If a man demands your wallet and you pull your gun to defend yourself that is a legal use of your right to defend yourself. If a man asks you the time and you pull your gun it is now a crime on your part. The same actions with different circumstances. The context that is required.

 

[eohrnberger]

Well. It sort of was.

'Sort of'? Err, we clearly have differing views on that specific point.

If that restraint hold was in the police training manual, its a good indication that it isn't illegal nor banned, IMHO.

If a man demands your wallet and you pull your gun to defend yourself that is a legal use of your right to defend yourself. If a man asks you the time and you pull your gun it is now a crime on your part. The same actions with different circumstances. The context that is required.

 

[SavannahMann]

'Sort of'? Err, we clearly have differing views on that specific point.

If that restraint hold was in the police training manual, its a good indication that it isn't illegal nor banned, IMHO.

It is not illegal for you to pull a gun, with justification. A good reason. It is absolutely illegal to pull it for no reason.

 

[upsideguy]

Floyd was under the influence and was medically compromised due to his prior drug use, both of which were factors in his death.
To ignore these factors would simply not be credible.


Floyd's criminal history established him as a 'thug', not the racism based remark you just made.

I hear you.... kind of like Trump's criminal history establishes him as a thug as well.... OTH, Floyd's criminal history was in his rear view mirror, where the criminal Trump continues to operate in is criminal and unethical ways...

 

[eohrnberger]

It is not illegal for you to pull a gun, with justification. A good reason. It is absolutely illegal to pull it for no reason.

This 'justification' aspect is the goal posts moving, being that this is the first mention of it in this thread, at least to my recollection.

 

[JMR]

'Sort of'? Err, we clearly have differing views on that specific point.

If that restraint hold was in the police training manual, its a good indication that it isn't illegal nor banned, IMHO.

Does the police training manual state that it is not necessary to determine whether the restrained individual can breathe?
For NINE MINUTES....

 

[Jagged]

If that restraint hold was in the police training manual, its a good indication that it isn't illegal nor banned, IMIMHO.

It wasn't in the manual.

 

[SavannahMann]

This 'justification' aspect is the goal posts moving, being that this is the first mention of it in this thread, at least to my recollection.

Actually it is something that most people would consider Common Sense.

If you break a window on a car you have just committed a crime. You have destroyed private property. That is illegal. But you say there was a dog in the car obviously in distress from heat and justify your actions. Common Sense.

Context is vital to properly judging a situation.

 

[eohrnberger]

Does the police training manual state that it is not necessary to determine whether the restrained individual can breathe?
For NINE MINUTES....

Once again, it was the restraint hold which was in the training manual, was legal, and was an approved practice.
Not the excessive length the restraint hold was applied.

You lefties just keep banging on and on about off point. Its embarrassing for you, whether you realize it or not.