George Floyd was a victim

Status
Not open for further replies.
rgp said:
So what ? they [the police] should just let all the suspects go ?
Click to expand...
In the days when apprehending lawbreakers running away might mean the posse never caught up with them, or were less likely to because they didn't have their pictures, DNA etc to follow up on, shooting dead those suspected of crime who are fleeing had a stronger rationale don't you think?
It reminds me of the TV series "The fugitive" evading arrest, (of course all fictional, but didn't the runaway eventually get proved to be innocent of murdering his wife, or whatever it was?). Some who flee may be innocent, and have no sensible reason for doing so, but wouldn't law enforcement sometimes be served by picking the runaway up later, or should the police always assume the suspect to be a danger if not shot right then, (accepting more might run if fear of running was diminished somewhat by not killing them all)?
 

911 said:
I am really having issues with the Taser issues that have come forth. When we first received our Tasers, I volunteered to be Tasered in front of 27 fellow Troopers. After I had my physical and heart tested via having a heart catheterization performed and a doctor and ambulance standing by, I was Tasered with only 30,000 of the potential 50,000 volts available. For about 30-45 seconds, I was frozen in time. Not cold, but unable to move.

We later spoke with 2 different higher ups at the Axon Corporation, which manufactured our Tasers and 1 said yes, it was a lethal weapon and the other told us that Tasers are not a deadly weapon. I still don’t comprehend the difference.
Click to expand...

I think in the context we are talking about, it was a legal construct. From what I've read (and I can't remember where, so no cite) the police force in Atlanta has taken the position in a court case that use of a taser is not deadly force, nor is it a lethal weapon. So therefore they can't now take the position that the taser aimed at the cop was a lethal weapon that required deadly force in response. I'll have to see if I can find again where I read that. It just stuck in my mind because it's a "can't have it both ways" thing.
 
Keesha said:
Are you suggesting there’s nothing between letting them go and choking them to death?
Click to expand...


I'm not suggesting anything, only saying that once the suspect challenges the arrest [tries to escape] .... all bets are off. Things can & obviously do, go bad quickly.
 
Butterfly said:
I think in the context we are talking about, it was a legal construct. From what I've read (and I can't remember where, so no cite) the police force in Atlanta has taken the position in a court case that use of a taser is not deadly force, nor is it a lethal weapon. So therefore they can't now take the position that the taser aimed at the cop was a lethal weapon that required deadly force in response. I'll have to see if I can find again where I read that. It just stuck in my mind because it's a "can't have it both ways" thing.
Click to expand...
That may be, but in this instance, if the defense would call the company spokesperson to the stand and he testified that the Taser is a lethal or deadly weapon, would that not put "reasonable doubt" into the mind's of the jurors? Opinion?

I slightly remember that when I was struck with 30,000 volts, the doctor that examined me (the exam was videoed) asked me what day it was and I didn't know. He then asked me my name and I only repeated my last name. It took me 12 minutes until I could speak coherently.
 
rgp said:
I'm not suggesting anything, only saying that once the suspect challenges the arrest [tries to escape] .... all bets are off. Things can & obviously do, go bad quickly.
Click to expand...
Can someone explain why my questions above are not thought worthy of a reply, (top of page)?
Here is a quick reprise:
1). Posse chasing bad guy, no chance of picking him up later, (as no DNA, or photos), more reasonable to shoot guy in those days than now?
2). Someone who flees from police might be innocent, just behaving stupidly. Should police always assume they're a danger if they're not shot there and then, (maybe to deter others running away?)?
These questions are open to anyone, but especially anyone content with things as they are now. :unsure: .
 
Keesha said:
He said in another thread that he wasn’t a police officer but did work in a police station in the office behind a desk so maybe a cop secretary? 🤷‍♀️
Click to expand...
We can't verify anything in a post. Usually when someone supports everything a cop does--including murder--it's because they are either a cop or they have cops in their families.
It's rather amusing sometimes - someone else on this forum answered that question with "None of your damn business." He didn't realize that his angry answer was a resounding "YES."
 
win231 said:
We can't verify anything in a post. Usually when someone supports everything a cop does--including murder--it's because they are either a cop or they have cops in their families.
It's rather amusing sometimes - someone else on this forum answered that question with "None of your damn business." He didn't realize that his angry answer was a resounding "YES."
Click to expand...
Maybe. Who knows why people hold certain attitudes and where it all comes from.
 
Last edited:
Keesha said:
He said in another thread that he wasn’t a police officer but did work in a police station in the office behind a desk so maybe a cop secretary? 🤷‍♀️
Click to expand...


Who exactly said that ? I must have missed it.

And BTW, if you're talking about me ? You're speaking more lies. As it is not so.
 
win231 said:
We can't verify anything in a post. Usually when someone supports everything a cop does--including murder--it's because they are either a cop or they have cops in their families.
It's rather amusing sometimes - someone else on this forum answered that question with "None of your damn business." He didn't realize that his angry answer was a resounding "YES."
Click to expand...


Usually when someone supports criminals, it's usually because they themselves have a criminal history, or someone in their family does.
 
grahamg said:
Maybe, but no answer, or attempts at answer to my mildly interesting questions earlier(?). Not intressin nuf fur ya? 👨‍🌾 .
Click to expand...


I thought / felt she directed an asinine comment my way. How does leading a horse to water even fit in here ? Unless of course you feel, {I} attempted to lead said horse to water ..... and she failed to follow ?
 
rgp said:
Usually when someone supports criminals, it's usually because they themselves have a criminal history, or someone in their family does.
Click to expand...
Ya got me there. Just go to any post office & look for my photo. In fact, it's the same one in my avatar.
I'm still free. I can't believe the police are so dumb.
 
rgp said:
I thought / felt she directed an asinine comment my way. How does leading a horse to water even fit in here ? Unless of course you feel, {I} attempted to lead said horse to water ..... and she failed to follow ?
Click to expand...
Ah, misunderstanding, (my fault). :mad: .
I thought my twice repeated questions were sufficiently similar to the one you responded to, with slight nuances, you'd ignored them for this or other unknown reasons, hence the "leading a horse to water....", comment, when you ignored them a second time. :unsure: .
 
grahamg said:
Ah, misunderstanding, (my fault). :mad: .
I thought my twice repeated questions were sufficiently similar to the one you responded to, with slight nuances, you'd ignored them for this or other unknown reasons, hence the "leading a horse to water....", comment, when you ignored them a second time. :unsure: .
Click to expand...


OK, now my bad .... as I have no idea what you are speaking of ?
 
grahamg said:
Ah, misunderstanding, (my fault). :mad: .
I thought my twice repeated questions were sufficiently similar to the one you responded to, with slight nuances, you'd ignored them for this or other unknown reasons, hence the "leading a horse to water....", comment, when you ignored them a second time. :unsure: .
Click to expand...
Of course it’s ‘your’ fault. 🙃lol
 
rgp said:
OK, now my bad .... as I have no idea what you are speaking of ?
Click to expand...
These questions, (is my English no longer English when its crossed over the Atlantic I wonder :unsure: ?):
Here is a quick reprise:
1). Posse chasing bad guy, no chance of picking him up later, (as no DNA, or photos), more reasonable to shoot guy in those days than now?
2). Someone who flees from police might be innocent, just behaving stupidly. Should police always assume they're a danger to the public or the police themselves, if they're not shot there and then, (maybe shot to deter others running away I know, so is this good enough cause to die nowadays?)?
These questions are open to anyone, but especially anyone content with things as they are now."
 
grahamg said:
These questions, (is my English no longer English when its crossed over the Atlantic I wonder :unsure: ?):
Here is a quick reprise:
1). Posse chasing bad guy, no chance of picking him up later, (as no DNA, or photos), more reasonable to shoot guy in those days than now?
2). Someone who flees from police might be innocent, just behaving stupidly. Should police always assume they're a danger to the public or the police themselves, if they're not shot there and then, (maybe shot to deter others running away I know, so is this good enough cause to die nowadays?)?
These questions are open to anyone, but especially anyone content with things as they are now."
Click to expand...


OK, I can answer both in one simple reply. When encountered by police in a criminal suspicion situation .... arrest coming. We are expected to comply with the commands of the officer (s) . If the suspect does not . Anything can happen. And often times it does not go well for the suspect. I'm good with that.

IMO, that is indeed the message we need to send. Disobeying the police, trying to escape , will likely go bad for criminals........I recommend not doing it.

I have no use for the criminal element in our society , they are our "in close" enemy , the police are our protection from them.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top