The Police Knee On The Neck Is Allowed!!

rgp said:
And I need to say ... Politics/Gov are the only things that effect us all, and that we can change, and that should be discussed above all others.

Seeing things differently .... is exactly how we arrive at a conclusion.
Click to expand...

Again, this thread is an excellent example of how quickly many other wise good hearted people can not stay civil, and feel the need to mount personal attacks against other posters. For example, here's post #32:

There are three types of people who don't want to see this for the murder that it was:
1. Racists.
2. People who automatically defend anything a police officer does because they think if they don't, they're not supporting those who serve.
3. People who are either retired police officers or who have family in law enforcement.

this is actually one of the milder examples, but calling someone a racist because they are waiting on facts is not helpful or civil. There are lots of forums where politics are allowed. I like this one because they are not allowed. I'd rather view the great pictures some folks provide, or the jokes, or the threads about music, etc.
 
Aneeda72 said:
Hmm, you mean the cowards who fled to Canada to avoid serving in the Vietnam Nam conflict? Then got to return home with a free pass while some of the men are still buried in the jungle.

What bothers me is the men and woman, who have never provided a service in their life to this country, feel they have the right to judge those that do service. But freedom of speech is freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
Why don't talk about the fact that despite years of claiming progress in the war the U.S. military knew it was a lost cause? Or talk about the corrupt government in the South? Then explain the tragic and disgraceful exit out of Viet Nam proving it was a disaster from the start. Johnson, Nixon and the top bass were the cowards.
 

For the record, I have not and will not watch any videos of the events, since they most likely are highly edited to support someone's narrative.
Click to expand...

Buckeye, while this might be true, where do we draw the line? Any photo, video, recording, etc. might be "highly edited." So, where else then do we get our news? I think we have to apply our own judgement and internal filters as to what we believe. A video showing a police officer abusing someone is still showing abuse, even if it is edited.

About your comment in a different note about not liking political discussions, we do have to accept that restriction, as that is the rule in this forum. But I don't particularly agree with it. I think civilized people can have a political discussion, even a heated one, without crossing the line into abuse. This restriction hobbles a lot of potentially informative and fascinating discussions. In these times of suspicion and polarization, we need more communication between people, not less.
 
Sunny said:
Buckeye, while this might be true, where do we draw the line? Any photo, video, recording, etc. might be "highly edited." So, where else then do we get our news? I think we have to apply our own judgement and internal filters as to what we believe. A video showing a police officer abusing someone is still showing abuse, even if it is edited.

About your comment in a different note about not liking political discussions, we do have to accept that restriction, as that is the rule in this forum. But I don't particularly agree with it. I think civilized people can have a political discussion, even a heated one, without crossing the line into abuse. This restriction hobbles a lot of potentially informative and fascinating discussions. In these times of suspicion and polarization, we need more communication between people, not less.
Click to expand...
I belong to another forum which is purely political. People get carried away and there's a constant monitoring of the posts and the insults of course. No one sticks to the topic. At one time this forum allowed politics. When the moderators were considering whether to allow politics, I voted against it. And now we have a friendly forum which I just love. It's a port in a storm.
 
Camper6 said:
I belong to another forum which is purely political. People get carried away and there's a constant monitoring of the posts and the insults of course. No one sticks to the topic. At one time this forum allowed politics. When the moderators were considering whether to allow politics, I voted against it. And now we have a friendly forum which I just love. It's a port in a storm.
Click to expand...
Yet, thinly veiled political views filter through .. but I suppose that's to be expected.
 
win231 said:
There are three types of people who don't want to see this for the murder that it was:
1. Racists.
2. People who automatically defend anything a police officer does because they think if they don't, they're not supporting those who serve.
3. People who are either retired police officers or who have family in law enforcement.
Click to expand...
I'm in the third category- and I want to see this creep prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.. as well as the individuals who either backed him up or did not intervene when it was taking place. :mad:
 
fmdog44 said:
Why don't talk about the fact that despite years of claiming progress in the war the U.S. military knew it was a lost cause? Or talk about the corrupt government in the South? Then explain the tragic and disgraceful exit out of Viet Nam proving it was a disaster from the start. Johnson, Nixon and the top bass were the cowards.
Click to expand...
This thread is not about the Viet Nam War. Gee, I guess that wouldn’t be the reason why. Plus I was responding to what someone else said. There is a military thread for those discussions, discussions of war and the like; or haven’t you noticed. Glad I could enlighten you.

Plus, I think, technically, Viet Nam was not considered a war. Off thread, but please tell me what branch of the military you served in during Viet Nam? Were you drafted or did you volunteer? What qualifies @fmdog44 to judge those who fought, were wounded, and/or died to serve our country?

Or did you just watch a movie? Read a book? Run to Canada? Hide in your mom’s basement?

I volunteered and served in the WAC during Viet Nam Era. My brother volunteered during the Viet Nam era, and later retired from the Army. My husband volunteered and served as a combat marine IN Viet Nam, got blown off a tank, sent to HI to recover and returned to Viet Nam.

Do tell me what was your military experience?
 
Aneeda72 said:
This thread is not about the Viet Nam War. Gee, I guess that wouldn’t be the reason why. Plus I was responding to what someone else said. There is a military thread for those discussions, discussions of war and the like; or haven’t you noticed. Glad I could enlighten you.

Plus, I think, technically, Viet Nam was not considered a war. Off thread, but please tell me what branch of the military you served in during Viet Nam? Were you drafted or did you volunteer? What qualifies @fmdog44 to judge those who fought, were wounded, and/or died to serve our country?

Or did you just watch a movie? Read a book? Run to Canada? Hide in your mom’s basement?

I volunteered and served in the WAC during Viet Nam Era. My brother volunteered during the Viet Nam era, and later retired from the Army. My husband volunteered and served as a combat marine IN Viet Nam, got blown off a tank, sent to HI to recover and returned to Viet Nam.

Do tell me what was your military experience?
Click to expand...
You have so much pent-up anger inside, so very sad.
 
JaniceM said:
I'm in the third category- and I want to see this creep prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.. as well as the individuals who either backed him up or did not intervene when it was taking place. :mad:
Click to expand...
That’s interesting and I am curious. In our state there is a law that you must stop to help, although it’s meant for car accidents and such. I wonder if the civilians who stood by and watched; and stood by and filmed could be facing some kind of charge. As far as I know only one person spoke up.
 
Aneeda72 said:
That’s interesting and I am curious. In our state there is a law that you must stop to help, although it’s meant for car accidents and such. I wonder if the civilians who stood by and watched; and stood by and filmed could be facing some kind of charge. As far as I know only one person spoke up.
Click to expand...
I don't know if Minnesota has that law or not, but I was referring to the other officers that were present. I read they were fired, which at least is a start.
 
JaniceM said:
I don't know if Minnesota has that law or not, but I was referring to the other officers that were present. I read they were fired, which at least is a start.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. I am just curious about all the civilians who lived there, saw what happened, and are so offended they need to riot and burn their city; I am just curious why ONLY ONE PERSON, tried to intervene.

That person needs to get some kind of commendation, he certainly was brave, IMO.
 
Aneeda72 said:
Yes, I agree. I am just curious about all the civilians who lived there, saw what happened, and are so offended they need to riot and burn their city; I am just curious why ONLY ONE PERSON, tried to intervene.

That person needs to get some kind of commendation, he certainly was brave, IMO.
Click to expand...
I agree.

But there's the so-called bystander effect- 'somebody else should do it,' and fear. :(
 
There is a misconception that kneeling on someone's neck is some approved police procedure. It isn't. Who in the hell believes it's okay to kneel on anyone's neck. Police have been sued for putting people in head locks, never mind kneeling in their necks. There is no factual evidence that kneeling on someone's neck is an approved police procedure, anywhere.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
There is a misconception that kneeling on someone's neck is some approved police procedure. It isn't. Who in the hell believes it's okay to kneel on anyone's neck. Police have been sued for putting people in head locks, never mind kneeling in their necks. There is no factual evidence that kneeling on someone's neck is an approved police procedure, anywhere.
Click to expand...
Yup, we should all wait for the evidence.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
There is a misconception that kneeling on someone's neck is some approved police procedure. It isn't. Who in the hell believes it's okay to kneel on anyone's neck. Police have been sued for putting people in head locks, never mind kneeling in their necks. There is no factual evidence that kneeling on someone's neck is an approved police procedure, anywhere.
Click to expand...
Apparently it is in Minnesota
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5274334002
 
Despite what's a news report says, this is the approved police procedure for anyone who is handcuffed. The entire Minnesota Police Manual is online. I could not find those "approved police procedures". And reading the manual, it is pretty much what you expected- a professional approach to police work.

. Once the subject is secured, an officer shall watch for any of the following signs: (06/13/14)

· Significant change in behavior or level consciousness;

· Shortness of breath or irregular breathing;

· Seizures or convulsions;

· Complaints of serious pain or injury; and/or

· Any other serious medical problem.
H. If officers observe any serious medical issue, they shall immediately contact EMS or transport directly to a local hospital. Officers shall also notify a supervisor. (06
 
This is a relief. I guess I was viewing fake news. It’s good to know that this isn’t their standard police procedure because that in tself seemed excessively harsh and barbaric. It made me wonder how rough Minnesota would have to be to warrant such a procedure. What a relief.
 
Last edited:
Aneeda72 said:
That’s interesting and I am curious. In our state there is a law that you must stop to help, although it’s meant for car accidents and such. I wonder if the civilians who stood by and watched; and stood by and filmed could be facing some kind of charge. As far as I know only one person spoke up.
Click to expand...
Since we live in the real world on the planet earth, how 'bout getting real?
The only charge civilians would be facing if they interfered would be a criminal charge of "Interfering with an officer." And (also in the real world on the planet earth), the idiot officers at the scene would hurt or kill anyone who interfered. And what do you think "Officer" Chauvin would have done to someone who interfered (after making sure Mr. Floyd was dead)?
I don't think there is ANY law in ANY state that suggests any civilian be foolish enough to do something like that.
 
I'm kind of familiar with the "Good Samaritan Law". It's a law that protects somebody if they aid an injured person, provided they did no wrong. As an RN, could I be sued for not aiding some one? The answer is no. There is no law, which says a person must administer aid to anyone. I assume the same is for someone, who witnesses a crime., such as a beating.
 
This brings to mind something that occurred during the riots that followed the ridiculous "Not Guilty" verdicts in the first trial for the 4 officers involved in the Rodney King beating.
You may recall that when the riots started, there were police officers at the scene. They left the area when the trouble started, then some rioters pulled a truck driver (Reginald Denny) out of his truck & beat him nearly to death.
People later criticized the police for leaving the area, which allowed the attack on the truck driver and others.
The ruling surprised me. It stated, "Police are under NO obligation to protect anyone."
Interesting, because on the sides of police cars, it says "To protect And Serve."
 
Sunny said:
Buckeye, while this might be true, where do we draw the line? Any photo, video, recording, etc. might be "highly edited." So, where else then do we get our news? I think we have to apply our own judgement and internal filters as to what we believe. A video showing a police officer abusing someone is still showing abuse, even if it is edited.

About your comment in a different note about not liking political discussions, we do have to accept that restriction, as that is the rule in this forum. But I don't particularly agree with it. I think civilized people can have a political discussion, even a heated one, without crossing the line into abuse. This restriction hobbles a lot of potentially informative and fascinating discussions. In these times of suspicion and polarization, we need more communication between people, not less.
Click to expand...
I suppose we all have to draw that line for ourselves. Your line will certainly be different than mine. I assume that, in this case, the Officer we see with his knee on Mr. Floyd's neck is guilty of abuse, but I still don't know the whole story and what preceded the taped activity. So, I will keep an open mind. I certainly don't believe the Officer intended to kill Floyd.

Also, on any forum I've seen, political discussions rapidly devolve into insult trading and name calling, such as we see in this thread, albeit to a lesser degree. In person, I make it a habit to avoid discussions of religion, politics, and a few other topics.
 
Buckeye said:
I suppose we all have to draw that line for ourselves. Your line will certainly be different than mine. I assume that, in this case, the Officer we see with his knee on Mr. Floyd's neck is guilty of abuse, but I still don't know the whole story and what preceded the taped activity. So, I will keep an open mind. I certainly don't believe the Officer intended to kill Floyd.

Also, on any forum I've seen, political discussions rapidly devolve into insult trading and name calling, such as we see in this thread, albeit to a lesser degree. In person, I make it a habit to avoid discussions of religion, politics, and a few other topics.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think that’s why the manslaughter charge. I wonder if it goes to a jury trial if the charges will change to manslaughter or accidental death. Will have to wait and see.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
Despite what's a news report says, this is the approved police procedure for anyone who is handcuffed. The entire Minnesota Police Manual is online. I could not find those "approved police procedures". And reading the manual, it is pretty much what you expected- a professional approach to police work.

. Once the subject is secured, an officer shall watch for any of the following signs: (06/13/14)

· Significant change in behavior or level consciousness;

· Shortness of breath or irregular breathing;

· Seizures or convulsions;

· Complaints of serious pain or injury; and/or

· Any other serious medical problem.
H. If officers observe any serious medical issue, they shall immediately contact EMS or transport directly to a local hospital. Officers shall also notify a supervisor. (06
Click to expand...


Here's the part about use of neck restraints/compressions in the City of Minneapolis police policy and procedures manual. This is from Section 5-300 Use of Force. Note that it allows "compressing one or both sides of a person's neck with an arm or leg ...."

5-311 USE OF NECK RESTRAINTS AND CHOKE HOLDS (10/16/02) (08/17/07) (10/01/10) (04/16/12)

DEFINITIONS I.

Choke Hold: Deadly force option. Defined as applying direct pressure on a person’s trachea or airway (front of the neck), blocking or obstructing the airway (04/16/12)

Neck Restraint: Non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person’s neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck). Only sworn employees who have received training from the MPD Training Unit are authorized to use neck restraints. The MPD authorizes two types of neck restraints: Conscious Neck Restraint and Unconscious Neck Restraint. (04/16/12)

Conscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with intent to control, and not to render the subject unconscious, by only applying light to moderate pressure. (04/16/12)

Unconscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure. (04/16/12)

PROCEDURES/REGULATIONS II.
  1. The Conscious Neck Restraint may be used against a subject who is actively resisting. (04/16/12)
  2. The Unconscious Neck Restraint shall only be applied in the following circumstances: (04/16/12)
    1. On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or;
    2. For life saving purposes, or;
    3. On a subject who is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject; and if lesser attempts at control have been or would likely be ineffective.
  3. Neck restraints shall not be used against subjects who are passively resisting as defined by policy. (04/16/12)
  4. After Care Guidelines (04/16/12)
    1. After a neck restraint or choke hold has been used on a subject, sworn MPD employees shall keep them under close observation until they are released to medical or other law enforcement personnel.
    2. An officer who has used a neck restraint or choke hold shall inform individuals accepting custody of the subject, that the technique was used on the subject.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top