Verdict GUILTY

originally posted by: NorEaster

Dude, I cannot believe how emotionally invested you are in this argument. Imagine if you actually had something important and contributive to devote your obsessive nature to achieving. Find a positive cause to contribute your obvious talents to and when you're old, tired, and facing down that inevitable that we all have awaiting us, you'll feel a lot better about how you spent your time and intellectual energy.

Seriously. The lousy, self-serving people of this society don't deserve the aggressive levels of defense that you devote yourself to providing them. These people certainly wouldn't walk across the street to piss on you if you were on fire. There are good and caring people that deserve the belligerent support that you are capable of giving. I hate seeing such potential being wasted.

The funny part is I'm not defending Chauvin and I have said a number of times I don't really care if he goes to jail or not. My point all along has been that I see external forces affecting the jury... People reply, like you, and I reply back. If they didn't then my post would have died at one, and I didn't create the OP, so no real investment in any of this.

Those debating with me are suggesting the jury got it right and that isn't what I saw as the defense handed the prosecutor team their balls each day, but I see it didn't matter as the jury was most likely already convince before day one. Or at least afraid to do otherwise.

The other part is none of us know who Chauvin really is...might be the nicest guy in the world, or a real dick, but like the jury everyone here, and you, already had a preset opinion he is some evil person, while we all know Floyd was about as bad as they come, but that was OK for many.

Also this post is really dead now, time to move on to more interesting subjects... this one is stale now.

originally posted by: vonclod
Look like Chauvin is in more trouble. You have to wonder how much of this stuff gets swept under the rug.

During a domestic dispute, between a mom and teen, he busted a 14 years old head open with his flashlight, and then did his thing(same as Floyd), for about 17 minutes, kid apparently couldn't breath, lost consciousness at one point. What a hero.

He is right where he belongs.
www.nydailynews.com...
abcnews.go.com...

If this is true then it helps Chauvins appeal.
It means those senior officers were indeed lying to save face for the dept.
Using the knee on the neck precisely to render a person unconscious is exactly what was specified as acceptable in the police training manual and policy.
If he'd done it before and the police dept took no action, then how can they say that it was not an accepted practice now?

a reply to: UKTruth
It's not helping him. But be a believer if it suits you.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: UKTruth
It's not helping him. But be a believer if it suits you.

Explain to me how he has used the technique to render a person unconscious and was still an officer if his seniors thought it was so bad?
It screams that these senior officers were ass-covering and throwing Chauvin to the wolves. They lied.
We know they lied too because the documentation proves that kneeling on the neck until the person that is being restrained is unconscious was absolutely defined as in policy the day that Chauvin carried out that exact method on George Floyd.
He was trained and authorised to do it.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Using the knee on the neck precisely to render a person unconscious is exactly what was specified as acceptable in the police training manual and policy.

LOL.

There is not one police training manual in the country where you are taught to render someone unconscious via choking. But feel free to try and find one.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UKTruth
Using the knee on the neck precisely to render a person unconscious is exactly what was specified as acceptable in the police training manual and policy.

LOL.

There is not one police training manual in the country where you are taught to render someone unconscious via choking. But feel free to try and find one.

LMAO..it's astounding!

a reply to: vonclod

I have long since stopped being surprised by the crazy stuff that gets posted on this site.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: vonclod

I have long since stopped being surprised by the crazy stuff that gets posted on this site.

I'm pretty sure it's getting worse..I dunno

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Then you wouldn't have your job very long. NO ONE IS FORCED TO BE A COP. IF THEY CAN'T HACK IT, THEY CAN LEAVE.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Well, in France, cops are almost always arriving at the scene after the criminals left. They are doing this on purpose, and they are not fired. I guess it's the same in the USA. No reason it could work differently. Except maybe the fact that french people are known for being cowards, of course, lol

originally posted by: vonclod
I'm pretty sure it's getting worse..I dunno

I just spoke to the chief of police in my town and he said our training manual allows you to suplex someone off the top of the squad car and then slap a sleeper hold on them if they are still conscious. Eye gouges are optional but recommended.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: vonclod
I'm pretty sure it's getting worse..I dunno

I just spoke to the chief of police in my town and he said our training manual allows you to suplex someone off the top of the squad car and then slap a sleeper hold on them if they are still conscious. Eye gouges are optional but recommended.

More and more police departments are replacing tasers with steel chairs.

It’s a logical, cost effective resource that can be used to subdue any criminal not named Stone Cold Steve Austin or Andre the Giant.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: vonclod
I'm pretty sure it's getting worse..I dunno

I just spoke to the chief of police in my town and he said our training manual allows you to suplex someone off the top of the squad car and then slap a sleeper hold on them if they are still conscious. Eye gouges are optional but recommended.

Where do I sign up!!

originally posted by: Ook33

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Then you wouldn't have your job very long. NO ONE IS FORCED TO BE A COP. IF THEY CAN'T HACK IT, THEY CAN LEAVE.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Well, in France, cops are almost always arriving at the scene after the criminals left. They are doing this on purpose, and they are not fired. I guess it's the same in the USA. No reason it could work differently. Except maybe the fact that french people are known for being cowards, of course, lol

Police used to have this problem in poor neighborhoods in the late 90s. There were complaints it could take the police 30 min or more to arrive in poor neighborhoods. I have a feeling this is going to start happening again as less officers will want to partol the poor neighborhoods.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

www.routledge.com...



I have an old buddy online who sends me all sorts of training materials and books and whatever else, and this one came up recently

Your post made me think of it even though it is not anywhere near the same thing

As demonstrated in this thread, there are many who just went by the media narrative and that is precisely why the trial was a farce.

The police training manual in fact did both state as policy and train officers on how to render a suspect unconscious via neck restraint.

Instead of actually looking it up, posters on here just acted like it could never be the case. They exposed their ignorance.
If they had actually read the court filings they would know that what I stated was 100% correct.

www.mncourts.gov...

The procedure included two options, one of which was specifically to render the person being detained unconscious.

The restrained procedure has been used many times over the last 5 years causing 44 people to have been rendered unconscious

I won't name names, but you can see from above who the posters are that are not only ignorant of the facts but seem to revel in their ignorance.
These are the kind of people that were wholly taken in by the media and political narrative and didn't think or research for themselves.

a reply to: UKTruth

You best read that again, it's not saying what you think.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: UKTruth

You best read that again, it's not saying what you think.

Yeah, it is.

Furthermore, one would have thought you'd actually try and educate yourself a bit before coming back so quickly, but no. As usual too much to ask.

Here is the actual wording of the policy - that was changed AFTER the Floyd incident.



More:

A version of the department's manual published online defines the restraint as "compressing one of both sides of a person's neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway."
The instructions list neck restraints, as opposed to chokeholds, as "non-deadly" uses of force, though law enforcement can apply the approach to render people unconscious if they are "exhibiting active aggression" or resisting arrest and if less forceful means of restraint were not effective.

www.newsweek.com...

a reply to: UKTruth

Did you read the part that a supervisor has to give permission for a neck restraint? That EMS has to be called IMMEDIATELY if someone is rendered unconscious?

Go bake you boy Chauvin a cake with a file, he'll need it.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: UKTruth

Did you read the part that a supervisor has to give permission for a neck restraint? That EMS has to be called IMMEDIATELY if someone is rendered unconscious?

Go bake you boy Chauvin a cake with a file, he'll need it.

Don't try and cover your ignorance now.

What you were ridiculing in absolute blissful ignorance is that there was even a policy to render a person unconscious with a neck restraint. I will quote you:

LOL.

There is not one police training manual in the country where you are taught to render someone unconscious via choking. But feel free to try and find one.

You were wrong.
Up to you whether you embarrass yourself further.
I expect you will, but I will refrain from responding.
You're done.