Why do you even care? I never even replied to your post. Unless of course you're a cop and feel the need to remind us of it again. I actually find it baffling that neither of you even want to acknowledge that Floyd's death could be avoided. Instead, you'd rather go on a tangent about police training etc etc
Cop in America doing a bad job, again
- Thread starter Sigma
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
In this scenario, does anyone have any insight on how they imprison him?
I can't imagine him going to gen pop, but they cant keep him in isolation for 25 years either?
It’s a pretty broad ranging issue, and it is something that has the Koch Institute and ACLU agreeing with one another about...
Public awareness and coverage of police militarization has largely focused on the acquisition of military equipment by police, such as armored vehicles, aircraft, and weapons. Since the early 1990s, the Department of Defense’s 1033 programhas provided local law enforcement agencies access to military-grade equipment. This program, now expanded by President Trump after President Obama attempted to limit its use, allows local law enforcement agencies to receive excess Department of Defense equipment that would otherwise be destroyed because it was no longer useful to the military. Over 8,000 law enforcement agencies have utilized the 1033 program to access more than $6 billion worth of military equipment such as night-vision goggles, machine guns, armored vehicles, bayonets, grenade launchers, and military aircraft. Other itemsthat can be accessed by local law enforcement agencies through the program include field packs, canteens, sleeping bags, and ponchos.
https://www.charleskochinstitute.or...ice-policing-reform/militarization-of-police/
the ACLU’s recent report on police militarization, “War Comes Home,” found that SWAT teams, which were originally devised as special responders for emergency situations, are deployed for drug searches more than they are for all other purposes combined.
The change in equipment is too often paralleled by a corresponding change in attitude whereby police conceive of themselves as “at war” with communities rather than as public servants concerned with keeping their communities safe. We advocate for a return to a less dangerous, more collaborative style of policing. We should not be able to mistake our officers for soldiers.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/police-militarization
Fair points. I actually have seen a couple swat teams in different departments with that camo uniform you mentioned. Now that i think if it it is kind of silly. Sheriffs departments are usually tan/green uniform anyway, but i see your point.
In my dept all patrol cars have to check out a shotgun OR ar15, but only a handful are qualified and trained with the AR.
Yeah, I mean like with the LA riots weren't caused by the violence against Rodney King, it was the officers getting away with the worst charges that caused them. This was so vile that it has outraged people to the degree that things are boiling over before the wheels of justice even got a chance to get turning.
If he is convicted and finds himself in prison, he'll be in a protected wing well away from general population. Still, his freedoms removed and him actually serving a proper sentence is better than getting to ride off into the sunset, pension intact, before taking up employment elsewhere once the furore dies down, or the show goes on the road with a new outrage over yet another death of this ilk.
Sorry to be a misery guts, but there's a bloody tapestry for this where justice in these cases is not served.
It's a start.
Perception is everything and I completely agree that the militarisation of the police isn't conducive to improving policing culture on the whole.
We've all heard countless examples of dehumanising language used by police when referring to those they get in to custody.
To be fair to SWAT, in the US they are as heavily armed as they are as a result of the North Hollywood shootout. Hell, it probably contributed to the militarization of all police forces. SWAT also have more and specialized training compared to regular officers so their proficiency isn't in question.
Patrol officers probably shouldn't have AR-15s because their training and proficiency requirements generally aren't all that much. For example, when I go to the gun range, I'll shoot more rounds in one outing than a patrol officer is required to for their yearly certification.
Apologies for posting another one from The Predator but man I forgot how prescient and hard-hitting this album is. Cube even says in a skit (referring to the RK riots) “everything you wanna know about the riot was in the album before the riot”. Anyway..,
When I think about the camo and equipment thing, I just get the impression that they want to look like the military SOF that have been on the frontlines of the GWOT for the past 20 years almost and are therefore revered as the ultimate badasses and "cool guys". But its a completely different environment than a SWAT team is ever likely to face.
Yeah, a once in several decades event led to SWAT teams looking like the Army Rangers.
Last edited:
Can’t speak for other departments but for us the officers who have AR15’s qualify monthly, while everyone else qualifies every 3 months.
the irony of only giving swat teams AR15’s is that in an active shooter situation, it is the regular patrol officers that are usually first on scene.
Fair enough. It's been a while since I've looked into this subject. How many rounds are required to qualify?
Honestly don’t know. They go through a certain course of fire. Probably around 30 rounds in total but I’d have to check
In what percentage of active shooter situations do the responding officers even end up taking shots? I don't think there are stats on that, but I get the impression that the most common MO is that the shooters take their own lives pretty much around the same time any police arrive. Could be wrong obviously.
Or they get peacefully arrested if they are young white males
Lets hope it sticks, people do need to be patient though as it is going to drag out and could take months for a final decision and in the mean time he will be walking free.
I think this is what makes it so bad.
Admittedly, coppers shooting armed civilians in self defence is unlikely to garner as many headlines, but the sheer volume of these bog standard petty crimes that result in someone losing their life is ridiculous. Even if for arguments sake the person is resisting (clearly not in Floyds case) why does it have to end in the person dying? People who commit low level crimes don't tend to be killers, they tend to just do what they do to feed a habit or survive and the overwhelming majority of them wouldn't hurt someone. The likelihood of their resistance resulting in your (the officers death) is so ridiculously low, especially with other officers around.
Why then so often does the force needed to restrain them need to be them being shot to death or choked to death, these officers have other protective equipment. But this is where you get that grey area, especially in the states because the cops carry guns. The defence of "the suspect could have gone for my weapon and I feared for my life" will be the easy get out clause. I've gotten into so many scraps with shop lifters, road traffic offenders, drunks and you scrap for a bit but once it's all said and done, ten minutes later you're having a conversation about football and they're apologising to you. It's kinda mad to think that half way across the world these sort of interactions are ending in somebody dying.
I see. Last time I went to the range I let off between 400-500 rounds. It's an unfortunate reality that departmental budgets limit the time and resources available to officers to train officially. Here in Canada I know that many LEOs have their own personal firearms that they train with on their own time as well (although they can't do that with ARs and such anymore).
Ah yeah this is true, can’t count our chicken eggs before they hatch.
Dressing like soldiers in a war zone. Those MRAP vehicles for small town departments.
I wouldn’t know the percentages of that. But I’m pretty confident that most active shooter incidents are contacted first by patrol officers and not swat. My department actually had an active shooter and it was patrol officers who shot and stopped the suspect.
the north Hollywood incident was a big turning point, but also Columbine high school. The responding officers were criticized because they set up on the perimeter and waited for SWAT, which believe it or not was standard protocol. And a bunch of kids got shot and killed as a result. That was over 20 years ago, and just look at how many active shooter incidents/domestic terrorism have happened all over the country and the world since then.
Now patrol officers are trained and called upon to respond to active shooters head-on and not wait for SWAT while innocent people get popped off. So now you have the question of how much do you equip your patrol officers to respond to the ever increasing active shooter incidents at schools, churches, airports, office buildings, etc?
That's fecking wild, man. It makes it sound like Chauvin was just kneeling down and Floyd happened to be there. What a shame Chauvin didn't notice him until about ten minutes later.
Yea its an absolute joke of a headline
I read it and didnt have a problem with it. It is an objective and factual account of what happened, which is frankly what I want from my media.
IMHO, they should give patrol officers CZ Scorpion Evo 3 S1s.
He did more than kneel on him. He put his whole body weight through him.
I understand you point though so id just be arguing for the sake of it
Unfortunately, we usually can.
If it was the other way round and it was a black man who had murdered a cop in that manner there is not a chance in hell the headline would be phrased that way.
Maybe, but two wrongs dont make a right. I would rather my media sources give an objective and unbiased headline (which is what this appears to be) than the sort of clickbait and sensationalism we are usually subjected to.
Oh come on, ‘kneeled on his neck before he died’ is the most gentle possible way of asserting what actually happened. It’s not biased to say something like ‘suffocated him by kneeling on his neck’. The phrasing is problematic, it implies the kneeling was incidental - think of it as ‘fired a gun at the suspect before he passed away’. It’s the opposite of being objective because it’s clearly skewed in the accused’s favour.
All the body armor, helmets, etc in the world/that they want. But as far as weaponry, one of those air rifles that they use to compete in the Olympics
.I am confident that mine will be the unpopular opinion on this, but the cause of death is presumably not yet official. Of course we have it on camera that the guy cleared appeared to be choked to death, but in a nation where half the country (plus the president) is so eager to declare "fake news" with minimal - if any - excuse, I dont see an issue with the headline sticking purely to the 100% established facts. Essentially, a headline that explicitly states that Chauvin killed Floyd, opens it up to criticism. The fact that they state in the headline that it was a white officer already sets the narrative adequately, in my view, not to mention the fact that they are literally reporting that he has been charged with murder and manslaughter.
There are far bigger battles to be fought than a media headline that is objectively true and agrees with the generally accepted version of events.
I started this mess but ive come round to your line of overall thought..i still think it could have been a bit tougher and slightly more colourful in the language used without going as far as saying he killed him.
To be honest there's no solution of substance here, at least not without addressing the fact you've population that have access to ridiculous bits hardware at the local flipping supermarket. The police in turn need to be equipped better because no one wants to fundamentally deal with mass shootings cos 'Murica lurvs gunz and the cycle continues.
The mindset.choiboyx012 said:
I agree with you here.
If he shot him in the head at point-blank range would we need confirmation that the bullet killed him? We know what killed him and pretending otherwise is pedantry, no one is disputing the cause of his death. ‘I can’t breathe’ were his final words. Let’s not pretend the headline is worded like that because of the absurd proposition that something other than the knee on his neck could have caused his death.
The headline has clearly been worded with care so as to present it in a way that is as favourable to the cop as possible. You basically conceded had it being the other way round the wording would be different. Therefore the explanation for why it is worded like that deserves scrutiny and it deserves to be called out. It is about deference to power and an unwillingness to be seen to criticise the police, even if that means it cannot call a spade a spade. You say it’s objective but it’s not, it’s on the opposite end of the scale to calling him a cold-blooded murderer. Objective and unbiased would be an account somewhere in the middle, one that at least makes explicit and unambiguous his responsibility for the death.
This will be my last post on the matter;
The headline specifically references the fact that it was a white officer. It then also specifically references that he has been charged with murder and manslaughter. Clearly there is no attempt therefore, to try to change the narrative.
You are treating the current headline as being one end of the scale, when in fact it is not. If I wanted to write headlines deliberately trying to paint an alternative narrative then I could do a lot better than what they have come up with.
Again, in a nation utterly divided, and constantly crying "fake news", I am quite happy for media to be reporting the unadulterated facts. A headline saying "White police officer kills black man" is incendiary and invites argument and criticism, not least because it hasnt been officially established that that is the correct version of events. It simply does more harm than good [to report that].
Edit: for comparison, the BBC article headline is:
George Floyd death: Ex-officer charged with murder in Minneapolis
This makes no reference whatsoever to the circumstances or actions of either party, and it doesnt name the officer either. I would argue that this is a much "gentler" headline to the one you are objecting to.
Last edited:
I started watching that Flint docuseries on Netflix a while ago and had to turn it off because the militarisation was honestly making me sick.
Dudes just patrolling black neighbourhoods with fecking riot gear and assault rifles like they’re walking around Afghanistan. They had a tank for feck sake, and they practically had hardons they were so giddy about the shit they got to play with.
They also showed the officers watching the Philando Castile shooting and falling over themselves to justify it. It was disgusting.
I’ll play ball anyway....
Where is the logic behind this question? The cops killing people are street cops using handguns. If they were turning up in black neighbourhoods with tank guns and grenades, maybe just maybe you’d have a very small point.
........
The BBC headline is completely fine as that is just a very brief headline of the latest development. It’s not comparable. The Time tweet was a longer account that attempted to describe the incident; one which I firmly believe was woefully inadequate in accurately reflecting what happened because it downplayed Chauvin’s agency in the death. It’s clear we disagree on that so we can leave it at that.