Verdict GUILTY

a reply to: UKTruth

So I was. I frankly don't care.

Again, did you read the manual? Was this applied as described in all aspects? No. Not even close.

originally posted by:

You must realize that the criteria in ii B were not met. Unless you think that 4 dudes holding down the guys limbs was just not enough because everyone knows that fentanyl gives you otherworldly power.

originally posted by: UKTruth

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?

You should read the testimony of the trainer.
Cause you know, he would actually be the expert.

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by:

You must realize that the criteria in ii B were not met. Unless you think that 4 dudes holding down the guys limbs was just not enough because everyone knows that fentanyl gives you otherworldly power.

You watched the whole video and think criteria with II B was not met, the whole episode where he pushed himself out from the police car and they (4 dudes) couldn't prevent it?

I have hard time to figure criteria which is not met when you fight your way out from the police car after arrested..

originally posted by: AcerM

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by:

You must realize that the criteria in ii B were not met. Unless you think that 4 dudes holding down the guys limbs was just not enough because everyone knows that fentanyl gives you otherworldly power.

You watched the whole video and think criteria with II B was not met, the whole episode where he pushed himself out from the police car and they (4 dudes) couldn't prevent it?

I have hard time to figure criteria which is not met when you fight your way out from the police car after arrested..

That's the thing, He would NEVER have been restrained in that way if he hadn't actually tried to and succeeded in fighting off the officers trying to make an arrest in a less aggressive manner. Floyd is dead because of Floyd.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: UKTruth

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?

You should read the testimony of the trainer.
Cause you know, he would actually be the expert.

The actual training manuals themselves seem pretty clear along with the 200+ previous cases of this technique being used in the last couple of years that resulted in 44 people being arrested losing consciousness. If the so-called expert was saying this was not trained then he was clearly lying. If he wasn't then the police dept would have stopped this practice a lot earlier, disciplining or retraining the officers involved in the 200+ previous cases over a relatively short time frame.

a reply to: UKTruth
Lol
You calling the trainer a liar is rich.
He does the actual training.
Again I direct you to his testimony and more specifically EXACTLY HOW THAT TECHNIQUE SHOULD BE APPLIED. He explained it in laymans terms so anyone should be able to understand him.

Tho if you think you understand the manuals better than the actual trainer, nevermind.


Also, this guilty verdict is in jeopardy.

m.washingtontimes.com...

A juror in the Derek Chauvin trial may have jeopardized the guilty verdict by attending a rally last year and wearing a “Get Your Knee Off Our Necks/BLM” T-shirt, raising questions about whether he told the truth during jury selection.

What may come back to haunt the prosecution is that Mr. Mitchell, 31, answered “no” when asked during jury selection if he had attended any protests for George Floyd.

Sounds bad to me, but hey what do I know.

a reply to: UKTruth

www.npr.org... es-in-chauvin-t

The Trainers actual testimony should you care to read it.

Lt. Johnny Mercil, who has been in charge of teaching the use of force in the Minneapolis Police Department's training division, says former officer Derek Chauvin's use of his knee on George Floyd's neck is not a technique the police teach when instructing officers how to restrain people.

Mercil also said that in some cases, it might be appropriate to put a knee on someone during handcuffing – and to keep a knee there if the subject is still trying to thrash around or kick people. But he also said that people who are in handcuffs and are in the prone position should be moved either to the recovery position – on their side – or to a sitting or standing position, to avoid positional asphyxiation.

Once cuffed no knee on neck PERIOD.
But he, what does the trainer know?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: UKTruth

www.npr.org... es-in-chauvin-t

The Trainers actual testimony should you care to read it.

Lt. Johnny Mercil, who has been in charge of teaching the use of force in the Minneapolis Police Department's training division, says former officer Derek Chauvin's use of his knee on George Floyd's neck is not a technique the police teach when instructing officers how to restrain people.

Mercil also said that in some cases, it might be appropriate to put a knee on someone during handcuffing – and to keep a knee there if the subject is still trying to thrash around or kick people. But he also said that people who are in handcuffs and are in the prone position should be moved either to the recovery position – on their side – or to a sitting or standing position, to avoid positional asphyxiation.

Once cuffed no knee on neck PERIOD.
But he, what does the trainer know?

says former officer Derek Chauvin's use of his knee on George Floyd's neck is not a technique the police teach when instructing officers how to restrain people.

He lied.

a reply to: UKTruth
He was the instructor.
Lol
For you to claim he lied is ridiculous.
Especially when you have NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of the training.

Next time I disagree with you, I got the phrase to use tho.....thanks for that I guess.

originally posted by: AcerM

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by:

You must realize that the criteria in ii B were not met. Unless you think that 4 dudes holding down the guys limbs was just not enough because everyone knows that fentanyl gives you otherworldly power.

You watched the whole video and think criteria with II B was not met, the whole episode where he pushed himself out from the police car and they (4 dudes) couldn't prevent it?

I have hard time to figure criteria which is not met when you fight your way out from the police car after arrested..

It's amazing to me the lack of comprehension on this site in general lately.

He was resisting, but it was flight resistance, not aggression. He was not hitting anyone, attempting to take control of an officer. He was trying to flee from the moment they approached him in his vehicle.

That is not aggressive.

In law we use language very carefully and you'd do well not to omit it and then put blame on the defendant... Er, I mean deceased.

At the end of the day, even if every juror voted for conviction out of duress, Derek Chauvin still got a fairer trial than George Floyd, and you bet your ass if you were in his shoes he wouldn't give half a damn about you so stop simping.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: UKTruth
He was the instructor.
Lol
For you to claim he lied is ridiculous.
Especially when you have NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of the training.

Next time I disagree with you, I got the phrase to use tho.....thanks for that I guess.

The statement made is clear and it is 100% provable as false - as we have the actual training class material for kneeling on the neck to restrain.
Therefore he lied.
There is no argument.

Your argument seems to be that because he was an instructor he is incapable of lying. That is absurd on its face.

a reply to: UKTruth
While you may have gotcha'd AM on neck restraints not being part of any training manual, I do believe that the instructor's statement was that the hold as applied by Chauvin that day is not taught.

Shooterbrody's argument is that while 2 neck restraints appear in the manual, Chauvin didn't apply either of those according to the manual. How he applied that hold isn't in the manual.

a reply to: UKTruth
You are ridiculous.
Read his testimony.
Once cuffed no knee on neck.

This one for you is a steaming pile, you should walk away.

Lol
Accusing the trainer of lying, too funny.
Too bad the prosecutors didn't have you on the team.
They sure missed out.

Lolololololol

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: UKTruth
While you may have gotcha'd AM on neck restraints not being part of any training manual, I do believe that the instructor's statement was that the hold as applied by Chauvin that day is not taught.

Shooterbrody's argument is that while 2 neck restraints appear in the manual, Chauvin didn't apply either of those according to the manual. How he applied that hold isn't in the manual.

Thanks for the english to idiot translation.
Had he just read the actual testimony it would not have been necessary.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: UKTruth
While you may have gotcha'd AM on neck restraints not being part of any training manual, I do believe that the instructor's statement was that the hold as applied by Chauvin that day is not taught.

Shooterbrody's argument is that while 2 neck restraints appear in the manual, Chauvin didn't apply either of those according to the manual. How he applied that hold isn't in the manual.

And, even if it was, you don't continue for 9 mins, 2+ minutes while the guy is pretty much dead.

These guys are upset the police can no longer abuse people, or, are getting in trouble for it, more than they historically have.