Really? It made them look really shitty to me. The man was screaming or help from a long dead relative- obviously a sign that he’s not all there in that moment. Those officers could have let up well before he died, it was 3 v 1 not including the paramedics. The paramedics begged to have the man put in their care as they could easily see the man was struggling to breathe, so why couldn’t the cops? They’re trained in CPR, no?
They’re supposed to remove offenders from the scene quickly to ensure the safety of everyone, but instead they decide to take their sweet time when they- as a group- could easily overpower Floyd and put him in the cruiser or ambulance.
They were attempting to be as accommodating and gentle as possible. They knew they were working with a mentally disturbed man, high on something. A man who demonstrated himself to be unpredictable, who the senior officer already knew had a violent record, and throughout they were attempting to deescalate and calm him.
And they weren't working in a vacuum. They knew eyes were on them, they knew it would look bad to force him anywhere, and if he resisted their escalation of force, they may have needed to defend themselves, eachother, and bystanders from a very large, unhinged, high, man.
Paramedics are not qualified to restrain or detain criminals or suspects, that's the cops' job. Maybe they were trained in CPR, but that's entirely unrelated to Floyd's breathing. CPR is only indicated when there's no pulse or spontaneous respiration. If you can say you can't breath, you can breath.
I'm not saying the officers were entirely in the right, but it looks less like a racist homicidal attack and more like a bad situation exacerbated by bad decisions. Manslaughter at the worst, no hate or premeditation.
Fact check: false and misleading information. 1. Floyd had one instant of violent crime on his record- threat of violence in an armed robbery.
2. We know Chauvin and Floyd had worked together- but we do NOT know if any of the officers knew of his history or not at the time of the call. The department and officers have largely avoided statements on the matter, and no cross examination has occurred to verify the facts- but it will probably come up in court. Currently we cannot say wether they had his record or not- that’s speculation.
3. The department policy manual doesn’t say anything for or against changing response based on suspect histories- but the executive leader of the department and arbiter of policy: the police chief- has gone on record that nothing about the incident should have caused it to end in Floyd’s death. That would include his prior convictions.
Next fact- there are MULTIPLE videos- AND body cam footage- with some (like the body cams of the officers) only released within the last week or so. Have you seen those? The ones where you can clearly see that Floyd DOES NOT resist arrest, unless you count his falling while entering the car, or trying to roll on his side while being choked “resisting.”
911 dispatchers watching the events as they occurred notified supervisors the incident appeared to be a use of excessive force. Were you aware of that information? The chief of police after the incident and reviewing body cam footage previously unavailable to the public has said NOTHING about this should have led to this end. Fellow officers in dispatch watching the event called it out at the time for excessive force. Video from bystanders and the officers body cams, some just recently released to the public- shows Floyd wasn’t resisting arrest before he was pinned.
I might also add that the officer has a history of violence, and Floyd is not the first suspect t who’s died unarmed in the execution of the senior officers duties- as well as his 2 disciplinary reprimands. If we want to include speculation- such as the officer knowing Floyd’s record- we should fairly include speculation that his personal relationship with Floyd- they worked together and co workers state that the two clashed due to the officers use of excessive force at that job too. We could also add the speculation if the multiple complaints and accusations of excessive force against the officer while on duty previously.
So I don’t think that 1. Your synopsis is accurate as it is- as shown, lacking or wrong on several established facts; and relies on part on speculation. And 2. While perception is relative and you may feel a certain way based on details, I do not feel the conclusion based on the evidence is as clear as you make it out to be. I would go further to argue the body of evidence based fact shows a man not resisting arrest and then being killed by excessive use of force. Was it racial or even intentional? I can’t say- but I can’t see an argument it isn’t excessive with a compliant suspect.
Floyd was clearly resisting. That does not justify his killing, but I never claimed it did. I merely pointed out that based on how the officers acted throughout, it wasn't a deliberate or racist killing. I'll repeat myself, that doesn't make it a good kill. The new angles simply make the incident different from how it has been made out to be.
We am agree that it was not a justified killing- that it was a wrongful killing. We will disagree it seems on the subject of wether Floyd is resisting or not- I suspect that too will be resolved at the trial, and I grant that ones interpretation of “resisting” can be subjective. Largely irrelevant as I wasn’t questioning your conclusion as much as I was pointing out that certain pieces of information were either incomplete or incorrect- or speculative. Regardless of ones conclusion, the full and most accurate details are necessary to be able to make an informed judgment.
And to be clear: I did not say nor imply- or at least mean to imply (and I apologize if it reads otherwise) that you were saying it was justified. You said clearly you do not believe so. On the topic of wether or not it was racially motivated or wether race played a factor in how things went- I’m not willing to make the call based on what is presently known. It could be. It is at the least another dead black American who didn’t need to die and by all details present should not be dead- but after crossing paths with police officers somehow... is dead. And it isn’t just black people who end up dead without just cause- there are white people too, Asians, etc etc.
We can’t say that because other races sometimes end up getting a bad reach around of the law that there isn’t racism in a particular incident. We can’t say that because someone who danced with Johnny law and didn’t make it home was a certain race that things were racist or racial. But it was excessive force- and a citizen is dead who by the numbers and most accounts should not be. Another citizen. So it doesn’t matter. If we address the problem and prevent excessive force by police- or effectively mitigate it and increase accountability- racist or not you’ll see less dead black people which will satisfy those calling it racist,
You’ll see less dead citizens will should satisfy everyone- especially the would be victims friends and loved ones. It’s a win win. Unless you’re a cop- then it sucks. I wouldn’t want to be an officer in 2020. But the blue crew can blame themselves by and large. Most officers are overall “good” eggs. But- a lot aren’t. Those who aren’t- many are just not suited or capable to the job, but we need to fill cruisers so we can’t exactly set the bar at a level that means the only qualified people could be off making millions somewhere.
But we are seeing the considerable trust- the discretion and judgment officers have been trusted with- eroding. They’re on track that a few years and some bad wind could see flat foots loose their privileges to duty carry. There’s a big push. They’re lost tools like no knock warrants and various holds and arrest and control measures, the behavior of a relative minority of police is making society look at the powers and trust based on judgment and say: “we don’t trust your judgment with these tools anymore.”
And the “good” cops by and large- they’ve let it happen. It’s just the truth. The police haven’t done a great job of policing themselves. Those officers and administrators who keep their noses pretty clean and such- but don’t actively stop wrongs, follow up on things that seem off or look further than a casual glance for wrong- they have a culpability here too.
The band of blue- the one shield for all fraternity that is often core to the job- it goes both ways. Hurt one officer hurt them all; one officer hurts someone and all officers hurt them too. But a servant cannot serve two masters. You serve your oath to the public or you serve the force. Those “good” officers and administrators who when faced with a fellow who was in violation or was a danger in their minds- have a choice to serve the law even against their own, or to serve their fellows and fuck the law.
That is what being an officer is, should be. You serve the law, you serve the public. Through action or inaction to do otherwise is counter to the very station held. And so the public has- arguably rightfully- lost faith that the discretion they have trusted to police officers for use in service of the law and due process; and the public interest, are being used for that purpose and not abused or misused. And now they rally to take away these powers to match what they perceive to be the level that police can responsibly handle.
Like children- they were given privilege
and power, the public felt it was being abused and warnings were made. Protests and riots and rallies for decades. Discussions and debates. The police were served notice the public was not happy with their use of the powers given- and did not do what needed done to make sure that either officers possessed the requisites to use those powers responsibly, or that officers were bound by policy and consequence in exercising those powers they showed they couldn’t. So we are on a road where now, society is going to tell them what they can have and do- and society aren’t cops, so they’ll probably make a mess of it and people- officers included- will be hurt.
And that’s on the law enforcement establishment for pushing a public which had let them know they were on thin ice, to a point of no confidence that they could or would fix it themselves; pushed to a point society says “well fix it for you.”
And that’s all important to two points we discussed in other threads. 1. Feds and unmarked vans. In context to what I’ve laid out here- I hope you see the point I was trying to make- regardless of morality or philosophy or practicality- if law enforcement pisses off or disappoints the public enough- right or wrong- law enforcement is the one that will suffer in the short run. 2. Criminals may escalate fore and brutality and boldness and tactics- police have to be smarter in how they match that than just force for force.
So that's what you think. The movement doesn't have near the support you seem to think. Most of us look around at the fires and the chaos, and decide that we're better off staying right where we are than letting the anarchists and criminals have their way.
Seattle and Portland in particular, as they are quite literally hitting really damned close to home.
Elliot Ness and these guys got away with being cowboys- asides from their day being more cowboy in general- because they largely had public trust and support. Vietnam, our most recent wars- largely have started off with higher approval that’s fallen across the board over time- and ultimately ended in withdrawal when they bottomed out. For a good portion- maybe a majority by numbers of Americans- police aren’t the “good guys” anymore. At best they are somewhat neutral and at worst they are as bad as a gang with the might of the law behind it. They need to fix that.
@famousone- “most of us” are... less of us man. The “not coasts” are big spaces... 40% of Americans live on the coasts. The urban mega cities and such- which in the whole tend to liberal social politics and balance a bit both way on fiscal matters- ARE “most of us” as Americans. As a whole- America self identifies as “center right” but... 1. Conservatives are low 40% while liberals are mid 30%... but moderates are the rest. Consider if you will that I am a moderate with liberal social leanings and conservative leanings in other areas. 2. The main reason for how we tally national votes and assign national representatives is to prevent direct democracy- by population more rural- traditionally conservative- communities would pretty much have no chance since their populations are dwarfed by urban (traditionally liberal) communities.
As for support- some of the nations major police departments have already changed policies or are in process of change as we speak. Look at court and other rulings for the past decade on the powers of law enforcement. The entire debate over “evil AR-15 style” weapons was set for a major reckoning in the high courts- you know why it stopped? The judges indicated to the ATF and DOJ that based on their current policy- they’ve been illegally enforcing these laws. Their case was set to expose a loop hole that would effectively overturn countless convictions and make it all but impossible to police any weapon based on the template- because of how the law defines receiver and firearm.
That’s why you haven’t seen or heard much about the evil black gun that was such a hot topic- because if they push it up the court chain- the judge is going to take away their ability to decide what is a regulated firearm. It’s a multifaceted problem from federal down to local enforcement. Politics and bullshit and abuse or misuse of power...
To your point- Bumble Dick falls and Tumble Weed Gulch and all the other places people might accidentally drive through when they stop to get gas, or go to a conference in, or stay in a hotel because it’s cheaper and close enough to where they are going; but would probably never otherwise see unless they were born there or had a change of station etc- what happens to the LAPD or NYPD May not reach them, or may not reach them for many decades. But you can round up every city in most states in the northern Midwest and not have the population of California. You’ve got more than 20 states that don’t have the population of New York... CITY. So “most of us” is... maybe not accurate unless “us” is “people like me” in which case- that’s not a number. That could be 10,100,10,000,000.
We’ve seen an unprecedented change lately- the top states for new residents have been smaller rural states. A victory? Maybe. But- consider that these transplants tend to migrate from liberal states based more on cost of living. In other words- you likely aren’t seeing ideological converts flee liberal America- you’re seeing liberals slowly creating large liberal leaning enclaves in traditionally conservative states like Texas and the Carolinas. One thing experience has taught me about transplants that leave a place they “can’t stand” is that often they just turn the new place as crummy as the one they left before finding the next “new hot spot.”
So don’t be so sure, when so many associates that I would consider to be too liberal for my tastes are falling in love with the ambiance and cheap costs of the places “we” live- set that it will be great once they can start morphing it to be less “small minded.” By the numbers- “we” might not be the majority you may think it is.
Paramedics are actually trained to restrain people, criminals included. They have to do it quite a bit in that line of work. Of course, I'm only going off what I know, which is New Zealand. Might be different over in the land of the 'free'.
Most of your point relies on there not being any notable support for police in those cities. There is. I spent most of my life in blue states, much of that in blue cities. Just look at how much red there is in New York, Oregon, Cali. And much of those transplants are ideological, by their own admission. Even me, born in Oregon, raised in Washington, but still a child of Idaho.
It was obvious, I was merely making a statement based on my own experiences. Having never been to the States, I can only go off of hearsay. I have however been informed that paramedics over there are also trained to restrain people, as they often have to deal with potentially dangerous patients.
They weren’t responding to American tax policy though. Your sarcasm @famousone doesn’t help your case here. @mrfahrenheit was taking their experience and directly applying it to a line of work. I print shirts and if the topic came up I’d be fairly comfortable taking my American experience of it to Australia or Ireland or any other country without being discounted simply for not being the absolute same situation
It’s sort of a false dichotomy to say that because a person isn’t an expert on a subject or hasn’t experienced it first had that they can’t have correct information on it. I’ve never been to the sun and I’m not an astrophysicist- but I can tell you the surface of the sun is quite warm. This is the difference between information and opinion or speculation. Fact which can be verified as fact is valid regardless of the source. Opinion and speculation are close but nuanced. Both are based in experience and perspective- of which life experience is a critical factor. But opinion requires no facts where as speculation by its nature is an attempt to form a conclusion- to construct fact.
But let’s fact check the matter at hand- EMT’s and restraints. 1. Certification and licensing as an EMT are not the same. The NREMT system is accepted by MOST states as at least one level of requirement. 2. State laws as well as local rules and requirements for EMT- and especially policy- vary widely. As a general rule- EMT can restrain a patient where medically necessary- ie: where to treat a patient properly they must be restrained.
I don't care to hear what a foreign system would have done when the topic is what our system did do. Saying "We do *** in ***" contributes nothing, particularly when it is being dressed up as a qualification, and it ain't their house having the argument.
This includes persons who are in a state of excitement or delirium- and legal precedent holds that an obviously altered state of behavior such as that caused by chemical means, result of injury, extreme emotional response, or psychological distress can legally be considered consent to treat for other injuries- and thus it would be medically necessary to restrain said patients such as a violent man on PCP with a gun shot wound. EMT in many areas ARE allowed to restrain patients who pose a danger to them or others. Verbal restraint (coaxing cooperation) is part of EMT training as well as chemical restraint (use of sedatives.)
As far as the civilian side of my training goes, the police deal with their suspect until they are satisfied that they are detained and neutralized, at which point they give us the all clear to treat them.
The only time we would restrain a potentially dangerous patient is if we already had taken them under our care, and/or the police weren't already on scene. If the patient is already violent and posing a risk while unrestrained and out of our control, we wait for the police.
Simply- if you are an EMT long enough- you WILL restrain someone. If no one ever taught you not to piss on your leg, I’d hope that by a certain age you’d be able to see you had a problem facing you and figure out how to not piss on yourself.
I can’t seem to find the quote now- but the sentient from you which started the chain on EMT’s was that EMT are not trained to restrain people- the reply was from another country, you said that was invalid. I have established that EMT in America are in fact trained to restrain people, you have just said that yes- EMT are trained to restrain people. I think we can put the statement to rest as debunked and agreed upon as debunked. Your matter of discussion isn’t wether EMT are trained to restrain people- but that if as policy or standard practice EMT restrain violent patients. We have agreed that EMT May or may not restrain violent patients based on the policies and practices of a place they are at. So we can mutually agree that the debate over the training and act of restraint has been resolved as EMT doing both- based on policy and circumstance.
As to your first rule- yes. You can’t help if dead etc. hence why patients who are a danger are restrained. To the subject at hand- the question exists if wether George Floyd as a patient needed to be restrained before he could be seen to by EMT. We’ve already discussed that new footage including body cam footage has been released showing Floyd was compliant. One may or may not watch that footage and agree.
The point is moot because he was killed- and you also can’t treat a person if they are dead, and you most certainly wouldn’t need to worry about them becoming violent after death and needing restraint other than perhaps to stop the body from twitching. So wether or not a suspect needs to be restrained by police or EMT is pretty irrelevant to the case- we are just discussing it as a general concept. When George Floyd was murdered- it removed the EMT from the equation.
When you kneel on a man until he dies- he’s going to thrash. Even if he wasn’t trying to... get the guy killing him off... as he does his body will respond on instinct. So it isn’t an argument to say “I had to keep kneeling so he’d stop thrashing” when you are in the middle of murdering someone who is only thrashing because you are murdering them no? The act that would cause a need for EMT was also the act that caused the need for restraint before an EMT could treat. It’s paradoxical nonsense. 3 police watched a murder by a 4th and didn’t stop it. The end.
None of the details about the actual killing were disputed. As I've said before, it was a bad kill. But the EMTs cannot take control of a suspect from police, especially as Floyd was not compliant nor in a safe and stable mental state.
So what we have here are two different points that seem wrapped up in one. The first point, and I don’t think too many people will disagree- I certainly don’t. EMT’s aren’t responsible for the death of George Floyd. The second point- I again refute in fact as it pertains to George Floyd. Not only RHEMS guidelines for the state of Minnesota- verbatim- in the introduction (you won’t have to read far to find it) Item 3. In which outlines appropriate circumstances to restrain a person: “The individual presents a specific threat to innocent third parties.” As we read further down we will see this exact phrase: “.... even when they have not been actively combative, the provider has the right and duty to provide the patient and others with the security of patient restraint....” now- it does go in to state the very important fact that an EMT is NOT intended or authorized to restrain a suspect who doesn’t need medical care but poses a specific danger- that is a police duty.
So the key take away here is that in the general sense it is jurisdictional wether an EMT restrains a patient or not. In the specific case of EMT in the state this occurred in, it is the duty of an EMT to restrain a patient once that patient is in their care. But regardless- I don’t know and can’t seem to find why we are talking about EMT’s at all here. The first mention that I can recall seeing of EMT’s is a comment you made after one of mine about EMT’s and their duties- which at the time I ignored because I had no idea what EMT duties had to do with anything- and still do not- but the conversation took that turn so it seemed topical to clear the matter up. Which we have.
As a wise man once said: “Did he die though?” Because being kneeled on, and being kneeled on until you die... those two things aren’t equal are they? If you hit me with your fist and I hit you with my car- is that equal because we both got hit? But the problem isn’t that white people don’t get kneeled on. We could argue wether black people are more likely to get the knee- but the problem is justification. Who is the guy in this picture? What is the situation that led to this? Context is important. Was he resisting arrest? George Floyd wasn’t. Is it a race issue? I don’t know. There’s certainly a racial issue present as part of a larger issue of police use of force- but whatever your color is- police shouldn’t be using disproportionate force.
And they weren't working in a vacuum. They knew eyes were on them, they knew it would look bad to force him anywhere, and if he resisted their escalation of force, they may have needed to defend themselves, eachother, and bystanders from a very large, unhinged, high, man.
I'm not saying the officers were entirely in the right, but it looks less like a racist homicidal attack and more like a bad situation exacerbated by bad decisions. Manslaughter at the worst, no hate or premeditation.
2. We know Chauvin and Floyd had worked together- but we do NOT know if any of the officers knew of his history or not at the time of the call. The department and officers have largely avoided statements on the matter, and no cross examination has occurred to verify the facts- but it will probably come up in court. Currently we cannot say wether they had his record or not- that’s speculation.
3. The department policy manual doesn’t say anything for or against changing response based on suspect histories- but the executive leader of the department and arbiter of policy: the police chief- has gone on record that nothing about the incident should have caused it to end in Floyd’s death. That would include his prior convictions.
and power, the public felt it was being abused and warnings were made. Protests and riots and rallies for decades. Discussions and debates. The police were served notice the public was not happy with their use of the powers given- and did not do what needed done to make sure that either officers possessed the requisites to use those powers responsibly, or that officers were bound by policy and consequence in exercising those powers they showed they couldn’t. So we are on a road where now, society is going to tell them what they can have and do- and society aren’t cops, so they’ll probably make a mess of it and people- officers included- will be hurt.
Seattle and Portland in particular, as they are quite literally hitting really damned close to home.
The only time we would restrain a potentially dangerous patient is if we already had taken them under our care, and/or the police weren't already on scene. If the patient is already violent and posing a risk while unrestrained and out of our control, we wait for the police.