SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Speaker 1: (01:52)
Are you familiar with the use of force continuum?
Richard Zimmerman: (01:56)
Yes.
Speaker 1: (01:57)
Is that part of the Minneapolis Police Department use of force policy?
Richard Zimmerman: (02:01)
Yes, it is.
Speaker 1: (02:02)
Can you just describe in general what that means to the jurors
Richard Zimmerman: (02:05)
Yeah. Basically, the use of force continuum is guidelines, or it’s policy actually, that we have to follow. It’s when, for instance, when you arrive at a scene, no matter what the scene, the first level, the lowest level would be just your presence at a scene, in uniform. The next step up, maybe your verbal skills that you’ve learned to help diffuse a situation or learn information about whatever the situation is. The next step would be a soft technique, escorting the person by their arm, that type of thing. The next level would be a hard technique. That’s where you would use your, you maybe have to use your mace or handcuffs, that kind of thing. Finally, the top level on the continuum is deadly force.
[...]
Speaker 1: (04:11)
Have you ever, in all the years you’ve been working for the Minneapolis Police Department been trained to kneel on the neck of someone who is handcuffed behind their back, in a prone position?
Richard Zimmerman: (04:24)
No, I haven’t.
Speaker 1: (04:27)
Is that, if that were done, would that be considered force?
Richard Zimmerman: (04:30)
Absolutely.
Speaker 1: (04:32)
What level of force might that be?
Richard Zimmerman: (04:35)
That would be the top tier, the deadly force.
Speaker 1: (04:38)
Why?
Richard Zimmerman: (04:39)
Because of the fact that if your knee is on a person’s neck, that can kill them.
[...]
Speaker 1: (05:25)
Okay. Well, let me ask you this again. If you, as an officer, according to the training, you handcuff somebody behind the back, what’s your responsibility with regard to that person from that moment on?
Richard Zimmerman: (05:47)
That person is yours. He’s your responsibility. His safety is your responsibility, his wellbeing, and is your responsibility,
Speaker 1: (06:01)
Once you handcuff somebody, does that affect the amount of force that you should consider using?
Richard Zimmerman: (06:08)
Absolutely.
Speaker 1: (06:09)
How so?
Richard Zimmerman: (06:11)
Once a person is cuffed, the threat level goes down all the way. They’re cuffed. How can they really hurt you?
Speaker 1: (06:26)
Well, certainly there could be certain circumstances when a cuffed person could still be combative?
Richard Zimmerman: (06:32)
Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. But you getting injured is way down.
Speaker 1: (06:39)
What you mean by that?
Richard Zimmerman: (06:40)
Well, if you’re, you could have some guy try to kick you or something, but you can move out of the way. That person is handcuffed, and the threat level is just not there.
Speaker 1: (06:59)
So, by handcuffing somebody you’ve taken away some of their ability to harm you?
Richard Zimmerman: (07:04)
Absolutely.
Speaker 1: (07:08)
If somebody who is handcuffed becomes less combative, does that change the amount of force that an officer is to use under policy?
Richard Zimmerman: (07:19)
Yes.
Speaker 1: (07:21)
How so?
Richard Zimmerman: (07:23)
Well, if they become less combative, you may just have them sit down on the curb or, the idea is to calm the person down. if they are not a threat to you at that point, you try to help them, so that they’re not as upset as they may have been in the beginning.
Speaker 1: (08:01)
In your 30 years of training with the Minneapolis Police Department, and your experience, have you been trained on the prone position?
Richard Zimmerman: (08:15)
Yes.
Speaker 1: (08:17)
What has your training been, specific to the prone position?
Richard Zimmerman: (08:23)
Well, once you secure or handcuff a person, you need to get them out of the prone position as soon as possible, because it restricts their breathing.
Speaker 1: (08:38)
When you handcuff somebody behind their back … well, as part of training, have you been handcuffed behind the back?
Richard Zimmerman: (08:44)
Yes.
Speaker 1: (08:46)
Have you been trained on what happens to individuals when they’re handcuffed behind the back?
Richard Zimmerman: (08:52)
Yes.
Speaker 1: (08:52)
So, when somebody is handcuffed behind their back, how does it affect them physically?
Richard Zimmerman: (08:57)
It stretches the muscles back through your chest, and it makes it more difficult to breathe.
Speaker 1: (09:07)
If you put somebody in the prone position … Well, is it well-known this danger of putting somebody in the prone position?
Speaker 5: (09:16)
Sustained.
Speaker 1: (09:17)
How long have you had training on the dangers of the prone position, as part of a Minneapolis Police Officer?
Richard Zimmerman: (09:24)
For, since 1985.
Speaker 1: (09:30)
Is it part of your training regularly to learn about keeping somebody in the prone position?
Richard Zimmerman: (09:36)
Yes.
Speaker 1: (09:37)
What has the training band with regard to the prone position?
Richard Zimmerman: (09:41)
Once a person is cuffed, you need to turn them on their side or have them sit up. You need to get them off their chest.
Speaker 1: (09:51)
Why?
Richard Zimmerman: (09:52)
Because of the, as I had mentioned earlier, your muscles are pulling back when you’re handcuffed, and if you’re laying on your chest, that’s constricting your breathing even more.
Speaker 1: (10:14)
In your training as a Minneapolis Police Officer, are you provided with training on medical intervention?
Richard Zimmerman: (10:23)
Yes.
Speaker 1: (10:24)
I assume you’re not taught to be paramedics, but you receive some level of training?
Richard Zimmerman: (10:29)
Yeah. We’re first responders I think, is what our category would be.
Speaker 1: (10:33)
Does that include doing what we think of a CPR, chest compressions?
Richard Zimmerman: (10:37)
Yes.
Speaker 1: (10:38)
How often is that part of your training?
Richard Zimmerman: (10:42)
CPR? It’s every other year or so.
Speaker 1: (10:47)
As part of your training within the Minneapolis Police Department policies, is there an obligation to provide medical intervention when necessary?
Richard Zimmerman: (10:57)
Absolutely.
Speaker 1: (10:58)
What is the general teaching that you get with regard to medical intervention?
Richard Zimmerman: (11:04)
Well, again, it’s been that you need to provide medical care for a person that is in distress.
Speaker 1: (11:16)
Would that be true, even if you’ve called an ambulance to come to the scene?
Richard Zimmerman: (11:20)
Yeah, absolutely. The ambulance will get there in whatever amount of time, and in that time period, you need to provide medical assistance before they arrive.
TL;DR: The first quote establishes that there is a policy guideline, the "force continuum" for use and escalation of force. The second quote establishes that kneeling on a prone person is not official policy and it is considered the top level of deadly force in the "force continuum".
Finally, the meat of the testimony is in the final quote which establishes:
1. Police are responsible for people they handcuff and are required to give first aid medical care - even if an ambulance is called, should the person need it.
2. Handcuffed people are considered to be much lower threat because of the constraint and official policy is to use lower force on a handcuffed person.
3. Training is to move a handcuffed person from the prone position because of the breathing difficulties the position causes.
While it remains to be seen how these policies were enforced, I am reminded of people early on claiming this sort of thing is proper police procedure. Well, now we see it's not.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @01:46PM (9 children)
If there is to be no presumption of innocence, how could a death in police custody ever be considered a "killing"? Someone must shoulder the blame. [forbes.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 06 2021, @06:21PM
No person shall be deprived of Life, Liberty or Poverty without due process of law.
No person shall be deprived of Life, Library or Puberty without due process of law.
The anti vax hysteria didn't stop, it just died down.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 06 2021, @08:08PM (6 children)
I don't have to presume innocence when there's video of the killing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @12:15AM (5 children)
So repeal the 6th and remember it if you're ever denied a fair trial. Alternatively shove your prejudice where Floyd shoved the goofball [straightdope.com] that caused him to start foaming at the mouth. [healthline.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 07 2021, @12:37AM (4 children)
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @01:12AM (3 children)
The point stands. We start with the presumption of innocence and establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt by presenting facts in court. Based on the first video, it looked like Chauvin was undercharged. The later video showed there was more going on, and the judge threw out evidence of a similar 2019 incident. [thenewamerican.com]
Do we want to make cops dealing with junkies [foxnews.com] a liability?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 07 2021, @01:14AM (2 children)
No we don't. Because once again, this happened in front of video camera. The evidence is already there.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @02:07AM (1 child)
> The evidence is already there.
Is that what you saw? [thepostmillennial.com] Is it what the autopsy confirmed? [thewatchtowers.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 07 2021, @04:10AM
Even if that were so, as I noted in my journal the position of being handcuffed behind the back while face down on the ground is harmful to breathing. A knee in the shoulder blade would still have aggravated the situation more. And Chauvin kept it up for nine minutes.
No attempt was made to move Floyd to a position where he could breath easier. There were four police officers - it wouldn't have been difficult.
No, 3 ng per ml is not "the fatal dose". It is the start of a fatal dose for some people, particularly those who have never taken fentanyl before. People who have taken the drug for a while have a much higher tolerance for fentanyl and a fatal dose can be well above 11 ng per ml, which is the alleged dosage that Floyd had in his bloodstream.
The mistake here is to dismiss this wicked act merely because Floyd might have died anyway. Too often we've seen police officers ignore [washingtonpost.com] life threatening injuries or situations resulting in the death of people.
[...]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @12:51AM
"Alleged" refers to the crime, not the facts. You could "allege" that Floyd was murdered, but saying he is "allegedly" dead is nonsense.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 06 2021, @02:00PM (40 children)
I've commented before on the "protocols" cited by Chauvin's cheerleaders. I didn't like them, but I accepted that maybe if they are protocol, then alright, but maybe the protocols were applied incorrectly.
In this testimony, we learn that those "protocols" aren't protocol at all.
I think Chauvin is screwed. Maybe murder, maybe not murder, but definitely dereliction and manslaughter.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @02:27PM (19 children)
How do you establish "beyond reasonable doubt" that hypoxia is not caused by fentanyl and meth? If we're prosecuting felony murder, and it can be established Morries Hall [lawandcrime.com] supplied the drugs in Floyd's toxology report, should he not be held to the same standard as Chauvin? Did the fake bill belong to Floyd or Hall?
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 06 2021, @05:35PM (2 children)
A video of the guy being choked out for nine minutes, I'm guessing....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @05:42PM (1 child)
Is that why the prosecution wants to toss the autopsy? [jonathanturley.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday April 06 2021, @08:49PM
For a real world example of the problem in action, a Utah detective illegally arrested [wikipedia.org] a nurse because she prevented him from taking a blood sample from a truck driver who had been put into a coma (and would later die) as a result of a high speed chase by police officers (the fleeing subject ran into the truck). So why would the police need a blood sample from an innocent guy who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? If they could show that Gray was driving while impaired, it'd help reduce their liability in this case. Given that the police officer in question blatantly broke the law, he may have been willing to break the law further by deliberately tainting the blood sample as well.
At the time the official autopsy was performed, the conflict of interest would have been to reduce liability for the police officers and the city. After the decision to try the police officers, reducing liability for their actions would have no longer been in the interest of anyone in the city government. Any bias in the official autopsy would then be working against the city's interests.
I think a similar game was played by the second, private autopsy which didn't do blood work and thus, wouldn't have been able to undermine its own conclusions, should the levels of fen and meth be as high as claimed by the official autopsy.
But one doesn't need any of this to show criminal negligence. A man died under the control of these police officers. Aside from calling 911 partway in, they didn't do anything to help, not even change a dangerous hold that likely contributed to Floyd's death. None of Floyd's actions justify this callous indifference to human life.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 06 2021, @06:39PM (14 children)
Sorry, but it just doesn't matter.
Let's have ourselves a bank robbery. Some number of people, let's make it six, are involved. We meet resistance in the bank, and some people are shot.
One of our guys shoots two people. One of our guys shoots one other person. The other three guys inside the bank, and the getaway driver don't shoot anyone.
So now - we're caught, we sit around forever, and go through all sorts of pretrial hearings, and finally our trials. The group is definitely found guilty of 3 murders.
The question is, how many am I guilty of? I didn't pull the trigger. How many are you guilty of? You didn't pull the trigger.
The answer is, you are guilty of three murders, and I am also guilty of three murders. Our criminal actions resulted in, or at least contributed to, three murders. You're going away, and so am I.
This is the situation Chauvin is in. His negligent actions resulted in, or contributed to a death. Worse than that, his actions appear to maybe be criminal. Two supervisors have testified that Chauvin was never trained to restrain a suspect in the manner that he used. The jury has to decide whether his actions were indeed criminal, and not merely negligent.
I've got him on the negligence. I'm undecided on the criminal part, but I'm leaning that way pretty strongly.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:04PM (1 child)
Yep, definitely going away for the negligence.
Second degree murder is harder to prove but it you criminally assault someone and they die from it you're guilty. It seem to this layman that we've established that pretty strongly but who knows...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 06 2021, @09:42PM
That old demon "qualified immunity" may try to get into the dispute. Cops (rightfully) can do things that you and I can't do. I think QI has been dismissed in this case, but there will be appeals, yada yada yada. And, if the jury gets it into their heads that QI covers it, well, there won't ever be an appeal.
The negligence is really the best shot. It should be easy for almost any jury to convict on that. I really don't think QI applies to negligence.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:50PM (10 children)
Yes. [lawandcrime.com] EMTs drove a block before attempting to resuscitate Floyd because of the
professionalhostile crowd, are we going to prosecute them too?(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 06 2021, @08:07PM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 06 2021, @09:34PM (8 children)
That's the way it's been taught since at least 1980. Our instructor made it very clear that you can't help anyone, if you're not protecting yourself. In this particular case, the EMTs got clear of the hostile crowd before they did anything. Good on them. They didn't kill anyone, so why would you want to prosecute them?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @11:40PM (7 children)
> They didn't kill anyone, so why would you want to prosecute them?
We want to prosecute the crowd and the alleged drug dealer under the same standard as Chauvin.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 06 2021, @11:56PM
You can have the dealer. I saw absolutely nothing wrong with the conduct of the crowd standing around the police car. You can't have them.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 07 2021, @01:08AM (5 children)
What has the crowd and alleged drug dealer done that warrant prosecution? Crowds don't sound like they were breaking any laws, and nobody has complained about the quality of the product that Floyd received. Meanwhile Chauvin at the least completely ignored Floyd's health condition while constraining him, and let him die. That's not anyone else's responsibility.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @01:33AM (4 children)
The other officers were on crowd control, you don't think the cops may have called medics earlier if they didn't have to deal with the crowd? [mn.gov] So if we're going for felony murder [wikipedia.org] why not go all the way?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 07 2021, @04:25AM (3 children)
Of course not - it doesn't take a lot of effort to call medics and Chauvin was right there aware of Floyd.
In fact, without witnesses present, it might have taken a lot longer to call the medics. I remain suspicious due to Chauvin and Floyd working [snopes.com] in the same place for most of 2019 - a fact which Minneapolis police apparently remain incurious about. If Floyd and Chauvin were working for the same criminal enterprise, then Floyd's erratic behavior would give motive for first degree murder of Floyd.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @05:22AM (2 children)
They are incurious because that fact is orthogonal to the city's plan to bury him. And that is driven by political considerations that Antifa will go on a rampage if Chauvin doesn't get convicted of murder.
Likewise, Chauvin's defense probably won't bring it up, because it's not going to be absolutely helpful to his case. It remains something that outsiders like me are interested in.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 07 2021, @07:08AM (1 child)
Political considerations. Do you believe that unnecessary death, caused by cops, is a political thing? Or, is it more of a right and wrong issue?
I've banged away on the idea of "law enforcement officers" vs "peace officers" before. It seems that more than 75% of police view themselves as LEOs, rather than POs. Look at the sort of names they attach to their news outlets and other communications - https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/ [lawenforcementtoday.com] I don't believe there is anything like PeaceOfficerTimes.org.
Too many people watch too much television. Those people have been brainwashed for thousands of hours into accepting that the cop is always right, and the average "civilian" can't really comprehend a cop's job. Give it up, it's not a "political" thing.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @08:23AM
Politics is always a factor. Evil is tolerated by those in power when it is politically expedient to do so and power is always attractive to abusers. As long as they can deny, call it an 'isolated incident', or otherwise shift the blame then nothing gets done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @02:09AM
Judge Runaway1956 in da Court!
As much as he loves to watch TV Judges, we have been warned before about Runaway legal device! He not only does not know the law, he does not know how much rice is in China, or where FatPhil lives (Estonia is where). Some where on SN, there is a list of things Runaway does not know. And now he is pronouncing judgment on murder trial? At least we know how Runaway leans, and at least he won't be able to get that gender-re-ass-ingment surgery in Arkansas, any more.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 06 2021, @08:04PM
I'll admit that the prosecution's case here is pretty weak, especially since they're asking the jury to disregard [jonathanturley.org] the official autopsy. OTOH, criminal negligence doesn't require the death to caused by the neck hold or that Floyd is innocent of things like counterfeiting or drug use.
Sounds like Floyd had more [msn.com] of these bills and made some attempt to hide them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @02:57PM (19 children)
Are we still in the prosecution phase?
I would like to know how the restrained prisoner got out of the car, what the police were trying to accomplish keeping the prisoner outside rather than put him back in the car and take him immediately to jail, and finally what Chauvin can document about what the department trained him about kneeling on someone's neck.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @03:20PM (12 children)
See page 26 [mncourts.gov] - scan of training manual with photographic depiction of an officer kneeling on the neck of a handcuffed suspect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06 2021, @06:46PM
Yes, I know that slide. It shows what could be a neck restraint, but the accompanying text doesn't say mention one. While elsewhere the slides note that neck restraints require a supervisor notification. Was the image on the slide just showing an officer squatting to put on handcuffs? If a neck restraint was ordered, was it to be maintained for the entire nine minutes or so waiting for EMS arrival?
In general, I would expect a 16 year police officer to know how to process a doped up criminal never-do-well. That doesn't make me a cheerleader for Chauvin. But there is a strong undercurrent of a politically desired outcome, because the city already gave a stack of taxpayer money to Floyd's family no questions asked, and the city expects Antifa to go on a rampage if Chauvin doesn't get convicted of murder. They're planning leaving the citizens helpless, the cowards.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 06 2021, @06:56PM (4 children)
"Place the subject in the recovery position to alleviate positional asphyxia" - the bullet right next to that picture.
The picture in question is very blurry and that knee may not even be touching his neck.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday April 07 2021, @01:01AM (2 children)
Look at the officer's foot in that photo. The degree of bend in his shoes indicates that most if not all of his weight is on his feet, not the suspect's neck.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday April 08 2021, @09:17AM (1 child)
Not that I can see the image in question, that server refuses to serve me the PDF due to some failed TLS handshandy.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday April 09 2021, @12:32AM
The detainee is face down, with his face turned away from the restraining officer. The knee, if it is contacting at all, is on the back of his neck/upper back. The other officer looks like he might be putting the handcuffs on.
Regarding whether kneeling on the neck is policy, the bullet points next to the photo are:
- Sudden cardiac arrest typically occurs immediately following a violent struggle
- Place the subject in the recovery position to alleviate positional asphyxia
- Once in handcuffs, get EMS on scene quickly to monitor and transport
Nowhere does it say "kneel on his neck for nine minutes or until dead".
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @05:43AM
Looks like he is partially on his side and they are getting ready to put him in a modified recovery (or even a sniffer position based on the arm positioning) to me. The person on the left is an instructor of the class explaining to others the position and the reflexive use of the arms as the other two rotate the suspect from the prone position. You can just see the subject preemptively guarding with lateral neck flexion and the legs positioned asymmetrically by the far officer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:27PM (2 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:36PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 06 2021, @07:44PM
I think they're showing the suspect cuffed. The next step being to move him into the recovery position to prevent choking.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @12:57AM (2 children)
That's clearly a PowerPoint slide. It should be a crime anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @05:50AM (1 child)
Worse. It is a printed off and then scanned in copy of a PowerPoint slide. Just export that thing straight to PDF. It is literally the same amount of clicks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @02:33PM
It is likely not that easy.
This likely got out for one of two possible reasons:
1) it is a copy filed in the court (in which case it was filed on paper, and the court does not have the original powerpoint doc to create a pdf for you from)
2) it was supplied/leaked to the press by someone, and they did so by printing and posting that printout to the press. In this case the press also does not have the original powerpoint to create a pdf from for you.
3) this has been around and around for years, as paper copies passed around/copied, and no one, anywhere, even in the department that created it, has any idea where the original powerpoint is located anymore, so they simply can't create a pdf from the powerpoint for you.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 06 2021, @06:53PM (5 children)
The prisoner got out of the car through an open door. For whatever crazy reason, both doors to the rear seat were open. The cops finally got George into the back seat, and he right across, and out the open door. One dumbass or another screwed up. But, let's be careful here - we don't want to crucify a man for leaving a door open. That was just a dumb mistake.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @08:39AM (4 children)
Leaving that door open was negligence and the officer responsible should get a reprimand from their supervisor and corrective training.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 07 2021, @06:30PM (1 child)
Where, exactly, do you end this sort of nonsense though?
Let's start with the fact that police (or most of them) are uniformed officers. Have you ever worn a uniform? Ever stood a uniform inspection? The gig line has to be straight, no Irish penants, decorations must be place JUST SO, boots/shoes must be blackened or spit shined, depending on which kind of footwear and regulations, creases are razor sharp, or no creases depending on the specific uniform and your service's guidance, and it goes on and on and on.
So, you show up before your shift, the inspecting sergeant finds an Irish penant on the back of your shirt. NEGLIGENCE!! COURT MARTIAL!! WHO KNOWS WHAT THE RESULTS OF SUCH NEGLIGENCE MIGHT BE!! SOMEONE COULD DIE!
The point is, no one is perfect. Someone screwed up and left a door open. He shouldn't be hung for it. Chauvin made the decisions that seem to have resulted in a man's death. "No, we don't need to check his pulse. The EMT's can do that if they get here in time."
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08 2021, @05:46AM
What part of my post said that the one who left the door open should be "hung for it"? The one who left the door open let a prisoner (temporarily*) escape custody and I spelled out exactly what corrective action should be taken: Attention drawn to the error and corrective reinforcement. That is the only way people learn from their mistakes.
*What happened when said prisoner was recaptured is a separate issue.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 07 2021, @08:14PM (1 child)
No, making dumb mistakes is not what "negligence" means.
Talk about what happened, sure. Document (in case there is a pattern of such mistakes that indicate need for more training), sure. But what's the point of a reprimand for little shit?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08 2021, @05:52AM
It wasn't just a dumb mistake. He allowed a prisoner to (temporarily*) escape custody, which he had a duty to prevent. That is negligence pure and simple.
Perhaps my terminology is bit off. I understood that a reprimand is the proper procedure for documenting of misbehaviour and correction, even in relatively minor cases.
*What happened on recapture is a separate matter and is on Chauvin's head.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07 2021, @02:28AM (1 child)
"That would be the top tier, the deadly force."
Uh, if he hasn't been trained in it, as he claims, then how would he know? He isn't qualified to answer the question.
It's very obvious however, that the details matter. How much force is applied? Is the force applied front-back or side-to-side? Is this on a hard flat surface like concrete or asphalt, on a semi-hard surface like clay soil or rubber, on a jagged surface like junkyard debris, or on a soft surface like a pillow?
If a 300-pound cop applies his full body weight as front-back force, it's very different from a little cop lady (like Piper Perri) applying a few pounds of force side-to-side.
I'm left to wonder what motive Richard Zimmerman might have here. Is he trying to please a lawyer who paid for expert testimony? Is he trying to save his own ass? Does he personally hate the defendant? Is he trying to win favor with the mayor to get some help with a promotion?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 07 2021, @04:38AM
Because he has been trained in distinguishing the level of harm of uses of force (not just permitted uses of force). It's like claiming that someone couldn't know if shooting someone with a Glock pistol is lethal force because they only train with 0.38 Smith and Wesson revolvers. It doesn't hurt that he also has 40+ years of experience as a police officer.
Details aren't favorable in this case. I gather Chauvin was pretty heavy and the surface appears to be asphalt.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 07 2021, @11:40PM (8 children)
I find it very interesting that you're coming down on the right side of this. Now, knowing you, the ONLY reason you are is out of simple selfishness, i.e., "one of these days this is going to be me." Ah, well, you can be right for the wrong reasons I guess. Call it a moral version of the Gettier Problem :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday April 08 2021, @02:47AM (2 children)
At least you care more here about results than motives. That is improvement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08 2021, @06:19PM (1 child)
Always have little boy, but the motives are important to varying degrees.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 08 2021, @06:33PM
It's mostly just an excuse for ad hominem attack. It's interesting how often these sort of discussion about motive devolve [soylentnews.org] into some variation of "He/she didn't really mean it."
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday April 09 2021, @08:45AM (4 children)
I know it's nice to take a stab at khallow for most of his societal perspectives, but I think this one is unwarranted.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 09 2021, @09:27AM (3 children)
Oh, he's right, but he's right for the wrong reasons. Still, I'll take that over his usual, which is to be wrong for the wrong reasons :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday April 09 2021, @10:10AM (2 children)
Your logic is akin to the religious types who insist that atheists can't do good deeds.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 09 2021, @11:34AM (1 child)
No it isn't and here's why:
The religious chestnut that an atheist is incapable of doing a good deed begs the question; it assumes that the definition of morality hinges on some form of Divine Command Theory (which itself is shot so full of holes I am amazed anyone seriously advances it any longer). I am not assuming that Mr. Hallow is not able to access the same epistemological toolbox I am; rather, I am stating that based on past interactions with him and demonstrated sociopathic tendencies, there is an extremely high high likelihood that he did not arrive at the same conclusion I did by the same route.
Now, this *may* be because he doesn't have access to the same epistemological tools I do, being a sociopath (i.e., he lacks empathy), but it is not necessarily so, and it's entirely possible for a non-sociopath to be shortsighted and stupid. Not knowing the exact configuration of what passes for Mr. Hallow's mind, I can't say for 100% certain how he got here, but based on past performance, it is very likely coming from a place of selfishness. It doesn't mean he's wrong, it means stumbling and got lucky.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Friday April 09 2021, @02:38PM
Indeed. That knowledge clearly falls well short.