• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Seattle cop removes colleague's knee from protester's neck, video shows

PoS

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
33,935
Reaction score
26,642
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Seattle cop removes colleague's knee from protester's neck: video

New video shows a Seattle cop stop his colleague from using his knee to pin a protester by the neck during demonstrations against the killing of George Floyd — who died after being restrained in the same manner.
Journalist Matt McKnight shared footage Saturday night of two officers tackling a white protester to the ground outside of a T-Mobile store.
In the clip on Twitter, one of the officers can be seen kneeling on the neck of the man despite repeated cries from multiple protesters.
“Get your f–king knee off his neck,” one of the bystanders could be heard shouting.
The cop kept his knee on the man’s neck for about 13 seconds before the other officer grabs his colleague’s knee and drags it off, video shows.
Click to expand...
If this protestor died like Floyd, the country would explode even further. Boy, these people sure dont learn, do they?
 
The knee to neck hold is banned by several major metropolitan police departments for a reason.

It should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above their shoe size as to why.
 
It's Seattle, of course the cop is going to remove his knee from his neck.

Seattle is very left wing.
 
OrphanSlug said:
The knee to neck hold is banned by several major metropolitan police departments for a reason.

It should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above their shoe size as to why.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that is spelled out plainly in their police union contract? ;)
 
OrphanSlug said:
LOL, well played sir.
Click to expand...

That is how the "internal investigation" game is played. Always assert that a personnel problem (issue?) a matter of management/training failure - it's never the fault (personal responsibility?) of the union member.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is how the "internal investigation" game is played. Always assert that a personnel problem (issue?) a matter of management/training failure - it's never the fault (personal responsibility?) of the union member.
Click to expand...

Don't get me started on public sector unions, we'll destroy this conversation.
 
OrphanSlug said:
The knee to neck hold is banned by several major metropolitan police departments for a reason.

It should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above their shoe size as to why.
Click to expand...

Regardless, if the officers are being trained in that technique then it may be something that officers can use in their defense if prosecuted.
 
Drawdown said:
Regardless, if the officers are being trained in that technique then it may be something that officers can use in their defense if prosecuted.
Click to expand...

There is no way... no possible way... that the defense can argue they were taught to hold someone with their knee *after* they are already detained, handcuffed, and immobilized.
 
OrphanSlug said:
There is no way... no possible way... that the defense can argue they were taught to hold someone with their knee *after* they are already detained, handcuffed, and immobilized.
Click to expand...

They can if they were taught that.
 
Drawdown said:
They can if they were taught that.
Click to expand...

In this scenario, I highly doubt it would sway a single juror.

The video of what really happened would kill the defense.
 
OrphanSlug said:
There is no way... no possible way... that the defense can argue they were taught to hold someone with their knee *after* they are already detained, handcuffed, and immobilized.
Click to expand...

You must have skipped over the "resisting arrest" or "sudden threatening movement" exception. ;)
 
OrphanSlug said:
In this scenario, I highly doubt it would sway a single juror.

The video of what really happened would kill the defense.
Click to expand...

Then there is always the appeal process. If departments have gone out of their way to ban the technique, then at some point that technique was being widely taught or else there wouldn't have been a need for the ban. It is not something a lot of people would have come to figure out on their own in a vacuum. Defective instruction would kill the rogue cop or the it's racism narratives so we can't have that I suppose since it isn't so sexy primal.
 
ludin said:
the protester was white.
no outrage about it.
Click to expand...
Another difference is that the guy didn't die.

The not getting killed part is a minor technical difference.
But, you'd be surprised how often the public picks up on subtle nuances like that.

But the skin-tone thing you picked up on,
that's the relevant difference in the two situations, for sure, right?
/s
 
OrphanSlug said:
I am kinda wondering that myself.
Click to expand...

It must be like police officers knowing that a "curfew" is in effect, yet standing around watching hundreds of folks in violation of it. There seems to be no duty to act to stop a crime observed to be in progress while a police officer is "on the clock" - when in doubt just sit it out, after all, the (overtime?) pay is the same regardless of whether any action is taken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom