More George Floyd Bodycam Footage

Ontologuy said:

You are in obvious error about the intent of the officers.

They most certainly did intend to shoot Floyd .. had it become necessary.

It is standard and acceptable police procedure to draw weapons to both discourage a perpetrator and to be ready to shoot in a split second if the situation deems it may be necessary.

How you could be so wrong about all this, ludicrously trying to compare police procedure with firearms to the average Joe at the firing range, is pure nonsense.

Since your premises are false .. you have no "logic" in your conclusions.

Click to expand...

I don't think they should have guns out

Yet they knew Floyd could be trouble...

I still don't agree with. The guns being drawn, though..
It's too much

George Floyd was a career criminal and scumbag flying high on multiple drugs, acted the fool, then od'd. The cop kneeling on his neck was a jerk, but didn't kill him. In any case the lie of white only racism needs to die. The lie of black victimization needs to die. You know who kills blacks?

Black people do, more than 20 to 1. If you understand 2/3 of American blacks were not even born due to abortion it becomes clear they are their own worst enemies. Looking a national crime data, blacks assault and murder every race more than any other group by a long shot.

But facts are racism. What a sick joke. The BLM is Marxist tricked idiots of all colors especially the brainwashed white dupes.

I don't like the cops, I think America is one step from a medical tyranny, but I don't like lies and liars, on any side.

Elmo said:

The fact that this tactic is common is a huge part of the problem with policing. When confronting some drugged up citizen that turns aggressive, the best response that officers can come up with is to have a gun ready to shoot immediately. That is pathetic. "Protect and Serve" my ass.

Floyd was justifiably terrified of the gun being pointed at him. Add that to the drugs and obviously he will have an irrational freakout. At no point did officers attempt to deescalate the situation. FFS they could just put the guns away, back off slightly, and give him a couple minutes to sit on the curb and calm down. Apparently their time is too valuable for that sort of decency

Click to expand...

THat is not a bad tactic at all, it was also used in the military, you deal with people who may turn on you in a second, so if you believe it is a possibility you have your gun drawn so you have the advantage if they do go hostile.

So if he was cracked out should the police waited to die if he pulled out a gun and shot them just to make the whacked out guy feel safer? YOu do realize people on crack and meth are well known for going to extremes like murdering people over a pack of cigarettes or stabbing someone to death for 50 dollars so they can get their next fix, when someone is that far messed up there is no rationality left, nor predictability.

Ontologuy said:

You are in obvious error about the intent of the officers.

They most certainly did intend to shoot Floyd .. had it become necessary.

Click to expand...

Intent to shoot means IMMEDIATELY. Not maybe sometime in the future IF a threat appears. If you're walking down the street and see a shady looking character walking towards you, you can't just pull and aim your gun with intent to kill "had it become necessary". That is brandishing a deadly weapon, and it is a serious crime. Yet cops do it all the time on the chance that a threat might appear. Therefore, once again, they have a lower standard for use of force than normal citizens. And innocent people die because of that.

Ontologuy said:

It is standard and acceptable police procedure to draw weapons to both discourage a perpetrator and to be ready to shoot in a split second if the situation deems it may be necessary.

Click to expand...

It is standard, but it is not acceptable.

Ontologuy said:

How you could be so wrong about all this, ludicrously trying to compare police procedure with firearms to the average Joe at the firing range, is pure nonsense.

Since your premises are false .. you have no "logic" in your conclusions.

Click to expand...

Oh so you're changing your position then? Now you admit that police DO have a different standard for use of firearms, but you think that's fine?

beerftw said:

THat is not a bad tactic at all, it was also used in the military, you deal with people who may turn on you in a second, so if you believe it is a possibility you have your gun drawn so you have the advantage if they do go hostile.

So if he was cracked out should the police waited to die if he pulled out a gun and shot them just to make the whacked out guy feel safer? YOu do realize people on crack and meth are well known for going to extremes like murdering people over a pack of cigarettes or stabbing someone to death for 50 dollars so they can get their next fix, when someone is that far messed up there is no rationality left, nor predictability.

Click to expand...

Police and military should not be using the same tactics. Police are not dealing with insurgents in Iraq. They're dealing with american citizens.

I am aware that crackheads can be dangerous and unpredictable, but that is no excuse to wave a gun around everytime you feel threatened. Police need to change how they approach potentially dangerous situations. If officers are worried the crackhead might attack with teeth and fists, bring enough backup to subdue him. If the officer is worried the crackhead might have a knife, keep your distance, cut off his escapes, and gather intel (some call it police work) to VERIFY OR DISPROVE THE THREAT. If you're worried the crackhead might have a gun, keep a distance, stay behind cover, don't present a target, UNTIL YOU CAN VERIFY THE THREAT.

These tactics will take more time for the officers, more work, and cost more money. They'll also result in fewer innocent people getting shot by trigger happy cops. Dangerous crackheads are obviously an extreme case. I have seen so many videos of cops pulling guns on innocent people who are clearly unarmed and not going to attack. There is this culture that cops should put their personal safety ABOVE EVERYONE ELSE, and too often they do this by threatening people with a deadly weapon because it's EASY. There are other tactics that can preserve officer safety without killing innocents. It just takes a little more effort and a better culture.

tres borrachos said:

This video didn't change the death by knee to the neck. Not sure what the OP was trying to accomplish?

Click to expand...

Perhaps the charges brought against these police officers were ... exaggerated and the DA over-charged. Second degree murder will require the prosecution to prove the death was intentional, as opposed to manslaughter which would be much more attainable.

jotathought said:

Perhaps the charges brought against these police officers were ... exaggerated and the DA over-charged. Second degree murder will require the prosecution to prove the death was intentional, as opposed to manslaughter which would be much more attainable.

Click to expand...

The DA can charge the officer with both... hoping for the higher while being ready to accept the lesser...

Elmo said:

Police and military should not be using the same tactics. Police are not dealing with insurgents in Iraq. They're dealing with american citizens.

I am aware that crackheads can be dangerous and unpredictable, but that is no excuse to wave a gun around everytime you feel threatened. Police need to change how they approach potentially dangerous situations. If officers are worried the crackhead might attack with teeth and fists, bring enough backup to subdue him. If the officer is worried the crackhead might have a knife, keep your distance, cut off his escapes, and gather intel (some call it police work) to VERIFY OR DISPROVE THE THREAT. If you're worried the crackhead might have a gun, keep a distance, stay behind cover, don't present a target, UNTIL YOU CAN VERIFY THE THREAT.

These tactics will take more time for the officers, more work, and cost more money. They'll also result in fewer innocent people getting shot by trigger happy cops. Dangerous crackheads are obviously an extreme case. I have seen so many videos of cops pulling guns on innocent people who are clearly unarmed and not going to attack. There is this culture that cops should put their personal safety ABOVE EVERYONE ELSE, and too often they do this by threatening people with a deadly weapon because it's EASY. There are other tactics that can preserve officer safety without killing innocents. It just takes a little more effort and a better culture.

Click to expand...

It sounds like you are either clueless on what police deal with, or willfully ignorant.

beerftw said:

It sounds like you are either clueless on what police deal with, or willfully ignorant.

Click to expand...

Oh I get it. You're one of those people who thinks it's a hard job, so we should just let them shoot people without consequences.

RaleBulgarian said:

Interactions between African Americans, especially male African Americans, and police are strained in large part from distrust and fear.

Click to expand...

3 times the lethal dose of fentanyl in Floyds system is probably responsible for straining his relationship with the police.

Mr Person said:

No, Floyd being taken to the ground was not what sparked the protests. What sparked the protests was his death, directly caused by Chauvin remaining kneeling on his neck for three minutes after he fell unconscious (for a grand total of 8 minutes, after he had been taken to the ground following the "initial interaction").

Click to expand...

The second autopsy theorizes that it was the guy on his chest that restricted his breathing. Not the one on his neck.

dixon01767 said:

3 times the lethal dose of fentanyl in Floyds system is probably responsible for straining his relationship with the police.

Click to expand...

You think fentanyl caused Floyd’s death?

Elmo said:

Oh I get it. You're one of those people who thinks it's a hard job, so we should just let them shoot people without consequences.

Click to expand...

Not what i said at all, now you are making strawman arguments in place of proper discussion.

beerftw said:

Not what i said at all, now you are making strawman arguments in place of proper discussion.

Click to expand...

This what you said:

beerftw said:

It sounds like you are either clueless on what police deal with, or willfully ignorant.

Click to expand...

If you want to have a proper discussion, feel free to actually address my points in post #80. The above is just a lazy ad hom. I'd continue the discussion myself, but you haven't actually presented your side of it.

Elmo said:

This what you said:

If you want to have a proper discussion, feel free to actually address my points in post #80. The above is just a lazy ad hom. I'd continue the discussion myself, but you haven't actually presented your side of it.

Click to expand...

I will directly deal again with post 80, in saying you are utterly clueless about what police deal with, or why they do what they do.


Your mentality screams that you live in a rich white gated community and seem to have no idea what criminals are or how they act. Oh wait if a crackhead has a gun just keep your distance let him do what he wants, yeah sounds like you have never seen a crackhead in your life, nor have seen what olice deal with, oh wait how do they know they are armed in the first place, usually unless subdued the first time police find out someone is armed is when they pull out the weapon to use it, so the whole if you know thing really does not work.

weaver2 said:

Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
White people aren't remotely this terrified by a traffic stop. I wonder why that is. Oh, that's right, we don't tend to die when it happens.




But enough do die at the hands of cops to to make the rest of the Black population very fearful.

Click to expand...

They don't die at the hands of cops any more than white people do.

beerftw said:

I will directly deal again with post 80, in saying you are utterly clueless about what police deal with, or why they do what they do.


Your mentality screams that you live in a rich white gated community and seem to have no idea what criminals are or how they act. Oh wait if a crackhead has a gun just keep your distance let him do what he wants, yeah sounds like you have never seen a crackhead in your life, nor have seen what olice deal with, oh wait how do they know they are armed in the first place, usually unless subdued the first time police find out someone is armed is when they pull out the weapon to use it, so the whole if you know thing really does not work.

Click to expand...

Nice assumptions, but you're wrong. Go read post 80 again. Actually screw it, I doubt you ever read the full thing so I'll give the bit that's relevant to your example of a crackhead waving a gun around.

Elmo said:

If you're worried the crackhead might have a gun, keep a distance, stay behind cover, don't present a target, UNTIL YOU CAN VERIFY THE THREAT.

Click to expand...

Notice the bit that is capitalized for people with short attention spans. In your example, congratulations, the threat has been verified. Entirely reasonable for police to neutralize it immediately. The problem is when police rush into a situation blind, see some guy acting erratically, pull a gun immediately when he fails to follow instruction, and then use excessive force to subdue and eventually kill the man. They did ALL OF THAT before identifying any kind of threat from Floyd.

And yes, I'm aware some hardened criminals might hide their weapons and then use them to ambush cops. That's a dangerous situation, but not an acceptable excuse to pull a gun on any person that looks at cops funny. Find another way to deal with that risk, because trigger happy cops have proven they can't handle the responsibility that comes with current tactics. My suggestion from earlier was to simply avoid confrontation until a threat can be verified. You're welcome to present your own solution.

give it a rest

Elmo said:

Nice assumptions, but you're wrong. Go read post 80 again. Actually screw it, I doubt you ever read the full thing so I'll give the bit that's relevant to your example of a crackhead waving a gun around.

Notice the bit that is capitalized for people with short attention spans. In your example, congratulations, the threat has been verified. Entirely reasonable for police to neutralize it immediately. The problem is when police rush into a situation blind, see some guy acting erratically, pull a gun immediately when he fails to follow instruction, and then use excessive force to subdue and eventually kill the man. They did ALL OF THAT before identifying any kind of threat from Floyd.

And yes, I'm aware some hardened criminals might hide their weapons and then use them to ambush cops. That's a dangerous situation, but not an acceptable excuse to pull a gun on any person that looks at cops funny. Find another way to deal with that risk, because trigger happy cops have proven they can't handle the responsibility that comes with current tactics. My suggestion from earlier was to simply avoid confrontation until a threat can be verified. You're welcome to present your own solution.

Click to expand...

So police are supposed to stay behind cover and not persue a blatent lawbreaker because he could have a gun? You literally again proved you are completely and utterly clueless on what you are arguing. Watch the video, the police did not walk up guns drawn, but when he started acting crazy and every time he was told to put his hands somewhere he kept reaching which is when guns were drawn, that is standard protocal, police are not going to get themselves killed because someone who has zero clue thinks they should be kinder and gentler.


You literally are clueless if you think the police just rushed in guns drawn, that is nowhere in the video, they drew guns when he refused to cooperate and kept reaching when told not to, for police that is a standard draw your gun moment, as 95% of those when told not to who keep reaching are planning to be violent and grab a weapon, and it is nearly always crack or meth heads doing it as most sane people even hardened criminals know there are lines not to cross or they will be shot by police, but again crack and methheads do not care, they would shank you for a quarter in your pocket because they are so whacked out all human logic long left their body by the time police are going after them.

beerftw said:

So police are supposed to stay behind cover and not persue a blatent lawbreaker because he could have a gun? You literally again proved you are completely and utterly clueless on what you are arguing. Watch the video, the police did not walk up guns drawn, but when he started acting crazy and every time he was told to put his hands somewhere he kept reaching which is when guns were drawn, that is standard protocal, police are not going to get themselves killed because someone who has zero clue thinks they should be kinder and gentler.

Click to expand...

Yes. Obviously. Pursuing a SUSPECTED lawbreaker is less important than preserving public safety. The police should proceed with caution rather than aggression if they suspect a gun. Trigger happy cops pulling their guns at the slightest provocation are a threat to citizens' lives.

beerftw said:

Watch the video, the police did not walk up guns drawn, but when he started acting crazy and every time he was told to put his hands somewhere he kept reaching which is when guns were drawn, that is standard protocal, police are not going to get themselves killed because someone who has zero clue thinks they should be kinder and gentler.

You literally are clueless if you think the police just rushed in guns drawn, that is nowhere in the video, they drew guns when he refused to cooperate and kept reaching when told not to, for police that is a standard draw your gun moment

Click to expand...

Watch the video again. That cop pulled and aimed his gun within like 10 seconds of walking up to the Floyd's car. Floyd's hands were up and visible when the gun was pulled. He simply didn't follow instructions to put them on his driver's wheel. At no point was he "reaching" for anything. That's dishonest bull****. He failed to follow instructions and he acted erratically, BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE HIM A THREAT. You are correct that this is a standard tactic for police, which is the ****ing problem. This attitude is why we have people dying and rampant protests across the country.

beerftw said:

as 95% of those when told not to who keep reaching are planning to be violent and grab a weapon,

Click to expand...

That has got to be the most ridiculous statistic I've ever seen someone pull out of their ass. Good luck backing it up.

beerftw said:

and it is nearly always crack or meth heads doing it as most sane people even hardened criminals know there are lines not to cross or they will be shot by police, but again crack and methheads do not care, they would shank you for a quarter in your pocket because they are so whacked out all human logic long left their body by the time police are going after them.

Click to expand...

So to summarize, anytime a citizen acts erratically around cops, you think the cops should threaten them with a deadly weapon based on the miniscule possibility that the citizen is a deranged crackhead looking for someone to shank? Your attitude is the problem. You are placing cop safety above everyone else's lives. How's this for a radical solution? Stay out of ****ing shank range until you can figure out if you're dealing with a shank-happy druggie, or the sort of druggie that is completely unarmed, never makes a threatening move, and breaks down crying because he's terrified of getting shot. This shouldn't take much time to figure out.

Elmo said:

Yes. Obviously. Pursuing a SUSPECTED lawbreaker is less important than preserving public safety. The police should proceed with caution rather than aggression if they suspect a gun. Trigger happy cops pulling their guns at the slightest provocation are a threat to citizens' lives.

Watch the video again. That cop pulled and aimed his gun within like 10 seconds of walking up to the Floyd's car. Floyd's hands were up and visible when the gun was pulled. He simply didn't follow instructions to put them on his driver's wheel. At no point was he "reaching" for anything. That's dishonest bull****. He failed to follow instructions and he acted erratically, BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE HIM A THREAT. You are correct that this is a standard tactic for police, which is the ****ing problem. This attitude is why we have people dying and rampant protests across the country.


That has got to be the most ridiculous statistic I've ever seen someone pull out of their ass. Good luck backing it up.


So to summarize, anytime a citizen acts erratically around cops, you think the cops should threaten them with a deadly weapon based on the miniscule possibility that the citizen is a deranged crackhead looking for someone to shank? Your attitude is the problem. You are placing cop safety above everyone else's lives. How's this for a radical solution? Stay out of ****ing shank range until you can figure out if you're dealing with a shank-happy druggie, or the sort of druggie that is completely unarmed, never makes a threatening move, and breaks down crying because he's terrified of getting shot. This shouldn't take much time to figure out.

Click to expand...

Your average lawbreaker literally has no intention of safety, those that cooperate usually do so willingly, and then there are those who would should apolice officer for merely approaching them.

Had that literal situation here years ago, police knocked on the door for a warrant for a petty crime, the guy the warrant was issued for shot the police officer through the door then fled ending up in a high speed chase and him getting dragged out at gun point, right near where I worked, it got bad enough multiple cities police were chasing him down, and that is rare as police do not cross jurisdictions unless the threat is that extreme to justify it or another city requested it, and the requesting it is rare as it creates a billing nightmare as the next few cities are not going to send police outside their area of operation for free.


Now do you understand how often the people the police go after are violent? do you not understand if police worked the way you wished 90% of the police force would have been killed as criminals do not really care, and differentiating a pothead who will cooperate or a speeder vs a crackhead or a druglord who would rather kill the police and everyone in the vicinity than deal with any justice is not an easy tasks, police do not exist to get shot up so the survivors could react after the fact, they are law and order, the mere fact you keep ringing this up keeps proving how utterly clueless you are, again like you live in a purely white gated community and have zero knowledge of anything that goes on outside it.