6 ms·

The other officers (excluding the one who was standing) involved should also be arrested.

by petrocrat 6y ago

0xBA5ED 6y ago
In your opinion. Is that particular detail worth burning down cities over?
- profunctor 6y ago
  Cities aren't being burned down
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  > In your opinion. Seriously? They let him slowly kill a dude right next to him! This isn't a situation where he just whipped out a gun and instantly shot someone, that kind of thing would be hard to stop in time, they had literal minutes where they could've stepped in, and chose not to.
  - 0xBA5ED 6y ago
    The end result is that he died, but it isn't clear if they all knew the man was being killed. It could very well be plain stupidity that they all thought "as long as he is speaking, he must be able to breathe".
    - learc83 6y ago
      If this is true and every office on the scene was that misinformed, it's still a systemic problem that requires a complete overhaul of the way police are trained and hired. This won't be fixed by punishing a few bad apples and then pretending the problem is solved. What's the chances that of a sample of officers who responded, those 4 are the only ones who would have let this happen?
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      Do you believe that kneeling on another human being’s neck for 9 minutes is not dangerous?
      - 0xBA5ED 6y ago
        Dangerous? Yes. Did they know it would be fatal? I have no idea. It isn't clear that they were standing there with the intent to "keep watch while their colleague killed him". I don't believe they knew he would die. That doesn't absolve them, but should they be arrested as accomplices to murder? It isn't clear!
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        The idea that kneeling on a restrained human’s neck for 9 minutes isn’t something they knew could lead to the severe injury or death of that person would be laughable if it wasn’t so chilling to hear you defend. If I owned a martial arts studio and I let a student do that, I’d face criminal & civil liability. Why shouldn’t trained officers of the law be held to at least that standard?
        0xBA5ED 6y ago
        I'm not questioning if they should be held liable. I'm questioning if they should be arrested as accessories to murder.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        If you did 1/2 of what the other cops did, you’d already be in jail pending trial. If you’d done 1/10th of that to a cop, you’d be lucky to survive your arrest. Part of the outrage is how blatantly unequal the treatment of cops and and civilians accused of crimes are. It’s especially galling because not only are they given the power of the state, they are also given extra rigorous training in the safe application of force. If anyone should have reasonably known that kneeling on someone’s neck would be lethal, it would be the cops. Oh, and all the bystanders who clearly recognized what was going on. Apparently they’re more wise to the dangers of kneeling on a restrained human’s neck than the police are.
    - craftinator 6y ago
      I've participated in law enforcement hand to hand and incapacitation training sessions (as a Marine). At least in those trainings, it was very clearly taught what techniques were safe and effective, how to use them, and we practiced them on each other literally hundreds of times. If you've ever had a blood choke or constrictive choke applied to you, you immediately understand what it's like, and what dangers it presents. The officer charged knew what he was doing, without a doubt. The officers around him had a moral and legal requirement to stop him to avoid being complicit in this murder; they chose to help in the murder instead. In the military, I would have been convicted of a war crime had I done this to an unarmed and incapacitated enemy combatant; even in ignorance, even if it had been a mistake, even if I was tired and had a bad day. I'd hope our police force would be held to a higher standard dealing with our own citizens than a soldier or Marine dealing with an enemy of the state.
      - 0xBA5ED 6y ago
        But do you believe it would be totally clear that you should be convicted of a crime for failing to stop your commanding officer from committing a crime?
        hef19898 6y ago
        Absolutely, yes.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        The question isn’t whether failing to stop a crime makes you an accessory, it’s a question of whether or not performing perimeter security for a crime makes you an accessory.
        craftinator 6y ago
        Because the parent poster's comment is dead, I'm responding to yours. Yes, obeying unlawful orders from your commanding officer is a violation of the UCMJ, and you will be criminally charged for doing so unless it can be demonstrated through strong evidence that you could not have known the order was unlawful. You are simply responsible for your own actions, as is everyone else (including the police).

The other officers (excluding the one who was standing) involved should also be arrested.

0xBA5ED 6y ago

In your opinion. Is that particular detail worth burning down cities over?

profunctor 6y ago
Cities aren't being burned down
TulliusCicero 6y ago
> In your opinion. Seriously? They let him slowly kill a dude right next to him! This isn't a situation where he just whipped out a gun and instantly shot someone, that kind of thing would be hard to stop in time, they had literal minutes where they could've stepped in, and chose not to.
- 0xBA5ED 6y ago
  The end result is that he died, but it isn't clear if they all knew the man was being killed. It could very well be plain stupidity that they all thought "as long as he is speaking, he must be able to breathe".
  - learc83 6y ago
    If this is true and every office on the scene was that misinformed, it's still a systemic problem that requires a complete overhaul of the way police are trained and hired. This won't be fixed by punishing a few bad apples and then pretending the problem is solved. What's the chances that of a sample of officers who responded, those 4 are the only ones who would have let this happen?
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Do you believe that kneeling on another human being’s neck for 9 minutes is not dangerous?
    - 0xBA5ED 6y ago
      Dangerous? Yes. Did they know it would be fatal? I have no idea. It isn't clear that they were standing there with the intent to "keep watch while their colleague killed him". I don't believe they knew he would die. That doesn't absolve them, but should they be arrested as accomplices to murder? It isn't clear!
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        The idea that kneeling on a restrained human’s neck for 9 minutes isn’t something they knew could lead to the severe injury or death of that person would be laughable if it wasn’t so chilling to hear you defend. If I owned a martial arts studio and I let a student do that, I’d face criminal & civil liability. Why shouldn’t trained officers of the law be held to at least that standard?
        0xBA5ED 6y ago
        I'm not questioning if they should be held liable. I'm questioning if they should be arrested as accessories to murder.
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        If you did 1/2 of what the other cops did, you’d already be in jail pending trial. If you’d done 1/10th of that to a cop, you’d be lucky to survive your arrest. Part of the outrage is how blatantly unequal the treatment of cops and and civilians accused of crimes are. It’s especially galling because not only are they given the power of the state, they are also given extra rigorous training in the safe application of force. If anyone should have reasonably known that kneeling on someone’s neck would be lethal, it would be the cops. Oh, and all the bystanders who clearly recognized what was going on. Apparently they’re more wise to the dangers of kneeling on a restrained human’s neck than the police are.
  - craftinator 6y ago
    I've participated in law enforcement hand to hand and incapacitation training sessions (as a Marine). At least in those trainings, it was very clearly taught what techniques were safe and effective, how to use them, and we practiced them on each other literally hundreds of times. If you've ever had a blood choke or constrictive choke applied to you, you immediately understand what it's like, and what dangers it presents. The officer charged knew what he was doing, without a doubt. The officers around him had a moral and legal requirement to stop him to avoid being complicit in this murder; they chose to help in the murder instead. In the military, I would have been convicted of a war crime had I done this to an unarmed and incapacitated enemy combatant; even in ignorance, even if it had been a mistake, even if I was tired and had a bad day. I'd hope our police force would be held to a higher standard dealing with our own citizens than a soldier or Marine dealing with an enemy of the state.
    - 0xBA5ED 6y ago
      But do you believe it would be totally clear that you should be convicted of a crime for failing to stop your commanding officer from committing a crime?
      - hef19898 6y ago
        Absolutely, yes.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        The question isn’t whether failing to stop a crime makes you an accessory, it’s a question of whether or not performing perimeter security for a crime makes you an accessory.
        craftinator 6y ago
        Because the parent poster's comment is dead, I'm responding to yours. Yes, obeying unlawful orders from your commanding officer is a violation of the UCMJ, and you will be criminally charged for doing so unless it can be demonstrated through strong evidence that you could not have known the order was unlawful. You are simply responsible for your own actions, as is everyone else (including the police).