The Killing of George Floyd: The Last Straw?

[MigL]

I could say you are ignorant, as you don't live in the US, Curious Layman.
( inside joke, you had to be here a few pages ago )

There are 120 guns foor every hundred persons living in the US.
That is for 100 men, women, children, old people ...

There are about 4.5 guns per 100 persons in England and Wales.

If you don't think that makes a difference, I'm sorry my friend, but you are delusional.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country

Of those American guns, Just over 1 million are registered, so that police know about them.
Over 390 million are unregistered, and the next guy you pull over ( if you're a cop ) could be carrying half a dozen of them.
Good luck to you !

Edited June 6, 2020 by MigL

[Curious layman]

I'm not being delusional. 

The fact of the matter is, George Floyd was unarmed, he wasn't being aggressive nor was he suspected of a violent crime. There were more than enough officers to arrest him without incident. 

This 'yes, but look at the amount of guns in America' argument doesn't hold up. It's nothing more than a poor excuse for police brutality.

 

[Moreno]

Another curious event happened at Toronto anti-black racism protest when a white person who painted his face with black paint was arrested merely for an "offensive look". Before that police squirted water at his face. Do you have any suggestions, why exactly?

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/man-charged-after-attending-toronto-anti-black-racism-protest-in-blackface-police/ar-BB158xz3?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds

[swansont]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Police in other countries ( like mine ) don't have to worry about the large numbers of guns, compounded by open and concealed carry rules.
How do you train for that, other than by taking control of the situation.

Which irrelevant to the incident being discussed. Unarmed and handcuffed.

Quote

Similarly, when the order comes down to clear the area of protesters, because Zapatos has just called and said his store is being vandalized/burglarized, d you ask all of the thousands of people if they've recently had a hip replacement before starting to push them away from the area ?
Or should we just let your store be burglarized, and it's your problem to deal with ?

You could, I dunno, ask the people to disperse as a first effort. You could avoid being the ones to initiate violence.

 

[MigL]

53 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

The fact of the matter is, George Floyd was unarmed

 

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which irrelevant to the incident being discussed.

Well its great that you can watch a video of a man being murdered and say, from the comfort of your computer chair " He was unarmed, and so no threat".
But if you were tasked with approaching/arresting a large guy, with the high likelihood that he is carrying a weapon ( 120 guns per 100 persons remember ? ), I think you would immobilize him first, and ask questions when you are sure you won't be shot at.

I'm not saying what the cops did after he was immobilized was right; it was murder.
But the gun culture in the US gives very little option as to how you initially approach the situation.

 

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

if they have a knife …  don't ASSUME they have a gun and want to shoot you.

As far as I know the incidence of Americans carrying knives is no higher than anywhere else, Zap.

Sometimes if you don't assume they ARE carrying a gun, you get shot.
 

Edited June 6, 2020 by MigL

[Phi for All]

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

Well its great that you can watch a video of a man being murdered and say, from the comfort of your computer chair " He was unarmed, and so no threat".
But if you were tasked with approaching/arresting a large guy, with the high likelihood that he is carrying a weapon ( 120 guns per 100 persons remember ? ), I think you would immobilize him first, and ask questions when you are sure you won't be shot at.

... and then murder him.

[Curious layman]

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

But if you were tasked with approaching/arresting a large guy, with the high likelihood that he is carrying a weapon ( 120 guns per person remember ? ), I think you would immobilize him first, and ask questions when you are sure you won't be shot at..

You mean like when he's handcuffed on the floor and you know he's unarmed. Or when you have you knee on his neck and he can't breathe, or when you have fellow police officers with you.

The police should treat each incident as it is, not how it could be.

 

[swansont]

39 minutes ago, MigL said:

Well its great that you can watch a video of a man being murdered and say, from the comfort of your computer chair " He was unarmed, and so no threat".
But if you were tasked with approaching/arresting a large guy, with the high likelihood that he is carrying a weapon ( 120 guns per 100 persons remember ? ), I think you would immobilize him first, and ask questions when you are sure you won't be shot at.

Moving the goalposts. You’re talking about a scenario before he was apprehended. 

He was handcuffed. Presumably frisked. How many guns does a person have access to while handcuffed by police? How was he a threat to shoot anyone? 

 

 

Quote

 But the gun culture in the US gives very little option as to how you initially approach the situation.

Which isn’t the issue here.

 

But for the sake of argument, let’s say he had a gun before being disarmed and handcuffed. Would that justify the policeman’s actions?

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

Moving the goalposts. You’re talking about a scenario before he was apprehended. 

He was handcuffed. Presumably frisked. How many guns does a person have access to while handcuffed by police? How was he a threat to shoot anyone? 

 

 

Which isn’t the issue here.

 

But for the sake of argument, let’s say he had a gun before being disarmed and handcuffed. Would that justify the policeman’s actions?

It would justify an emotional state. Training would hopefully mitigate an emotionally driven response.

But I think MigL's point is that American cops require a more defensive/adversarial attitude generally to survive. Assuming that's true you will likely have more outliers like Derek Chauvin than you would expect in a country with less guns.

[MigL]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Moving the goalposts. You’re talking about a scenario before he was apprehended

Yes, of course I am, and I am not moving goalposts.
If you go back and read carefully, you'll note that this particular branch of the discussion ( as opposed to the Moreno branch, "Racism exists", "No it doesn't", "Yes it does", etc. ) focussed on how police should approach a situation ( starts 4 hours ago; wish we still had numbered posts ).
No one is contesting that what followed the initial approach, and G Floyd's death, was a crime, and should be punished.
My contention is that the choice of initial approach in the US is constrained by the large numbers of unregistered guns on the streets.
Whereas in Canada, our police have many more choices ( de-escalation comes to mind ) because they don't need to worry as much about the risk of a gun, and getting shot ( have three friends who are cops; one of them probably hasn't drawn his gun in years ).

I could say " maybe you think it's good that there are 120 guns per 100 people in the US"
But then you'd really be accusing me of fallacious arguments.

Edited June 7, 2020 by MigL

[swansont]

41 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It would justify an emotional state. Training would hopefully mitigate an emotionally driven response.

But I think MigL's point is that American cops require a more defensive/adversarial attitude generally to survive. Assuming that's true you will likely have more outliers like Derek Chauvin than you would expect in a country with less guns.

At some point when there are more outliers, they aren’t outliers anymore 

[Curious layman]

I could say " maybe you think it's good that there are 120 guns per 100 people in the US"

But that doesn't mean every person in America has 120 guns. Most Americans don't own guns.

Quote

Studies have shown that 36.3% of people had access to a gun and 5% carried the gun with them... Nonetheless, other studies have been conducted and show that 34.1% have access to guns. 4.8% carry a gun with them

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership#United_States_gun_ownership

[MigL]

That differs by state.
What may be true in New York state, or California is not true in Texas or Florida even.
( outside metropolitan areas, most every adult Texan male carries )

All I'm saying is that if you're going to investigate new methods of policing, so that incidents like G Floyd's murder are minimized, you can't be simplistic about it. Saying things like …
Take away guns from police.
Talk to the suspect for a specified length of time before escalating.
Don't escalate at all.
Let them go.
Etc.
It takes some consideration of what policing entails, and you can't put one group of people at risk to protect another group.

 

incidentally some of the statistics from your link are scary, Curious Layman...

 

"American civilians own nearly 100 times as many firearms as the U.S. military and nearly 400 times as many as law enforcement."^[7] Americans bought more than 2 million guns in May 2018, alone.^[7] That is more than twice as many guns, as possessed by every law enforcement agency in the United States put together.^[7] In April and May 2018, U.S. civilians bought 4.7 million guns, which is more than all the firearms stockpiled by the United States military.^[7] In 2017, Americans bought 25.2 million guns, which is 2.5 million more guns than possessed by every law enforcement agency in the world put together.^[7] Between 2012 and 2017, U.S. civilians bought 135 million guns, 2 million more guns than the combined stockpile of all the world's armed forces"

IOW, thngs are getting much worse with the gun situation, not better.

Edited June 7, 2020 by MigL

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just 5% carry guns? Only 1 in 20? Those cops must simply be inherently bad...why can't they just be brave like your average friendly neighbourhood looter?

[iNow]

Can we please acknowledge that increased availability of guns in the US does add risk to officers during every police interaction, but that being black also adds risk to ones life during every police interaction, and that neither of these things justify the way police are treating suspects after they’re already in custody or the way they’re marching on and being violent with peaceful protesters exercising their constitutionally protected rights?

Surely, we can move on now... Please don’t make me write another horrible run-on sentence one that

[Strange]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

and being violent with peaceful protesters exercising their constitutionally protected rights

And journalists, also exercising their constitutionally protected rights

Maybe Trump needs to send in the army to bring the police under control.

[iNow]

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, MigL said:

I could say you are ignorant, as you don't live in the US, Curious Layman.
( inside joke, you had to be here a few pages ago )

Don't worry CL it wasn't funny then either.

14 hours ago, MigL said:

I could say you are ignorant, as you don't live in the US, Curious Layman.
( inside joke, you had to be here a few pages ago )

There are 120 guns foor every hundred persons living in the US.
That is for 100 men, women, children, old people ...

There are about 4.5 guns per 100 persons in England and Wales.

If you don't think that makes a difference, I'm sorry my friend, but you are delusional.

You don't need a gun to be a threat, your argument is a red herring, the threat level is allways the same (potential death), the variable is the approach (and you my friend fall into the trap of more is always better) teaching/training the officers the ways of the force:

The dark side, always assuming the worse and by deed and action, actually creating the worse case senario.

The good side, always assume they're not trying to kill you even if they don't want to see you.

Why not give the latter a go? It has a much better chance of success, even if it does seem counter-intuitive. 

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Let's be aware that while guns are an aspect of this topic, it would be all too easy to let that aspect take over the discussion. Let's avoid a split, and stay focused, thanks.

 

[MigL]

Very well.
We are not going to discuss the methods police use because of other factors, or policing in general, as related to the unfortunate G Floyd incident.
The change that is favored by the currently peaceful protesters is "Defund the Police"
( I wish America well, with that simplistic plan )

[DrmDoc]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

Very well.
We are not going to discuss the methods police use because of other factors, or policing in general, as related to the unfortunate G Floyd incident.
The change that is favored by the currently peaceful protesters is "Defund the Police"
( I wish America well, with that simplistic plan )

I support every constructive effort to reform our police policies and tactics, as well as, every civil effort to bring equality to our nation's people; however, "Defund the Police" is an idiotic idea.  As a wise person once said, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water!"

[CharonY]

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

Very well.
We are not going to discuss the methods police use because of other factors, or policing in general, as related to the unfortunate G Floyd incident.
The change that is favored by the currently peaceful protesters is "Defund the Police"
( I wish America well, with that simplistic plan )

It is only one of the strategies and even that is more involved than you make it out to be. Take a look here https://populardemocracy.org/sites/default/files/Freedom To Thrive%2C Higher Res Version.pdf

Essentially it is a redistribution of municipal funds as an alternative to overpolicing.

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

Defund the Police" is an idiotic idea.  A

Of course if one focuses solely on the bumper sticker version of this point it’s hard to disagree. But there’s a deeper meaning to this simplistic chant and a far more rational desire. 

Summarized: Like the US military, funding for police departments bloated and excessive. Money is used to buy former combat and heavy equipment from the department of defense and to continue the “dominate the streets” mentality. 
 

The ROI would be higher, however, if we focused those same tax dollars k stead into public schools and mental health clinics, and even increasing availability of social workers dealing with the mental health problems police seem so often to be on the front lines of.
 

Putting a person with mental health issues into jail (or into a grave as so often happens after interactions with police) wastes money and that money can be spent far more intelligently... but that doesn’t package itself well when walking among crowds in the streets to improve justice so it gets distilled to “defund the police.”

Cory Booker was on Meet the Press this morning and laid it out well (the entire 8 minute interview is worth the watch, the defund the police comments begin at 4:50):

 

 

[MigL]

Good position DrmDoc.

I am aware of the redistribution schemes for police funding to social services and support workers that are more qualified to de-escalate and educate.
I come from a town ( Canadian ) of 130 000 people but we are 30 min away from Hamilton, and 1 hour from Toronto. Four border crossing bridges to Lewiston, Niagara Falls NY, and Buffalo are within 20 min drive. From the few cops I know I've gleaned that most of their calls are domestic disturbances, followed at some distance, by drunk and disorderly ( we are a university and college town ). I would hate to think that the next time a husband ( enraged or intoxicated ) is beating on his wife or kids, there are no police on call, to separate him from his vulnerable family.

Education, and even de-escalation, takes time, and sometimes the situation needs to be remedied immediately, sometimes even using force ( or even killing to save an innocent's life ). If anything, I would like to see INCREASED police funding and presence, but in a way that they are among the people, and interacting, with the people they are sworn to serve and protect. Police ARE ( or are supposed to be ) a social service already.
It is partly a vicious circle. People ( especially minorities ) distrust police, so they tend to be un-cooperative, so police think they are automatically guilty of something, and rough them up ( or much worse ), and so people become even more distrusting of police.
This is in regards to police forces in general.

There is no excuse for the criminal treatment G Floyd was given  by D Chauvin, a 19 year veteran who should have known better, but seemed indifferent to human life or death.

INow just posted...

31 minutes ago, iNow said:

 Money is used to buy former combat and heavy equipment from the department of defense and to continue the “dominate the streets” mentality. 

And I know I said I wasn't going to discuss it any more, but …
If there are more guns in the streets that are in possession by the military ( see Curious Layman's link ) you may feel the need to be armed to the teeth, when you go out on patrol.
As for G Floyd ( before I'm reprimanded by Mods ), he was killed with a knee, not combat or heavy military equipment.

Edited June 7, 2020 by MigL

[iNow]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

If there are more guns in the streets that are in possession by the military ( see Curious Layman's link ) you may feel the need to be armed to the teeth, when you go out on patrol.

I guess when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. 

Protests grow MORE violent when the police intervene “armed to the teeth.” It makes things worse. 

People are protesting police violence. More police violence isn’t going to solve it.