keep repeating it - some 'people' still don't get it

Yes, that is exactly how I see it. I am unsure how it can be seen otherwise. But I'm sure someone will say 'he didn't comply'.

Problem is he got out of the back of the squad car after they put him in.
There are a lot of false narratives and the news hasn't done us any favors in that after putting out misleading information much has not been corrected despite it being availible.

So also misleading is those that go around with a 10x the deadly doze of fentanyl narrative as the cause.
Floyd was not exhibiting a fentanyl OD that I could see.
The deadly doze leaves out what survival dosages have been.
The weak and new users go flat.
The long and experienced go far.

Average deadly doze does not mean dead for a high tolerance user.

Personally I have learned enough about the situation to know most of the arguments I see in the public sphere are leaving out counter information.
My own personal opinion is I don't know.

Too bad. Looked like there was an awful lot of political pressure put on a jury that was not sequestered. Hopefully an appeal will set it right.

Sure does set police recruiting back...as well as any expectation that they will protect citizens.

There is established precedent that says police do not have a duty to protect citizens.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/12/21/us-judge-says-law-enforcement-officers-had-no-legal-duty-protect-parkland-students-during-mass-shooting/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

They did throw him in the back of the cruiser, he kicked his way out the other side. Watch the video Chauvin's knee was not on Floyds neck.

He didn't comply.

No, the problem is they put him in handcuffs and three guys sat on him until the died. What I don't understand is that - so far - Chauvin is the only one who has been charged and there were two other guys leaning on Floyd too.

The others are next.....indictments are on the way.

^^
Yep, just read about it. One of them showed concern for the victim but was told to not to worry by Chauvin.

Chauvin is obviously guilty. But it's also better to throw the bastard under the bus than have two weeks of riots and five other people dying.

Dude, that's the under. The over would have been 6 months and two thousand. Still sipping my Jack and Coke and loading magazines.

Parf.

Police don't have a legal obligation to assist the public unless they have a "special relationship" with the person who needs held. That means that the police aren't required to assist when the danger comes from a third party (like when the police respond to a crime) but the police do have a duty to respond and take all reasonable precautions to save lives and prevent injuries when they are the cause of the person needed assistance. In other words, if the police shoot someone who was threatening them, they have a legal duty to assist him and do everything possible to save his life and minimize injuries as soon as he is no longer a threat.

The cases you cite all involve police (failing to) respond to situations where the people needing assistance were assaulted by others, not the police. Therefore the officers would not have a legal obligation to respond and assist the victim, while at the same time they would have the duty to assist someone they subdued after a violent confrontation.

I am not defending this legal distinction, I am only explaining it.

PS, all the other officers were already fired and charged with aiding and abetting Chauvin. There's no "indictment" pending. They were charged long ago. Their trial is already scheduled. They are being tried together. Chavin was the only one given a separate trial.

Some violent offenders need to be restrained. In any way. If they get free, people might be injured or dead. Was this a violent offender? Yep, he should have complied. But lets put him in a group of other non violent offenders that might not comply, and ask yourself if they should be restrained the way he was:
Autistic boy who shoplifted. He thought it was ok. A grieving father, trying to hit the person who attacked his child. A person who mixed one drink with painkiller ran a light and killed someone.


George did not seem like a violent offender, that the officers needed to get him under control at all costs. Handcuffed in a pretty open place, with officers around, what harm could he do if he got away?

The jury got it right.

So its OK to pervert justice to calm down anarchists? Really? Middle class Americans need to get mad and say "riots and looting is NOT an acceptable way to protest" and to treat the thugs as criminals. Righteous anger.

Remember that any freedom or rights you are willing to compromise for the sake of peace you will eventually lose.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1618971832.jpg

For something they do not have to do, they sure do it a lot.
No. Not now, not ever.

This is why he was convicted. It only delays the riots and deaths

The police do not AND CAN NOT protect you. They can and will show up after the crime is committed and draw chalk lines around the corpse. Their job is to keep law and order in the general community so as to protect the government from losing control to anarchy. Right now, due to the elected officials, they are sucking badly at that responsibility sadly through no fault of their own.

Seems like someone recently tried (failed) to run this play...hmmm.