the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

The Minneapolis Chief of Police was direct in his criticism of George Floyd's murderer, stating directly that there was no cause for Derek Chauvin to maintain the aggressive hold once Floyd went limp.

I wonder what kind of backlash he's going to face for crossing the thin blue line and speaking out against his subordinate. Resignations?

Commentary on the chief's testimony by a lawyer, but really the whole blog series is worth reading.

https://lawofselfdefense.com/chauvin-tr ... it-matter/

Bhassler wrote:Commentary on the chief's testimony by a lawyer, but really the whole blog series is worth reading.

https://lawofselfdefense.com/chauvin-tr ... it-matter/

I don't know if I buy this guy's bias. The cross examination in my opinion has been pretty weak.

roger hao wrote:

I knew somebody could find a reasonable and unbiased take on the topic

Posting videos from that racist idiot is not only unconvincing but makes you look like a fool at best, a racist at worst.

Everyone is entitled to a defense. I don't watch the trial. One thing I will say is that, at best, Chauvin's job was to save Floyd's life. Once he was unresponsive, cpr could have been started, no matter what the cause. Simply standing Floyd up might have saved his life.

Afa resisting, small children have resisted and been handcuffed; so have older women. But, Floyd was dead when the emts were allowed to treat him. They tried resucitation for 30 minutes. So, how could a dead guy keep resisting? And, if he wasn't breathing, why didn't Chauvin help?

I get the argument that he was using an authorized, acceptable technique. I won't argue with people who believe that. I just hope a cop uses it on someone they care for. Good for the goose; good for the gander.

oragami_itto wrote:

Bhassler wrote:Commentary on the chief's testimony by a lawyer, but really the whole blog series is worth reading.

https://lawofselfdefense.com/chauvin-tr ... it-matter/

I don't know if I buy this guy's bias. The cross examination in my opinion has been pretty weak.

Yes, there is bias, but there is also a lot of really good information if you have an inkling of use of force law, etc. Plus, there is video footage of the actual testimony. Frankly, if someone hasn't taken the time to watch the court proceedings in their entirety, and done at least rudimentary research on use of force from both practical and legal standpoints, then they are not qualified to have an opinion.

I do not have an opinion on the case, just posting a resource.

Bhassler wrote:

oragami_itto wrote:

Bhassler wrote:Commentary on the chief's testimony by a lawyer, but really the whole blog series is worth reading.

https://lawofselfdefense.com/chauvin-tr ... it-matter/

I don't know if I buy this guy's bias. The cross examination in my opinion has been pretty weak.

Yes, there is bias, but there is also a lot of really good information if you have an inkling of use of force law, etc. Plus, there is video footage of the actual testimony. Frankly, if someone hasn't taken the time to watch the court proceedings in their entirety, and done at least rudimentary research on use of force from both practical and legal standpoints, then they are not qualified to have an opinion.

I do not have an opinion on the case, just posting a resource.

I've been watching as much as I can while I'm ostensibly working during the day with it on on the background.

I think anybody with a mind to think is entitled to their opinion. The prosecution introduces experts who are there to provide that legal background and context to help inform the opinion of the lay person.

As a martial artist I know for a fact that you can safely choke someone unconscious and they can recover with no ill effects. I also know that it can take minutes more of asphyxiation after someone is suffocated unconscious for that person to die.

When he went limp, the experts say, he should have been placed on his side in the recovery position. Three men laid their body weight on him for several minutes after he was unconscious until he was dead.

Frankly I think all three of them should be locked up for their actions.

But my original point was the chief testifying against him, and now days later several more police officers have also testified against him and his use of force. As a side bar I do think they are all well versed in use of force laws.

What sort of blowback do you think these officers will face for crossing the thin blue line and testifying against their fellow officer?

and done at least rudimentary research on use of force from both practical and legal standpoints, then they are not qualified to have an opinion.

Wait 'till you find out what a jury is.

I'm no lawyer, but I've been watching the trial closely. It's pretty rare to see so many cops line up to throw one of their own under the bus. That says a lot. There are two ways to read that, IME, and I'm a bit skeptical and think that they see the writing on the wall but realize that Biden will spend more on militarizing the police than Trump did, so long as they make the sufficient performative penence.

If I had to guess, I'd say guilty verdict on one of the murder charges and a light sentence.

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:[It's pretty rare to see so many cops line up to throw one of their own under the bus. That says a lot. There are two ways to read that, IME,

Are they crumbling under the brutal pressure of the vicious hordes burning down the cities?

That's the other view, but I don't buy it. If anything, protests have been used both to excuse police brutality and the insurrection. The right-wingers love it. The police can use it to excuse almost anything.

There is only one bias allowed here.

Chauvin doing what he did and the other officers failing to stop him was sickening. Of course.
Regards the law?
Let me recount a story of a family friend and business owner who was highly respected
by the community -
Putt owned a restaurant/coffee bar/ ice cream parlor. He was 76 yrs old.
A local punk decided to rob him after hours in his second story office. He beat Putt
including kicking him in the head with steel toe boots. Putt crawled to his closet which
had an escape hatch in it for just this type of instance. He dropped to the first floor.
He died later in the hospital from a heart attack. Because he died of a heart attack the
punk was only convicted of assault and robbery amidst a great deal of protest.

roger hao wrote:There is only one bias allowed here.

Chauvin doing what he did and the other officers failing to stop him was sickening. Of course.
Regards the law?
Let me recount a story of a family friend and business owner who was highly respected
by the community -
Putt owned a restaurant/coffee bar/ ice cream parlor. He was 76 yrs old.
A local punk decided to rob him after hours in his second story office. He beat Putt
including kicking him in the head with steel toe boots. Putt crawled to his closet which
had an escape hatch in it for just this type of instance. He dropped to the first floor.
He died later in the hospital from a heart attack. Because he died of a heart attack the
punk was only convicted of assault and robbery amidst a great deal of protest.

What's right and what's legal ain't always the same. I'd even wager to say that the greatest injustices historically have relied on the law being on their side.

In the ring, when a chokehold is applied, any referee knows that prolonged positioning of the albow against the neck is deadly. That is why they break off the encvounter when submission are applied.
In ne-waza /BJJ (ground technique) application of knee against neck has the same effect and the pretense is so lame that Chauvin will get less punishment than he deserves.

The only time this will change is when sons of the 5% is in a similar situation and the same restraints are applied, will the laws change that allows for prosecution of that type of response on the part of those (the few) who committ these offenses and get away with it.
Otherwise, nothing to see there! Business as usual