Derek Chauvin on trial for killing of George Floyd Trial live stream...

Is Derek Chauvin - Guilty or Innocent?


  • Total voters
    213

Nemesis44UK

LE
Book Reviewer
• Blacks constitute 13% of the U.S. population, but represent 27% of all criminal activity in the U.S.

• Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving Blacks and Whites, Blacks commit 85 percent and Whites commit 15 percent. This means that a Black is 27 times more likely to attack a White person than vice versa.

Average ІQ of white Americans: 100

Hispanic-Americans 89

African-Americans 85

• Black males age 18-35 years of age are only 1.8% of the U.S. population, yet have committed 52% of homicides from 1980-2008. Black males (all ages) are only 6% of the U.S. population, yet commit 46% of all violent crimes, and 50% of the gun homicides. If Blacks were removed from the equation, the U.S. gun homicide rate would be equal to Great Britain's, who have some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the world.

• Blacks constitute 13% of the U.S. population, but represent 27% of all criminal activity in the U.S.

• Black males between 16-35 years of age are only 2.0% of the population, yet commit 72% of the street crime in America.

• The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is Black.
Source please.
 
I have to say I admire your confidence. If I was posting about a subject I had no practical experience of and every person who had operational experience of doing similar things was telling me I was wrong, I would be be having some significant doubts by now.
That's a fair comment - which is why I asked the people who had operational experience to explain why the officer concerned was sacked. Was it because of the things I regarded as "unprofessional behaviour", or was it for some other reason? Was it, in their opinion, a shining example of "how to do the job right", prevented only by that uncooperative Lieutenant who insisted on sitting still with his hands out the window, and politely asking what was going on?

Insisting that "The second you don't behave exactly as the Police demand, you don't get to complain about anything the Police decided to do, because now it's all your fault" doesn't really persuade me. Sorry.

See Peel's Principles: "6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective."
 
That's a fair comment - which is why I asked the people who had operational experience to explain why the officer concerned was sacked. Was it because of the things I regarded as "unprofessional behaviour", or was it for some other reason? Was it, in their opinion, a shining example of "how to do the job right", prevented only by that uncooperative Lieutenant who insisted on sitting still with his hands out the window, and politely asking what was going on?

Insisting that "The second you don't behave exactly as the Police demand, you don't get to complain about anything the Police decided to do, because now it's all your fault" doesn't really persuade me. Sorry.

See Peel's Principles: "6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective."

You don’t think that telling him to get out the car over fifty times - with various inflections including “you’re being stopped for a traffic violation and at this point you’re being... ...detained for obstruction of justice” and “sir, I’m going to talk to you, just get out of the car” then trying to open the door for him (and him resisting) amounts to persuasion, advice and warning?
 
Last edited:
As above, he was actively (not just passively) resisting a lawful command from a police officer, who had every right to ensure his own safety by removing the driver from the vehicle - bearing in mind here that we now know he *did* have a gun in the front of the vehicle, within arms reach. So let’s look at it this way, if the police *had* shot him, then this would very possibly have been ruled to be a justifiable homicide.
Instead the police deescalated force to the point of nothing more than trying to open the door, and then reescalated this to the use of PAVA after receiving active resistance to opening the door.

As a layman, I'd suggest that it's a stretch to say there was "active resistance" to opening the door, it was more that there's a lock on it that the Officer couldn't release? To this layman, it sounds as accurate as the police report on the incident which stated "the driver hit the officers hand away".

Please look again at the video you linked to; the "active" resistance must be happening between roughly 2:35 - 3:05 (Officer Gutierrez approaches the door, to spraying PAVA; Lt Nazario has his hands outside the window throughout). Looking a couple more times, I'd suggest that the problem is that the officers
appear unable to work the door handle from outside. How, exactly, is he holding the door closed? Which one is trying to de-escalate, saying "please", asking for an explanation; which one is shouting, demanding, and more shouting?

At no point that I can see, does Lt Nazario grasp or hold anything, or move his hands inside the window, or "hit the officers hand away" - please point out a timestamp where you believe he "actively resists" before getting a faceful of PAVA.


The incident took place in December - a lawsuit filed last month I believe - yet the police officer was only sacked after the edited video went public and an uproar ensued. Hence I would consider this to be the police reacting to the mob, not to his actions (I think most of us with experience of American corporations would be able to comment at how lax their statutory protection from employee dismissal on a whim are compared with those in the UK. or EU)
Alternatively, had his superiors accepted Officer Gutierrez' report at face value? Had they even reviewed the bodycam footage before the lawsuit? If that's the case, it's not "reacting to the mob"; if the lawsuit is successful, it's "reacting to valid criticism, proven in a court of law".

You make a good point about US employers - AIUI, Virginia is an "At-Will Employment" State; you can be sacked with zero notice, no comebacks. Employment protection is a joke by UK standards:

"At the conclusion of this investigation, it was determined that Windsor Police Department policy was not followed. This resulted in disciplinary action, and department-wide requirements for additional training were implemented beginning in January and continue up to the present. Since that time, Officer Gutierrez was also terminated from his employment,"

You don’t think that telling him to get out the car over fifty times - with various inflections including “you’re being stopped for a traffic violation and at this point you’re being... ...detained for obstruction of justice” and “sir, I’m going to talk to you, just get out of the car” then trying to open the door for him (and him resisting) amounts to persuasion, advice and warning?
You'd agree that it's rather shouty and possibly angry (certainly grumpy) "persuasion, advice, and warning"; it's stuck on permasend, there doesn't seem to be any listening going on. I suspect that "Do this or I'll hurt you" comes under "warning", not "persuasion" or "advice"

The point at which Lt. Nazario says "I'm honestly afraid to get out of the car" and Officer Gutierrez responds "you should be" is to me the point where the career foul was certain.
 
Last edited:

endure

GCM
America is the land of the free and we are a land of rules and laws which argue that public safety, is more important than an individuals right to self defence.
If you think that America is the land of the free and the UK is the land of rules and laws all I can assume is that you've never been to America.

The rules and laws that are extant every day in every way in the USA would make your average jobsworth in the UK explode in orgasmic fervour.
 
I'm waiting to go to Facebook prison for this...
FB_IMG_1619132388905.jpg
 

RaiderBoat

Old-Salt
As a layman, I'd suggest that it's a stretch to say there was "active resistance" to opening the door, it was more that there's a lock on it that the Officer couldn't release? To this layman, it sounds as accurate as the police report on the incident which stated "the driver hit the officers hand away".

Please look again at the video you linked to; the "active" resistance must be happening between roughly 2:35 - 3:05 (Officer Gutierrez approaches the door, to spraying PAVA; Lt Nazario has his hands outside the window throughout). Looking a couple more times, I'd suggest that the problem is that the officers
appear unable to work the door handle from outside. How, exactly, is he holding the door closed? Which one is trying to de-escalate, saying "please", asking for an explanation; which one is shouting, demanding, and more shouting?

At no point that I can see, does Lt Nazario grasp or hold anything, or move his hands inside the window, or "hit the officers hand away" - please point out a timestamp where you believe he "actively resists" before getting a faceful of PAVA.



Alternatively, had his superiors accepted Officer Gutierrez' report at face value? Had they even reviewed the bodycam footage before the lawsuit? If that's the case, it's not "reacting to the mob"; if the lawsuit is successful, it's "reacting to valid criticism, proven in a court of law".

You make a good point about US employers - AIUI, Virginia is an "At-Will Employment" State; you can be sacked with zero notice, no comebacks. Employment protection is a joke by UK standards:

"At the conclusion of this investigation, it was determined that Windsor Police Department policy was not followed. This resulted in disciplinary action, and department-wide requirements for additional training were implemented beginning in January and continue up to the present. Since that time, Officer Gutierrez was also terminated from his employment,"


You'd agree that it's rather shouty and possibly angry (certainly grumpy) "persuasion, advice, and warning"; it's stuck on permasend, there doesn't seem to be any listening going on. I suspect that "Do this or I'll hurt you" comes under "warning", not "persuasion" or "advice"

The point at which Lt. Nazario says "I'm honestly afraid to get out of the car" and Officer Gutierrez responds "you should be" is to me the point where the career foul was certain.
And that’s why laymen don’t get to tell us how to do our job...
203B2751-A30F-4558-9325-9E833E2F7708.jpeg
 
Some food for thought on several of these issue. Chauvin was found guilty by a jury of his peers, enough said. Floyd resisting was the beginning of the downward spiral. Chauvin kneeing on Floyd was not a proper technique, though it was taught at one time many years ago.
As late as last year the Knee on Neck was part of Chauvin's Police departments use of force manual. It was only removed AFTER this incident Along with the Choke Hold
 
As a layman, I'd suggest that it's a stretch to say there was "active resistance" to opening the door, it was more that there's a lock on it that the Officer couldn't release? To this layman, it sounds as accurate as the police report on the incident which stated "the driver hit the officers hand away".

Please look again at the video you linked to; the "active" resistance must be happening between roughly 2:35 - 3:05 (Officer Gutierrez approaches the door, to spraying PAVA; Lt Nazario has his hands outside the window throughout). Looking a couple more times, I'd suggest that the problem is that the officers
appear unable to work the door handle from outside. How, exactly, is he holding the door closed? Which one is trying to de-escalate, saying "please", asking for an explanation; which one is shouting, demanding, and more shouting?

At no point that I can see, does Lt Nazario grasp or hold anything, or move his hands inside the window, or "hit the officers hand away" - please point out a timestamp where you believe he "actively resists" before getting a faceful of PAVA.



Alternatively, had his superiors accepted Officer Gutierrez' report at face value? Had they even reviewed the bodycam footage before the lawsuit? If that's the case, it's not "reacting to the mob"; if the lawsuit is successful, it's "reacting to valid criticism, proven in a court of law".

You make a good point about US employers - AIUI, Virginia is an "At-Will Employment" State; you can be sacked with zero notice, no comebacks. Employment protection is a joke by UK standards:

"At the conclusion of this investigation, it was determined that Windsor Police Department policy was not followed. This resulted in disciplinary action, and department-wide requirements for additional training were implemented beginning in January and continue up to the present. Since that time, Officer Gutierrez was also terminated from his employment,"


You'd agree that it's rather shouty and possibly angry (certainly grumpy) "persuasion, advice, and warning"; it's stuck on permasend, there doesn't seem to be any listening going on. I suspect that "Do this or I'll hurt you" comes under "warning", not "persuasion" or "advice"

The point at which Lt. Nazario says "I'm honestly afraid to get out of the car" and Officer Gutierrez responds "you should be" is to me the point where the career foul was certain.

While you seem desperate to 'prove' the police were escalating the situation the reality is that every time it escalated it was because of Nazario's failure to cooperate.

Every time he refused to do something he was asked to do, tensions go up. Every time he did, or was made to do, something he was asked to, tensions go down.
 
And that’s why laymen don’t get to tell us how to do our job...

I'm not telling you how to do your job. I'm asking you whether Officer Gutierrez was (in your opinion) professional, or unprofessional?

I've pointed out where he exaggerated his report; we have footage of him shouting, shouting, and more shouting (while ignoring simple, polite questions). To this layman, he did a good job of making himself look like a grumpy twat - it's a bad day when the public are calmer than the police. And to his credit, by the fifteen-minute mark he appears to realise that macing the public because they're scared of you was perhaps counterproductive, and twenty-five minutes in he's trying to persuade the Lieutenant not to make a complaint.

Now, there was reason for the stop, and reason to treat it initially as "High Risk". You're allowed to be grumpy because G*d knows there are enough f*ckwits out there making like awkward for you. But you don't get a free pass to ignore any and all criticism just because "we don't know man, we weren't there".
 
While you seem desperate to 'prove' the police were escalating the situation the reality is that every time it escalated it was because of Nazario's failure to cooperate.

Every time he refused to do something he was asked to do, tensions go up. Every time he did, or was made to do, something he was asked to, tensions go down.
That works two ways. When it was clear that he was calm, quiet, polite and keeping his hands in sight - why was "more shouting" the sensible option?

"Co-operation with the police" takes, well, co-operation. Both ways. If there is a life-threatening situation, then I understand demands for compliance; but even the officers had decided this wasn't "high threat", they'd holstered their weapons. You can't have it both ways - if there's such a threat as to require instant obedience without discussion, why had they put their guns down? If there isn't an immediate threat, what's the harm in answering his request to explain why he's been stopped, why he's being asked to get out of the car?
 
As a layman, I'd suggest that it's a stretch to say there was "active resistance" to opening the door, it was more that there's a lock on it that the Officer couldn't release? To this layman, it sounds as accurate as the police report on the incident which stated "the driver hit the officers hand away".

Please look again at the video you linked to; the "active" resistance must be happening between roughly 2:35 - 3:05 (Officer Gutierrez approaches the door, to spraying PAVA; Lt Nazario has his hands outside the window throughout). Looking a couple more times, I'd suggest that the problem is that the officers
appear unable to work the door handle from outside. How, exactly, is he holding the door closed? Which one is trying to de-escalate, saying "please", asking for an explanation; which one is shouting, demanding, and more shouting?

At no point that I can see, does Lt Nazario grasp or hold anything, or move his hands inside the window, or "hit the officers hand away" - please point out a timestamp where you believe he "actively resists" before getting a faceful of PAVA.


Alternatively, had his superiors accepted Officer Gutierrez' report at face value? Had they even reviewed the bodycam footage before the lawsuit? If that's the case, it's not "reacting to the mob"; if the lawsuit is successful, it's "reacting to valid criticism, proven in a court of law".

You make a good point about US employers - AIUI, Virginia is an "At-Will Employment" State; you can be sacked with zero notice, no comebacks. Employment protection is a joke by UK standards:

"At the conclusion of this investigation, it was determined that Windsor Police Department policy was not followed. This resulted in disciplinary action, and department-wide requirements for additional training were implemented beginning in January and continue up to the present. Since that time, Officer Gutierrez was also terminated from his employment,"


You'd agree that it's rather shouty and possibly angry (certainly grumpy) "persuasion, advice, and warning"; it's stuck on permasend, there doesn't seem to be any listening going on. I suspect that "Do this or I'll hurt you" comes under "warning", not "persuasion" or "advice"

The point at which Lt. Nazario says "I'm honestly afraid to get out of the car" and Officer Gutierrez responds "you should be" is to me the point where the career foul was certain.


You can see here where the officer has his hands on Lt’s clusterfuck’s wrist and he wrenches it back away:

25014BC7-3F33-4620-83C1-CFC59B47BDAF.jpeg


So yes, this was most definitely active rather than passive resistance (but not aggression) - and it’s also clear that the police de escalated to the lowest level of force (voice first, then physical) and only escalated to the use of PACA after *both* voice and physical were unsuccessful.

You can also see below where the other officer successfully opens the door but Lt clusterfuck braces his elbow to block it opening further (unless you can come up with another reason why the policeman would close the door after successfully opening it)
84370185-A132-4461-8B91-57DDB931C296.jpeg


As for being ‘grumpy’ or ‘stuck on permasend ’ - he had every right to be grumpy, having to tell a grown man to get out of the car over fifty times when, in accordance with Supreme Court judgment on the issue, *it was his legal duty to get out of the car when told to do so*

I’ll also add that use of force to get a driver out of a vehicle - and take him to the ground - is entirely permissible against both passive and active resisters, as seen from this police magazine article:

BB2F1B4B-69CC-4B85-8AB8-DB842826903F.jpeg


Which is exactly what happens after the PAVA is administered and his active resistance drops to passive

 
Last edited:

Nomad1382

War Hero
I'm not telling you how to do your job. I'm asking you whether Officer Gutierrez was (in your opinion) professional, or unprofessional?

I've pointed out where he exaggerated his report; we have footage of him shouting, shouting, and more shouting (while ignoring simple, polite questions). To this layman, he did a good job of making himself look like a grumpy twat - it's a bad day when the public are calmer than the police. And to his credit, by the fifteen-minute mark he appears to realise that macing the public because they're scared of you was perhaps counterproductive, and twenty-five minutes in he's trying to persuade the Lieutenant not to make a complaint.

Now, there was reason for the stop, and reason to treat it initially as "High Risk". You're allowed to be grumpy because G*d knows there are enough f*ckwits out there making like awkward for you. But you don't get a free pass to ignore any and all criticism just because "we don't know man, we weren't there".
Ok, the answer to your question, was Gutierrez professional? Yes, He had a person who failed to yield and refused to cooperate thus escalating the situation. If the driver had stopped when first lit up the officer's demeanor may or may not have been different, we'll never know because the DRIVER escalated the situation by driving on. Dealing with an unknown situation the officer can't let his guard down. You keep insisting that if the officer had deescalated the situation all would be well. Suggestions from the armchair how he should have done that? Walk up to the car after it finally stopped? Sure, let me (the officer) act like a victim and let everyone just do as they please. Put his gun away when he can't see inside the car?
 

Nomad1382

War Hero
One other thought, if the driver had his cell phone camera recording, he set these officers up, plain and simple. It seems he not only escalated the situation but he intended to escalate it and play the victim.
 
You can see here where the officer has his hands on Lt’s clusterfuck’s wrist and he wrenches it back away:

You can also see here where the othe4 officer successfully opens the door but Lt clusterfuck braces his elbow to block it opening further (unless you can come up with another reason why the policeman would close the door after successfully opening it)
So you agree that contrary to Officer Gutierrez' report, he didn't "hit the officers' hand away"?

You're right - I looked but couldn't see him block the door by pushing downwards, I missed (from the bodycam) that he blocked the door when his arm went backwards toward the pillar. I did wonder whether it was indeed a deliberate obstruction (the photo of a 13-year-old with empty hands being a good example of a still image being misleading), but it's certainly likely. Note that by this time he's been threatened, grabbed, and no-one has yet explained why; an officer comes out of his blind spot, he moves his arm to allow him to reach the door handle, but for some reason he's nervous about being dragged from the car..

On a rewatch, I did note Officer Gutierrez' opening efforts at persuasion and advice that might have made him nervous before this:

"What's going on?"
1:50 - "What's goin' on is you're fixin' to ride the lightning, Son"

"I'm honestly afraid to get out - what's going on?"
2:15 - "You should be"

He can be as justified as he likes, but that's not the language of a professional - it just makes him sound like a bully in uniform. It's all very well doing the prisoner-handling thing of "lots of shouting, don't slow down, dominate them, keep them off-balance" - but it's then hardly a surprise when the person on the receiving end is, well, off-balance?
 
Last edited:

Nomad1382

War Hero
When was Nazario actively resisting? From the beginning of the video. Passive resistance would have been Nazario just sitting there and not responding to the officer, anything other than that is actively resisting. To make it more clear any act you make that isn't cooperation is ACTIVE resistance. A protester at a sit in who remains still and must be picked up and carried away for arrest has passively resisted.
 
Top