Five Memphis police officers charged over death of Tyre Nichols

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mythica

But it did, he was told to lay on the floor, he never. Regardless if he was disoriented, he still didn't comply. He was tasered while resisting and then ran off. If he was restrained, how did he then run off? It doesn't make it null and void, its a difference of opinion on how he reacted.

Suggest you read Hugh’s post above who has clarified it much more eloquently and with better evidence than I have.

You’re wrong and you point is null and void /end

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Suggest you read Hugh’s post above who has clarified it much more eloquently and with better evidence than I have.

You’re wrong and you point is null and void /end

No it isn't.

Originally Posted by Mythica

No it isn't.

It is, because it’s a meaningless observation.

Also, because you state you don’t condone the police officers’ actions and then set about apportioning blame to the victim. You may not outright support the police but you sure are reducing their culpability by laying some of it on the victim. Stating that you ‘don’t condone’ something as a cover for victim-blaming is as disingenuous as starting a sentence ‘I’m not sexist, but…’.

Nobody should ever - ever - get that sort of beating even if they are resisting arrest. That behaviour simply shouldn’t be in the police officer’s toolkit, officially or not.

Originally Posted by Mythica

But it did, he was told to lay on the floor, he never. Regardless if he was disoriented, he still didn't comply. He was tasered while resisting and then ran off. If he was restrained, how did he then run off? It doesn't make it null and void, its a difference of opinion on how he reacted.

---------- Post added at 19:11 ---------- Previous post was at 19:08 ----------



But it's a fact that potentially he could be alive right now if he complied properly. That's not blaming him, that's just stating facts of life.

it's a fact that potentially he could be alive right now if the police hadn’t beaten him to death. That's not blaming them, that's just stating facts of life.

Originally Posted by Chris

It is, because it’s a meaningless observation.

Also, because you state you don’t condone the police officers’ actions and then set about apportioning blame to the victim. You may not outright support the police but you sure are reducing their culpability by laying some of it on the victim. Stating that you ‘don’t condone’ something as a cover for victim-blaming is as disingenuous as starting a sentence ‘I’m not sexist, but…’.

Nobody should ever - ever - get that sort of beating even if they are resisting arrest. That behaviour simply shouldn’t be in the police officer’s toolkit, officially or not.

---------- Post added at 09:19 ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

it's a fact that potentially he could be alive right now if the police hadn’t beaten him to death. That's not blaming them, that's just stating facts of life.

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by Chris

It is, because it’s a meaningless observation.

Also, because you state you don’t condone the police officers’ actions and then set about apportioning blame to the victim. You may not outright support the police but you sure are reducing their culpability by laying some of it on the victim. Stating that you ‘don’t condone’ something as a cover for victim-blaming is as disingenuous as starting a sentence ‘I’m not sexist, but…’.

Nobody should ever - ever - get that sort of beating even if they are resisting arrest. That behaviour simply shouldn’t be in the police officer’s toolkit, officially or not.

It's not victim blaming, it's an observation of what happened. It's also like saying, you wouldn't leave your car unlocked, but... Common sense needs to play a part.

---------- Post added at 10:21 ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

it's a fact that potentially he could be alive right now if the police hadn’t beaten him to death. That's not blaming them, that's just stating facts of life.

You are correct, I didn't say otherwise.

Originally Posted by Mythica

It's not victim blaming, it's an observation of what happened. It's also like saying, you wouldn't leave your car unlocked, but... Common sense needs to play a part.

---------- Post added at 10:21 ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 ----------



You are correct, I didn't say otherwise.

Its also an observation to say they could have beaten him to death if he had stayed where he was.

Neither observation has any supporting evidence, only surmise…

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Its also an observation to say they could have beaten him to death if he had stayed where he was.

Neither observation has any supporting evidence, only surmise…

Point being he did run off, with no supporting evidence that he was going to get beaten to death. I was making on observation of why time after time, people do that, its never going to end well.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mythica

Point being he did run off, with no supporting evidence that he was going to get beaten to death. I was making on observation of why time after time, people do that, its never going to end well.

He had already been subject to significant abuse by the police BEFORE he ran off.

Right from the start the officers in question acted in an unprofessional manner and did not execute their duties in the manner expected this then deteriorated and deteriorated until the outcome.

There was no attempt at the use of reasonable force. There was nothing that the victim could of done that would have pacified them, they were in prey mode and looking for a target.

---------- Post added at 11:30 ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 ----------

Originally Posted by Mythica

Point being he did run off, with no supporting evidence that he was going to get beaten to death. I was making on observation of why time after time, people do that, its never going to end well.

The initial treatment he received before he ran suggests to everybody and everything apart from lobotomised plankton that he was at significant risk of severe physical harm.

It's called fight or flight

This morning on Sky News, Dr Shola, claiming the 5 black officers, were gate keepers, to white supremacy. What kind of race baiting bullshit is this?

Originally Posted by Hugh

Its also an observation to say they could have beaten him to death if he had stayed where he was.

Neither observation has any supporting evidence, only surmise…

Agreed!

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mythica

Point being he did run off, with no supporting evidence that he was going to get beaten to death. I was making on observation of why time after time, people do that, its never going to end well.

He ran off because it obviously wasn't going to end well if he stayed.

Would you have remained there knowing you could easily get beaten to death? Or could stand a chance of saving your life by fleeing?

This is not Dixon of Dock Green territory.

Originally Posted by Mythica

Point being he did run off, with no supporting evidence that he was going to get beaten to death. I was making on observation of why time after time, people do that, its never going to end well.

You mean unlike the previous occurrences where people were beaten to death or shot by US Police when they were unarmed?

The relevant point is that the police shouldn’t beat someone to death, whether they run away or not - there is no mitigation on their behalf because someone ran away, or any blame allocated to the dead person because they ran away; trying to do so is ingenuous.

There is a difference between blaming someone for running away and pointing out that doing so was almost certainly not going to end well. Given it was in America, its perhaps surprising that they didnt just shoot him as he ran.

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

He had already been subject to significant abuse by the police BEFORE he ran off.

Right from the start the officers in question acted in an unprofessional manner and did not execute their duties in the manner expected this then deteriorated and deteriorated until the outcome.

There was no attempt at the use of reasonable force. There was nothing that the victim could of done that would have pacified them, they were in prey mode and looking for a target.

---------- Post added at 11:30 ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 ----------




The initial treatment he received before he ran suggests to everybody and everything apart from lobotomised plankton that he was at significant risk of severe physical harm.

It's called fight or flight

Had he? You see that everyday in the Police, it looks horrible, sounds horrible, but it's done in a manner to shock the person they want to arrest, dragging them from the car, shouting at them, getting them on the floor in an aggressive manner, you can watch it on the Police shows like Police interceptors. At that point he was resisting and kept turning around of the floor talking to them disobeying the orders.

Considering the above, I'm not sure he thought he was at significant risk 100% is a excuse for running. I'm not saying it didn't play a part but as it happens all the time, the percentage risk of him being harmed if he complied would be pretty low, with running adding to that risk.

---------- Post added at 14:48 ---------- Previous post was at 14:45 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

He ran off because it obviously wasn't going to end well if he stayed.

Would you have remained there knowing you could easily get beaten to death? Or could stand a chance of saving your life by fleeing?

This is not Dixon of Dock Green territory.

Where is the evidence to say that the pulled him over to seriously harm him? Running away from the Police is never going to end well in any circumstances, never mind in America where they have guns.

---------- Post added at 14:52 ---------- Previous post was at 14:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

You mean unlike the previous occurrences where people were beaten to death or shot by US Police when they were unarmed?

The relevant point is that the police shouldn’t beat someone to death, whether they run away or not - there is no mitigation on their behalf because someone ran away, or any blame allocated to the dead person because they ran away; trying to do so is ingenuous.

What percentage risk are you at due to previous occurrences over everyday Policing that never gets reported?

I don’t disagree, never have disagreed. But we all need to take responsibility for our actions.