But a more realistic assessment of the situation is that it’ll get your ass seriously killed, not kicked, in addition to, not instead of, letting someone else get murdered. It won’t help. You won’t be left with a guilty conscience, but that’s only because you would be dead.
This surprises me. I thought you said before that you believed nothing could ever justify violence of any kind–not even protecting others. You said that was what it meant to be a true pacifist.
I wouldn’t get physically involved, because I can’t fight and I know I’d lose, making the situation worse. But if you think you can actually stop it, and you think it’s worth the consequences, then I’m all for that. I’m not going to tell someone not to do it because I believe it would be useless for me. At most I might try to see if someone else who would have a chance could intervene.
I don’t follow. What should matter, as many people here have stressed, is what sort of bystander intervention is most likely to preserve life. If it’s a choice between physically intervening against four, or even one, armed officer and getting shot (perhaps along with the person I’m seeking to save), or standing back and filming it in the hopes that the officer will at least have the presence of mind to keep from killing his victim, then I tend to agree with those who think the form of intervention most likely to be preservative of human life is to intervene verbally and film, making a record of the event. If you somehow think physically intervening is more likely to succeed then try and sell that point. Otherwise, I struggle to see how it could possibly be unconscionable to go with the warn/film/report option.
And honestly, even if I were to grant for the sake of argument that physical intervention would be more likely to succeed, I still think it’s a tremendous leap to blame bystanders for failing to take the most effective possible action in an uncertain situation involving the risk of potentially lethal harm. I think that attitude is toxic, and only further traumatizes innocent bystanders, thus causing further harm, which is something I am not personally okay with. In fact that, to me, is unconscionable.
I didn’t say I’d assault the office, I said I’d physically break it up. Getting between the officer and his target, or even pushing the officer off his neck, is not, IMO, violence the way punching him or similar would be. My pacifist principles can take it.
I think Chauvin might have killed anyone who tried this. He was clearly ready and willing, or maybe even eager, to use deadly force without reason.
Might have. But stepping in the middle might also have given him, or his assistants, pause. Enough to notice the other cameras, say.
It’s a gamble, but I’d be willing to try.
This.
The problem with 90% of the posts in this thread is, the proposed action still leads to George Floyd being dead. If your presence is added to the incident, it does little good to record it—someone is already doing that. What Floyd needs is to get the knee off his neck. Getting between Floyd and Chauvin, or pushing Chauvin off him, is his only hope.
Did you even watch the video of Floyd’s murder? Chauvin is looking directly into one of the cameras with a smirk on his face while he murdered Floyd. They were aware of the cameras.
All these fantasies of physically intervening to stop four cops from killing Floyd are just that, fantasies.
Aware of the cameras as a silent thing, versus aware of the cameras as part of a larger reaction by members of the public including physical action, are two different things.
And I’m not talking about silent physical interaction, either. I would also at the same time be yelling things like “You’re killing him!” and “Are you getting this on camera?” and “Police brutality!” while doing it.
This would not be the first time I’ve interacted with racist murdering police. That’s all I’ll say outside the Pit.
IANAL but I think “pushing the office off his neck” might be considered assault. Certainly it’s interfering with a police officer.
Legally it would be considered actual battery, not just assault. It definitely would be interfering.
And…? I wasn’t using the legal definition of “assault” in my post. In context, it’s pretty clear I’m using it in the commonsense “commit violence” sense.
A problem with your judgment here is that you are looking back with the benefit of hindsight, knowing exactly how it played out when people limited their intervention to record/warn/report.
But there’s another problem with your judgment: inasmuch as you know exactly how the Sita played out in Floyd’s case, you have no clue how it would have played out if someone had physically intervened against four police officers.
There was was one actor and three bystanders whose actions were unconscionable here: Chauvin as the actor, and his fellow officers as the bystanders who may have actually had a legal duty to intervene. Everyone else? Victims to my mind. They didn’t ask to watchman die, and I doubt they wanted to. Some of them at least managed to cast a spotlight on the event and see the murderer here convicted. Many of them will probably have PTSD. They are victims. And inasmuch as some of them may, like you, question whether or not they could have done more for George Floyd, that is by no means certain (indeed, Floyd might still have died, and his would-be saviors along with him). The guilt is not theirs. The guilt lies with Chauvin and his fellow officers. If one wants to cast a wider net, then it should be on the power structures in this country that have enabled police to the point that they could possibly even think they could get away with something like this.
That’s essentially what I’m getting at- being so passive that filming is ALL you’re willing to do is essentially cowardice. Get in the cops’ faces, get in between them, do something to make them concentrate on you (and hopefully your fellow bystanders) rather than on the guy being slowly murdered on the ground. That’s worth getting injured over, IMO.
You guys are telling me that someone is being choked out by a knee on the neck for NINE MINUTES, and the best anyone can do is film it? I’m not buying it. A determined group of people can make the cops very uncomfortable, maybe to the point of calling in more cops- which is good in this case; the man on the ground dies, and maybe a supervisor would see what’s going on. Or maybe let up on him, because they feel threatened. At the very worst, you’re painting a lot more cops with complicity than just the initial handful in that case.
What we’re telling you (or at least what I’m telling you) is that the scene you’re describing is a tough-guy fantasy.
First of all, your description of the scene at George Floyd’s death is inaccurate (to say the least). Floyd was being choked by a cop with a knee on his neck, to be sure. And another on his chest. And another at his feet. And another between them and the crowd of onlookers. Another cop, with a gun, standing there specifically to prevent someone like you from interfering.
Your imagined actions would, without a doubt, have led to there being more than one death that day, on that street. And quite possibly to massive retaliation from the police department at some point in the future.
And to call those of us who say that physical intervention would be worse than pointless cowards is insulting. And just plain wrong.
They tried that. The 3 cops with Chauvin threatened them with deadly force if they didn’t stay back.
You mean between Chauvin and Floyd? I don’t think that that would be possible.
That’s how gunfire erupts, and then you and your fellow bystanders end up dead. If you are lucky, you are only injured, then arrested and charged with assaulting an officer.
I think that the only way you “win” this confrontation is if you and the bystanders have guns, and you start shooting first.
'Course now you are all cop killers, and that never ends well.
The irony of course, is that if you prevent them from murdering the person, then you have lost any possible justification for your actions.
They were doing that. They were yelling at these cops, telling them that they were killing this man, that they were being videoed.
But, what you are asking is that people actually physically intervene. There are 4 cops there, all armed. If you start assaulting them, then they have legal justification to just shoot you dead. You will be breaking the law, and should you live, will be spending a substantial amount of time incarcerated. You will lose everything that you own in lawyer fees, court costs, and ultimately fines for your crime. Whatever job you have now you will never get to do again with your criminal record, and will be lucky to get a MW job, as discriminating against violent felons is perfectly legal.
Is this something that you would really do, or just something you would tell others that they should have done?
I doubt Chauvin was smirking when the guilty verdict came in.
When police officers are held accountable for committing crimes and sent to prison, they’ll stop committing crimes.
Here is the NY Times analysis of the video of Floyd’s murder (graphic, obviously). The police arrive at 2.09 in the video. Please indicate what specific acts you would take at various points in the video.
If you do that, you might actually be HELPING them to get away with murder. How? The law states that, if a police officer can show his safety is in jeopardy and/or his life in danger, he can exercise deadly force in the performance of his duties. Being accosted by a crowd “getting in their faces” and pushing “maybe a lot” can easily be viewed as just that by a jury. The defense in the Chauvin trial tried that and was unsuccessful because the crowd remained on the sidelines.
You have to keep in mind how difficult it is to successfully prosecute a police officer. People, including those on the jury, have to be convinced beyond any doubt before they will take such a step.