aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I bet LEO's haven't been licensed to prescribe drugs or sedatives either, or inject them or many of the other things you do as well.

---

In the MPD, they have to be trained and certified to use narcan in the field. No doubt Lane was so trained since he just got out of the academy but the female officer who is in charge of medical training said that the narcan module was not always covered during inservice training.

---

BAAHHHHH!!!!


Lawyers and splitting hairs!

Let me rephrase:

Generally speaking, LEO's are not tasked with prescribing or administering most medications. I believe they are not even tasked with drawing blood in DWI situations, though I may be wrong on that as I've never been in a position to know one way or another.

Just like doctors, generally speaking, aren't required to carry firearms and have range qualifications annually to keep their medical certifications up to date.

There woman - better?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I bet LEO's haven't been licensed to prescribe drugs or sedatives either, or inject them or many of the other things you do as well.

---

In the MPD, they have to be trained and certified to use narcan in the field. No doubt Lane was so trained since he just got out of the academy but the female officer who is in charge of medical training said that the narcan module was not always covered during inservice training.

---

I may be wrong, but they have to keep using Narcan every few minutes, don't they?

I wonder how many doses the police carry with them. If the ambulance is slow, they could run out, especially if they used some earlier and didn't get their supply refilled yet.

schmellba99 said:

---

gomerschlep said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

That's a lot of words to say the average American is too stupid to comprehend basic science being spoon fed to them at a fifth grade level.

This country would be a hell of a lot better place if only net tax payers got a vote. It's the exact reason my kids don't get to be involved in my investment portfolio. They bring nothing to the table.

---

So you're advocating that only people making over a certain income should be allowed to vote, or serve on a jury?

What's next, being allowed to have kids?

Your fascism is showing, dude.

---

No, he's advocating that only those that actually pay taxes should have the ability to vote for the direction of this country, because they are the ones that have skin in the game - they are the ones that are funding the system.

If you pay in $5k in income taxes through your payroll, but you are eligible for $10k in returns through various credits and programs, you arent' a taxpayer - you are a tax reciever. 49% of the population fits in this bill in one form or another in that they don't actually pay taxes, or they get back more than they pay in. Those folks, by definition, should not have a say in how the country operates because they aren't producing a benefit to the country overall.

Kind of like how originally only landowners were allowed to vote - that wasn't because the signers of the Constitution were racist old white dudes. That was because landowners were the taxpayers and the correct mentality is that those paying the bills should helm the ship, not those merely along for the ride.

Your inability to comprehend this pretty much proves his point about the average intelligence of an American these days.

---

This train of though is absolutely insane, and is innately racist. If you'd like to get off the computer and come see how people actually live, in a level 1 trauma center, and you're in the North Texas area any time, let me know. We even have a cool helicopter you can take a ride in. Thank god people like you are relegated to internet message boards. If anyone should be restricted from voting, it's you. I'd question the validity of your driver's license as well. See you at work! I have no doubt someone like you will end up in my ER. I see it all the time. Watch less TV news.

BusterAg said:

---

Quick Google: https://www.etymonline.com/word/manslaughter#:~:text=manslaughter%20(n.),%22%20(late%2014c.).

So, it probably extends from something more akin to "manslayer", which set apart killing someone in battle versus murder.

So, the base of the word is likely separate and apart from the base of the word that means to process a dead animal.
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=slaughter

Not that it matters at all.

But, you know, you learn something new every day.

---

Interesting!

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

Faustus said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Fightin TX Aggie said:

---

Quote:

---

Didn't have a knife, didn't have a gun, he was handcuffed - there were all those cops on the scene. Eventually - there were people telling him GF was unconscious. He still didn't have the decency to even check on him while he was limp and not breathing.

---

This is what sunk Chauvin's defense. There are so many easy alternatives.

• Turn him on his side.
• Sit him up against the cop car.
• Tell him, "Stop resisting, and we will sit you or or let you stand. We called an ambulance for you."
• Hold him down without a knee.
• Use a knee while he is struggling, but remove it when he stops struggling.
• Cuff his ankles and let him sit there. He isn't going anywhere.

If Chauvin did any of these things, he would be a free man today.

---

So you are cool with putting a man in jail for life because of optics?

---

Cactus Jack on another thread said the sentence for murder 2 in Minnesota is 12.5 years and the state would try to argue aggravating factors. So maybe 20 years, and then with the usual good behavior, etc. and I could see him being out on parole in 10-15 years.

Since you're coming from an it's all optics angle anytime would be too much, but it won't be life unless his life is less than 10-15 years.

That's assuming the verdict isn't overturned on appeal.

---

You think he'll last one week in gen-pop?

---

I imagine.
Regardless the comment was that he'd get life, not that he'd get knifed. I wouldn't have responded to the latter, but in for a penny.

Out of curiosity I wonder what the mortality rate is for incarcerated law enforcement vs gen pop.

Edit: I decided I'll remain in suspense after the first few searches returned results not on point.

Ag Natural said:

---

Well when there is clearly incriminating video and 10 of your own testify against you... you aren't going to get off.

I find it strange that do many want to disregard our basic civil rights. Even the worst of us don't deserve to be killed. I can't believe this is a debate. Why had this become a left right argument? Seriously, our government should not be allowed to kill citizens. The creation of our constitution was based on that philosophy!

---

Why am I not surprised that this board seems to be disappointed in the verdict?

No disagreement. What's weird to me is that they (Chauvin/Floyd) supposedly worked as security at the same restaurant/bar possibly at overlapping times. Did they know each other? But yeah, the video speaks for itself. Chauvin (also) didn't seem to have a good history from what I've read.