As far as I know prone position is good for ARDS, in the hospital in special beds, cystic fibrosis and some burn patients. Not for possible OD's in the street. I really hate these cases, I have police that are very close to me, but I do know from working in big city hospitals it is possible to lose one's professionalism dealing with low lifes and scum day after day, year after year. Chauvin is, without a doubt, responsible for Floyds death. When you make a prisoner not a threat anymore then he becomes your first priority. IF your cuffs are on him, you are responsible for him, his safety and how he is released or processed. Four or 5 police officers, one big prisoner in cuffs can be dealt with safely for all involved.
This is the best assessment of the George Floyd case I have read so far.
Serious people on the Right need to ask themselves this question: suppose Floyd had
not been on drugs. Suppose it was
not disputed that Derek Chauvin's kneeling on his neck was his cause of death?
How should we react then? (I'm assuming, as I have heard from a fellow patriot who is also a policeman, that kneeling -- almost any touching -- of a suspect's neck is NOT recommended procedure for police, for reasons this case makes all too plain, although perhaps this restriction was not taught to Milwaukee police.)
Just to be crystal clear, let's also posit that Chauvin had been, up to now, an exemplary policeman, volunteering to help little Black children to learn to read in his spare time, and that Floyd, instead of being a petty counterfeiter on his was down from home invasions, had been caught in the act of another home invasion, armed, perhaps preparing to rape a female occupant.
It addresses one of the most fundamental questions facing serious patriots on the Right:
the question of the Rule of Law, and how far to extend it in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, i.e. a "cold civil war" which is beginning to warm up. (It will not be of interest to those on the Left, who have either not heard of this idea and in any case couldn't care less, or believe it's just a cover for class domination [which is the essence of Critical Legal Theory, from which Critical Race Theory was spawned]).
We need to have a separate thread on this question. It has come up in the George Floyd case, in the Ahmed Arbery case, and, most spectacularly, in the 6 January Capitol Breach. It
always arises in situations of serious conflict -- as it did in My Lai.
We need to be clear about it.
First of all, what it is, and, most importantly, when, if ever, is it justified to relax it, i.e to look the other way when Good Guys violate it in their dealings with Bad Guys.
Hint: I don't think there is a simple answer, like, we must always and everywhere follow it to the letter regardless of circumstances. Let justice be done, though the sky fall.
It's closely congruent to the "ticking time bomb question", which arose during the Global War on Terror when we were waterboarding suspects. Anyone who's done an introductory philosophy course at university has encountered this question when studying Ethics and Morality.
But it needs its own thread. Again, congratulations to Mak2 for his illuminating reply.
