George Floyd murder / Derek Chauvin guilty of murder

Bigga said:
... Well... That was a response... Soooo...


Let's apply some of your training to this situation. Just citing your "split second “shoot-don’t shoot” " decision making.

At what point with your training, understanding the victim 'fought' the police, do you consider the 'split second' decision to draw your weapon? We've seen plenty of people killed by gun and by hand at the 'fighting' stage.

So, when does "split second thinking" become not this when the perp/ victim has walked back to his vehicle, especially when the 'knife' prose is not seen on video?

Surely the Police Chief would show the weapon at the Press Conference, even by photograph?

I'm yet to see anything supporting the 'knife' claim.

Maybe you could enlighten me...?

And how many shots does it take to "neutralise the threat"? Is it until the person has stopped moving or breathing? And, if the person is still breathing, how do you know the "threat is neutralised" enough?

I find the scared US cop a peculiar entity and the whole gun culture (IN THE US) bizarre.
Click to expand...
I see we have headed off into the realm of it being about MY beliefs, with your last sentence basically confirming your lack of interest in the issue.

I think I’ll leave whatever context I was trying to provide to stand on its own.

I have no interest in litigating this incident on Bluemoon with my opinions vs yours.

Have yourself a safe day.
 
Scottyboi said:
Shite policing, could have just tackled him to the ground if you suspected he was going to his car to grab a weapon. Common sense policing doesn't exist in America just executions the fucking pigs.
Click to expand...
You strike me as someone who might have had the chance to spend some time with the police, which may have colored your vision.

They had already fought with him on the ground on the other side of the car. Witness says he had already been tased. He just walked off, purposely and directly, to the drivers side door of the car. The officers followed, guns drawn because someone said he had a knife. No-one shot him over any of that. They followed him, shouting commands he was refusing to follow.

Is Blake acting rationally? Is he above the law? Is he continuing to actively resist?

He continues over to the drivers side door. He opens it. The officer reaches forward to pull him out of the door as Blake bends down.

At that point, and only at that point, does the officer decide he may be about to face a deadly threat and discharged his weapon.

I don’t see any “fucking pigs” there. I do see someone presenting a serious threat to officers trying to do their job, and he simply went waaay too far.

As for @kaz7 liking your post? Shocking.
 
Last edited:
BobKowalski said:
I assume we have reached the point in the debate where we are now justifying shooting unarmed civilians in the back. Seven times.

I don’t know why some people are keen to have a police force where such actions are ever justifiable or where non compliance is a capital crime, or in this case tasering a guy and then shooting him in the back because he is no longer thinking straight, or indeed shooting a 12 year old boy for ‘looking too old’, but it seems there will always be people that will move heaven and earth to justify these shootings.

At some point the cycle will have to broken, because right now it’s looking pretty fucked and doubling down defending the situation will just mean a bigger fucking further down the line.

It would save a lot of time, trouble and tortured logic if certain posters would just say that they are okay with unarmed civilians getting shot in the back seven times. I think you’ll feel better for it. I know I will.
Click to expand...
If he was reaching for a gun in his car, would that change anything?

Why did the cop grab his undershirt and try to pull him back from bending down?

Is Blake bending like he is actually getting into the car? It’s an SUV that you step into.

What was he bending down and reaching for?
(Now, go back to the first question above)
 
BobKowalski said:
I assume we have reached the point in the debate where we are now justifying shooting unarmed civilians in the back. Seven times.

I don’t know why some people are keen to have a police force where such actions are ever justifiable or where non compliance is a capital crime, or in this case tasering a guy and then shooting him in the back because he is no longer thinking straight, or indeed shooting a 12 year old boy for ‘looking too old’, but it seems there will always be people that will move heaven and earth to justify these shootings.

At some point the cycle will have to broken, because right now it’s looking pretty fucked and doubling down defending the situation will just mean a bigger fucking further down the line.

It would save a lot of time, trouble and tortured logic if certain posters would just say that they are okay with unarmed civilians getting shot in the back seven times. I think you’ll feel better for it. I know I will.
Click to expand...
A suspect reaches into his car, what would you do?
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
A suspect reaches into his car, what would you do?
Click to expand...

'Reaching into the car is a strecth' but maybe try and detain him earlier, de-escolate etc. 7 shots to the back is exessive which ever way you look at it. But there will always be someone lookign to defend these trigger happy cunts

Look at the clip above, he is walking round with a machine gun because he can, yet an unarmed black man can't walk off and open his own car door.
 
Dax777 said:


I figured I'd wait to get a clearer picture before commenting. As it turns out, there is now a 2nd video.

One that shows an earlier portion of the interaction. Apparently the cops had wrestled the man down (you know, what many claimed they should have done), he struggled with them and got loose, you know, as most resisting arrest would. And then they drew their guns as they chased him around the car where he opens the door and reaches in....Then an officer shoots...Yes, multiple times.


There is nothing the naysayers often like suggesting that wasn't attempted here.

2 police officers with guns on their hips struggling to subdue a suspect who was determined to NOT be detained..

@Bigga over to you. What should they have done there?

According to reports, they attempted to wrestle him to the ground and had tased him already.

So officers with gun on their hips try to arrest, wrestle to the ground ( but no knee as that's illegal), and then tased the suspect. He gets loose. Walks purposely or Maybe in a daze around to his car front door with police officers with guns drawn behind ordering him to stop.


I ask everyone on this thread What Should They Have Done? And at what point should they have done it?
Click to expand...


What do you think UK cops do?

And if this unarmed black man was so scary, why didn’t the cops shoot this 17 year old who’d just shot and killed a few on the street?

 
blueinsa said:
www.wbur.org

Black Lives Matter Activist: Abolishing The Police '100%' Means Just That

Miski Noor, an organizer and activist with Black Visions Collective, speaks about the ongoing protests sparked in response to the police killing of George Floyd.
www.wbur.org www.wbur.org

When activists say they want to abolish the police, they “100%” mean they want no more police, Noor says.
Click to expand...

So? What does that matter what the odd extremist thinks? Does Tommy Robinson speak for you? No, of course he doesn’t, because he’s on the fringe, like Noor.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
she wants them defunded, no ambiguity, just defunded., which is a bit of a squirm fest for those suggesting nobody really means it, as this prominent politician clearly does.
Then when you get City Mayors, also making similar pledges, it gets a little difficult trying to say it was all about discussing budgets.
Click to expand...
How do you still not understand that discussing budgets and defunding are the same thing? It’s reducing and reallocating the funds, not abolishing the police. The US already spends more per capita on policing than any other developed nation, is it working?

You keep banging that drum and highlighting what we know you don’t know.
 
SWP's back said:
How do you still not understand that discussing budgets and defunding are the same thing? It’s reducing and reallocating the funds, not abolishing the police. The US already spends more per capita on policing than any other developed nation, is it working?

You keep banging that drum and highlighting what we know you don’t know.
Click to expand...

Policy started by Clinton and the Democrats as they chased votes to gain power. Racist policy of mass incarceration of blacks and Hispanics started by Clinton and the Democrats as they chased votes to gain power.

It's what politicians do. Republicans turn to spend huge amounts on law enforcement as they see it as a vote winner. If it suited the Democrats to campaign for it again, they would.

Fuck all is changing over there until such a time they ditch their rights to bear arms.

I don't condone or defend police killings like this either and those responsible should face justice.
 
blueinsa said:
Policy started by Clinton and the Democrats as they chased votes to gain power. Racist policy of mass incarceration of blacks and Hispanics started by Clinton and the Democrats as they chased votes to gain power.

It's what politicians do. Republicans turn to spend huge amounts on law enforcement as they see it as a vote winner. If it suited the Democrats to campaign for it again, they would.

Fuck all is changing over there until such a time they ditch their rights to bear arms.

I don't condone or defend police killings like this either and those responsible should face justice.
Click to expand...

I’m not remotely interested in which party started what. I take an interest in what’s happening over there. The police aren’t fit for purpose.

Look at this:



If you watch closely, the guy crossing the road, being told he’s appreciated, is the guy that later that night shot and killed 3 people in the street and then had 3 police cars drive past him as he went over to the police. If he was black, he’d be dead. It’s fucking mental, and you’re bothered about if it was Bill bastard Clinton that started over funding the police? Why does that even matter in 2020? Do you think everything is rosy in the garden and that changes aren’t needed?
 
SWP's back said:
I’m not remotely interested in which party started what. I take an interest in what’s happening over there. The police aren’t fit for purpose.

Look at this:



If you watch closely, the guy crossing the road, being told he’s appreciated, is the guy that later that night shot and killed 3 people in the street and then had 3 police cars drive past him as he went over to the police. If he was black, he’d be dead. It’s fucking mental, and you’re bothered about if it was Bill bastard Clinton that started over funding the police? Why does that even matter in 2020? Do you think everything is rosy in the garden and that changes aren’t needed?
Click to expand...


Not too sure what part of guns need to be taken out of their society or that police involved in killings and shootings like this should face justice leads you to asking me that question?

I also don't get the line of not being interested in who brought what policies in as it's key to this shit.
 
Imagine if it was black “militia style” groups going around and doing this in dozen of cities ever night.

 
blueinsa said:
I also don't get the line of not being interested in who brought what policies in as it's key to this shit.
Click to expand...
It really really isn’t. Clinton was POTUS 1993-2001, it’s 19 years since he was in power. It’s of absolutely no relevance now. He also ruled over a country where weed was a class 1 narcotic (Cocaine was class 2) but weed’s now legal in most states.

Things change. Policies can change. Society can and should adapt for its betterment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top