George Floyd murder / Derek Chauvin guilty of murder

Silva_Spell said:
Dunno what had gone on before the Rittenhouse vid doing the rounds but based on the video alone it's is a pretty clear case of self defence
Click to expand...
I have no words for this intellectual dishonesty.

Really, what’s the point of attempting to conjure them to rebuke someone arguing in bad faith?
SWP's back said:
They should have done what police forces around the developed world do to unarmed men. Not attempt to kill him. Plenty of videos online showing plenty of forces subduing armed men without killing or crippling or shooting them 7 times.
Click to expand...
And isn’t amazing how many of the successfully subdued (rather than shot, strangled, or smothered) suspects, some heavily armed having literally just obviously murdered other people, were white?

It’s almost — and bear with me here — like police intrinsically react to non-white people differently to white people.
 
[
SWP's back said:
They should have done what police forces around the developed world do to unarmed men. Not attempt to kill him. Plenty of videos online showing plenty of forces subduing armed men without killing or crippling or shooting them 7 times.
Click to expand...
Again with the non answers. We all know what you think they should not have done, what we are asking is for you to give your breakdown of what they should have.

Be detailed if you can. Tell us what point in the video you as the cop would have subdued and disarm him.

Yes when he has just a knife, hey didn't shoot him. It was when he opened the door to his car to seemingly get something else that they did
 
Dax777 said:
Quick question: have you seen the video of the shooting? I'm struggling to understand what you found intellectually dishonest about SS claim that it looked like self defense.
Click to expand...
I have seen the limited video, and have also read other accounts of the events leading up to and after what is captured in the video, and anyone saying it is a “pretty clear case of self defence”, before any findings of any sort of detailed investigation and analysis of the full events have been released, is being intellectually dishonest (with themselves and others).

Had they said “it *may* be self defence, I will have to read more about the full events on either side of the video, and see what comes of the investigation” it would be much less problematic.

But even then we are discussing what was essentially a vigilante (it has been confirmed they drove across state lines to confront protesters whilst armed, making that a fair description), so “self defence” is still somewhat tenuous.

It is a similarly dishonest stance that was taken by many right after the murder of Brianna Taylor.
 
Bigga said:
But, you DO have an opinion and justified the actions citing "non-compliance", so you must think that it was "a good shoot".

Don't ask us to look through the eyes of a cop, using your own experiences, if you don't want to answer a question that asks you what you would have done in your experience.

Have yourself a great day/ night.
Click to expand...
If I thought he was reaching for a gun, I’d have shot him.

There was clearly no respect shown to the legal authority the officer was trying to assert.

As I have said previously, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
 
BobKowalski said:
It’s irrelevant why he was there.

The issue is cops shooting an unarmed man in the back seven times.

The issue is a kid travelling from Illinois with an assault rifle to shoot BLM protestors and, it seems, getting a pass from the police on the scene. This is also the allegation in Portland where cops stood by to allow counter protestors to attack protestors with impunity.

Everything around that is just noise, an attempt to deflect, confuse and pass the blame onto the victims as much as possible. It’s like rape and ‘was the woman asking for it, dressing provocatively, was she drunk, etc’. The issue there is consent and without consent it is rape. The point of much of these posts is to portray the victim as the problem, just as there is an attempt to blame the woman for rape.
Click to expand...

Oh, I 100% agree with this. Last night, I was sooo mentally tired of trying to fight these people with skewed mentality on Human life that I'd reached my limit.

That was the first time, in all my time on BM, I felt like I had to force myself off the site with toxicity of people justifying shooting a person in the back!

The 'why' is irrelevant, in itself, but the story has gone from the victim 'having a knife' with no evidence of this to justify the police action to now having 'stolen a key' or some shit.

That's why I want the whole position, not drips of incorrect info.

The pro-shooting bunch are as mentally twisted as pretzels.
 
Dax777 said:
[

Again with the non answers. We all know what you think they should not have done, what we are asking is for you to give your breakdown of what they should have.

Be detailed if you can. Tell us what point in the video you as the cop would have subdued and disarm him.

Yes when he has just a knife, hey didn't shoot him. It was when he opened the door to his car to seemingly get something else that they did
Click to expand...
Complete bollocks that it’s a non answer, it’s a clear answer. However:

1) He didn’t have a knife at any point.

2) He opened his car door as that’s what one usually does when entering a car

3) What would I have done? Chinned him/put him in an arm bar/ handcuffed him when we originally put him on the ground, any number of things (helped when with my 3 mates) before he got to a door, I’m 6’ 4” and 200 lbs and have been boxing for over 10 years. I don’t hide behind a gun.

4) You wish for me to write a RoE policy for US Police forces? Fuck that, they may as well just plagiarise any number of police forces, you know the ones in the developed world that don’t have a “shoot first, ask questions later/better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6” mentality. Trust you to fucking defend that cop for shooting an unarmed man 7 times at point blank range in the back. I bet, deep down, if you were allowed to admit it, you’d be saying George Floyd got what he deserved as well wouldn’t you. Libertarian my arse.
 
Last edited:
Dax777 said:
I don't know. But I was hoping you'd tell me rather than ask it in the form of a question that doesn't answer the actual question posed.

As for the unrelated comparison to the 17 to year old.

***Let me first Note that this is an obvious attempt at avoiding the question asked****

Notice he had his hands up while running towards the armoured vehicles of the police. I.e. he was pre-empting compliance. But I'm sure you'd presume it was his race that was the key.

But even more importantly, the conditions are different.
There is a Protest/riot going on. Some out to protest, some to riot and destroy and others to loot. Funny enough it seems there are now vigilante forces who have caught on to these process. So now there seems to be a fourth group out to protect property and protestors.

Anyway, let's get back to the question: What should have those cops done?
Click to expand...
Pre-empting compliance?

You are mad.

He's approaching cops with an automatic weapon. Several times he lowers his hand to the weapon.

He's white.
 
SWP's back said:
*checks notes* yeah that’s still not punishable with the death penalty.
Click to expand...
I thought you had the ability to extrapolate, or do I have to go over the whole thing again...just slower?

You guys get boring awfully quickly.

Read and watch or don’t, but don’t expect me to spoon feed you any further than I have already.

You have to do a smidge of work yourself if you ACTUALLY want to learn and understand what happened, and is happening.
 
Dax777 said:
No Bigga, it strongly suggests that him being high on drugs was the likely reason why he was incoherent and foaming at the mouth. And less likely because he was Claustrophobic and scared too be alone like you thought.

But hey, stick around. You may just learn something.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot.

This is why Americans don't get British sarcasm and why TV is oversimplified for you, just so you can feel a part of intellectual society.
 
Dax777 said:
What an Asshole! So you are a black man in a show with 2 other black men. If he really believed in the injustice of the Blake shooting he should simply have called in and told his co-host I don't think I'm coming in. Boycotting in solidarity with the NBA players.

No no no. He did not do that. Instead he came in, waited till the camera was rolling, and put on a performance and made the story about himself and made his co-hosts, especially Shaq and Barkley who are also black, look like unsupportive fools.

Just idiocy all around.
Click to expand...

Or, perhaps, he wasn't sure WHAT he was going to do, until instinct decided for him.

And, most likely, he was fighting the instinct to walk off set too as that's Human behaviour; to be conflicted about your instinct.

You're so quick to judge that you can't think of anything alternative to your conclusions.

To think I thought you were coming along as a person...
 
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