George Floyd murder / Derek Chauvin guilty of murder

Firstly, I don’t “grade” my responses on how you feel about them.

Secondly, that’s like telling a lie and saying “I know what you’ll say...’I’m lying‘“ Yes, because it’s exactly correct...you’re lying! I didn’t say what you tried to say I did, so do one.

Talk about pathetic!

Again, you seem to fail understanding simple words.

Did I ask you what you would do in that situation regarding Blake? Did I set parameters on the subject OR did I ask you about the whole situation and what you would have done using your experience?

You could have said questioned him about the whole situation calmly.

You could have said covered him, gun drawn whilst the other officers cuffed him or attempted to.

You could have said 'warned him you would have shot him if he moved from the cuffing'.

But, no, you chose to shoot him if I thought he had a weapon.

Nothing about actions before.

So, yes, it's pathetic that I had extrapolate a reasonable narrative from your singular answer, but that's what happens when trying extract an opinion from someone who likes to openly talk about his gun training experience, only to get shirty when asked an opinion on a shooting!!

Fooking hell...
 
Why would they hold solidarity with the cause and still want to play? The whole point of showing solidarity would be to do what you are told. And in this case, that would be 'Not Play!'

Playing would be tantamount to not showing solidarity.

Are you another that can't read??

I set out a scenario of possibility. I didn't say should or must anywhere.

If all players take a knee, should all players hold up their fist as well??

Solidarity can take on different forms.
 
Again, you seem to fail understanding simple words.

Did I ask you what you would do in that situation regarding Blake? Did I set parameters on the subject OR did I ask you about the whole situation and what you would have done using your experience?

You could have said questioned him about the whole situation calmly.

You could have said covered him, gun drawn whilst the other officers cuffed him or attempted to.

You could have said 'warned him you would have shot him if he moved from the cuffing'.

But, no, you chose to shoot him if I thought he had a weapon.

Nothing about actions before.

So, yes, it's pathetic that I had extrapolate a reasonable narrative from your singular answer, but that's what happens when trying extract an opinion from someone who likes to openly talk about his gun training experience, only to get shirty when asked an opinion on a shooting!!

Fooking hell...
All of the other things were said...and done at the scene!

im glad you’re enjoying arguing with yourself.

And, not for nothing, I’ve been about as open as possible about this incident on this thread. Check yourself, your attitude and responses.

You clearly like the “war by attrition” approach to forum communications. Good luck with that.
 
All of the other things were said...and done at the scene!

im glad you’re enjoying arguing with yourself.

And, not for nothing, I’ve been about as open as possible about this incident on this thread. Check yourself, your attitude and responses.

You clearly like the “war by attrition” approach to forum communications. Good luck with that.


For about the fourth time... I asked what YOU. WOULD. HAVE. DONE. USING. YOUR. EXPERIENCE. None of this was EVER ANSWERED!!

It's like talking to a 5 year old.

So yeah, you're boring me now.
 
Not only is he under the age of 18, but he’s also not legally allowed to own the gun he’s using either in Kenosha or his home state. So it’s a fail of the law on both counts of “open carry”.
Oh! I see @ChicagoBlue point now. I missed the underlined "and." CB did not clarify so I won't ascribe this to him, just you.

No he was not in violation of the 2nd element. Why?
The second portion is really about people convicted of felonies in Wisconsin, or crimes in other states that would be considered felonies in Wisconsin,or vacated felonies due to mental defect as an affirmative defense.

Unless you know something about the shooter's past criminal record that the rest of us don't. I'd say you are wrong again.

But not to worry, not being 17 is enough on its own. You don't need to be in violation of both.
 
It appears Bigga believes it’s a “Bigga World” and we are all just privileged to be allowed to be looked down upon by him in it.
HaHaHaHa!
 
Oh! I see @ChicagoBlue point now. I missed the underlined "and." CB did not clarify so I won't ascribe this to him, just you.

No he was not in violation of the 2nd element. Why?
The second portion is really about people convicted of felonies in Wisconsin, or crimes in other states that would be considered felonies in Wisconsin,or vacated felonies due to mental defect as an affirmative defense.

Unless you know something about the shooter's past criminal record that the rest of us don't. I'd say you are wrong again.

But not to worry, not being 17 is enough on its own. You don't need to be in violation of both.
Yes. I was trying to make the point that even if one aspect of the law was fine, the word “and” makes him illegal by dint of the first requirement.
 
Dude just put him on ignore. I have and I'm not troubled. That other one, Silva-whatever, I haven't blocked but I'm not worried -- after his "self-defense" comment he hasn't been seen since (he'll probably come back and say he was "busy" -- yeah, sure). Just like the Trump thread, once they embarrass themselves over and over they'll eventually disappear out of shame or cowardice -- they never come back and say, "Ah shit, I fucked up, I made a mistake."

That "other one" (tbf I think there are more than 2 of us who utilise reason and logic and try to look at cases/laws objectively - tho not too many more) couldn't post in here because Ric forgot to reinstate privileges after your little moralising crusade derailed the thread. And Messi has taken too much of my time too. I guess you could call that "busy"

And, unless there are very recent developments that I have missed, the Kenosha incident is still a pretty clear case of self-defense*. As things stand, it's almost a litmus test concerning the right of self-defense. So, yea, maybe you should put me on ignore...

*the only thing I see that the prosecution can try to point to is the wound in the back/lung/liver, but that could be explained by a shot as the attacker fell with the shots in quick succession
 
Last edited:
That "other one" (who utilises reason and logic and tries to look at cases/laws objectively - tbf I think there's more than 2 of us, tho not too many more) couldn't post in here because Ric forgot to reinstate privileges after your little moralising crusade derailed the thread. And Messi has taken too much of my time too. I guess you could call that "busy"

And, unless there are very recent developments that I have missed, the Kenosha incident is still a clear case of self-defense. As things stand, it's almost a litmus test concerning the right of self-defense. So, yea, maybe you should put me on ignore...

I plan to call out posts that are plain and simple gaslighting any time I have time and if some of my posts get pulled while I do it so be it. That’s up to the mods. Some of your posts are too disgusting and dangerous for the world to ignore.

I moralize because I am moral. Perhaps we should ask why you don’t. Arguing for Republicans to show more depictions of violence to whip their audience into a frenzy of more hatred and more division — yeah, I recall St. Thomas Aquinas suggesting that.

Filth.
 
I plan to call out posts that are plain and simple gaslighting any time I have time and if some of my posts get pulled while I do it so be it. That’s up to the mods. Some of your posts are too disgusting and dangerous for the world to ignore.

I moralize because I am moral. Perhaps we should ask why you don’t. Arguing for Republicans to show more depictions of violence to whip their audience into a frenzy of more hatred and more division — yeah, I recall St. Thomas Aquinas suggesting that.

Filth.

pmsl I think you should be made a mod, the fate of the world could well depend upon it
 
Another shot dead in Portland overnight.

Civil war is just around the corner unless they all step back from the edge.
 
Seems this fella thought it was better to be carried by 6 than judged by 12 when dealing with a white guy. Funny that.



And I was led to believe non compliance meant you got shot, a lot.
 
I am sick of seeing cops shoot EVERYONE...white, black, brown, you name it!

The big difference is I understand WHY some of these people get shot. I explained why Blake got shot (btw, he already admitted he had a knife).

Indeed, even to this point, I have not expounded on my feelings as to whether it was a legal shoot or not.

It would be great if the Police in the US didn’t have to be on high alert to knives, guns or even fighting with people they want to talk to or even arrest, wouldn’t it?

One of the funny things I hear is “Why not wrestle, like UK cops sometimes have to?“ The simple reason is, if you don’t win your wrestling match, there’s a good chance you’ll get shot with your own weapon! When you are carrying a gun, “fisticuffs” isn’t an option, especially one on one. If you ever see a US cop wrestling with someone, it is nearly always because A) he got jumped and has had to react, or B) there is at least one other cop present, often with gun drawn in case there is a need to avoid a weapon being taken. Cops are taught to protect your weapon at all times, because the life you’re saving us your own!

Brits appear incapable of understanding life in America, esp life in the trenches of the urban wastelands.

By now, you’ve all seen a (white) 17 yr old walking down the road, hands up, walk-jogging towards a phalanx of police vehicles with an AR-15 over his shoulder...and not being pinned on the ground and arrested...with mouths agape. You know he just killed 2 people, but the police don’t, and seeing people exercising “open carry” Isn’t an every day occurrence in most places, but isn’t illegal, either!

I know...sounds crazy, and I agree with you...but this is the law and ONE PARTY protects such laws because it feeds their base! I AM NOT THEIR BASE!

Crime is a problem. I’m on record here abhorring violent crime and have no problem with harsh penalties for violent crimes, esp those committed while brandishing a deadly weapon, even if not used or even loaded.

The problem, in 99%+ of cases, is not the “fucking pigs.” When it is, I have ZERO ISSUES with them feeling the full weight of the law coming down on them, and it’d be fine by me if George Floyd’s killer is found guilty of second/third degree murder, because I think he is guilty of it. The Blake case is NOT the Floyd case!
Good post. You make a good point about us not getting it re the police being armed taking other less lethal options off the table due to having to protect the weapon. You need to be aware that some people are so desperate to import this issue into our own UK protest movement that they simply have no interest in the differences you describe between the Floyd /Blake cases.
 
Last edited:

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top