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.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.