George Floyd murder / Derek Chauvin guilty of murder

[FogBlueInSanFran]

 

[Bigga]

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...

 

[Bigga]

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.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

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.

 

[Bigga]

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.

 

[Dax777]

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.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

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!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

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.

 

[Bigga]

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!

You're just showing how dense you are in not knowing how to answer a question. In fact it's boring.

Again.

 

[Silva_Spell]

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