George Floyd murder / Derek Chauvin guilty of murder

[Bigga]

I said what I said (you really ought to learn to argue against what people say)

1. He was attacked by someone with a skateboard
2. He was lunged at by a man with a handgun
3. He had a rifle on him which could be used against him
4. People have fists and feet, it's not on him to hope that he wakes up

If he had aggressed against someone beforehand it would change the nature of the video in question and that's why I gave the caveats I did.

Did I miss a skateboard in that video?

Did I miss someone 'lunging' at him with a handgun (but never shot??) in that video?

This is the video that you said ...

And, unless there are very recent developments that I have missed, the Kenosha incident is still a pretty clear case of self-defense*.

There were "recent developments" and you still maintained it as "self defence". That's your judgement call, yes?

I'm assuming you're sure he will get off from the charges, then?

 

[Silva_Spell]

The above video shows civilian actively arguing against the police aggressively. The civilian gets in vehicle and officer does not know if weapons are in the car. According to your definition he is "resisting arrest". Should the police have shot him for non-compliance?




The above video shows civilian not crumbling to his knees at first attack nor falling at immediate second aggressive attack. This is non-compliance. Should the police have shot him according to your opinion on "resisting arrest"?

All these actions fall within your remit of "resisting arrest", after all.

Have the police failed at their jobs?

Like I said, Blake was not shot for resisting arrest. He was shot for the reasonable assumption that he was getting a weapon to use against the police (or even the women he was repeatedly abusing)

 

[Silva_Spell]

Did I miss a skateboard in that video?

Did I miss someone 'lunging' at him with a handgun (but never shot??) in that video?

This is the video that you said ...



There were "recent developments" and you still maintained it as "self defence". That's your judgement call, yes?

I'm assuming you're sure he will get off from the charges, then?

You must have, on both accounts.
You must have also missed the part where Rittenhouse does not shoot the armed man when he freezes infront of him. He only shoots him when he lunges at him. This restraint under immense pressure further bolsters his case for self defence.

That's what I wrote yesterday, still caveated but not as heavily as before I saw the carpark video. Haven't looked into it since, the last bit of info I saw was the potential of someone else (maybe an antifa/blm guy - he's in some footage earlier) firing the initial shot in the first video at the carpark

Unless something else comes to light, yes I think he will beat the charges. If they have a pre-trial self defence hearing I expect it will be then, I'd be surprised if he goes to trial. I don't know the ins and outs of Wisconsin procedure tho and it has been a national news story so who knows.

 

[Dax777]

The above video shows civilian actively arguing against the police aggressively. The civilian gets in vehicle and officer does not know if weapons are in the car. According to your definition he is "resisting arrest". Should the police have shot him for non-compliance?




The above video shows civilian not crumbling to his knees at first attack nor falling at immediate second aggressive attack. This is non-compliance. Should the police have shot him according to your opinion on "resisting arrest"?

All these actions fall within your remit of "resisting arrest", after all.

Have the police failed at their jobs?

Had the first guy been shot, he'd have had himself to blame.

The cop in the 2nd video should be fired and charged. No o e us for police brutality or a violation of people's rights. The guy in the 2nd video was stunned by the good for nothing cop who drop kicked him.

We all are against that guy. You'd see no one supporting him. But just coz this Dick fucked up and should be sued and probably would be, doesn't mean when others don't. We shouldn't say so.

 

[Dax777]

Did I miss a skateboard in that video?

Did I miss someone 'lunging' at him with a handgun (but never shot??) in that video?

This is the video that you said ...



There were "recent developments" and you still maintained it as "self defence". That's your judgement call, yes?

I'm assuming you're sure he will get off from the charges, then?

Did I miss a skateboard in that video?

Did I miss someone 'lunging' at him with a handgun (but never shot??) in that video?

This is the video that you said ...



There were "recent developments" and you still maintained it as "self defence". That's your judgement call, yes?

I'm assuming you're sure he will get off from the charges, then?

What recent developments have you heard if you don't mind me asking.

 

[BobKowalski]

I take it we are still at the ‘shooting unarmed black people is totally fine but trying to disarm and/or protect yourself against an armed white guy who has just shot someone is very bad’, stage.

Seems to be a full time job arguing black is white (excuse the pun). Not to mention the way you have to keep flipping your logic to try and justify it all. It’s got to fuck with your head. Must be exhausting.

 

[Bigga]

Like I said, Blake was not shot for resisting arrest. He was shot for the reasonable assumption that he was getting a weapon to use against the police (or even the women he was repeatedly abusing)

I'll wait and see evidence of where the 'knife' was, within the confines of the car before I 'understand' the shooting.

And if the report becomes available, I guarantee "resisting arrest" will be cited as part of the reason for shooting.

I would be deeply surprised if it isn't.

 

[Bigga]

You must have, on both accounts.
You must have also missed the part where Rittenhouse does not shoot the armed man when he freezes infront of him. He only shoots him when he lunges at him. This restraint under immense pressure further bolsters his case for self defence.

That's what I wrote yesterday, still caveated but not as heavily as before I saw the carpark video. Haven't looked into it since, the last bit of info I saw was the potential of someone else (maybe an antifa/blm guy - he's in some footage earlier) firing the initial shot in the first video at the carpark

Unless something else comes to light, yes I think he will beat the charges. If they have a pre-trial self defence hearing I expect it will be then, I'd be surprised if he goes to trial. I don't know the ins and outs of Wisconsin procedure tho and it has been a national news story so who knows.

See this answer ^^^

This is something I can't argue with as you've not locked yourself in as you previously.

This is an open ended answer with room to understand something can change the narrative.

I don't have a problem with it.

 

[Bigga]

Had the first guy been shot, he'd have had himself to blame.

The cop in the 2nd video should be fired and charged. No o e us for police brutality or a violation of people's rights. The guy in the 2nd video was stunned by the good for nothing cop who drop kicked him.

We all are against that guy. You'd see no one supporting him. But just coz this Dick fucked up and should be sued and probably would be, doesn't mean when others don't. We shouldn't say so.

So, if a person ended up fighting back, would that be considered "resisting" or not?

 

[Bigga]

What recent developments have you heard if you don't mind me asking.

It's already been noted Rittenhouse had shot someone in the head prior to the first video we had seen.

That would make that "recent events" in comparison to the order the footage came.

Does that explain things for you...?