Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Machismo]

Irony coming from one that is trying to be the sole authority on deciding what counts as reasonable and what doesn't.



Since when is your word a definition? Irony again.



And you once again ignore the fact that she refused to comply with a repeated order. That means she is no longer innocent as she basically committed a crime. Even then he only took one shot. But you are the sole arbiter of police brutality so forgive me for actually trying to apply the law properly.

So, if he had ordered her to "suck his dick" then she can be rightfully shot for not complying? That is your argument, right?

Or, does that mean it would be an unlawful order?

If it's the latter, then the burden of evidence is on you to show that the actual order was lawful. Therefore, evidence please.

[rrayy]

One shot can very well be all it takes to kill a civilian. All because of some unspecified "threat" that they were supposedly protecting her from. You buy into the narrative that there was some clear and present danger that justified all this - after all, why else would they violate her civil rights? Curfew alone doesn't explain it, she was not outside of her property.

There's zero proof of anything happening that would warrant such behaviour. If there was, it'd be pretty easy to show it on video. Seeing how there's nothing, then the situation probably wasn't anywhere near as urgent as the police would have you believe. Sure, one can claim that there was a whole gang of rioters just around the corner, ready to engage in a massive firefight... but let's be real here.

There is zero proof that everything was quiet all the way down the street where her camera can't see. She can only film what is front of her asshe never looked down to the end of the street or around the corner. That is why I said she should file a complaint. We can let the DA get to the bottom of the whole thing. Get all the fats and maybe turn up video from further down the street. However it is going to be very had to even get charges much less a conviction since it was only one shot and she did refuse to comply to a repeated order. "Reasonable use of force" and her being show in her own video not complying with an order likely eliminated any chances of charges being filed.

[Inuyaki]

So, if he had ordered her to "suck his dick" then she can be rightfully shot for not complying? That is your argument, right?

Or, does that mean it would be an unlawful order?

No, since there was some ominous threat somewhere down the street, that would have been clearly a lawful order because of public safety.

[Machismo]

There is zero proof that everything was quiet all the way down the street where her camera can't see. She can only film what is front of her asshe never looked down to the end of the street or around the corner. That is why I said she should file a complaint. We can let the DA get to the bottom of the whole thing. Get all the fats and maybe turn up video from further down the street. However it is going to be very had to even get charges much less a conviction since it was only one shot and she did refuse to comply to a repeated order. "Reasonable use of force" and her being show in her own video not complying with an order likely eliminated any chances of charges being filed.

Where's your evidence that it was not?

You have already stated it was a reasonable to shoot her, without any evidence to show.

Evidence, please.

[rrayy]

So, if he had ordered her to "suck his dick" then she can be rightfully shot for not complying? That is your argument, right?

Or, does that mean it would be an unlawful order?

If it's the latter, then the burden of evidence is on you to show that the actual order was lawful. Therefore, evidence please.

Not an unlawful order.

Still waiting for the post of mine proving I defended police brutality.

[Machismo]

Not an unlawful order.

Still waiting for the post of mine proving I defended police brutality.

Prove it wasn't unlawful.

Evidence, please.

My evidence was provided on multiple occasions. You don't get to blame me for your willful ignorance.

[Inuyaki]

Not an unlawful order.

Still waiting for the post of mine proving I defended police brutality.

LOL

When I joked about it 3 posts early, I never would have guessed he really would go with "not an unlawful order" for your scenario.
Holy fuck. You are the worst. Literally the worst.

[rrayy]

An unlawful order.
Don't leave the important part out.
We told you that for many hours now.
You can't be so dense that you still haven't read it.

It was lawful. I have told you that for hours. The law is what is written, not what ever you make it up to be to suit your needs.

[Machismo]

It was lawful. I have told you that for hours. The law is what is written, not what ever you make it up to be to suit your needs.

Prove it, evidence please.

Show us that law. show how it was lawful.

[rrayy]

Prove it wasn't unlawful.

Evidence, please.

My evidence was provided on multiple occasions. You don't get to blame me for your willful ignorance.

You haven't brought any evidence. You have not yet brought up one post of mine where I defended police brutality. I already explained why it was lawful. Securing an area in the interest of public safety makes it lawful.

[Machismo]

You haven't brought any evidence. You have not yet brought up one post of mine where I defended police brutality. I already explained why it was lawful. Securing an area in the interest of public safety makes it lawful.

Of course I did, multiple quotes of yours defending police brutality and systemic racism. Literally more than a dozen. You cannot even address the definition of the word, which was also provided for you.

Where's the law? Where's the justification based on that law?

You seem to be unable to back it up... how sad.

[Inuyaki]

You haven't brought any evidence. You have not yet brought up one post of mine where I defended police brutality. I already explained why it was lawful. Securing an area in the interest of public safety makes it lawful.

You are the one that claims that police can order people around. Everyone here disagrees with you and says you are full of shit.
We ask for hours for evidence. And you can not produce any.

But yeah, WE are the once that haven't brought any evidence. You are a sick joke.

[Themius]

Not an unlawful order.

Still waiting for the post of mine proving I defended police brutality.

You have a right to be on your own property... demanding people inside their own homes and shooting them for it, is not legal. The command is one that can be said, it isn't one that must legally be followed. Do you know how things work?

[rrayy]

No, they didn’t. Just because they’re marching down the street doesn’t mean they can tell you to go inside. Let alone shoot at you.

You forgot the part where they were securing the area in the interest of public safety. They weren't simply "marching down the street". Stick to the known facts and stop spinning them.

[Skulltaker]

It was lawful. I have told you that for hours. The law is what is written, not what ever you make it up to be to suit your needs.

Would you mind quoting that law? As a non-US citizen I'm intrigued to hear what buisness of the Police it is what I do on my private property.

- - - Updated - - -

You forgot the part where they were securing the area in the interest of public safety. They weren't simply "marching down the street". Stick to the known facts and stop spinning them.

They were not? Because if you put Preussens Gloria or the Imperial March behind it, it sure as hell looks like a fashists wet dream.

[Endus]

You haven't brought any evidence. You have not yet brought up one post of mine where I defended police brutality. I already explained why it was lawful. Securing an area in the interest of public safety makes it lawful.

The thing is, it isn't Machismo that has to provide evidence to prove an order was unlawful.

It's the officer, or you, who has to provide the evidence that it was lawful.

There is no default state where all orders are presumed lawful, automatically, by virtue of being so ordered. That's nonsense.

Also, by arguing that an unlawful order and the contingent use of excessive force were somehow (in no way you can actually defend) lawful, that is "defending police brutality".

And no, you don't get to say "securing an area in the interest of public safety". You need to prove that there was an extant, local threat to that public safety in that moment and in that specific neighbourhood. Again, you cannot simply make up bullshit and then say "hey, we made a bunch of shit up, so therefore it's justified".

No evidence of any threat to public safety.
No evidence that the area was insecure.
No evidence that the order was lawful.
No evidence that the use of force was reasonable.

Edit: I suppose I should admit pre-emptively that it turns out there was an extant threat to public safety in the area. The police were that threat. Which is sort of the fucking point.

[Inuyaki]

You have a right to be on your own property... demanding people inside their own homes and shooting them for it, is not legal. The command is one that can be said, it isn't one that must legally be followed. Do you know how things work?

Guys, you didn't read what he wrote.
He was answering Machismo's scenario with this.

He did not even write that the action in the video was unlawful.
He said that it wouldn't have been unlawful for the cop to order the woman to suck his dick.
ffs, he is disgusting.

I reported that post btw because it is disgusting. (to be clear, his post, not yours)

[rrayy]

Of course I did, multiple quotes of yours defending police brutality and systemic racism. Literally more than a dozen. You cannot even address the definition of the word, which was also provided for you.

Where's the law? Where's the justification based on that law?

You seem to be unable to back it up... how sad.

No you didn't. You posted links that were articles of other sites. You then declare acts that are not police brutality police brutality so you can claim I am defending it. So I ask you once again, show me one post of mine defending a actual case of police brutality?

[Smitzelplix]

This might have been posted already, but at least one officer was caught doing the same thing that ended up killing George Floyd.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9541226.html

[Endus]

No you didn't. You posted links that were articles of other sites. You then declare acts that are not police brutality police brutality so you can claim I am defending it. So I ask you once again, show me one post of mine defending a actual case of police brutality?

Literally every one of your posts that thinks shooting a woman quietly filming from her front porch was somehow "not police brutality".

That's defending police brutality. Every single post.

Yes, we get that you're pro-police-brutality. You've made that very clear. That doesn't make it not police brutality. You're no better than the people who agreed with Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck until he died.