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

[rrayy]

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.

Yeah they were. That is what they were sent there for to begin with. Only reason for them to be there.

[PosPosPos]

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

"But but but...George Floyd was a statistical anomaly, a rare exception...not all cops do that"

If only each poor person had a dollar everytime that nonsense gets mentioned.

[Machismo]

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.

Uh huh, tell me more:

OF course what you ignore because it doesn't fit your anti-police agenda is that immediately after he went down they rushed to help the man back up and protected him. That means they immediately realized they went too far. But why let that get in the way of your anti-police crusade?

The only one spinning is you. I am not excusing police brutality. You, on the other hand are misrepresenting the situation to further your anti-police crusade. Those cops are in the heat of the moment. He knocked the guy to the ground and after realized what he did, went into assist the man. Hesitating for 2 seconds in no way means he thought he was in the right. But that kills your case about police brutality, so you completely make up what the cop was thinking and ignore them realizing their mistake and calim it was police brutality.


Again, the only one spinning and misrepresenting anything is you. NOBODY is excusing law enforcement for anything. The only one making excuses is you for the looters and riotters destroying property and ruining other innocents lives.

NO I am not because it wasn't police brutality. It was a mistake in the heat of the moment. The fact that he helps the guy up and they protected him proves that he knew he made a mistake. But you anti-police people do not care because any police contact is automatically brutality and do not care about the context or reactions. You will call cops breathing on someone police brutality. You throw around that term on everything and get away from real police brutality. It doesn't fit your crusade to admit it was a mistake in the heat of the moment. Nope, all cops are bad in your mind and any action they take is automatically police brutality.

Do you even know what the heat of the moment mean/ He was trying to push people back and in the process of doing so knocked an elderly man to the ground. When he realized the man was elderly with a cane, he rushed in to help him up on protect him. IT was a poor choice ion teh heat of the moment. But that means you can't continue your anti-police "Police brutality" crusade, so you just declare it police brutality to fit. Only focus on what fits your narrative and ignore the rest that happened afterward which disproves it.

Oh the "I can't be anti someone because I know one of them" response. There are plenty of anti-police people who know a good cop. You have demonstrated that you are anti-police and that any contact by any police officer is automatically police brutality. You not care about the aftermath that proves it's not police brutality. He knew he was in the wrong. If he and the rest continued to move on down the street without care then you can call it police brutality because that shows malice and lack of care. This was not police brutality. This was a mistake of poor judgement in the heat of the moment.

You don't have to thinnk cops are all bad to be anti-police. And now you are spinning the situation by saying the cops beat him up. Knocking someone to the ground is not beating them up. He knocked the guy to the ground as he was trying to back the crowds up and accidently knocked the elderly man to the ground. He realized what he did, proving he knew he made a mistake, helped the guy up and gave assistance. That is not police brutality

I don't know why you don't just admit you are anti-police. Nobody is going to think of you any differently. But trying to claim you are not anti-police because you know a good one only makes that anti-police bias show through even him. That is like a racist claiming they aren't racist because they have black friends. No, the racist is still a racist and you are still anti-police.

But you don't care. You are still going to accuse him of the same thing to fit your anti-police crusade. In your mind Police doing harm is bad. Civilians doing harm? Go wild boys. Ruin as many lives as you want. Hypocrisy at it finest.

You tired to claim that knocking someone to the ground is beating the m up. Also, the cop that knocked him to the ground does go back in to help. He never left the scene But once again you will ignore that because you can't claim police brutality if you don't. THAT is spin. And oh, you know a couple of good cops. So because only 99.99% of cops instead of a 100% of cops are bad means I am spinning? Just admit you are anti-police. It's very obvious and nobody will think of you any differently. No point at all in denying what you truly are.

I am not defending police brutality because it wasn't police brutality, He knocked the guy to the ground, his colleagues immediately went into help, he realized he made a mistake and came in to help as well. One knockdown due to poor judgement does NOT = police brutality. If he continued to attack after the guy was down, then it is police brutality. He actually backed off and stopped. In fact the entire group stopped. But we know that you have already declared that any contact by police is automatically police brutality so it fits your anti-police agenda. Meanwhile other innocents are getting beat up and left bleeding, but that is A OK by you. IF you are not a cop, you can do whatever you want. Hypocrisy.

She was told to get inside repeatedly She disobeyed the order repeatedly. The cop should not have shot at her and it was beyond moronic, but when the cops tell you to get inside, you do as your told. She is an idiot.

It is not an unlawful order. They have a legal right to tell you to get inside when it is a matter of public safety. When the cops tell you to get inside that many times. You get inside. She refused to do what she was told and paid for it. They shouldn't have shot at her, but I have no sympathy for her either as she would have completely avoided it if she had done what she was told.

I did not excuse police brutality. Knocking someone down to the ground does not = police brutality. The only stupid is declaring any contact a police officer makes with a civilian "police brutality". IT is a complete waste of time and gets away from true police brutality. But the anti-police brigade was never rational or ever cared about context.

LOL one shot is not "police brutality". Police brutality is what was done to George Floyd. Police brutality. What happened to Rodney King is police brutality. One rubber bullet is not police brutality. You don't even know what the term means because you continue to miss use it to push your anti-police agenda. Next you will post a video of a police officer breathing on a civilian and you will call that "textbook police brutality" Recklessly throwing around the term "police brutality" has got to stop.

ANd you konw exatly what they are doing how? Did you hear one word they said? What we can see is that she was seemingly asked to get out of the car and she refused. We also see that he was tazed. What we don't know is what was said or anything that happened before she was asked to get out of the car or what he said siad to the cops before he got tazed. Yet you still declare it was a hate crime? That is race hustling at it's worst.

They doesn't need to be a curfew to force you inside. If there is a public safety issue, they can tell you to go inside. They can legally order you to do that and it is a crime to disobey an order.

They fired one round. Also, she was told almost 10 times to get inside. I have no sympathy for anyone for disobeying the request that many times. In these times, you do what the cops tell you to do. She was an idiot. If she had simply done what she was told, she doesn't get shot at. She had 100% ability to avoid it.

Really. YOu obviously didn't read my post where I said the cops should not have shot at her and it was moronically stupid to do so. So how am I defending it again?

She should have done what the police told her to do. She had 100% ability to avoid the entire situation. They told her repeatedly and she ignored it. If they told me to get inside, I do it because I know what can happen if I don't.

I never said they can fire rounds at you to force you inside. In fact, I also said they never should have done it and were stupid to do it. But they have the legal ability to tell you to get inside for public safety reasons. She had 100% ability to prevent what happened. Nope she just had to get her footage. That is why I have no sympathy for her.

Wrong. That is not defending it. That is me knowing it is possible and preventing the possibility of it escalating to that. She was an idiot, plain and simple. But the cops was also an idiot plain and simple. It's not either/or here.

How do you know there isn't a public safety issue? Can you see further down the street at what the police are looking at? No you can't. So you cannot say that it is a quiet neighborhood because for all you know something is happening further down the street out of the range of the camera that is a public safety issue. The entirety of the street is not what is in the video. It extends a lot further than that. As it is, she should have obeyed the order. She doesn't get shot at if she did. THere cop was also an idiot for shooting at her even as she was disobeying the order repeatedly.

I never excused it. I clearly stated the cop should not have done it. But him doining something wrong does not excuse the fact she had 100% ability to avoid what happened entirely by obeying the order. If I were to put on my tinfoil hat, I would almost believe she intentionally disobeyed the order hoping the police do something to her so she can post it on twitter, get famous, and get an easy pay day. But I will stick with what I can prove and that is she was an idiot for not obeying the order.

But I wasn't the one claiming as fact what happened. You were. You claimed as fact that it was a quiet neighborhood and claimed as fact that there was no public safety issue. I am saying we do not know what it was. So, the benefit of the doubt goes to the police here. Even with that said, the cop was an idiot for firing at her and she was an idiot for not going inside when told.

They do get the benefit of the doubt. You provided no evidence of why it was quiet., You simply declared it because nothing was happening in front of her house that means the entire neighborhood was quiet. The neighborhood goes far beyond that. There is zero evidence to say one way or the other what it was. So, the benefit of the doubt goes to law enforcement trying to restore order.

I go by the actual facts we can prove. Not the ones you made up.

They do get the benefit of the doubt. You provided no evidence of why it was quiet., You simply declared it because nothing was happening in front of her house that means the entire neighborhood was quiet. The neighborhood goes far beyond that. There is zero evidence to say one way or the other what it was. So, the benefit of the doubt goes to law enforcement trying to restore order.

I go by the actual facts we can prove. Not the ones you made up.

She doesn't have right to disobey police commands. That is also a crime. Since it can easily fall under "reasonable use of force" and she clearly and repeatedly disobeyed the police command, no prosecutor with a brain will ever prosecute that. No way in hell you get a conviction out of it and it would be a complete waste of time.

It is appropriate in the legal sense because she was told 10 times to go inside and refused, and it was only one shot which falls under reasonable use of force. But, he should have used better discretion and not shot so it is not a cut and dry, completely yes or completely no answer.

She doesn't have right to disobey police commands. That is also a crime. Since it can easily fall under "reasonable use of force" and she clearly and repeatedly disobeyed the police command, no prosecutor with a brain will ever prosecute that. No way in hell you get a conviction out of it and it would be a complete waste of time.

Wrong. She was not simply standing on her property. She was told 10 times go inside and she refused to comply with them. That is actually a crime. Therefore, one shot is nowhere near "more than necessary use of force" and can be actually claimed as a reasonable use of force since she refused to comply with the order. So, it is not police brutality.

Still a crime, and when they are trying to restore order and stop the rioting, one shot is completely reasonable even if it was a stupid thing to do. .

So, there's SOME of the times you defended police brutality.

- - - Updated - - -

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?

You keep ignoring the definitions of words.

[rrayy]

Uh huh, tell me more:

So, there's SOME of the times you defended police brutality. You keep ignoring the definitions of words.

Nope. None of those acts are police brutality. You are claiming it is so you can accuse me of defending police brutality. Show me a post of me defending an actual case of police brutality, not ones you trump up to be that aren't.

[Machismo]

Nope. None of those acts are police brutality. You are claiming it is so you can accuse me of defending police brutality. Show me a post of me defending an actual case of police brutality, not ones you trump up to be that aren't.

Prove it, evidence please.

Prove that those are not police brutality, considering many people have brought evidence showing that it is.

Fucking. Prove. It.

[Dacien]

Just devastated and heartbroken. I encourage everyone to donate. welovelakestreet.com is one that is endorsed by someone I trust, so hopefully it is a good one. There can be people in times like these who may try to do bad things on the backs of people's sorrow and kindness, so I hope it is not a bad charity. I can't know, I can only trust in the Lord. Heart is just absolutely broken. I'm crying for the black community, and all I can offer is money.

[Keosen]

I mean you didn't expect much but holy fuck

[rrayy]

Prove it, evidence please.

They aren't. No court in the land will rule that police brutality.

Stop dodging and produce one post of me defending actual police brutality.

[Machismo]

They aren't. No court in the land will rule that police brutality.

Stop dodging and produce one post of me defending actual police brutality.

the burden of evidence is on you, and since you have provided no evidence to back up your baseless claims, then your claims are dismissed.

I accept your full retraction.

I produced dozens, liar. Now, where is your fucking evidence that it is not police brutality?

[Skulltaker]

Yeah they were. That is what they were sent there for to begin with. Only reason for them to be there.

That's cute and all. Anser my question. What law did the woman in the video viloate?

- - - Updated - - -

They aren't. No court in the land will rule that police brutality.

Because judges and courts in the US are a bad joke.

[Inuyaki]

That's cute and all. Anser my question. What law did the woman in the video viloate?

She was filming police. That's not allowed in a police state, you know?

[rrayy]

That's cute and all. Anser my question. What law did the woman in the video viloate?

Disorderly Conduct for defying a police order. Defying an order is a misdemeanor.

[Machismo]

Disorderly Conduct for defying a police order. Defying an order is a misdemeanor.

Prove it, evidence please.

[rrayy]

Because judges and courts in the US are a bad joke.

No they aren't. They aren't perfect, but they do work.

[Inuyaki]

Prove it, evidence please.

Give it up. He can't, because he is wrong and full of shit.
If he could, he would've hours ago.

[Skulltaker]

Disorderly Conduct for defying a police order. Defying an order is a misdemeanor.

Quote. I want a quote. Not what you consider to be the law. Police orders are only valid if they are backed up by legislation, otherwise a police officer is just another person.

So, quote me what law she was viloating.

- - - Updated - - -

No they aren't. They aren't perfect, but they do work.

No they don't. That's why the entire world makes fun of them.

[Machismo]

Give it up. He can't, because he is wrong and full of shit.
If he could, he would've hours ago.

Yes, we all know he's full of shit and a liar. We all know he's here to defend police brutality and systemic racism.

And every time he speaks, he's going to get called out for his lies.

[Inuyaki]

Yes, we all know he's full of shit and a liar. We all know he's here to defend police brutality and systemic racism.

And every time he speaks, he's going to get called out for his lies.

To be fair, mods should have banned him already for this bs.
No idea why he is allowed to lie and spam and troll here for hours.

[Smitzelplix]

"But but but...George Floyd was a statistical anomaly, a rare exception...not all cops do that"

If only each poor person had a dollar everytime that nonsense gets mentioned.

That's not even the original video I wanted to post either. Here's the one I saw earlier this morning.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreak...k_even_though/

[rrayy]

Quote. I want a quote. Not what you consider to be the law. Police orders are only valid if they are backed up by legislation, otherwise a police officer is just another person.

So, quote me what law she was viloating.

They were deployed there to secure the area by the Governor. That makes it a legal order. And I already told you what law she broke.

No they don't. That's why the entire world makes fun of them.

Yes they do work. What the rest of the world thinks is irrelevant and ironic since their are courts in other countries that are 100o's of times worse.