America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,741 comments
  • 1,793,095 views
Twitter thread about US Border Patrol flying Predator Drones over Minneapolis. To my understanding, they are unarmed. Still a strange site to see, but it is 2020 after all.



—-

“Black people would never get away with arming themselves the way white 2A advocates do.” - common internet rhetoric.

Black owned business taking lessons from ‘Rooftop Koreans’. “They said, run up in here and see what happens. Black owned. On my momma, we gone do that to y’all ass”

https://twitter.com/ezralevant/status/1266131437436231681?s=21


—-

It would be interesting to see a demographic breakdown of who the looters are. I’m particularly curious about the ratio of American citizens vs non American citizens.

“Black Somali brothers!”


—-

Ilhan Omar has been relatively quiet through all of these proceedings, compared to how outspoken she usually is on Twitter when these things go down.

Here’s a twitter thread documenting the rhetoric coming from Omar’s campaign manager, praising violence, looting, and more.



—-

Trump’s tweet calling the looters “THUGS” has been censored by twitter. I agree trumps choice of words were poor, but I find it interesting that twitter would censor that tweet, but they didn’t say a peep when the IRGC threaten to “flatten Dubai” back in January when WW3 was supposedly going to happen. If this is the path twitter wants to take, I hope the extend the same rules to all world governments, and not just Trump.
 
Honest question, why was the officer charged with 3rd degree murder and not second?

According to Minnesota law, third degree murder can be described as "without regard for human life but without intent to cause".

Derek Chauvin had his leg over Floyd's neck for over seven minutes. Four minutes in, he stopped breathing and resisting, suggesting at that point he had died, and Chauvin continued to restrain him. He would not have done that for that long if his intent was merely restrain him, especially being that Floyd was nonviolent and being alleged of committing a nonviolent offense. That's why many suggest that he intentionally killed Floyd.

And for clarification, second degree murder is an intentional homicide that was not premeditated. That seems exactly like what Floyd was doing.

In Minnesota, 3rd degree murder has a max. sentence of 25 years with no minimum sentence. 2nd degree murder, however, could be enough for life without the possibility of parole.
 
GranTurNismo
Honest question, why was the officer charged with 3rd degree murder and not second?

According to Minnesota law, third degree murder can be described as "without regard for human life but without intent to cause".

Derek Chauvin had his leg over Floyd's neck for over seven minutes. Four minutes in, he stopped breathing and resisting, suggesting at that point he had died, and Chauvin continued to restrain him. He would not have done that for that long if his intent was merely restrain him, especially being that Floyd was nonviolent and being alleged of committing a nonviolent offense. That's why many suggest that he intentionally killed Floyd.

And for clarification, second degree murder is an intentional homicide that was not premeditated. That seems exactly like what Floyd was doing.

In Minnesota, 3rd degree murder has a max. sentence of 25 years with no minimum sentence. 2nd degree murder, however, could be enough for life without the possibility of parole.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that Derek Chauvin had 18 complaints lodged with MPD internal affairs. Only 2 of those complaints resulted in disciplinary action, and in both cases, that “action” was a strongly worded letter.

One of the other officers involved, Tou Thao, had 6 complaints against him. One of these complaints was still open, the other 5 were closed with no disciplinary action.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/05/28/us/minneapolis-officer-complaints-george-floyd/index.html
 
Cops have one of the strongest unions. That's what's so messed up. They're untouchable and the ones that know it and have agendas like Chauvin get away with it for so long
 
twitcher
I agree trumps choice of words were poor, but I find it interesting that twitter would censor that tweet, but they didn’t say a peep when the IRGC threaten to “flatten Dubai” back in January when WW3 was supposedly going to happen.
Click to expand...
Still having trouble with calendars--and now subject matter--it seems.

Why are they supposed to have taken action against threatening rhetoric in January before they announced in March that they'd be increasing measures against content intended to deceive, the latter of which they have clearly done? What's more, they have only just begun to "censor" (the content can still be viewed by everyone, including those such as myself who have not signed up for Twitter) Trump over threatening rhetoric, and have declined to do so in the past, such as his button-measuring directed at Kim Jong Un.

Details shmetails.
 
GranTurNismo
Honest question, why was the officer charged with 3rd degree murder and not second?

According to Minnesota law, third degree murder can be described as "without regard for human life but without intent to cause".

Derek Chauvin had his leg over Floyd's neck for over seven minutes. Four minutes in, he stopped breathing and resisting, suggesting at that point he had died, and Chauvin continued to restrain him. He would not have done that for that long if his intent was merely restrain him, especially being that Floyd was nonviolent and being alleged of committing a nonviolent offense. That's why many suggest that he intentionally killed Floyd.

And for clarification, second degree murder is an intentional homicide that was not premeditated. That seems exactly like what Floyd was doing.

In Minnesota, 3rd degree murder has a max. sentence of 25 years with no minimum sentence. 2nd degree murder, however, could be enough for life without the possibility of parole.
Click to expand...

I think it would be pretty tough to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to murder Floyd, unless there is further evidence. It's plausible he was merely trying to restrain him. I'm not saying he was only trying to restrain him, but a good defense attorney could put a lot of doubt in the jurors minds about it, and remember the defense selects the jurors. The evidence clearly supports 3rd degree murder - The DA probably wants a slam dunk case, and 2nd degree is pushing it.
 
GranTurNismo
Honest question, why was the officer charged with 3rd degree murder and not second?

According to Minnesota law, third degree murder can be described as "without regard for human life but without intent to cause".

Derek Chauvin had his leg over Floyd's neck for over seven minutes. Four minutes in, he stopped breathing and resisting, suggesting at that point he had died, and Chauvin continued to restrain him. He would not have done that for that long if his intent was merely restrain him, especially being that Floyd was nonviolent and being alleged of committing a nonviolent offense. That's why many suggest that he intentionally killed Floyd.

And for clarification, second degree murder is an intentional homicide that was not premeditated. That seems exactly like what Floyd was doing.

In Minnesota, 3rd degree murder has a max. sentence of 25 years with no minimum sentence. 2nd degree murder, however, could be enough for life without the possibility of parole.
Click to expand...

If charges are filed, it's typically because the DA thinks they can get a conviction on those charges. Whether Chauvin intended to kill Floyd or not is up for debate. I don't think he had the intention to kill him, just abuse his power and hurt him. Even if he did intend to kill him though, the burden of proof would come down from the city and they'd have to prove the intent. I don't think they could. With third-degree murder, they don't need to prove intent, they just need to prove his actions causes Floyd to die which shouldn't be too hard since an autopsy will confirm the mode of death (presumably it's asphyxiation).

I doubt the officer will get convicted of third-degree murder though. The most he will probably get is manslaughter and I doubt he'll ever serve anytime in jail. Convicting someone in law enforcement is going to be incredibly hard, to begin with, sentencing them is going to be even harder.
 
Joey D
I doubt the officer will get convicted of third-degree murder though. The most he will probably get is manslaughter and I doubt he'll ever serve anytime in jail. Convicting someone in law enforcement is going to be incredibly hard, to begin with, sentencing them is going to be even harder.
Click to expand...
Do we really need another 1992 LA Riots?
 
DesertPenguin
Do we really need another 1992 LA Riots?
Click to expand...
What's this now?

It seems like you're suggesting a punishment that isn't appropriate given circumstances that prosecutors can prove should be passed down to satisfy a mob and prevent additional violence.

I hope this isn't what you're suggesting and a bit more information from you would be appreciated.
 
Saw your edit. Do we think there's even a slight chance they'll get off? If so, and they do, things could get very messy
 
DesertPenguin
Saw your edit. Do we think there's even a slight chance they'll get off? If so, and they do, things could get very messy
Click to expand...
There are too many unknowns. It's still not appropriate to levy a punishment in excess of what is reasonably justified...against anyone. You don't fix miscarriages of justice with equal and opposite miscarriages of justice. Mob violence--even threat of mob violence--in the event of action that doesn't meet the mob's demands is terrorism.
 
TexRex
Still having trouble with calendars--and now subject matter--it seems.

Why are they supposed to have taken action against threatening rhetoric in January before they announced in March that they'd be increasing measures against content intended to deceive, the latter of which they have clearly done? What's more, they have only just begun to "censor" (the content can still be viewed by everyone, including those such as myself who have not signed up for Twitter) Trump over threatening rhetoric, and have declined to do so in the past, such as his button-measuring directed at Kim Jong Un.

Details shmetails.
Click to expand...
Still having trouble not reading things people say in bad faith, and still can’t have a simple conversation without being a dick about it.

I never said twitter was “supposed to have taken action”. I simply said I find it interesting they didn’t say anything about it, or any other world government who threaten violence on twitter prior to this.

I also said “if this is the path twitter wants to take, I hope they extend these rules to all world governments,” implying this is how I hope they behave going forward.

You just can’t help yourself from having an argument with yourself just for the sake of trying to look smart.
 
twitcher
Still having trouble not reading things people say in bad faith, and still can’t have a simple conversation without being a dick about it.

I never said twitter was “supposed to have taken action”. I simply said I find it interesting they didn’t say anything about it, or any other world government who threaten violence on twitter prior to this.

I also said “if this is the path twitter wants to take, I hope they extend these rules to all world governments,” implying this is how I hope they behave going forward.

You just can’t help yourself from having an argument with yourself just for the sake of trying to look smart.
Click to expand...
You alleged hypocrisy, citing action in one instance that wasn't equal to action (specifically a lack thereof) in a completely different instance that didn't even fit the timeline for the action they announced they'd be taking, and in doing so you disregarded an equal lack of action in an instance very similar to the lack of action to which you referred.

I hope Twitter takes the action they have announced they'll be taking, and indeed have taken, in all relevant circumstances, regardless of country or political/social bent. I would like for it to take even more action, such as against threatening rhetoric from any party that would engage in it on their platform. But it's Twitter, so I expect it will continue to be the cesspit that it is and that it will only do what it wants, which is also what I believe it should be entitled to do without threat of government intervention akin to that which China wields against its perceived foes.

[Edit: One wonders if these are "TYT talking points".]

Edit:

Joey D
Looks like they are starting to do with it China: https://www.cnet.com/news/twitter-f...s-post-claiming-coronavirus-originated-in-us/
Click to expand...
And so Trump's "unfair to Trump" narrative begins to crumble. Awesome.
 
Last edited:
TexRex
You alleged hypocrisy, citing action in one instance that wasn't equal to action (specifically a lack thereof) in a completely different instance that didn't even fit the timeline for the action they announced they'd be taking, and in doing so you disregarded an equal lack of action in an instance very similar to the lack of action to which you referred.
Click to expand...
I didn’t allege anything, you interpreted what i said as me alleging something you can argue with.

I hope Twitter takes the action they have announced they'll be taking, and indeed have taken, in all relevant circumstances, regardless of country or political/social bent. I would like for it to take even more action, such as against threatening rhetoric from any party that would engage in it on their platform. But it's Twitter, so I expect it will continue to be the cesspit that it is and that it will only do what it wants, which is also what I believe it should be entitled to do without threat of government intervention akin to that which China wields against its perceived foes.

[Edit: One wonders if these are "TYT talking points".]

Edit:
Click to expand...
And so Trump's "unfair to Trump" narrative begins to crumble. Awesome.
Click to expand...

The rest, I agree with you.

As a bit of a general point, I originally said I found it surprising that twitter didn’t say anything regarding the IRGC threats...never said anything about taking action (although questions raised to twitter when that happened may have been part of the process that led them to start taking action now). That said, what I find interesting is that the IRGC tweets were undeniable direct threats to an entire city of people. Trumps “looting = shooting” tweet, while completely inappropriate (and yes, I’m aware of the history of that line going back to Miami), is open to be interpreted in different ways.

On one hand, it can be interpreted as “if you start looting, the National Guard (or whatever police force or branch of government) will start shooting you.” This is how most interpret it, and given the historical context, it’s a valid interpretation.

On the other hand, it can be interpreted as, “if looting starts, property owners will start shooting looters, as is within their rights.” Given that there have already been people shot by a store owner while trying to loot a pawn shop (I can post the video, but not sure if the site is too keen on having videos of people dying on the sidewalk being posted here), and given that there are multiple videos posted of heavily armed men guarding private businesses (black men, white men, and shades in between), the notion of “looting = shooting” can be interpreted as a statement of fact, not as a threat.

Again, I believe he probably meant the former, not the latter, and it is trump, he never says things eloquently or thinks about the multiple ways his tweets can be interpreted. I just find it interesting that Trumps tweet, interpretable in multiple ways, was the straw that broke the camel’s back so to speak, while the IRGC direct threat was not enough for them to take action.
 
Last edited:
Things seem to have settled down a little bit, one group found a way to be both disruptive and peaceful at the same time.

https://kstp.com/news/peaceful-prot...ridge-minneapolis-george-floyd/5745162/?cat=1

For those unfamiliar with the area, as I’m sure most here are, 35W (and it’s East equivalent) are the main north/south routes through the cities.

Both Minneapolis and St. Paul have also issued curfews, which will hopefully help things.
 
Edit 2: let’s try this again :lol:

Lol I didn’t even know that trump sent out another tweet to clarify what he meant by “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Pretty much used the two interpretations that I pointed out (after the fact, unbeknownst to me :dunce:)









Speaking of Ilhan Omar (earlier in be thread), right on cue.



“We cannot ask for peace” strikes me as a strange choice of words. Is she encouraging the unrest and destruction?
 
Last edited:
I'm still having a hard time figuring out why so many people think looting and burning buildings were the right course of action. Those businesses largely employed black workers and those houses/apartment buildings largely housed black residents. I feel like it's a bit counterproductive to burn your community down because it's only going to hurt the community as a whole. I've also asked the question about black business owners in the area. Thankfully, someone found a news broadcast that shows what it's like:



Here's a guy who invested his entire life savings into his business and now it's ruined. The looters even tried to steal his safe while the news crew was in the restaurant. I can almost guarantee that business owner doesn't care about injustices at this very moment and is probably wondering where he's going to get the money to keep his business afloat.

I know people are saying "well kneeling didn't work", but I really feel like there's probably some other steps between kneeling and burning an innocent bystander's business. It does look like several black business owners are fighting back though. There are several videos of them standing in front of their business, which have signs that say "Black Owned Business" on them, with guns. I can't post the videos due to language, but if you're interested they're several on YouTube and on Reddit.
 
@Joey D, Minnesota residents saying, “nope, not here”



And cleaning up their neighbourhood



I’ve seen a lot of people saying that much of the severe destruction was caused by people not from the Twin Cities. Here’s is the police chief talking about it (edit, disregard the Soros comment in the tweet, I’m just linking this for the video).




I saw this video with people originally claiming this man was an Antifa agitator. Later, I saw the story being spread that he was in fact a St Paul police officer, identified by his ex-wife. The police department have denied that the person in the video is one of their officers.


Regardless, that looks like someone who showed up to a peaceful demonstration with the intent of starting destruction. Back in 2010 when there was riots in Vancouver (because we lost at hockey, not quite the same), it was the same scenario. People showed up in full riot gear, with tools for doing destruction. These individuals started the chaos, and then the drunken and angry crowd took over.
 
Last edited:
DesertPenguin
Neither. She means that there can't be peace until there is justice.
Click to expand...
I get that, but do you see how what she tweeted can be interpreted in different ways?

Also, given the rhetoric of her campaign manager (I linked a tweet thread about her earlier), it’s not unreasonable to interpret her comments as being in favour of the unrest and destruction.

And what’s the precedent now...whenever there is an injustice, peace must be broken?
 
Are you looking for an answer to your questions? It seems like you already have the answers you want, regardless of what I say. Of course it's worded poorly, I wasn't arguing that. I simply answered your question.
 
DesertPenguin
Are you looking for an answer to your questions? It seems like you already have the answers you want, regardless of what I say. Of course it's worded poorly, I wasn't arguing that. I simply answered your question.
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing with you, I’m just having a conversation. You gave an answer, I’m just illustrating how alternative interpretations are not unreasonable. I’m not saying you’re wrong.
 
Northstar
Both Minneapolis and St. Paul have also issued curfews, which will hopefully help things.
Click to expand...

It would probably help if they enforced it. Already a Wells Fargo, a post office and a gas station are ablaze and several other businesses have been looted. :nervous:
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
444 445 446
Replies
13K
Views
617K
Sprite
Sprite
Dylan
2025 NASCAR Discussion Thread
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
Eggstor
Eggstor
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
447 448 449
Replies
13K
Views
740K
skydragon49
skydragon49
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
19K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
780
Dotini
Dotini

Latest Posts

Back