The 2020 George Floyd/BLM/Police Brutality Protests Discussion Thread

Joey D
It's not that simple. Lane recognized that Chauvin was potentially doing something wrong and spoke up. Past what he did, there's not much else he could do and even doing that he put his career on the line. If Floyd had survived the encounter, the likelihood of Lane being terminated by the department was high and he would've almost certainly been ostracized by fellow officers. He was in a bad position and did what he reasonably could. Chauvin was, at least by the known information, the senior officer there. Going against a superior is difficult under the best of circumstances. It's also worth noting that Lane was the only officer to turn himself in.

Kueng should have also spoken up, but he reportedly didn't. He's shares more of the blame, but even then I'm not sure he's an accessory to murder. Thao is probably even further from being an accessory as he wasn't with the other three officers, he was gathering statements from bystanders and witnesses. I'm not sure he really knew what was going on in full.

This is why evidence and the rule of law is so important. Right now there's a mob mentality that all four officers should be charged with murder and sentenced to a maximum amount of jail time. That's unreasonable and would also be an injustice. Chauvin committed the murder and deserves punishment for it, the other three officers are in more of a gray area that needs further examination.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying they should be charged for murder nor sentenced to max amount of jail time. But they should be charged.
I wonder how the next junior is going to react if for some unlucky circumstances he would find himself in a similar situation once this whole situation settle down.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
The space force hats are hilarious. 2 years ago, that exact same branding would have been the nerdiest thing imaginable. :lol:
Click to expand...
Space Force is a branch of the USAF. Ipso facto, they can be assumed to be evangelical Christians.
 
warp9engage
I'm also going to ask of @TenEightyOne and those who liked his reply implying that I could be interested in defending a radical group, to apologize and rethink their way of thought. If you are going to say something on the level of my personal honor, then you better have a seriously good case behind you or I will not tolerate it.

Last, but not least, paiting someone with dangerous colors after minimal interaction is an eco-chamber, radical mindset. Be careful were you let your mind go to and open some doors in it.
Click to expand...
@TenEightyOne asked you about your motivation and you answered the question. Isn't that fair?
 
ryzno
All I'll say is the back of a police SUV is a lot smaller than you think, it's also a lot smaller than the front seat of a normal SUV, not to mention the cage you're sitting in when you are in handcuffs behind your back giving you even less room.
I'm 6 feet tall BTW, I literally have to sit sideways.
Click to expand...
I'm 6,2 and I know how small it is. We have SUV here too. I wasn't even saying that Floyd fake it. I just described an illusionary situation where Chauvin desperately try to defend himself.
 
polysmut
@TenEightyOne asked you about your motivation and you answered the question. Isn't that fair?
Click to expand...

Where did he do so? I might have missed it?

EDIT:

Wait, do you mean on his second reply to me? Do you think that's the right way to ask someone's intentions?

"I'm still not getting your point. Can you explain more?", would have been enough. No need to start putting labels on the person before they've even explained themselves, especially labels with damning implications like "extremist sympathizer".
 
Last edited:
On cable TV news, in Brooklyn it is reported two police officers shot with their own gun, and one stabbed in the neck, all by one suspect, currently in critical condition.
 
strela
So he was a licensed security guard after all. Thank you. I really thought I was mistaken. Nice star btw.
Click to expand...
Now there's the matter of the individual's unlawful open carrying of a firearm while engaged in an altercation two blocks removed from the storefront he was hired to guard, as Illinois Criminal Statute 720 holds that exemption to said unlawful act applies, in this circumstance, to:

(6) Any person regularly employed in a commercial or industrial operation as a security guard for the protection of persons employed and private property related to such commercial or industrial operation, while actually engaged in the performance of his or her duty or traveling between sites or properties belonging to the employer, and who, as a security guard, is a member of a security force registered with the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation;  provided that such security guard has successfully completed a course of study, approved by and supervised by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, consisting of not less than 40 hours of training that includes the theory of law enforcement, liability for acts, and the handling of weapons.  A person shall be considered eligible for this exemption if he or she has completed the required 20 hours of training for a security officer and 20 hours of required firearm training, and has been issued a firearm control card by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.  Conditions for the renewal of firearm control cards issued under the provisions of this Section shall be the same as for those cards issued under the provisions of the Private Detective, Private Alarm, Private Security, Fingerprint Vendor, and Locksmith Act of 2004.  The firearm control card shall be carried by the security guard at all times when he or she is in possession of a concealable weapon permitted by his or her firearm control card.

https://codes.findlaw.com/il/chapter-720-criminal-offenses/il-st-sect-720-5-24-2.html
Click to expand...
Despite being a security guard, this individual was open carrying unlawfully because he was hired to guard a single storefront and was away from his post, not engaged in the performance of his duty.

As such, the black individuals you presented legally open carrying in Minnesota represent a false equivalence. Open carry in Minnesota is legal. Open carry in Illinois is illegal save for very specific exemptions. If you click the link provided in the quote, you'll see just how specific. It's that specific because ambiguity in law is to the detriment of order.

pokemonfan58
The way how I see these riots happening, it’s like everyone that’s been brainwashed by identity politics or something have gone mad because a officer who was a POC was killed by a white officer even though the reason why the officers who restrained Floyd had nothing to do with race. Racism and discrimination against someone based on their skin color is screwed up and doesn’t deserve to happen to everyone *im looking at you liberals calling every Caucasian person who doesn’t agree with you a white supremacist also* but going on mass riots about it while destroying property and possibly putting people’s lives at risk is absolutely NOT OK!
Click to expand...
tenor.gif
 
TexRex
Despite being a security guard, this individual was open carrying unlawfully because he was hired to guard a single storefront and was away from his post, not engaged in the performance of his duty.
Click to expand...
In case he was called by the police and asked nicely to distance himself because upsetting the protesters in order to avoid unnecessary conflicts.. Would he still be braking the law?
 
strela
In case he was called by the police and asked nicely to distance himself because upsetting the protesters in order to avoid unnecessary conflicts.. Would he still be braking the law?
Click to expand...
What?
 
Joey D
I really hate seeing this. I know some people are saying that "buildings can be replaced" or "that's what insurance is for" but I'm guessing those people have never actually dealt with insurance companies.
Click to expand...

There was another one where the guy did an interview for a news channel. I can't find it now. But he talked to his insurance company and they removed the coverage due to the pandemic.
 
Joey D
I really hate seeing this. I know some people are saying that "buildings can be replaced" or "that's what insurance is for" but I'm guessing those people have never actually dealt with insurance companies.
Click to expand...

Ironic too that these "anti-racism" rioters destroyed a black man's business.
 
Dotini
Thank you. But I will forego any additional reporting if it turns out female officers were involved.
Click to expand...
So Dotini won't talk about this because it involves women and that's what's got him shook? Of all things
 
PeterJB
Ironic too that these "anti-racism" rioters destroyed a black man's business.
Click to expand...
It's as if there are people piggybacking an issue to justify violence when they don't actually care about the root issue.

It's also as if there are people looking to blame peaceful protesters for the actions of criminals.

Neither are particularly surprising.
 
TexRex
What?
Click to expand...
You are on duty..Protesters passing by with police escorting them.. Peaceful protesters start shouting at you.. Policeman come to you and ask you to follow him to a safer place.. Than he ask you to distance yourself in order to avoid unnecessary conflict.. You agree and distance yourself until the peaceful protesters move on.. After they passed you come back to the working place. Are you still braking the law?
 
strela
You are on duty..Protesters passing by with police escorting them.. Peaceful protesters start shouting at you.. Policeman come to you and ask you to follow him to a safer place.. Than he ask you to distance yourself in order to avoid unnecessary conflict.. You agree and distance yourself until the peaceful protesters move on.. After they passed you come back to the working place. Are you still braking the law?
Click to expand...
Is this what actually occurred in this instance? Can you cite a source that indicates as much? If not, this is just distraction and obfuscation.

Speaking of which...

DesertPenguin
So Dotini won't talk about this because it involves women and that's what's got him shook? Of all things
Click to expand...
It's just distraction and obfuscation. Likely also a means to get attention.
 
strela
I am simply asking you a question.
Click to expand...
What does it have to do with the topic at hand?

The individual was away from his post, engaged with others. Those with whom he was engaged had issue with him unlawfully open carrying, and he indeed was unlawfully open carrying despite his status as a security guard because the exemption applies only to security guards actively engaged in the performance of the duties for which they were hired. It has not been indicated and substantiated that this individual was hired to engage in other individuals two blocks from the storefront he was hired to guard.

I posit that the question you've posed is intended to confuse the issue with a hypothetical scenario unrelated to the issue.
 

Latest Posts

Back