- 51,168
- Australia
- SpacedustDaddy
Don't know if it's part of police training today, but at least one institution are being proactive about this:
https://trib.al/VxJ9Tf3
https://trib.al/VxJ9Tf3
For those of us in the EU who have no access to this story, could you give us a little more information please?Don't know if it's part of police training today, but at least one institution are being proactive about this:
https://trib.al/VxJ9Tf3
For those of us in the EU who have no access to this story, could you give us a little more information please?
Doesn't matter how successful you are, as a black man in America you are always subject to the possibility of mistreatment at the hands of racist police.
Jeff ZillgittThe sheriff’s office had video evidence that didn’t support the claim yet stuck to a story that wasn’t true. And you wonder why there is distrust.
And even if they aren't racists themselves, they're aware of the stigma right now and don't want to be associated with it.
A full autopsy report on George Floyd, the man who died after being restrained by Minneapolis police last month, reveals that he was positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The 20-page report also indicates that Floyd had fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system at the time of his death, although the drugs are not listed as the cause.
The autopsy report from Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Office concludes the cause of death was "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression."
Thoughts?
Do you mean the mayor? Or is every Democrat voter contributing to the riots?58 days of rioting in portland, democrats democrating
58 days of rioting in portland, democrats democrating
Do you mean the mayor? Or is every Democrat voter contributing to the riots?
I'd prefer less grammar policing, and more of a substantial answer to my second question, please.What do you think the pluralized "democrats" means? The mayor is more than one person?
I'd prefer less grammar policing, and more of a substantial answer to my second question, please.
I'd prefer less grammar policing, and more of a substantial answer to my second question, please.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...iolence-democratic-politics-reach/3248102001/
So no answers to the link I posted in response to his post (no reading comprehension failure there), and more nitpicking, then.Not so much grammar policing as pointing out an obvious reading comprehension failure. That's why I replied to you and not @Chrunch Houston.
So no answers to the link I posted in response to his post (no reading comprehension failure there), and more nitpicking, then.
It addressed the body of the text it was posted in. That's the context. Did you think it was about macrame pot holders or something?Of course not. You posted a link with no context whatsoever.
If you can't be bothered to give at least a little hint why people should read it, I don't see why anyone should be bothered to click on it. I believe this has been covered before in this forum.
Good to know that you had no intention of posting constructively and on the topic of the thread but are just here to nitpick about some ephemeral issue even after I posted context in a subsequent reply. Seems like zero value posting to me.As for answering your second question, given that the question wasn't addressed to me, I fail to see how I am under any obligation to answer it.
It addressed the body of the text it was posted in. That's the context. Did you think it was about macrame pot holders or something?
Good to know that you had no intention of posting constructively and on the topic of the thread but are just here to nitpick about some ephemeral issue even after I posted context in a subsequent reply. Seems like zero value posting to me.
Anyone actually interested in the thread topic is welcome to address what the link and the rest of my post actually talked about as @Joey D has done above.
To be fair, it was a really crappy font. But this is just empty, meaningless conversation. Next, please.Was it too much trouble to post something like that? Or were we supposed to magically read your mind or something?
As for being about macrame or whatever, I hadn't a clue. Could have been anything, really.
Lol, you harped on the font in a post and you're accusing others of nitpicking?
He definitely didn't need to be shot seven times. In front of his wife and kids. They should have just tazed him if they were gonna do anything. But here we go again...
It looks like a mob killing. Walk up to a guy and shoot him in the back seven times at point blank range. Hard to see how that isn't first degree attempted murder.
One shot, maybe two or three (due to reflex) can be seen as an instinctive reaction. Seven clearly shows intent. I know how fast you can pull those triggers. Seven shots is still enough time to think and not fire seven shots. There were also 19 seconds before he got shot where they had every opportunity to de-escalate the situation.It looks like a mob killing. Walk up to a guy and shoot him in the back seven times at point blank range. Hard to see how that isn't first degree attempted murder.
It wouldn't be first degree murder, or at least a prosecutor would have a hell of a hard time proving it. Second-degree murder though? Yup, I could see that being fairly easy to prove and manslaughter would be even easier.
Unpopular opinion: Government employees at all levels should not be allowed to unionize. They already work for the ultimate union, the government, which is the same organization that actually creates the rules that labor unions have to follow.