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

[TexRex]

Gotta say, though, it's a peculiar line you walk when you respect the national anthem so much that you're compelled to refer to a bunch of teenage girls kneeling during it as "****ing ******s" but you don't respect it enough to observe it silently to convey said respect.

 

[ShiftingGears]

It's actually kind of a genius move. If you blame it on Ambien like Roseanne did, you run the risk of having a major pharmaceutical company sue you. And without those sweet Roseanne royalties, you're pretty much ****ed. But diabetes? People hate diabetes. It's right behind cancer and Parkinson's in terms of public perception. No civil court in the land is going to adjudicate in favor of DIABETES.

Could've blamed it on cancer.

Don't you guys have some brainless stand up to cancer gesturing over there?

 

[UKMikey]

Could've blamed it on cancer.

Brain cancer, maybe.

 

[TexRex]

****IN' A RIGHT!!!

New York City Ends Qualified Immunity for Police Officers

The New York City Council on Thursday voted to end qualified immunity for police officers, becoming the first city in the country to take such a step. Mayor Bill de Blasio has indicated that he will sign the measure.

The legal doctrine of qualified immunity makes it notoriously difficult to sue government officials when they violate your rights, requiring plaintiffs to find a previous court precedent that addresses a case with almost identical facts.

In a statement, the council said the legislation will protect "New Yorkers against unreasonable search and seizures and against excessive force and ban the use of qualified immunity, or substantially equivalent immunities, as a defense."

Per the bill, victims of police misconduct would be able to sue officers under local statutes, as qualified immunity remains in place at the federal level. Colorado and Connecticut last year passed similar pieces of legislation, and several other states are considering joining them, including New Mexico and Florida.

In the current moment, such localized action is arguably the best option for plaintiffs, with a fragmented Congress and the Supreme Court unwilling to fundamentally reconsider the doctrine. Former Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.) introduced a bill to end qualified immunity for all state actors in June 2020: It achieved tripartisan support but never received a vote. (Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D–Mass.), Amash's original co-sponsor, reintroduced the bill earlier this month.) The Justice in Policing Act, recently passed by the U.S. House, also eliminates qualified immunity for law enforcement, though if the filibuster remains intact it is unlikely to pass the Senate.

While the Court has sent a few promising messages on qualified immunity this session, it has repeatedly refused to assess it wholesale. That lack of ownership has drawn critiques from those who point out that it was the Court itself that conjured qualified immunity into existence.

Most recently, the justices declined to hear an appeal from a man who was beaten and arrested by two cops for standing outside of his own house. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit awarded the pair of officers qualified immunity.

The legal doctrine is supposed to protect state actors from vacuous civil suits. Instead, it protects them from meritorious ones. Qualified immunity has shielded two cops who stole $225,000 while executing a search warrant, a cop who shot a 10-year-old, a cop who ruined a man's car during a bogus drug search, a prison guard who hid while an escaped inmate raped a nurse, two cops who sicced a police dog on a surrendered suspect, a cop who caused lasting damage to a man he apprehended by kneeing him in the eye 20 to 30 times, and a cop who shot a 15-year-old, among others.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Really should be ended anywhere. Cops are civilians at the end of the day, just because they enforce the law (or at least supposedly do so), that doesn’t make them above the law.

 

[ToyGTone]

That's good news. Hope everything turns out for the better.

But then again....I mean, at the end of the day, police officers do what the upper people in control told them to do so wouldn't the main issue be the government itself rather than the individuals? I have so many questions that i sound like an idiot.

Enlighten me but why are the people, who supported the 2020s riots and uprising a.k.a BLM, are somehow against the invasion of the white house by the far right?

Like I don't get it, why are you guys fine with murdering everyone within the law enforcements because of their terrible acts but are against doing any harm towards corrupt old politicians who probably caused half of the world's problems and this whole systematic discrimination to begin with? What about the military? What makes riot units throwing some tear gas at protesters a much worser offensive than i dunno...drone strikes and bombing of foreign countries?

What about the whole systematic oppression against black people? This feels like a grey area because it doesn't make sense when Barrack Obama been the president for 8 years and multiple rich & famous celebrities, artists and athletes are African Americans? This goes both ways tbh.

Again, i agree racism and discrimination based on racial or ethnical backgrounds is bad. It's horrible. However at the same time, i think that discrimination and xenophobia goes for both ways. Racism is racism. Anyone can be a racist. Anyone could discriminate even those who are victims of same such thing Ironically enough.

At the end of the day, i think I'm late to the "party" by nearly a year so forgive me. Just wishing you all the best.

 

[TexRex]

Enlighten me but why are the people, who supported the 2020s riots and uprising a.k.a BLM, are somehow against the invasion of the white house by the far right?

Like I don't get it, why are you guys fine with murdering everyone within the law enforcements because of their terrible acts but are against doing any harm towards corrupt old politicians who probably caused half of the world's problems and this whole systematic discrimination to begin with? What about the military? What makes riot units throwing some tear gas at protesters a much worser offensive than i dunno...drone strikes and bombing of foreign countries?

What about the whole systematic oppression against black people? This feels like a grey area because it doesn't make sense when Barrack Obama been the president for 8 years and multiple rich & famous celebrities, artists and athletes are African Americans? This goes both ways tbh.

...

What?

 

[Joey D]

nlighten me but why are the people, who supported the 2020s riots and uprising a.k.a BLM, are somehow against the invasion of the white house by the far right?

A vast majority of the BLM protests were just that, protests. Yes, there were some that turned violent or had violent aspects to them, but overall they weren't riots. And I think you'll find that most level headed people are against both and don't want violent protests no matter what the reason is.

Like I don't get it, why are you guys fine with murdering everyone within the law enforcements because of their terrible acts but are against doing any harm towards corrupt old politicians who probably caused half of the world's problems and this whole systematic discrimination to begin with? What about the military? What makes riot units throwing some tear gas at protesters a much worser offensive than i dunno...drone strikes and bombing of foreign countries?

A vast majority of people don't want law enforcement murdered. They want them held accountable for breaking the law and abusing their power. They want reform so that law enforcement doesn't target minority groups just because they assume they commit more crimes. Most people want cops to uphold the law and make arrests, not be judge, jury, and executioner which is exactly what's happened in many cases. Cops are there to arrest people, then the legal system takes over and the accused has the right to a trial by jury. It's in our Constitution.

Yes, part of it is from the top down, but cops have gotten away with stuff for so long that the standard patrol officer might feel like they can get away with anything.

As for the insurrection, that was an act of trying to overthrow the US government (it was a half-assed one but still). Yes, politicians are terrible people but the US government really isn't that bad. No, it's not perfect by any means, but the foundation of it is pretty sound and the cornerstone of democracy (whether direct or representative) is free and fair elections. BLM protests and the Capitol Insurrection aren't even remotely the same thing, nor have even remotely the same goal. For starters, the insurrection was based solely on a lie whereas the BLM protests were based on video evidence of an officer killing a suspect who was restrained.

And what about the military? That's different than the other two things as well. Tear gassing protestors is a violation of the US Constitution since American citizens have the right to peacefully assemble. Drone strikes, while certainly bad in some cases, isn't anywhere in the Constitution. If Congress approves of the strike, or if the President orders it, then it's kosher in the eyes of the US Government. But really trying to compare the two is like trying to compare an apple to an orange-colored truck, which is to say they aren't even in the same realm of discussion.

What about the whole systematic oppression against black people? This feels like a grey area because it doesn't make sense when Barrack Obama been the president for 8 years and multiple rich & famous celebrities, artists and athletes are African Americans? This goes both ways tbh.

Just because a handful of blacks have been successful doesn't mean there isn't systematic racism. Yes, Obama won the presidency (he's half black), but the other 46 presidents have been white, a majority of Congress has been and is currently white, the Supreme Court has largely been white, local governments are largely white, and so on. But lack of representation in office is only a small part of the bigger issue. Blacks, particularly young, black, men are often targeted for non-crimes that ruin their lives. Blacks are still very much underrepresented in leadership positions, most predominantly black areas have worse education, a worse economic outlook, and a whole host of other problems. There's not a one size fits all solution for it either and right now our best chance at changing this is attempting to educate people and make them aware of what's going on. It's hard though. Here in my home state of Utah, it's something like 90% white and there's less than 3% of the population is black. How do you educate someone that has zero interaction with minorities in any capacity?

And yes, there are several black athletes and many of the best athletes at their position are black. But think about how many professional athletes there are in the world, now consider how many millions of blacks live in just the US. It's not really comparable.

 

[TexRex]

The whole "okay with this but not that" narrative is aggressively ignorant.

 

[Scaff]

That's good news. Hope everything turns out for the better.

But then again....I mean, at the end of the day, police officers do what the upper people in control told them to do so wouldn't the main issue be the government itself rather than the individuals? I have so many questions that i sound like an idiot.

Yes, those in control are in part, a part of the problem. However the 'I was following order' argument simply doesn't hold water. Nor does it change the fact that the police are able to literally get away with murder and abuse of power.

Enlighten me but why are the people, who supported the 2020s riots and uprising a.k.a BLM, are somehow against the invasion of the white house by the far right?

BLM isn't an uprising, its a protest group aimed at holding people responsible for abuses against those who are not white. They don't support riots and were not an attempt to overthrow the US government.

Like I don't get it, why are you guys fine with murdering everyone within the law enforcements

Please quote one of us saying that. Ending extra-legal murder is quite literally what we are calling for, the exact opposite of what you are claiming! BTW nor are BLM pro-extra-legal murder.

because of their terrible acts but are against doing any harm towards corrupt old politicians who probably caused half of the world's problems and this whole systematic discrimination to begin with?

Again, against doing harm to anyone and for fair and equal application of the law.

What about the military? What makes riot units throwing some tear gas at protesters a much worser offensive than i dunno...drone strikes and bombing of foreign countries?

A few things to unpick here, aside from the logical fallacy of whataboutism here (and in much of your post), first you will find that people who support BLM are more likely to be against the military-industrial complex as well, and second it ignores the literal militarization of the police in the UK.

What about the whole systematic oppression against black people? This feels like a grey area because it doesn't make sense when Barrack Obama been the president for 8 years and multiple rich & famous celebrities, artists and athletes are African Americans? This goes both ways tbh.

No it doesn't go both ways, those people are by far and away the exception, they are the few, they are also not proportionally representative of the population by any measure you look at.

Again, i agree racism and discrimination based on racial or ethnical backgrounds is bad. It's horrible. However at the same time, i think that discrimination and xenophobia goes for both ways. Racism is racism. Anyone can be a racist. Anyone could discriminate even those who are victims of same such thing Ironically enough.

When did you last hear of a white celebrity being stopped for driving a fancy car simply for being white?

 

[ToyGTone]

The whole "okay with this but not that" narrative is aggressively ignorant.

I'm just pointing out people's hypocrisy. Claiming to be open minded, democratic, freedom and progressive but yet i see anything from those in the last 2 years unfortunately. Talking about human violation while commiting ones.

Yes, those in control are in part, a part of the problem. However the 'I was following order' argument simply doesn't hold water. Nor does it change the fact that the police are able to literally get away with murder and abuse of power.

I agree with that but wouldn't you think that it's an issue with the government as a whole rather than simply law enforcements?

BLM isn't an uprising, its a protest group aimed at holding people responsible for abuses against those who are not white. They don't support riots and were not an attempt to overthrow the US government.

A vast majority of the BLM protests were just that, protests. Yes, there were some that turned violent or had violent aspects to them, but overall they weren't riots. And I think you'll find that most level headed people are against both and don't want violent protests no matter what the reason is.

I mean all the videos and tweets i seen online of destroyed neighborhoods, extremists groups fighting each other and overall chaos make it look otherwise for me. **** it ain't that different from what happened in Syria or Hong Kong for all i see.

Please quote one of us saying that. Extra-legal murder is quite literally what we are calling for, the exact opposite of what you are claiming! BTW nor are BLM pro-extra-legal murder.

Forgive me but all the general sense of "f the police", "death to pigs"..etc and all the massive riots gave me otherwise.

Again, against doing harm to anyone and for fair and equal application of the law.

I see, i don't think they are any good but yeah.

A few things to unpick here, aside from the logical fallacy of whataboutism here (and in much of your post), first you will find that people who support BLM are more likely to be against the military-industrial complex as well, and second it ignores the literal militarization of the police in the UK.

First of all, Militarised UK Police? I'm honestly surprised about this. Even though i thought this thread mainly concerns about America but i always thought police in the UK are far more relaxed.

But sure, i take your word for it.

No it doesn't go both ways, those people are by far and away the exception, they are the few, they are also not proportionally representative of the population by any measure you look at.

I was wrong then.

When did you last hear of a white celebrity being stopped for driving a fancy car simply for being white?

I meant in a general population wise, anyone could be racist. Implying that only "white people" could discriminate and "black/brown/asian/latino people" could only be victims is ignorant. I'm not denying the government actions of oppressing people of color but i seen hatred within people of color against white people. Yesterday, two black women killed a south asian uber driver. I seen a lot online of "minorities" generalise all white people in a negative way. There was an asian cop who supported the other two white cops in killing Geroge last year. I seen a lot of anti "cis white" comments on social media.

I mean look, I'm "brown" and we been dealing with negative discrimination and stereotypes for probably hundreds of years, amplified by the 9/11 attacks but guess what? Brown people can discriminate against white/black/asians for all i know. It goes both ways.
---

One thing clear, I'm not against this whole thing. I'm just puzzled by some aspects of it. I ain't American and probably know jack **** about politics but I'm conflicted.

 

[Scaff]

I agree with that but wouldn't you think that it's an issue with the government as a whole rather than simply law enforcements?

Law enforcement in teh US operates at both a local and governmental level, targeting both is required and exactly what has been happening.

I mean all the videos and tweets i seen online of destroyed neighborhoods, extremists groups fighting each other and overall chaos make it look otherwise for me. **** it ain't that different from what happened in Syria or Hong Kong for all i see.

Forgive me but all the general sense of "f the police", "death to pigs"..etc and all the massive riots gave me otherwise.

What exactly are your sources for this? as the vast majority of the protests have been just that, protests.

I see, i don't think they are any good but yeah.

Who?

First of all, Militarised UK Police? I'm honestly surprised about this. Even though i thought this thread mainly concerns about America but i always thought police in the UK are far more relaxed.

Typo on my part, that shodl have said US. However the police in the UK go about similar aims in different ways. The UK government is currently trying to get away with sweeping legal changes that would pretty much remove the right to peacful protest, and the police here are not above lying to pain protests in a bad light, we had one such incident in the UK recently. After which the police claimed that numerous officers had been attacked and some had suffered broken bones, they later had to backtrack and admit that actually none had suffered broken bones at all (the press damage had been done however), or when they failed to mention (until force by freedom of information requests) that injuries at a protest were not actually caused by the protestors and included insect bites! And lets not forget the time the UK police attacked a peaceful protest and then worked with the press to blame the protestors, the truth of which took years top come out

The British police have a long history of this, and its not got any cleaner, add in that they have been found many time to have systematically targeted the non-white community, one example would be when they spied on the family of a murder victim, a victim they failed by botching the investigation due to systemic racism within the force itself! Oh and they haven't to this day been able to fully explain why they launched an undercover investigation into the family at all!

But sure, i take your word for it.

Don't.

Don't take anyone's word for anything, question it and look at the facts that can be demonstrated. Some errors (such as mine above) cvan bew due to simply typos, others (as in the examples I have described and sourced above) are deliberate attempts to mislead and sow disinformation.

I was wrong then.

Just take a look at the likelihood of being stopped and searched, or charged, or jailed for non-whites in the US and UK for identical crimes vs whites to get a good idea of the reality. Take not in the difference in sentences as well.

I meant in a general population wise, anyone could be racist. Implying that only "white people" could discriminate and "black/brown/asian/latino people" could only be victims is ignorant.

It's not ignorant, but rather the distiction between what is discrimnation and outright racism (as in the context of historic racism in teh US.

"Any group of people can experience racial prejudice or discrimination. However, racism refers to that prejudice in addition to the socialized power structures at play. So, not everyone can experience the racism that Black people do because the power dynamic that has existed since the Atlantic Slave Trade is just not equivalent to any other racial experience in the States."
https://mndaily.com/233763/opinion/op-reverseracism2/.

It also ignores the privilege that being white brings with it, I've never been 'just stopped' by the police (why non-white wife has, numerous times, all with little to no reason), and it's not just limited to majority white countries. The remnants of European colonialism has made sure of that, it still exists in the white immigrant workforces in the Middle East (and the fact that the term ex-pat gets used to describe what are simply immigrants who are white), and that discrimination among black communities exists over the lightness of skin are all evidence of this. In this area I would recommend the following book (which is fully cited and sourced throughout)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1473661234/?tag=gtplanetuk-20

The author (as well as being a rather good musician) has done live readings of parts of it as well, which are worth a watch.

One thing clear, I'm not against this whole thing. I'm just puzzled by some aspects of it. I ain't American and probably know jack **** about politics but I'm conflicted.

I'm not American, but this isn't just an 'American' thing (as I've outlined above).

 

[ToyGTone]

What exactly are your sources for this? as the vast majority of the protests have been just that, protests.

I mean most of the footages, random articlez and photos i seen online are depicting massive fights between groups and such, robbery, law enforcement attacking protesters. That being said, it seems a large portion of them aren't. Sorry for my own ignorance.

Who?

Politicians, i dunno the same people who failed to deal with the covid 19 and give $600 checks at best.

Typo on my part, i should have said the US. However the police in the UK go about similar aims in different ways. The UK government is currently trying to get away with sweeping legal changes that would pretty much remove the right to peacful protest, and the police here are not above lying to pain protests in a bad light, we had one such incident in the UK recently. After which the police claimed that numerous officers had been attacked and some had suffered broken bones, they later had to backtrack and admit that actually none had suffered broken bones at all (the press damage had been done however), or when they failed to mention (until force by freedom of information requests) that injuries at a protest were not actually caused by the protestors and included insect bites! And lets not forget the time the UK police attacked a peaceful protest and then worked with the press to blame the protestors, the truth of which took years top come out

The British police have a long history of this, and its not got any cleaner, add in that they have been found many time to have systematically targeted the non-white community, one example would be when they spied on the family of a murder victim, a victim they failed by botching the investigation due to systemic racism within the force itself! Oh and they haven't to this day been able to fully explain why they launched an undercover investigation into the family at all!

Huh, i assumed they are way better than this.

Don't.

Don't take anyone's word for anything, question it and look at the facts that can be demonstrated. Some errors (such as mine above) can be due to simply typos, others (as in the examples I have described and sourced above) are deliberate attempts to mislead and show disinformation.

I would rather understand the whole situation beforehand and since I'm been proven wrong multiple times here by my ignorance, i rather stay quiet. Not that my opinions matter or anything, especially on the internet.

Just take a look at the likelihood of being stopped and searched, or charged, or jailed for non-whites in the US and UK for identical crimes vs whites to get a good idea of the reality. Take not in the difference in sentences as well.

*Sigh*

Understood.

It's not ignorant, but rather the distiction between what is discrimnation and outright racism (as in the context of historic racism in teh US.

"Any group of people can experience racial prejudice or discrimination. However, racism refers to that prejudice in addition to the socialized power structures at play. So, not everyone can experience the racism that Black people do because the power dynamic that has existed since the Atlantic Slave Trade is just not equivalent to any other racial experience in the States."
https://mndaily.com/233763/opinion/op-reverseracism2/.

It also ignores the privilege that being white brings with it, I've never been 'just stopped' by the police (why non-white wife has, numerous times, all with little to no reason), and it's not just limited to majority white countries. The remnants of European colonialism has made sure of that, it still exists in the white immigrant workforces in the Middle East (and the fact that the term ex-pat gets used to describe what are simply immigrants who are white), and that discrimination among black communities exists over the lightness of skin are all evidence of this. In this area I would recommend the following book (which is fully cited and sourced throughout)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1473661234/?tag=gtplanetuk-20

The author (as well as being a rather good musician) has done live readings of parts of it as well, which are worth a watch.

I can't comment on most stuff but as someone in Bahrain (and this applies everywhere else such as Oman, Emirate...etc), i would say the "white privilege" applies more to Westerners in General. Of course you aren't wrong at all but generally, someone with European, Australian, NZ or North American passports are usually going to have it better than the locals or "immigrants" from non western countries. Heck this goes along with other issues like nepotism and corruption but that's going off topic.

-----
Anyways, it's nice that you explained to me in a civil way shall i say. I want to apologize for what i have said earlier.

 

[unit-one]

Police in USA are cool. I'll support them. I've seen enough vids of them being nice to people just to hear hate coming back at them.
Police are those guys who will run towards the gun shots, and now they are those who get attacked for liquidating a dangerous criminal.
I don't like what BLM and Antifa does. Defunding the police will make them less trained and have worse equipment. Removing the bodycams will make it easy to accuse police of excessive force. A lot of riots and protests are held in defense of so called innocent life, when in reality he could have pulled a gun on the officers. There are clearly too many bad guys in USA.
I'm not denying that the police is not perfect. I've seen them make mistakes and those mistakes can cost the lives of officers themselves or innocent people.
I say stop defending criminals and stop demonizing the police.

As for Floyd... he would have died anyways without the police help. He had foam around his mouth and was screaming of breathing problems way before being pinned down. I don't have any sympathy towards him. A criminal buried in a golden casket and cities got burned... disgusting.

EDIT: added some statistics...

I couldn't find recent info to compare, so I looked at 2019 database and earlier. Looks like the crime rate is declining in the past 10+ years. Every year there was 10 000 000- 13 000 000 offences. And looks like the police is killing around 1000 people every year, so... that's around 0.1% which means that 99.9% of police encounters are "peaceful". So yeah, that also paints the whole picture but the details show that some areas have more crime and shootings. Obviously.

In 2019 there was 10 085 210 offences. And one thing caught my eye is the insane amount of robbery and murder cases associated with black race considering that they are only 13% of US population. That's the only two points that exceed white race offence statistics. That explains why the black people are most likely to be killed by police? iunno, just reading the statistics and what's written on the websites. shrug

Robbery:
White - 33 290
Black - 39 290

Murder:
White - 5 070
Black - 5 660

links:
1) mapping police violence
2) USA Today
3) U.S. Department of Justice
4) The Washington post

 

[UKMikey]

Police are those guys who will run towards the gun shots, and now they are those who get attacked for liquidating a dangerous criminal.

Since when did doing time for aggravated assault warrant a mandatory death sentence? Whose lives were being protected by kneeling on his neck?

 

[merseyxshore]

Police in USA are cool. I'll support them. I've seen enough vids of them being nice to people just to hear hate coming back at them.
Police are those guys who will run towards the gun shots, and now they are those who get attacked for liquidating a dangerous criminal.
I don't like what BLM and Antifa does. Defunding the police will make them less trained and have worse equipment. Removing the bodycams will make it easy to accuse police of excessive force. A lot of riots and protests are held in defense of so called innocent life, when in reality he could have pulled a gun on the officers. There are clearly too many bad guys in USA.
I'm not denying that the police is perfect. I've seen them make mistakes and those mistakes can cost the lives of officers themselves or innocent people.
I say stop defending criminals and stop demonizing the police.

As for Floyd... he would have died anyways without the police help. He had foam around his mouth and was screaming of breathing problems way before being pinned down. I don't have any sympathy towards him. A criminal buried in a golden casket and cities got burned... disgusting.

Do you polish the boots before you lick them, or just raw-dog it?

 

[HenrySwanson]

As for Floyd... he would have died anyways without the police help. He had foam around his mouth and was screaming of breathing problems way before being pinned down.

I don't think the autopsy said this....

 

[McLaren]

Defunding the police will make them less trained and have worse equipment.

Propaganda. The idea is to channel more resources into social welfare services for specific situations & allow police to remain focused on situations that need them more.

Worse equipment? Some of these forces have multiple armored personnel carriers. I won't shed a tear if they can't buy another or get one donated by the US Military so they can validate their giant budget by needing a new one.

Removing the bodycams will make it easy to accuse police of excessive force.

That's... ironic. Considering the fact most activists are completely in favor of bodycams whilst many situations where a bodycam would explain everything are conveniently turned off by the police themselves.

A lot of riots and protests are held in defense of so called innocent life, when in reality he could have pulled a gun on the officers.

That's a dangerous line of thinking.

"Sorry ya'll, we shot & killed him on the spot because he could've pulled a gun. Due process, schmu-process."

As for Floyd... he would have died anyways without the police help. He had foam around his mouth and was screaming of breathing problems way before being pinned down.

The fact you openly acknowledge police helped in causing his death rather than addressing the fact he couldn't breath says it all.

Disgusting.

 

[Scaff]

I mean most of the footages, random articlez and photos i seen online are depicting massive fights between groups and such, robbery, law enforcement attacking protesters. That being said, it seems a large portion of them aren't. Sorry for my own ignorance.

Never say sorry for learning.

Politicians, i dunno the same people who failed to deal with the covid 19 and give $600 checks at best.

The danger is that by lumping them all in together you forget that just as many are actually trying to change that.

Huh, i assumed they are way better than this.

In comparison to the US police they are, but that doesn't mean they don't have a long way to go as well.

I would rather understand the whole situation beforehand and since I'm been proven wrong multiple times here by my ignorance, i rather stay quiet. Not that my opinions matter or anything, especially on the internet.

Again no need to, this is after all a place for discussion.

I can't comment on most stuff but as someone in Bahrain (and this applies everywhere else such as Oman, Emirate...etc), i would say the "white privilege" applies more to Westerners in General. Of course you aren't wrong at all but generally, someone with European, Australian, NZ or North American passports are usually going to have it better than the locals or "immigrants" from non western countries. Heck this goes along with other issues like nepotism and corruption but that's going off topic.

I've worked around the Gulf myself, and been offered jobs that I know locals would be far better suited to, you are right that it applies to 'westerners' in general, but I'm sure you woudl agree tha they are still almost exclusvely white westerners.

-----
Anyways, it's nice that you explained to me in a civil way shall i say. I want to apologize for what i have said earlier.

No problem at all.

Police in USA are cool. I'll support them. I've seen enough vids of them being nice to people just to hear hate coming back at them.
Police are those guys who will run towards the gun shots, and now they are those who get attacked for liquidating a dangerous criminal.

What dangerous criminal?

I don't like what BLM and Antifa does.

Oppose fascism and demand equal rights? You don't like those concepts?

Defunding the police will make them less trained and have worse equipment.

Nope, doesn't work that way.

Removing the bodycams will make it easy to accuse police of excessive force.

The police and their supporters are the ones wanting to get rid of them or 'forgetting' to switch them on.

A lot of riots and protests are held in defense of so called innocent life, when in reality he could have pulled a gun on the officers.

So you need to kill people just in case they might have a gun?

There are clearly too many bad guys in USA.

So the solution is to simply kill them all without trial?

I'm not denying that the police is perfect. I've seen them make mistakes and those mistakes can cost the lives of officers themselves or innocent people.

And yet here you are justifying extra-judicial murder by the police.

I say stop defending criminals and stop demonizing the police.

And that's teh problem right their, suspected criminals have right, actual criminals have rights, people with criminal records have rights, and the police do not get to be judge, jury and executioner.

As for Floyd... he would have died anyways without the police help. He had foam around his mouth and was screaming of breathing problems way before being pinned down. I don't have any sympathy towards him. A criminal buried in a golden casket and cities got burned... disgusting.

Now the evidence (that is publically available) directly contradicts this claim, and any past criminal record is also irrelevant, he's served his sentence for those crimes, his past actions do not justify his murder.

 

[unit-one]

Since when did doing time for aggravated assault warrant a mandatory death sentence? Whose lives were being protected by kneeling on his neck?

I didn't say that. I was talking about a gunman. And if that gunman pulls a gun at police officer than the police has the right to protect their life. If they think that the gunman poses thread to other people then they will open fire.
As for aggravated assault. It's a serious crime that can traumatize the victim till the end of their lives or shorten that life.
I don't think it's a mandatory death sentence.

Do you polish the boots before you lick them, or just raw-dog it?

Oh, looky here, we got a rebel.

I don't think the autopsy said this....

Autopsy said: "no physical findings" to "support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation" but also "combined effects of Mr Floyd's being restrained by police, underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system".
Then people got mad and the doctor added that "If he were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD. Deaths have been certified with levels of 3. That is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances..."

Independent autopsy hired by the family off course found that the death was caused by "asphyxiation from sustained pressure." and that "there is no other health issue that could cause or contribute to the death." Yeah, heathy as a bull.

Propaganda. The idea is to channel more resources into social welfare services for specific situations & allow police to remain focused on situations that need them more.

Like situations where people get attacked, robbed and shot. Traffic violations. Those situations where the suspect resists, makes things worse and gets arrested or starts to fight or pulls a gun and gets shot. Are you going to send a social worker to those kinds of situations? No.

Worse equipment? Some of these forces have multiple armored personnel carriers. I won't shed a tear if they can't buy another or get one donated by the US Military so they can validate their giant budget by needing a new one.

Yeah, SOME of the forces. Police clearly doesn't have enough less-lethal systems that will effectively work. APC's are used when the police is fighting against heavily armed and armored criminals. They will not do traffic stops with them. Although in recent ambush attacks on officers it would be good if they could afford some armor for their patrol cruisers.

That's... ironic. Considering the fact most activists are completely in favor of bodycams whilst many situations where a bodycam would explain everything are conveniently turned off by the police themselves.

Ironic is when another protest starts and when the bodycam footage gets released it shows that the guy was a total scumbag. Police needs better bodycams.

That's a dangerous line of thinking.

"Sorry ya'll, we shot & killed him on the spot because he could've pulled a gun. Due process, schmu-process."

I was saying about the protests that defended an obvious gunman.
But if a police officer says "Don't reach." then don't reach to your pockets or hidden places in cars. Too many officers get shot like that. It's a very dangerous job.

The fact you openly acknowledge police helped in causing his death rather than addressing the fact he couldn't breath says it all.

Disgusting.

Too many people used and now use even more the "I can't breathe" phrase to stop the police from detaining them and so that they could catch their breath and fight back. Should the officer believe him after he payed with fake money? No.

What dangerous criminal?

Any dangerous criminal. The one that pulls a gun at you.

Oppose fascism and demand equal rights? You don't like those concepts?

Opposing fascism by occupying a street and rioting and demanding equal rights by promoting one race? Being anti-police even when black people work there? So black police lives don't matter, eh? Escalating race segregation and anti-police messages? Yeah, I don't like that.

Nope, doesn't work that way.

Oh, so if you will have less money then you will have better training and equipment then. Okay.

The police and their supporters are the ones wanting to get rid of them or 'forgetting' to switch them on.

I want better bodycams.

So you need to kill people just in case they might have a gun?

If the suspect makes a move that looks like he's gonna pull the gun then yes, shoot him.
If the cop says "Don't reach" then don't reach.

So the solution is to simply kill them all without trial?

Where did I say that? Don't put words in to my mouth.

And yet here you are justifying extra-judicial murder by the police.

Where the hell did I do that?

And that's teh problem right their, suspected criminals have right, actual criminals have rights, people with criminal records have rights, and the police do not get to be judge, jury and executioner.

And you know what? Police officers also have rights! Why didn't you include them? Oh, because they are the bad guys in your eyes.
It's their ungrateful job to protect people that like and hate them. And if someone tried to kill them, then they have the right to defend themselves.

Now the evidence (that is publically available) directly contradicts this claim, and any past criminal record is also irrelevant, he's served his sentence for those crimes, his past actions do not justify his murder.

I'm not justifying his murder. It was the police mistake.

 

[TexRex]

Propaganda. The idea is to channel more resources into social welfare services for specific situations & allow police to remain focused on situations that need them more.

Like situations where people get attacked, robbed and shot. Traffic violations. Those situations where the suspect resists, makes things worse and gets arrested or starts to fight or pulls a gun and gets shot. Are you going to send a social worker to those kinds of situations? No.

Where did I say that? Don't put words in to my mouth.

The...very...same...post.

 

[unit-one]

The...very...same...post.

So you are saying that...

*guy pulls a gun at cop*
Cop:- "Ah, sorry, mister. Have a nice day."

Again, where did I say to kill all suspects without trial?

 

[Scaff]

Any dangerous criminal. The one that pulls a gun at you.

No, you said 'a dangerous criminal', so who are you referring to?

Opposing fascism by occupying a street and rioting and demanding equal rights by promoting one race? Being anti-police even when black people work there? So black police lives don't matter, eh? Escalating race segregation and anti-police messages? Yeah, I don't like that.

Good job that neither of those organizations is actually about any of that stuff then.

Oh, so if you will have less money then you will have better training and equipment then. Okay.

No, you spend the money correctly across a range of solutions, and approach policing from the lens of de-escalation, a method that have been proved repeatedly to work.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-for-measures-beyond-de-escalation-training1/

I want better bodycams.

Yet you claimed that protestors wanted to take them away from the police?

If the suspect makes a move that looks like he's gonna pull the gun then yes, shoot him.
If the cop says "Don't reach" then don't reach.

And all those people who did exactly what the police asked them to do and still got shot? what about them?

Where did I say that? Don't put words in to my mouth.

It's a question, how about you answer it rather than avoid it.

Where the hell did I do that?

Your post comes a across as claiming that George Floyds' murder was justified.

And you know what? Police officers also have right! Why didn't you include them? Oh, because they are the bad guys in your eyes.
It's their ungrateful job to protect people that like and hate them. And if someone tried to kill them, then they have the right to defend themselves.

They already have an unfair weight of protection behind them , qualified immunity is just one such example.

"Police brutality[edit]
A significant amount of criticism contends that qualified immunity allows police brutality to go unpunished.[6] Legal researchers Amir H. Ali and Emily Clark, for instance, have argued that "qualified immunity permits law enforcement and other government officials to violate people's constitutional rights with virtual impunity".[43] Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has noted a "disturbing trend" of siding with police officers using excessive force with qualified immunity,[44] describing it as "sanctioning a 'shoot first, think later' approach to policing".[43] She stated:

We have not hesitated to summarily reverse courts for wrongly denying officers the protection of qualified immunity in cases involving the use of force...But we rarely intervene where courts wrongly afford officers the benefit of qualified immunity in these same cases.[45]

A 2020 Reuters report concurred with Sotomayor, concluding that "the Supreme Court has built qualified immunity into an often insurmountable police defense by intervening in cases mostly to favor the police". The report reviewed over 200 cases involving excess force by police since 2007, and found since the 2009 Pearson change from mandatory sequencing to discretionary sequencing, plaintiffs have had a more difficult time moving their case past the qualified immunity stage.[6]"

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-police-immunity-scotus/

I'm not justifying his murder. It was the police mistake.

A mistake?

A mistake is forgetting to cook dinner on time, kneeling on someone's a neck for 9 and a half minutes and refusing to let them have medical attention is not a mistake, its murder.

 

[TexRex]

So you are saying that...

*guy pulls a gun at cop*
Cop:- "Ah, sorry, mister. Have a nice day."

Again, where did I say to kill all suspects without trial?

I'm saying you quoted what someone said and responded to it as something they didn't say, and then complained about another individual allegedly doing the same thing to you...in the very same post.

Unsurprisingly, you've done it again to me. Bad faith is bad faith.

 

[McLaren]

Like situations where people get attacked, robbed and shot. Traffic violations. Those situations where the suspect resists, makes things worse and gets arrested or starts to fight or pulls a gun and gets shot. Are you going to send a social worker to those kinds of situations? No.

Wow, it's almost as if I specifically said who responds to what situation.

allow police to remain focused on situations that need them more.

Yeah, SOME of the forces. Police clearly doesn't have enough less-lethal systems that will effectively work. APC's are used when the police is fighting against heavily armed and armored criminals. They will not do traffic stops with them. Although in recent ambush attacks on officers it would be good if they could afford some armor for their patrol cruisers.

Lol, this is conjuring up a conversation I'm not debating b/c I never made any motion they use APCs to do traffic stops. The issue is some department's decision to have multiple amounts of equipment that start to rival them being less of a police force and more of a small army. This further reinforced by the point the military hands down military equipment to the state National Guard, reserve units, and then the police so they can purchase new equipment that isn't any significantly different and will just get passed down as well.

Ironic is when another protest starts and when the bodycam footage gets released it shows that the guy was a total scumbag. Police needs better bodycams.

Current police budgets need to stay where they are so they can buy better bodycams that will just get conveniently turned off as well. No better argument to defund the police than to buy more expensive equipment that won't be used properly.

I was saying about the protests that defended an obvious gunman.

Insinuating the perp could've had a gun is not the same as obviously having a gun.

Too many people used and now use even more the "I can't breathe" phrase to stop the police from detaining them and so that they could catch their breath and fight back.

People tell police they can't breathe now so they can fight back? This is clearly, the most made up argument I've ever seen.

This of course, another lie from you regarding Floyd. He was handcuffed long before he started saying, "I can't breathe".

Should the officer believe him after he payed with fake money? No.

Imagine someone paying with fake money is justification for police to show completely zero compassion to that person asking for help after he's already detained.

Hilariously disgusting.

Edit*.

Being anti-police even when black people work there? So black police lives don't matter, eh?

Bruh, black police lives don't even matter to the people who do tout that ********.

The racist slurs hurled at Harry Dunn, a Capitol Police officer, during the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol were cited as evidence this month in the Senate’s impeachment trial of former President Donald J. Trump. Until this week, Officer Dunn had remained anonymous.

Now, Officer Dunn, 37, who is Black and is a 13-year veteran of the force, and who grew up in nearby Prince George’s County, Md., is ready to speak publicly about the violence and racism he experienced at the hands of a pro-Trump mob during that grim day in American history.

Standing 6-foot-7 with a muscular frame, Officer Dunn is an imposing figure, but he says the bigotry and trauma he experienced that day were enough to intimidate anyone. Now that he is talking about his experience, he says other Black officers have told him that they, too, experienced racist slurs from the mob.

“So many people, for whatever reason, aren’t talking,” Officer Dunn said in an interview with The New York Times. “I just want to give a voice for us.”

Now, there was a moment when racist slurs were used against you.

So I run up the stairwell. There’s people freaking everywhere. They saw I came from an area that wasn’t occupied by terrorists. So they tried to go down the steps. I said, “No, you’re not going down there.” And I’m exhausted. They’re saying, “Trump is our rightful president. Nobody voted for Joe Biden.” I needed to catch my breath. So I said, “I voted for Joe Biden. What? My vote doesn’t matter?” A woman responded, “This [slur] voted for Joe Biden!” Everybody that was there started joining in. “Hey, [slur]!” It was over 20 people who said it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/25/us/politics/capitol-riot-harry-dunn.html

 

[Joey D]

I'm just pointing out people's hypocrisy. Claiming to be open minded, democratic, freedom and progressive but yet i see anything from those in the last 2 years unfortunately. Talking about human violation while commiting ones.

How much exposure do you really get though? Also, how can you be sure that person X is not against thing Y but supports thing Z? You can't. You're painting people with a broad brush and it'd be like me saying everyone in the Middle East is a terrorist.

I mean all the videos and tweets i seen online of destroyed neighborhoods, extremists groups fighting each other and overall chaos make it look otherwise for me. **** it ain't that different from what happened in Syria or Hong Kong for all i see.

There were hundreds, if not thousands, of protests last year and only a handful of them turned violent. Here in Salt Lake we can one violent riot despite having several protests a week for all of summer and autumn.

Police in USA are cool. I'll support them. I've seen enough vids of them being nice to people just to hear hate coming back at them.

How much exposure do you have of police in the US? Seeing some videos on the internet really doesn't show the big picture. Look at data.

And yes, most cops are decent people who are just trying to do their job. However, there are enough horrible cops that it is a problem and what's worse is that the cops who are decent people mostly remain complicit in all of it, turning a blind eye when a bad cops does something wrong. In my job, I'm required by law to report a co-worker doing something illegal. If I don't report them, I'm subject to termination among other things for remaining complicit. Why cops don't have the same thing (I'm a government employee too) is beyond me.

I don't like what BLM and Antifa does

Do you even know what BLM does? Antifa really isn't a thing and is more of just a group of people looking to stir up trouble, but BLM is a legitimate organization looking to reform the justice system.

Defunding the police will make them less trained and have worse equipment.

Police should be defunded since they're overfunded to begin within many communities. Here in Salt Lake, we have an entire parking lot full of brand new, unused patrol cars that the police refuse to use because they aren't SUVs. That's a perfect example of being overfunded and a horrible use of tax dollars.

I say stop defending criminals and stop demonizing the police.

Most people aren't defending criminals, they're defending the right to due process, something guaranteed to American citizens in the Constitution. Cops can't, nor should, be the judge, jury, and executioner. They should make the arrest and then let the courts take it from there since that's how it works in America. Every citizen has rights and even the worst of society should be guaranteed those rights.

As for Floyd... he would have died anyways without the police help. He had foam around his mouth and was screaming of breathing problems way before being pinned down. I don't have any sympathy towards him. A criminal buried in a golden casket and cities got burned... disgusting.

Jesus H. Christ. Tell you what, have someone kneel on your neck for nearly 9 minutes while you're restrained and see what happens. If you come back and post that you're alive and well, I will proceed to eat my entire hat collection.

I didn't say that. I was talking about a gunman. And if that gunman pulls a gun at police officer than the police has the right to protect their life. If they think that the gunman poses thread to other people then they will open fire.

So what about the suspects who don't have a gun then? Why do they get shot? I can only really comment on national stories along with local ones, but we had a 13-year-old autistic kid here in Salt Lake get shot multiple times in the back while walking away from police during a mental breakdown. Yup, real threat there. Or in another example, the police had a suspect at gunpoint, on the ground, who wasn't moving, and then ordered a K9 unit to attack him.

Ironic is when another protest starts and when the bodycam footage gets released it shows that the guy was a total scumbag. Police needs better bodycams.

Suspects are usually scumbags, most criminals are. But even scumbags have rights.

Also, police body cams are good. They provide clean footage and audio. The problem is none of that works when the officer doesn't turn them on.

Should the officer believe him after he payed with fake money? No.

Floyd was on the ground and restrained, all the officer had to do was stand up or move his knee to the lower back. I don't know if you've ever been handcuffed, but it's incredibly difficult to stand up if you are.

Also, we have no idea if the $20 was actually fake or not. Floyd was accused of using counterfeit money and that's it. There's millions in counterfeit currency out there and the likelihood of someone unknowingly using it is high enough where it shouldn't really be shocking to anyone. Even then, using counterfeit currency doesn't carry the death penalty.

 

[Scaff]

Autopsy said: "no physical findings" to "support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation" but also "combined effects of Mr Floyd's being restrained by police, underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system".
Then people got mad and the doctor added that "If he were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD. Deaths have been certified with levels of 3. That is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances..."

Independent autopsy hired by the family off course found that the death was caused by "asphyxiation from sustained pressure." and that "there is no other health issue that could cause or contribute to the death." Yeah, heathy as a bull.

That's quote-mining of a massive degree.

Why did you miss out this:

"An autopsy carried out by Dr. Andrew Baker, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner, in June last year concluded Floyd's death was a homicide."

or

"According to the report, Floyd, who had been apprehended on suspicion of passing a counterfeit $20 bill, died of "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.""

or that the parts you quote were from the incomplete preliminary report? The final report saying that:

"Baker confirmed he had found traces of fentanyl—an opioid used as recreational drug—in Floyd's system, but stated that could not be identified as the cause of death."

and

"However, Baker also stated there was no proof the fentanyl had killed Floyd. "I am not saying this killed him," he added."

It's almost as if you omitted them in a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Ironic is when another protest starts and when the bodycam footage gets released it shows that the guy was a total scumbag. Police needs better bodycams.

Oddly it tends to happen the other way around, that however is irrelevant. They should be mandatory, of the highest quality and its should be a offence for an officer to fail to use or disable one.

Too many people used and now use even more the "I can't breathe" phrase to stop the police from detaining them and so that they could catch their breath and fight back.

Very big citation needed here, not to mention that it's not the case in this example and wouldn't justify causing death under any circumstances.

Tell me what justification did they have for refusing to allow paramedics to examine him after he fitted and then was motionless?

Should the officer believe him after he payed with fake money? No.

You just presumed guilt here (twice actually), you do know that a high chance exists that at some point in your life you will use a counterfeit note without even realizing it? Yet you just assumed that the note was fake and that the victim knew the note was fake and passed it deliberately, and then used that assumption to justify his death!

 

[merseyxshore]

Unit-one, I put this scenario to you:

A family member of yours is pulled over by the police for speeding near a school. During the stop, they reach into their jacket for their phone. The police shoot them dead and say they thought your relative was going for a gun. Is your relative at fault for being killed? Does it even matter? Surely they are a scumbag for endangering the lives of children? Would you say "fair enough, the police were just doing their dangerous job"?

 

[unit-one]

No, you said 'a dangerous criminal', so who are you referring to?

You think I was talking about Floyd as if he was a dangerous criminal that day? No, he wasn't. He just resisted a lot.

Good job that neither of those organizations is actually about any of that stuff then.

So who occupied the street (CHAZ / CHOP), started riots and looting and proclaimed themselves as the liberators claiming to eradicate "white supremacy"? Are they calling me a white supremacist?

No, you spend the money correctly across a range of solutions, and approach policing from the lens of de-escalation, a method that have been proved repeatedly to work.

Like what solutions? Create different task forces for different scenarios? Wouldn't this still be the police job?

Yet you claimed that protestors wanted to take them away from the police?

And all those people who did exactly what the police asked them to do and still got shot? what about them?

It could have been a mistake or something led to that. Happens really rarely.

It's a question, how about you answer it rather than avoid it.

There are too many bad guys in USA, but I didn't say that they all have to be shot without a trial. It all depend on the situation during the arrest or detaining.

Your post comes a across as claiming that George Floyds' murder was justified.

No, sorry, I didn't want it to be like that. There was no reason to kill him that day.

They already have an unfair weight of protection behind them , qualified immunity is just one such example.

"Police brutality[edit]
A significant amount of criticism contends that qualified immunity allows police brutality to go unpunished.[6] Legal researchers Amir H. Ali and Emily Clark, for instance, have argued that "qualified immunity permits law enforcement and other government officials to violate people's constitutional rights with virtual impunity".[43] Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has noted a "disturbing trend" of siding with police officers using excessive force with qualified immunity,[44] describing it as "sanctioning a 'shoot first, think later' approach to policing".[43] She stated:

We have not hesitated to summarily reverse courts for wrongly denying officers the protection of qualified immunity in cases involving the use of force...But we rarely intervene where courts wrongly afford officers the benefit of qualified immunity in these same cases.[45]

A 2020 Reuters report concurred with Sotomayor, concluding that "the Supreme Court has built qualified immunity into an often insurmountable police defense by intervening in cases mostly to favor the police". The report reviewed over 200 cases involving excess force by police since 2007, and found since the 2009 Pearson change from mandatory sequencing to discretionary sequencing, plaintiffs have had a more difficult time moving their case past the qualified immunity stage.[6]"

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-police-immunity-scotus/

I think the police got really restricted on how they can handle suspects. They have to ask people a million times first and if the suspect refuses to comply, they put their hands on them. And if they hold him too hard, then it's police brutality. I kinda miss the nightsticks after watching some videos.

A mistake?

A mistake is forgetting to cook dinner on time, kneeling on someone's a neck for 9 and a half minutes and refusing to let them have medical attention is not a mistake, its murder.

Yeah, there are small mistakes and there are big mistakes that can kill someone and send you to prison. I don't believe that the cop had an intention to kill the guy.

I'm saying you quoted what someone said and responded to it as something they didn't say, and then complained about another individual allegedly doing the same thing to you...in the very same post.

Unsurprisingly, you've done it again to me. Bad faith is bad faith.

I listed the situations that police handles and asked if the social workers should do that. I gave my answer as a no.
And I never said that every bad guy should be shot... so yeah.

Lol, this is conjuring up a conversation I'm not debating b/c I never made any motion they use APCs to do traffic stops. The issue is some department's decision to have multiple amounts of equipment that start to rival them being less of a police force and more of a small army. This further reinforced by the point the military hands down military equipment to the state National Guard, reserve units, and then the police so they can purchase new equipment that isn't any significantly different and will just get passed down as well.

Well how are you suppose to confront a heavily armed guy or a terrorist?
In a country where people can buy tanks, APC and high caliber weapons I think the police should be properly ready.

Current police budgets need to stay where they are so they can buy better bodycams that will just get conveniently turned off as well. No better argument to defund the police than to buy more expensive equipment that won't be used properly.

I saw a lot of bodycam footage where the so called victim was revealed as the attacker. But I agree that current police budgets need to stay where they are.

Insinuating the perp could've had a gun is not the same as obviously having a gun.

And it's hard to predict if he actually has a gun or just fumbles in his pockets because he's stupid.

People tell police they can't breathe now so they can fight back? This is clearly, the most made up argument I've ever seen.

Yup, suspect runs away from the cop. Cop catches him. Suspect screams that he can't breathe.

This of course, another lie from you regarding Floyd. He was handcuffed long before he started saying, "I can't breathe".

What lie!? His first "I can't breath" was when the cops tried to put him in the police SUV. They were pretty gentle doing that by the way.
He did got put in handcuffs as soon as they pulled him from his car. He didn't cooperate with them at all.

Imagine someone paying with fake money is justification for police to show completely zero compassion to that person asking for help after he's already detained.

Hilariously disgusting.

The more you resist the less compassion you will get. And Floyd resisted a lot.

That's quote-mining of a massive degree.

Why did you miss out this:

"An autopsy carried out by Dr. Andrew Baker, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner, in June last year concluded Floyd's death was a homicide."

or

"According to the report, Floyd, who had been apprehended on suspicion of passing a counterfeit $20 bill, died of "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.""

or that the parts you quote were from the incomplete preliminary report? The final report saying that:

"Baker confirmed he had found traces of fentanyl—an opioid used as recreational drug—in Floyd's system, but stated that could not be identified as the cause of death."

and

"However, Baker also stated there was no proof the fentanyl had killed Floyd. "I am not saying this killed him," he added."

It's almost as if you omitted them in a deliberate attempt to mislead.

I actually wanted to add that too. It's really hard to answer multiple people at once. I apologize for that.
I wanted to add that people getting mad at the first report might have influenced his final report. But I may be wrong.

Oddly it tends to happen the other way around, that however is irrelevant. They should be mandatory, of the highest quality and its should be a offence for an officer to fail to use or disable one.

Mh, there are a lot of videos claiming police brutality filmed on cellphones when in reality the suspect was resisting and screaming.
But yeah, bodycam usage should be strict.

Very big citation needed here, not to mention that it's not the case in this example and wouldn't justify causing death under any circumstances.

There are videos on PoliceActivity YT channel where suspects scream "I can't breathe" after running away or fighting or just screaming.

Tell me what justification did they have for refusing to allow paramedics to examine him after he fitted and then was motionless?

When did they refused the paramedics to examine him? EMS arrived after two minutes, checked his pulse and eyes, got the stretcher, got the guy on a stretcher and drove away in three minutes.

You just presumed guilt here (twice actually), you do know that a high chance exists that at some point in your life you will use a counterfeit note without even realizing it? Yet you just assumed that the note was fake and that the victim knew the note was fake and passed it deliberately, and then used that assumption to justify his death!

Well I don't use paper money but if I will be caught with a fake note then I won't be resisting and we'll figure out everything. Also, I won't be doing drugs.
And ffs, I don't justify his death. Why are you making me an enemy?

Unit-one, I put this scenario to you:

A family member of yours is pulled over by the police for speeding near a school. During the stop, they reach into their jacket for their phone. The police shoot them dead and say they thought your relative was going for a gun. Is your relative at fault for being killed? Does it even matter? Surely they are a scumbag for endangering the lives of children? Would you say "fair enough, the police were just doing their dangerous job"?

Hm, the police is not as trigger happy over here as the people aren't armed so much and the crime rate is not that high. But if that would happen then this will be my family members fault as his actions led to what happened. It's gonna be sad for everyone.

------
P.S. I'm sorry if I got confused with something. It's really hard to answer all of you.

 

[Scaff]

You think I was talking about Floyd as if he was a dangerous criminal that day? No, he wasn't. He just resisted a lot.

No he didn't, and nor was the action taken by the police even close to proportional.

So who occupied the street (CHAZ / CHOP), started riots and looting and proclaimed themselves as the liberators claiming to eradicate "white supremacy"? Are they calling me a white supremacist?

That burden of proof would be on you.

Like what solutions? Create different task forces for different scenarios? Wouldn't this still be the police job?

You do understand that is in regard to the use of the technology?

It could have been a mistake or something led to that. Happens really rarely.

Its far from rare enough and (this is the important bit) far more likely to happen to you if you are black, to a degree that is massively disproportionate.

There are too many bad guys in USA, but I didn't say that they all have to be shot without a trial. It all depend on the situation during the arrest or detaining.

No, sorry, I didn't want it to be like that. There was no reason to kill him that day.

Do you understand how comments like " those who get attacked for liquidating a dangerous criminal.!" come across in that regard?

The only circumstance in which a suspect should be shot is if they pose an immediate and clear risk to the public, and I do mean immediate and clear. It should also still be the last resort to open fire. It should also be independently and openly investigated when it happens and consequences, both legal and civil should be possible if it's found to be unjustified.

I think the police got really restricted on how they can handle suspects. They have to ask people a million times first and if the suspect refuses to comply, they put their hands on them. And if they hold him too hard, then it's police brutality.

As should be the case, it's not an easy job, but that doesn't mean the easy option should be taken. Nor should they be virtually immune for prosecution.

I kinda miss the nightsticks after watching some videos.

And your back to trying to justify police brutality.

Let me make this simple, if an officer is unable to act proportionately they should not be doing the job.

Yeah, there are small mistakes and there are big mistakes that can kill someone and send you to prison. I don't believe that the cop had an intention to kill the guy.

You don't mistakenly kneel on the neck of someone for over nine minutes, you don't mistakenly ignore requests for help, you don't mistakenly refuse to allow medical professionals who are stating he is at risk to examine him.

This was not a situation in which a choice had to be made in a split-second, this was a drawn out situation in which the officer had multiple opportunities to re-evaluate his actions and pick another course, he chose not to to.

But I agree that current police budgets need to stay where they are.

You agree with something I didn't say?

And it's hard to predict if he actually has a gun or just fumbles in his pockets because he's stupid.

Ah so it's OK if the person is stupid, or confused or in an altered state?

What lie!? His first "I can't breath" was when the cops tried to put him in the police SUV. They were pretty gentle doing that by the way.
He did got put in handcuffs as soon as they pulled him from his car. He didn't cooperate with them at all.

You mean when he was already in cuffs and teh foolowing occured

Floyd told the officers that he was not resisting, but that he was recovering from COVID-19, that he was claustrophobic and had anxiety, and that he did not want to sit in the car.[9][10][16]:3:10[71] While Kueng and Lane attempted to put him in the car, Floyd begged them not to, repeatedly saying "I can't breathe" and offering to lie on the ground instead.

He wasn't resisting, was in distress (the cause of which is utterly irrelevant) and offered tp lie on the ground. He was not a threat at all at thispoint.

The more you resist the less compassion you will get. And Floyd resisted a lot.

No he didn't and it should be irrelevant to the compassion you get, as you don't know the cause of it at all.

Mh, there are a lot of videos claiming police brutality filmed on cellphones when in reality the suspect was resisting and screaming.
But yeah, bodycam usage should be strict.

And too many incidents when they are not.

There are videos on PoliceActivity YT channel where suspects scream "I can't breathe" after running away or fighting or just screaming.

And? What if they can't?

When did they refused the paramedics to examine him? EMS arrived after two minutes, checked his pulse and eyes, got the stretcher, got the guy on a stretcher and drove away in three minutes.

A knee was on his neck while the paramedics were attempting to do this, despite the fact he was motionless.

Well I don't use paper money but if I will be caught with a fake note then I won't be resisting and we'll figure out everything. Also, I won't be doing drugs.
And ffs, I don't justify his death. Why are you making me an enemy?

You tone and apologist comments certainly make it appear as if you are justifying it.

Hm, the police is not as trigger happy over here as the people aren't armed so much and the crime rate is not that high. But if that would happen then this will be my family members fault as his actions led to what happened. It's gonna be sad for everyone.

The police should never be trigger-happy, at all, that's the point.

Well that and the fact its almost impossible to hold them to account when they are.