Riots in Minneapolis

The problem with all the rhetoric is that every crime or event has it's own set of facts. In this case, the alleged shooter was arrested unharmed. He is accused of shooting three people. So using the logic we read, why didn't the police shoot him in cold blood even though he is black?

Is it as simple that those who resist arrest force their own demise and those who peacefully surrender live on for another day?

Man charged with killing 3 in Wisconsin tavern shooting
 
Deez, isn't it interesting that there are obvious stories from Nazis and Soviets which map cleanly onto what the Democratic Party does today? They do the same types of things. Their end goals are exactly the same except for naked desire for power.
 
Monahorns said:
Deez, isn't it interesting that there are obvious stories from Nazis and Soviets which map cleanly onto what the Democratic Party does today? They do the same types of things. Their end goals are exactly the same except for naked desire for power.
Click to expand...

Its kind of funny that we have fascist that claim to be antifascist today.
 
OUBubba said:
And we have "patriots" doing all that ish that the MAGA nationalists are doing. Ironic, huh?
Click to expand...
While there is a very small percentage of people that believe in the Constitution who did stupid **** on January 6th, it is sad that people like you believe that it is somehow wrong to put America first and to want full transparency in the electoral processes. Or that there are people like you who apparently want to shame some of us for having been successful and doing something with our lives, irrespective of racial composition...instead, you believe that we should have to pay for the have-nots who are have-nots precisely because they chose instead to be deadbeats and criminals.
 
Who could have ever seen this coming? Fox News just tweeted that activist have reoccupied "George Floyd" square in Minneapolis and will continue to occupy it until their 24 new demands are met!
 
Clean said:
Who could have ever seen this coming? Fox News just tweeted that activist have reoccupied "George Floyd" square in Minneapolis and will continue to occupy it until their 24 new demands are met!
Click to expand...
I wonder if the news is going to report on the fact that the Houston 'memorial' defacement was an 'inside job.' Two source confirmation that the damage was done by the klan with a tan...
 
I know now I am very middle of the road. If I kneeled unnecessarily on the neck of a man handcuffed and subdued for 10 minutes ... three full minutes after he stopped saying "I can't breathe" and stopped breathing, I'd expect to be in a lot of trouble. If cops show up when I'm about to knife somebody I think really deserves it and I ignore a cop's demand that I get on the ground, I'd expect to be shot. Maybe I'd be so mad I didn't care, but I wouldn't be surprised. Fortunately, I've made it 60 years and never felt the need to charge somebody with a knife... whether or not the cops are around.

I guess it's nice to know that even if I did something as stupid as this couple of characters in the news, some really tribal folks would have my back.
 
Last edited:
Crockett said:
I know now I am very middle of the road. If I kneeled unnecessarily on the neck of a man handcuffed and subdued for 10 minutes ... three full minutes after he stopped saying "I can't breathe" and stopped breathing, I'd expect to be in a lot of trouble. If cops show up when I'm about to knife somebody I think really deserves it and ignore a cops demand that I get on the ground, I'd expect to be shot... maybe I'd be so mad I didn't care, but I wouldn't be surprised. Fortunately, I've made it 60 years and never felt the need to charge somebody with a knife... whether or not the cops are around.

I guess it's nice to know that even if I did something as stupid as this couple of characters in the news, some really tribal folks would have my back.
Click to expand...
Somewhat of a strawman. Most folks here were okay with manslaughter conviction. The over the top result and media coverage proved the trial was far from a just ruling.
 
MC,

As I read the Minnesota statute, I understood that "Manslaughter" required "malice of forethought". I never expected a fair trial, nor did I expect an acquittal, but if the idiots that live up there, that elected that goofy-*** wrestler as governor, and that wannbe clown as senator don't like their laws, CHANGE THEM!
 
My wife and I had lunch today in an Arlington resturant. A Fort Worth police officer was having his lunch at the same time. On the way out, we thanked him for his service to the community. He seemed shocked at our comments.

This is not to pat myself on the back or a claim to be a saint. I wish I was, but I am not a saint.

We did this to show thankfulness for those who put their lives on the line for us every day with little to show at the end of watch. This is not hyberbole, this is what I believe and why I believe police and fire deserve our respect and gratitude.
 
Monahorns said:
Deez, isn't it interesting that there are obvious stories from Nazis and Soviets which map cleanly onto what the Democratic Party does today? They do the same types of things. Their end goals are exactly the same except for naked desire for power.
Click to expand...

Well, they do this for the same reason the Nazis and the Soviets did. It works. Your average person doensn't think this stuff through on his own. If someone is spun as a monster, most people will view him as a monster. If he's spun as a hero, they'll view him as a hero. Objective facts are of little significance on their own.

Of course, the big factor here is the media. If Nazi Germany had had a free press in the early 1930s when Wessel was made into a hero and his song was made a national anthem, some reporter would have looked at his criminal history and the circumstances under which he died and publicly asked Goebbels or even Hitler himself why they wanted to celebrate such an inconsequential lowlife. Obviously, if someone had asked that question, he would have been in Dachau by the end of the day, so the question was never seriously raised.

What's worrisome is our media doesn't ask that kind of question either. Why not? Aren't journalists supposed to examine and report facts and provide context for things? It seems like it would be a fair question to ask of people like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and others when they're eulogizing George Floyd, Ma'Khia Bryant, etc. Of course, a journalist who asks wouldn't end up in Dachau, but he would be ostracized and demonized for it. Unless he worked for a conservative outlet, he would very likely lose his job and might lose his career, because being thought of as racist is the worst thing that can happen to someone's reputation. So the quesiton simply won't be asked. It has to make one wonder. Do we not have Dachau because we have a free press, or do we not have it becase political correctness and the media bubble fulfill the same objective as Dachau did without needing it?
 
mchammer said:
Somewhat of a strawman. Most folks here were okay with manslaughter conviction. The over the top result and media coverage proved the trial was far from a just ruling.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your assertion that most people are OK with the manslaughter. We should have done a poll before the verdict. I'd guess 80%-90% here think Chauvin did the right thing.

I thought Murder 2 was the level that was most appropriate. EXPLAINER: Why battle over a murder charge in Floyd's death.
 
OUBubba said:
I disagree with your assertion that most people are OK with the manslaughter. We should have done a poll before the verdict. I'd guess 80%-90% here think Chauvin did the right thing.

I thought Murder 2 was the level that was most appropriate. EXPLAINER: Why battle over a murder charge in Floyd's death.
Click to expand...

To me it was a severe case of gross negligence at a minimum for Floyd to die when he was subdued as he was. That translates to a criminal action on Chauvin's part. It was so egregious that it was far beyond accidental or collateral to whatever drugs he had in his system (or carbon monoxide coming from the car). His partners were also grossly negligent in not intervening.

The 2nd and 3rd degree murder charges seem to get into intent. But one could argue that a trained police officer should have known Floyd was in severe distress. So the question becomes why didn't Chauvin shift from apprehension techniques to life saving techniques? Did he want him to die? Was he that oblivious to Floyd's distress? Did he not give a sh*t one way or the other. Was it street justice?

Or was it that Chauvin is a really bad apple and deserved to get nailed?

I lean to the idea that he got what he deserved.

But let's get real here. The political hysteria is over the top. LeBron James tweeted that the cop who shot the knife-wielding young woman was next. There is no rational case by case analysis going on. Should the cop have allowed the woman to stab a few folks and then shoot her? The politics says he shot a black person AND NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

Well, we need to get that fixed or you're going to see the police let a few people die at the hands of criminals because it ain't worth it to get into the political maelstrom.
 
Last edited:
OUBubba said:
I disagree with your assertion that most people are OK with the manslaughter. We should have done a poll before the verdict. I'd guess 80%-90% here
Click to expand...

Barry, you're sorta falling for the polarization trap. You're suggesting that disagreeing with the verdict is the same as thinking Chauvin did the right thing. It isn't. As I've said, I think that in a normal case, manslaughter would have been a possibility but questionable given the high evidentiary bar for conviction and that murder was a severe long shot because of poor evidence. So I disagree with the verdict.

But there's a lot of room to disagree with the verdict without thinking he did the right thing. Did he use excessive force? Very solid argument that he did - even if Floyd had lived. Even if he didn't cause Floyd's death, he could have gotten felony assault pretty easily. Not murder, but it would likely come with prison time. Either way, it's a long, long way from "he did the right thing."

But again, it's never enough. Only calling him a murderer and saying it's indicative of "systemic racism" is enough.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Barry, you're sorta falling for the polarization trap. You're suggesting that disagreeing with the verdict is the same as thinking Chauvin did the right thing. It isn't. As I've said, I think that in a normal case, manslaughter would have been a possibility but questionable given the high evidentiary bar for conviction and that murder was a severe long shot because of poor evidence. So I disagree with the verdict.

But there's a lot of room to disagree with the verdict without thinking he did the right thing. Did he use excessive force? Very solid argument that he did - even if Floyd had lived. Even if he didn't cause Floyd's death, he could have gotten felony assault pretty easily. Not murder, but it would likely come with prison time. Either way, it's a long, long way from "he did the right thing."

But again, it's never enough. Only calling him a murderer and saying it's indicative of "systemic racism" is enough.
Click to expand...
That's what liberals do.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Barry, you're sorta falling for the polarization trap. You're suggesting that disagreeing with the verdict is the same as thinking Chauvin did the right thing. It isn't. As I've said, I think that in a normal case, manslaughter would have been a possibility but questionable given the high evidentiary bar for conviction and that murder was a severe long shot because of poor evidence. So I disagree with the verdict.

But there's a lot of room to disagree with the verdict without thinking he did the right thing. Did he use excessive force? Very solid argument that he did - even if Floyd had lived. Even if he didn't cause Floyd's death, he could have gotten felony assault pretty easily. Not murder, but it would likely come with prison time. Either way, it's a long, long way from "he did the right thing."

But again, it's never enough. Only calling him a murderer and saying it's indicative of "systemic racism" is enough.
Click to expand...

To me if we were under Roman law and had to prove innocence I don't think Chauvin would walk. However, there just seems to me too many instances of reasonable doubt, especially considering the physical condition of Floyd.
 
utahorn said:
My wife and I had lunch today in an Arlington resturant. A Fort Worth police officer was having his lunch at the same time. On the way out, we thanked him for his service to the community. He seemed shocked at our comments.
Click to expand...
Maybe he was shocked because he had just finished abusing some minority? :smile1:
 
Garmel said:
To me if we were under Roman law and had to prove innocence I don't think Chauvin would walk. However, there just seems to me too many instances of reasonable doubt, especially considering the physical condition of Floyd.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have bought the causation argument if I sat on the jury. However, I do know that the jury heard expert testimony explaining it, so I'm willing to accept their verdict on that even if I don't agree with it. However, the murder charge was nonsensical.
 
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19
"causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense"

They determined that his treatment of Floyd was a felony so they fit it into 3rd degree.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195
"Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree"

I'd say that listening to a guy moan "I can't breathe" over 20 times and then stay on him for three minutes after he quits making sounds could be reasonably described as dangerous and evincing a depraved mind.
 
FB_IMG_1619196233504.jpg
 
bystander said:
The problem with all the rhetoric is that every crime or event has it's own set of facts. In this case, the alleged shooter was arrested unharmed. He is accused of shooting three people. So using the logic we read, why didn't the police shoot him in cold blood even though he is black?

Is it as simple that those who resist arrest force their own demise and those who peacefully surrender live on for another day?

Man charged with killing 3 in Wisconsin tavern shooting
Click to expand...


Another black man who killed some folks and was apprehended and not shot on sight.

1 Dead, 2 Hurt in Long Island Stop & Shop Shooting; Suspect in Custody After 4-Hour Manhunt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top