Jump to content
Alex_Krycek

The Killing of George Floyd: The Last Straw?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Apparently D Trump's planned events in Tulsa fizzled.
I'm sure he'll still brag about the 'large' attendance.

Nope, he blamed it's size on a cold receptionist... 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MigL said:

Apparently D Trump's planned events in Tulsa fizzled.
I'm sure he'll still brag about the 'large' attendance.

Actually, he blamed protestors and left wing agents for blocking the streets and entrances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53129524

“Donald Trump: TikTok users and K-pop fans said to be behind poor Tulsa turnout”

They done good ....but I wonder how many willing(and harmful)   marks would have actually shown up?

Edited by Strange
Added headline for context

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And don't forget the TikTok users and the K-pop fans!

Quote

Tik-Tok users and K-Pop fans were behind the smaller than expected numbers at US President Donald Trump's first campaign rally in months, social media users have claimed.

Mr Trump's campaign manager had blamed "radical" protesters and the media.

But political strategist Steve Schmidt said teenagers across the US ordered tickets without intending to turn up to ensure there would be empty seats.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-tiktok-users-k-140409817.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did not know this...

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/us/backlash-against-asian-american-woman-married-to-ex-cop-in-george-floyd-case-reveals-disturbing-truth/ar-BB15PqZJ?ocid=msedgntp

Turns out D Chauvin's ( G Floyd's killer ) was an Oriental refugee, previously in an abusive arranged marriage.

That could still mean D Chauvin is racist with regard to Black Americans, or possibly just an idiot, but would cast doubts on his being a 'white supremacist'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MigL said:

That could still mean D Chauvin is racist with regard to Black Americans, or possibly just an idiot, but would cast doubts on his being a 'white supremacist'.

Was it alleged that he was? Does that make a difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a statement, not a rebuttal to any allegations.
Make a difference to what ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MigL said:

It was a statement, not a rebuttal to any allegations.

When one says “casts doubt”x it’s usually to deflect a claim.

7 hours ago, MigL said:


Make a difference to what ?

Does the motivation for police killing an unarmed, handcuffed, black man matter? Or are we only trying to stop white supremacist cops from taking black lives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I may have suspected he was a white supremacist.
Whose doubts are you questioning ?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Does the motivation for police killing an unarmed, handcuffed, black man matter?

Of course motivation matters.
How do you stop a problem from reoccurring unless you understand its origins.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MigL said:

Of course motivation matters.
How do you stop a problem from reoccurring unless you understand its origins.

The origins are not the issue with the sole police officer. If it was the solution would be trivial and enacted decades ago. The issue is the system, which requires reform. The individual is symptom, not the cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean a system that doesn't screen police officers for white supremacist or racist beliefs before handing them a gun ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MigL said:

You mean a system that doesn't screen police officers for white supremacist or racist beliefs before handing them a gun ?

How would one conduct such a screening effectively?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what the procedure is in the US, but in Canada, a cop is given a thorough background check ( including family members ) and a psychological  screening, in an attempt to weed out the nutcases before handing them a gun.
Then again, it seems you guys will give a gun to anyone who wants one ( as per your Constitution )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We actually give 3 guns to anyone who wants one. Only the folks who don’t want one at all get a single one. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you were gonna say all those who don't want one, get shot.

Watched an old movie, that I hadn't watched for quite some time, again last night.
In the Heat of the Night with Sydney Poitier and Rod Steiger; Great movie, and appropriate to this discussion.
Makes you realize how far we've come, and how far we still need to go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MigL said:

You mean a system that doesn't screen police officers for white supremacist or racist beliefs before handing them a gun ?

Which wouldn’t have stopped George Floyd’s death, apparently.

Zero tolerance for excessive force behavior, regardless of motivation, might have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, swansont said:

Zero tolerance for excessive force behavior, regardless of motivation, might have.

Sure.
Let's apply that to all criminal activity.
You steal a loaf of bread because you're hungry, zero tolerance, you go to jail.
You've been oppressed for a couple of hundred years and you cause some damage while protesting, zero tolerance, you go to jail.
Someone is trying to kill you and instead of just disabling them, you use excessive force and kill them, zero tolerance, you go too jail.

Or is zero tolerance only applicable to the 'causes' you deem important ?

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Which wouldn’t have stopped George Floyd’s death, apparently.

If you mean he didn't use a gun, but his knee instead, I would think that if a jackass who displays such disregard for human life, had been 'screened out' and never become a police officer, G Floyd might still be alive.
Or even if D Chauvin had been re-evaluated after any of his many previous excessive force complaints.

Edited by MigL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, MigL said:

Sure.
Let's apply that to all criminal activity.
You steal a loaf of bread because you're hungry, zero tolerance, you go to jail.
You've been oppressed for a couple of hundred years and you cause some damage while protesting, zero tolerance, you go to jail.
Someone is trying to kill you and instead of just disabling them, you use excessive force and kill them, zero tolerance, you go too jail.

Or is zero tolerance only applicable to the 'causes' you deem important ?

That's basically what happens now, with regards to police brutality against certain people; mostly because there is absolute tollerance of police brutality.

Maybe we try a new approach, put them before the beak and twelve (not angry) people and judge their actions against mitigating factors.

57 minutes ago, MigL said:

I would think that if a jackass who displays such disregard for human life, had been 'screened out' and never become a police officer

What if he lied on his screen-test?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

What if he lied on his screen-test?

No one who is that arrogant and so sure of himself, that he would kneel on a person's neck for 4 minutes AFTER that person had died, would be able to pass a psychological screening, and subsequent re-assessments after his numerous 'excessive force' incidents.
How long was this guy's assessment before he became a police officer ?
How long was his training before they handed him a gun, and a position of authority ?
Why did the police union allow this guy to keep his job after so many incidents ?

And no, I'm not trying to 'spread' the blame, D Chauvin is responsible for his own actions.
( You should know that I'm a believer in personal responsibility, by now )
But the system is failing all of us, not just Black Americans; they are, however, the ones who suffer most from it.

Edited by MigL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MigL said:

No one who is that arrogant and so sure of himself, that he would kneel on a person's neck for 4 minutes AFTER that person had died, would be able to pass a psychological screening, and subsequent re-assessments after his numerous 'excessive force' incidents.

Deepends on when they said cut!!! And when they stopped tolerating 'excessive force'... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MigL said:

Sure.
Let's apply that to all criminal activity.

Where did this red herring come from?

We’re not talking about all criminal activity, we’re talking about police, who are supposed to protect and serve the public, and who should be held to a higher standard.

We’re also talking about violent behavior.

 

Quote

Someone is trying to kill you and instead of just disabling them, you use excessive force and kill them, zero tolerance, you go too jail.

That’s not an instance of excessive force.

 

Quote

Or is zero tolerance only applicable to the 'causes' you deem important ?

I was short of straw before but now I have a lifetime supply.

 

Quote

If you mean he didn't use a gun, but his knee instead, I would think that if a jackass who displays such disregard for human life, had been 'screened out' and never become a police officer, G Floyd might still be alive.

Sure. But you had only proposed screening for white supremacy

Quote

Or even if D Chauvin had been re-evaluated after any of his many previous excessive force complaints.

Yes. If they had not tolerated such behavior, you might say...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, swansont said:

We’re not talking about all criminal activity

Are you saying what D Chauvin did, wasn't criminal ???

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s not an instance of excessive force.

Tell that to the cops in Atlanta at the Wendy's drive-through.
They were firedupon by their own taser, shot the suspect, and are now being charged.

 

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

I was short of straw before but now I have a lifetime supply.

Stop bailing straw, and rebut the argument being made.

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

Sure. But you had only proposed screening for white supremacy

Well, it certainly cleared that factor, in my mind.

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. If they had not tolerated such behavior, you might say...

Sure.
Or if the union is too strong and protects the bad cops.
Or, even if there is no psychological assessment after the violent behaviour.


See, I can do that too. Rebut ( or even dismiss ) individual sentences, instead of the whole opinion.
We seem to agree, though, that the system, especially in the US, is failing, and people are suffering for it.

Edited by MigL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MigL said:

Are you saying what D Chauvin did, wasn't criminal ???

No. Why would you think so? What are the mental gymnastics involved in such a question?

 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Tell that to the cops in Atlanta at the Wendy's drive-through.
They were firedupon by their own taser, shot the suspect, and are now being charged.

Oh, FFS.

 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Stop bailing straw, and rebut the argument being made.

It’s hardly an argument, when it contains intellectual dishonesty

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MigL said:

Are you saying what D Chauvin did, wasn't criminal ???

Tell that to the cops in Atlanta at the Wendy's drive-through.
They were firedupon by their own taser, shot the suspect, and are now being charged.

 

Stop bailing straw, and rebut the argument being made.

Well, it certainly cleared that factor, in my mind.

Sure.
Or if the union is too strong and protects the bad cops.
Or, even if there is no psychological assessment after the violent behaviour.


See, I can do that too. Rebut ( or even dismiss ) individual sentences, instead of the whole opinion.
We seem to agree, though, that the system, especially in the US, is failing, and people are suffering for it.

!

Moderator Note

Not sure what you're trying to do here, but you won today's Report That Post pool. Please stop playing Fallacy Bingo, or whatever is making you argue in such a disingenuous manner.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.