rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/paw-patrols-cartoon-dog-chase-targeted-by-protesters-amid-black-lives-matter-movement/news-story/468328e27408aa1165aed33b9e7a7d0f“Protesters have an unlikely new target - a cartoon dog.People on social media are now taking aim at Chase, a german shepherd pup that plays a cop in the children’s show” “On the surface, Paw Patrol seems like harmless fun. However, the themes presented to the impressionable audience depict a misogynistic, conservative authoritarian fantasy,” it said.
No this is not a joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAbu Dhabi uses modern slavery for economic gain, just wandering what raheem stirling and lewis hamilton make of this as they are both benefit from this money Let alone the deals they strike with Nike etc for sponsorships lol -PB
|
|
|
|
|
dirk vanadidas
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Abu Dhabi uses modern slavery for economic gain, just wandering what raheem stirling and lewis hamilton make of this as they are both benefit from this money
Europe is funding the war not Chelsea football club
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIn the grand scheme of things it isn't that important & quite trivial to be honest. In the scheme of things the President of the United States went for a stroll outside in a place where violence, looting & arson was rampant. I'm sure his security guys did what they had to do. I personally couldn't really give a shit & dwelling on it is just whiny nitpicking for the sake of it. Says you. Others say it was peaceful. In the 'grand scheme of things' it's about the truth.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
robstazzz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe link below is a clip just under 10 minutes. I highly encourage everyone to have a look at it, especially those who support the BLM protesting. However regardless of being for or against organisations like BLM and protests I think this is a clip that anyone will enjoy listening to. I thought I put up the link but just noticed I didn't, so here it is. https://www.facebook.com/569022853258776/posts/1507921309368921?vh=e&d=n&sfns=mo
|
|
|
|
|
LFC.
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIn the grand scheme of things it isn't that important & quite trivial to be honest. In the scheme of things the President of the United States went for a stroll outside in a place where violence, looting & arson was rampant. I'm sure his security guys did what they had to do. I personally couldn't really give a shit & dwelling on it is just whiny nitpicking for the sake of it. I'm with you.....
Love Football
|
|
|
|
|
ErogenousZone
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.6K,
Visits: 0
|
In the grand scheme of things it isn't that important & quite trivial to be honest.
In the scheme of things the President of the United States went for a stroll outside in a place where violence, looting & arson was rampant. I'm sure his security guys did what they had to do. I personally couldn't really give a shit & dwelling on it is just whiny nitpicking for the sake of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xTurns out the narrative of police tear-gassing 'peaceful' protestors to give POTUS a photo op was false. Surprise, surprise. - US Park Police had no knowledge that Trump would be coming. - Protestors were asked to disperse three times. - Some protestors threw bricks and bottles at the police. It appears the term 'peaceful protestors' has taken a new meaning in recent times. - Why were police not wearing gas masks if they were using tear gas? Think logically. - If the police really were told to use tear gas to give POTUS his so-called photo opportunity, why would they use tear gas on the street where he'd be soon walking? Again, think logically. As it happened, the police had to use smoke canisters to disperse the violent mob. Always question the MSM narrative. I'm not 100% sure of this (had heard it mentioned before but not yet seen reliable links to back it up) HOWEVER- Last week I was at a mates' and his missus put CNN on because "she likes to get an idea from them (the Americans) what's going on". I tried to point out that it's CNN and I'd take most of what they said with a grain of salt, but I don't know if she got what I meant by it. So I sat and watched... And holy shit...just half an hour was ridiculous enough. I can completely understand how somebody who takes a "news" channel like that seriously could hold the paranoid views of Trump/ Republicans that they do. There was an entire panel of them who spent the better part of 10 minutes criticising the way he held that Bible in front of the church FFS. They then contrasted it, full of praise for Biden attending a black church service (with the mask down around his chin!). I hope for Joe's sake the people in attendance were all real black people and not those fake ones who'd vote Republican... They also mentioned how the "peaceful protestors" had been tear-gassed and showed the same footage of a group of demonstrators harmlessly walking along a street at least twice. Straight away I wondered if there was more to this story than they were letting on? Just because they say "peaceful protestors" and show a brief clip to back it up doesn't mean it's true. Because I knew straight away with no doubt whatsoever that had this exact incident happened under Obama, they'd instead be berating the protestors for showing such "disrespect" to the President and blocking his path and how such people were a threat to American society- and millions of people would be frothing at the mouth on Occupy Democrats and NowThis politics and people on my Fb would follow suit... This is the thing with MSM networks like CNN- even something as straightforward as "they tear-gassed peaceful protestors so Trump could get a photoshoot out the front of a church with a Bible" can't be taken seriously because you can almost bet even that story contains lies by omission and other inconvenient details conveniently cropped out of the story. And as your post suggests, that initial hunch I felt might just have been correct after all? All well and good. Have you watched 30 minutes of Fox news? Any of Fox news's shows? Besides Chris Wallace the rest of them would put North Korean State Television to shame. There's lickspittles, sycophants and then there's Fox. As for Trump and the church thing. Here's what happened. The park was cleared of protesters with some sort of pepper/tear gas as well as smoke bombs and other types of substances to disperse the crowd. 5 minutes later Trump walks out through a path cleared by security and gets a photo holding a bible outside of the church. No prayers, no speech, no visit inside, no introspective solemnity. Nothing. Then the orange man strode back into the White House. Now perhaps Barr ordered the park cleared and miraculously, at the very same time without knowing what had just happened, Trump decided it was a good idea to stroll over and get a happy snap?! I mean let's be real here. You seem to be a fairly intelligent bloke so how about you apply a bit of Occam's razor and decide what was more likely to have happened. Oh and by the way. This story popped up on Fox. (Not CNN.) https://www.foxnews.com/us/park-police-walk-back-tear-gas-denial-in-lafayette-park-clearingNow split hairs and tell me pepper balls which causes irritation to the throat, nose and eyes 'technically' isn't tear gas. (Which I've seen on Twitter.) FFS.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Captain Haddock
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xTurns out the narrative of police tear-gassing 'peaceful' protestors to give POTUS a photo op was false. Surprise, surprise. - US Park Police had no knowledge that Trump would be coming. - Protestors were asked to disperse three times. - Some protestors threw bricks and bottles at the police. It appears the term 'peaceful protestors' has taken a new meaning in recent times. - Why were police not wearing gas masks if they were using tear gas? Think logically. - If the police really were told to use tear gas to give POTUS his so-called photo opportunity, why would they use tear gas on the street where he'd be soon walking? Again, think logically. As it happened, the police had to use smoke canisters to disperse the violent mob. Always question the MSM narrative. I'm not 100% sure of this (had heard it mentioned before but not yet seen reliable links to back it up) HOWEVER- Last week I was at a mates' and his missus put CNN on because "she likes to get an idea from them (the Americans) what's going on". I tried to point out that it's CNN and I'd take most of what they said with a grain of salt, but I don't know if she got what I meant by it. So I sat and watched... And holy shit...just half an hour was ridiculous enough. I can completely understand how somebody who takes a "news" channel like that seriously could hold the paranoid views of Trump/ Republicans that they do. There was an entire panel of them who spent the better part of 10 minutes criticising the way he held that Bible in front of the church FFS. They then contrasted it, full of praise for Biden attending a black church service (with the mask down around his chin!). I hope for Joe's sake the people in attendance were all real black people and not those fake ones who'd vote Republican... They also mentioned how the "peaceful protestors" had been tear-gassed and showed the same footage of a group of demonstrators harmlessly walking along a street at least twice. Straight away I wondered if there was more to this story than they were letting on? Just because they say "peaceful protestors" and show a brief clip to back it up doesn't mean it's true. Because I knew straight away with no doubt whatsoever that had this exact incident happened under Obama, they'd instead be berating the protestors for showing such "disrespect" to the President and blocking his path and how such people were a threat to American society- and millions of people would be frothing at the mouth on Occupy Democrats and NowThis politics and people on my Fb would follow suit... This is the thing with MSM networks like CNN- even something as straightforward as "they tear-gassed peaceful protestors so Trump could get a photoshoot out the front of a church with a Bible" can't be taken seriously because you can almost bet even that story contains lies by omission and other inconvenient details conveniently cropped out of the story. And as your post suggests, that initial hunch I felt might just have been correct after all?
There are only two intellectually honest debate tactics: (a) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts, or (b) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic. All other debate tactics are intellectually dishonest - John T. Reed
The Most Popular Presidential Candidate Of All Time (TM) cant go to a sports stadium in the country he presides over. Figure that one out...
|
|
|
|
|
robstazzz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.4K,
Visits: 0
|
The link below is a clip just under 10 minutes. I highly encourage everyone to have a look at it, especially those who support the BLM protesting.
However regardless of being for or against organisations like BLM and protests I think this is a clip that anyone will enjoy listening to.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+xTurns out the narrative of police tear-gassing 'peaceful' protestors to give POTUS a photo op was false. Surprise, surprise. - US Park Police had no knowledge that Trump would be coming. - Protestors were asked to disperse three times. - Some protestors threw bricks and bottles at the police. It appears the term 'peaceful protestors' has taken a new meaning in recent times. - Why were police not wearing gas masks if they were using tear gas? Think logically. - If the police really were told to use tear gas to give POTUS his so-called photo opportunity, why would they use tear gas on the street where he'd be soon walking? Again, think logically. As it happened, the police had to use smoke canisters to disperse the violent mob. Always question the MSM narrative. Thanks Hannity. Any sources to back all of that up?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xIsn’t the definition of terrorist pretty broad? Something like - anyone that causes violence to pursue a political goal? A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. That above is the exact definition straight off Google. Antifa tick all those boxes, not only attacking civilians, but the police too. Sounds like Trump and every US administration that invaded other nations. Oh come on. I'm by no means a Trump sympathiser and understand why some people might dislike him. That's fine, but let's at least use facts when discussing his policies. Like most people I was genuinely fearful that Trump's not insubstantial ego and blunt manner would be a foreign policy disaster, leading to endless invasions. To my surprise, his administration have defied the war mongering Deep State neo-cons and hawks. Given who owns 90% of the US media, I can now see why they hate him so much. North Korea don’t seem to be a problem anymore. One of the first countries he visited was Saudi Arabia, After this, the Saudis arrested around 300 officials involved in human trafficking. Saudi Arabia is notorious for paedophilia and child trafficking, although I'm sure it hasn't completely solved the problem. The neocons baited him to invade Iran but thankfully common sense prevailed. Now they're pulling troops out of Afghanistan. Perhaps a bit late, but a step in the right direction. Compare this to Obama. I had such high hopes that he would help unite humanity, but completed his 8 years as the greatest disappointment of my lifetime. His administration bombed at least 7 countries and interfered in the politics of many others such as Ukraine, seemingly trying to create WW3 with Russia. Don't even mention the Bushes. Pure evil, with the MSM not even questioning the invasion of Iraq. The media never mention Trump's achievements such as the dramatic increase in arrests of paedophiles and human traffickers, as well as fighting criminal gangs such as MS-13, but I've never seen a President in my lifetime openly hated by the media even before entering the White House. Anyone who can't see this is either blind or part of the system. My thoughts on Trump haven't changed much since I first became consciously aware of him on 'The Apprentice' some 15 years ago. He is vain, arrogant, brash and has a lofty opinion of himself. I would not call myself a Trump supporter. However, neither am I anti-Trump. And the level of TDS I see so many people afflicted by is unbelievable to say the least... You've got to remember that, from the moment he took office, there were 3 things working against Trump: 1) He is not a talented speaker, especially compared to his predecessor 2) He was not an ingrained member of the political establishment 3) He is a Republican These three factors alone mean that no matter what he says/ does, large sections of the media and establishment politicians will automatically take the opposite approach and claim anybody not siding with their narrative is a monster/ rusted- on Trump supporter. My lack of trust in the traditional media had already eroded long before June 2015 when DJT rode the escalator down at Trump Tower to announce his running for President. The last 4 years has only shone a high-powered torchlight on how little people should trust the MSM, or the notion that what they tell you is for your own good... Well said. Must admit I initially assumed Trump was establishment or approved opposition, but the George H. Bush funeral convinced me that he's definitely not part of the establishment. There's extensive footage prior to the ceremony of politicians from Left and Right all chummy and friendly (maybe for optics tbf), and that all changed when Donald and Melania Trump entered the church. It was like an enemy entered the building, and confirmed to me that he wasn't joking about draining the swamp. Maybe he's just a cockhead that everyone hates? It's illustrative that Melania was caught joking with Obama and yet Trump has to beg her to smile for the cameras.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+xOh. My. God. Using Snopes as a 'source'. That would have to be an all time low for this forum. :laugh::laugh::laugh: All the references and links are there to cross check. Just because it doesn't fit your tin foil narrative doesn't mean it isn't a reliable source.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Les Gock
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 681,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xIsn’t the definition of terrorist pretty broad? Something like - anyone that causes violence to pursue a political goal? A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. That above is the exact definition straight off Google. Antifa tick all those boxes, not only attacking civilians, but the police too. Sounds like Trump and every US administration that invaded other nations. Oh come on. I'm by no means a Trump sympathiser and understand why some people might dislike him. That's fine, but let's at least use facts when discussing his policies. Like most people I was genuinely fearful that Trump's not insubstantial ego and blunt manner would be a foreign policy disaster, leading to endless invasions. To my surprise, his administration have defied the war mongering Deep State neo-cons and hawks. Given who owns 90% of the US media, I can now see why they hate him so much. North Korea don’t seem to be a problem anymore. One of the first countries he visited was Saudi Arabia, After this, the Saudis arrested around 300 officials involved in human trafficking. Saudi Arabia is notorious for paedophilia and child trafficking, although I'm sure it hasn't completely solved the problem. The neocons baited him to invade Iran but thankfully common sense prevailed. Now they're pulling troops out of Afghanistan. Perhaps a bit late, but a step in the right direction. Compare this to Obama. I had such high hopes that he would help unite humanity, but completed his 8 years as the greatest disappointment of my lifetime. His administration bombed at least 7 countries and interfered in the politics of many others such as Ukraine, seemingly trying to create WW3 with Russia. Don't even mention the Bushes. Pure evil, with the MSM not even questioning the invasion of Iraq. The media never mention Trump's achievements such as the dramatic increase in arrests of paedophiles and human traffickers, as well as fighting criminal gangs such as MS-13, but I've never seen a President in my lifetime openly hated by the media even before entering the White House. Anyone who can't see this is either blind or part of the system. My thoughts on Trump haven't changed much since I first became consciously aware of him on 'The Apprentice' some 15 years ago. He is vain, arrogant, brash and has a lofty opinion of himself. I would not call myself a Trump supporter. However, neither am I anti-Trump. And the level of TDS I see so many people afflicted by is unbelievable to say the least... You've got to remember that, from the moment he took office, there were 3 things working against Trump: 1) He is not a talented speaker, especially compared to his predecessor 2) He was not an ingrained member of the political establishment 3) He is a Republican These three factors alone mean that no matter what he says/ does, large sections of the media and establishment politicians will automatically take the opposite approach and claim anybody not siding with their narrative is a monster/ rusted- on Trump supporter. My lack of trust in the traditional media had already eroded long before June 2015 when DJT rode the escalator down at Trump Tower to announce his running for President. The last 4 years has only shone a high-powered torchlight on how little people should trust the MSM, or the notion that what they tell you is for your own good... Well said. Must admit I initially assumed Trump was establishment or approved opposition, but the George H. Bush funeral convinced me that he's definitely not part of the establishment. There's extensive footage prior to the ceremony of politicians from Left and Right all chummy and friendly (maybe for optics tbf), and that all changed when Donald and Melania Trump entered the church. It was like an enemy entered the building, and confirmed to me that he wasn't joking about draining the swamp.
|
|
|
|
|
Les Gock
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 681,
Visits: 0
|
A number of Democrats have recently been using the slogan "Defund the Police".
This confirms that the left is either barking mad, or they have some crazy plans in store. It also shows they're becoming increasingly desperate.
Fun fact: Hillary's lawyers were in court this week, and her hearing regarding the email scandal will be heard on September 9th.
|
|
|
|
|
Les Gock
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 681,
Visits: 0
|
Turns out the narrative of police tear-gassing 'peaceful' protestors to give POTUS a photo op was false. Surprise, surprise.
- US Park Police had no knowledge that Trump would be coming.
- Protestors were asked to disperse three times.
- Some protestors threw bricks and bottles at the police. It appears the term 'peaceful protestors' has taken a new meaning in recent times.
- Why were police not wearing gas masks if they were using tear gas? Think logically.
- If the police really were told to use tear gas to give POTUS his so-called photo opportunity, why would they use tear gas on the street where he'd be soon walking? Again, think logically.
As it happened, the police had to use smoke canisters to disperse the violent mob.
Always question the MSM narrative.
|
|
|
|
|
Les Gock
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 681,
Visits: 0
|
Oh. My. God. Using Snopes as a 'source'. That would have to be an all time low for this forum. :laugh::laugh::laugh:
|
|
|
|
|
dirk vanadidas
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.9K,
Visits: 0
|
2019the cause celebre was extinction rebellion 2020 BLM
Europe is funding the war not Chelsea football club
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI just want to FACT check myself for a statement I wrote a few days ago (I misheard the stat and wanted to correct myself).. the median net worth of a white family in the USA is $171k (not almost a million as I stated) whilst a black family is $17.6k. This stat is from the 2016 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances. This number makes better sense and bravo for being able to self correct.
|
|
|
|
|
theFOOTBALLlover
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
I just want to FACT check myself for a statement I wrote a few days ago (I misheard the stat and wanted to correct myself).. the median net worth of a white family in the USA is $171k (not almost a million as I stated) whilst a black family is $17.6k. This stat is from the 2016 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
Anyone who tweets to "liberate your state" is trying to generate division Rusty.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
The claims about Trump being divisive are overcooked. He tried to unite America with an ambitious economic agenda which was largely succeeding prior to Covid. He facilitated the economic conditions that have created the lowest black unemployment and crime rate for decades, something the mass media continues to ignore. Its hard to be seen as a unifying President when literally all his achievements are ignored by the media and everything he says and does is twisted into a hate crime. Democratic electoral success in 2020 largely depends on the African American community getting out to vote for Democratic candidates, as Trump has enjoyed the highest approval rate among black Americans for a Republican President than any of his predecessors, so its not surprising that the Democrats and their proxies in the media would try to hijack this latest incident to galvanise the black community against Trump. I suppose its very clever what they are doing but it remains to be seen whether it will be successful come November.
|
|
|
|
|
Captain Haddock
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI love this term "trump derangement syndrome". The conservatives that use it seem oblivious to the fact it can also be used to describe those who stand by the president despite it becoming painfully clear his end game is to divide the nation. I am still firm in my belief that Trump was elected on the back of a backlash against liberal PC/identity politics bullshit that even older liberals detest. These divisions are not Trumps fault, but that doesn't change the fact that the man is literally cancer of America, seeking to exacerbate said divisions to the point of destroying the nation so he can rule over the ashes. The conservatives/ liberals that use it seem oblivious to the fact it can also be used to describe those who stand by the president despite it becoming painfully clear his end game is to divide the nation.The above sentence could've been applied to at least the previous two presidents as well. During the Bush administration, pretty much all the same criticisms were levelled at GWB (racist, fascist, dangerous moron, only got where he did because of daddy etc) with the addition of being a warmonger. Then you had 8 years of Obama and it was the more paranoid right factions turn (Muslim sympathiser/ race-baiter/ communist/ looking to rule America by divide and conquer etc) You are confusing what the media said about these former Presidents with how these former Presidents acted whilst in office. Say what you want about Bush or Obama, few would successfully argue they didn't always attempt to bring the nation together on the big issues and in times of crisis. Take Bush with the Iraq War. People hated his guts for it but he never stopped trying to convince those against him that the war was justified That, first and foremost is the job of the president, to represent everyone, whether they like you or you like them. Trump is the exact opposite. He tactfully got elected by exacerbating political dividing lines and will continue doing it until it doesn't work anymore. I'd hardly say Bush represented everybody when it came to the Iraq war. The argument as to whether invade or not was a controversial one from the get-go to say the least. I'd also maintain that it's easier for people to be more objective about a President when they're not longer in office. When they're in office (regardless of what party they're representing) it's easy to find people claiming they are acting against the interests of American people/ behaving in a divisive manner etc.
There are only two intellectually honest debate tactics: (a) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts, or (b) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic. All other debate tactics are intellectually dishonest - John T. Reed
The Most Popular Presidential Candidate Of All Time (TM) cant go to a sports stadium in the country he presides over. Figure that one out...
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBut having said all that I just don't understand your take on the latest incident. Are you seriously defending the police officer for his actions? In an earlier post you were saying that he shouldn't be charged for murder so my question is what would you charge him with? And if you had the power what would be your sentence? Personally if up to me I'd charge him for murder and give him a minimum of 15 years in jail. This is according to Australian sentences not America which are more severe. He choked the fuck out of a man that was handcuffed for close to 10 minutes. You can't tell me he had no idea what he was doing. Even when he's out cold he keeps his knee firmly planted on the victims neck. The official cause of death is that he died due to combination of restraint and compression of the neck, causing a heart attack and that he did not suffocate, an important detail. See, saying that is stretching a long bow. That's like saying someone got shot died of blood loss. Technically right, but they died because they got shot. Or, someone died because of head trauma in a car accident. No its not like saying that. If you read the autopsy the cause of death wasn't neck compression causing asphyxiation, it was subdual, restraint and neck compression causing heart attack. If the guy on the neck is guilty of murder, then so are the other cops because their actions of subduing and restraining Floyd caused his heart attack. Most acts of restraining and subduing someone would not lead to death, as is demonstrated by 99.99% of police arrests, unlike shooting someone which is far more likely to result in death. Yes it is saying it like that. They have been charged with murder as well, so you're saying you agree with the prosecutors, correct? How on earth do you think he had restraint and neck compression? Beach cruise? No it's not like saying that. If you restrain someone and they die because they had a bad heart are you a murderer? Some people have died just from being handcuffed or tasered, they have wigged out and died, are the police guilty of murder? If you dont understand the difference between restraining someone and shooting them then you are lost soul. You're either a troll or a sociopathic nutcase if you actually believe that. Pretty sure he didn’t need to restrain him by having a knee on his neck for 9 minutes. Exactly. Rusty, while in the instance you say, where someone is restrained, murder might be a loose term, but its the term that Minnesota uses to the third-degree. If I run someone over (a reckless act, like pinning someone down for nigh-on 10 minutes), and say, "Whoops, but the autopsy says that they died of a collapsed lung and they had asthma. I know I hit them in the chest with a car going 40km/h, but they had Asthma!" Are you saying that would be a valid defence in that scenario? No if kneel or stand on a person's neck for 8-10 minutes, there is a high probability that person will die, so that would likely count as murder or attempted murder. I dont know the probability of death if you lean on someones neck for 10 minutes, however its an important detail that he did not choke to death, he did not suffocate, his death was caused by a combination of three things; subdual, restrain and neck compression causing heart attack. So if you argue that the cop on neck is a murderer, then you have to apply the same standard to the other officers, including the one standing guard if he laid hands on him (subdual and restraint) during the arrest. You will then have to apply the same standard to every future scenario of someone dying in the process of being arrested, if you argue that pre existing health conditions plays no role in the culpability of the death. So the next time a police officer tasers someone and they die due to heart attack are you going to charge them with murder? What if they taser them twice, lets say the second zap is illegal but it causes death, is your argument that that cop deliberately tried to kill the victim? My argument here is that not that the officers arent culpable, rather the charge of murder requires specific INTENT to kill. You have to prove that all four offices intended to kill Floyd, that is the basis of murder, otherwise its something else like culpable homicide, manslaughter or criminal negligence. On the basis that Floyd had multiple health issues and drugs in his system that potentially contributed to his death then its possible that they will present as mitigating factors at trial. Once again I’m not saying that the Officers didnt KILL Floyd, they definitely contributed his death, however this isnt an all or nothing situation, and the prosecution are going to have a difficult time proving that all four officers set out to murder him. This is why we have courts and trained lawyers and judges that adjudicate on these issues, who understand the intrinsic complexities of such matters, rather than the mob who can only compute in black and white (figuratively speaking). I corrected your first sentence for you. That's all I'm going to read of that response, because if I have to play school teacher on your first sentence, your argument is flawed. Well go on school me Chuck Norris
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWhy is there. No BLM outcry for the death of David dorn ex copper killed by rioters. He was a man of colour Cos it might distract people from the white cop bad, black people good narrative
|
|
|
|
|
dirk vanadidas
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Why is there. No BLM outcry for the death of David dorn ex copper killed by rioters. He was a man of colour
Europe is funding the war not Chelsea football club
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xBut having said all that I just don't understand your take on the latest incident. Are you seriously defending the police officer for his actions? In an earlier post you were saying that he shouldn't be charged for murder so my question is what would you charge him with? And if you had the power what would be your sentence? Personally if up to me I'd charge him for murder and give him a minimum of 15 years in jail. This is according to Australian sentences not America which are more severe. He choked the fuck out of a man that was handcuffed for close to 10 minutes. You can't tell me he had no idea what he was doing. Even when he's out cold he keeps his knee firmly planted on the victims neck. The official cause of death is that he died due to combination of restraint and compression of the neck, causing a heart attack and that he did not suffocate, an important detail. See, saying that is stretching a long bow. That's like saying someone got shot died of blood loss. Technically right, but they died because they got shot. Or, someone died because of head trauma in a car accident. No its not like saying that. If you read the autopsy the cause of death wasn't neck compression causing asphyxiation, it was subdual, restraint and neck compression causing heart attack. If the guy on the neck is guilty of murder, then so are the other cops because their actions of subduing and restraining Floyd caused his heart attack. Most acts of restraining and subduing someone would not lead to death, as is demonstrated by 99.99% of police arrests, unlike shooting someone which is far more likely to result in death. Yes it is saying it like that. They have been charged with murder as well, so you're saying you agree with the prosecutors, correct? How on earth do you think he had restraint and neck compression? Beach cruise? No it's not like saying that. If you restrain someone and they die because they had a bad heart are you a murderer? Some people have died just from being handcuffed or tasered, they have wigged out and died, are the police guilty of murder? If you dont understand the difference between restraining someone and shooting them then you are lost soul. You're either a troll or a sociopathic nutcase if you actually believe that. Pretty sure he didn’t need to restrain him by having a knee on his neck for 9 minutes. Exactly. Rusty, while in the instance you say, where someone is restrained, murder might be a loose term, but its the term that Minnesota uses to the third-degree. If I run someone over (a reckless act, like pinning someone down for nigh-on 10 minutes), and say, "Whoops, but the autopsy says that they died of a collapsed lung and they had asthma. I know I hit them in the chest with a car going 40km/h, but they had Asthma!" Are you saying that would be a valid defence in that scenario? No if kneel or stand on a person's neck for 8-10 minutes, there is a high probability that person will die, so that would likely count as murder or attempted murder. I dont know the probability of death if you lean on someones neck for 10 minutes, however its an important detail that he did not choke to death, he did not suffocate, his death was caused by a combination of three things; subdual, restrain and neck compression causing heart attack. So if you argue that the cop on neck is a murderer, then you have to apply the same standard to the other officers, including the one standing guard if he laid hands on him (subdual and restraint) during the arrest. You will then have to apply the same standard to every future scenario of someone dying in the process of being arrested, if you argue that pre existing health conditions plays no role in the culpability of the death. So the next time a police officer tasers someone and they die due to heart attack are you going to charge them with murder? What if they taser them twice, lets say the second zap is illegal but it causes death, is your argument that that cop deliberately tried to kill the victim? My argument here is that not that the officers arent culpable, rather the charge of murder requires specific INTENT to kill. You have to prove that all four offices intended to kill Floyd, that is the basis of murder, otherwise its something else like culpable homicide, manslaughter or criminal negligence. On the basis that Floyd had multiple health issues and drugs in his system that potentially contributed to his death then its possible that they will present as mitigating factors at trial. Once again I’m not saying that the Officers didnt KILL Floyd, they definitely contributed his death, however this isnt an all or nothing situation, and the prosecution are going to have a difficult time proving that all four officers set out to murder him. This is why we have courts and trained lawyers and judges that adjudicate on these issues, who understand the intrinsic complexities of such matters, rather than the mob who can only compute in black and white (figuratively speaking). I corrected your first sentence for you. That's all I'm going to read of that response, because if I have to play school teacher on your first sentence, your argument is flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|