George Floyd Protest/Riots

#7,578
#7,578
MOOOOONEY said:
Again where did I mention race or racism?

This cop basically told Daniel Shaver I’m killing you and he walked away free. In case you wanted to know Shaver was white.

Click to expand...


I posted this earlier and some of the comments were “he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers” and “we didn’t see all the evidence, we aren’t qualified to make a determination either way”.

It was like the twilight zone in here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: midnight orange and McDad
#7,581
#7,581
MOOOOONEY said:
Again where did I mention race or racism?

This cop basically told Daniel Shaver I’m killing you and he walked away free. In case you wanted to know Shaver was white.

Click to expand...

Again, there were less than 50 total deaths to unarmed last year. I hate it for those that did and their families, but this is not something happening frequently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#7,582
#7,582
Tyler Durden said:
Unreal. That cop murdered him for losing a game of Simon says. What a hero, the kid crying his eyes out right before he shot him was clearly a huge threat. I'm sure the boys in blue gave him a medal too. Shoot, he'll probably be police commissioner soon.
Click to expand...

He was a 26 year old man that didn't follow instructions to stop reaching behind him.
I think he should have been arrested while prone on the ground, unable to tell if he was high or mentally handicapped. As it turns out, he was 3X over the legal intoxication limit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#7,587
#7,587
NCFisher said:
He was a 26 year old man that didn't follow instructions to stop reaching behind him.
I think he should have been arrested while prone on the ground, unable to tell if he was high or mentally handicapped. As it turns out, he was 3X over the legal intoxication limit.
Click to expand...

They may have been afraid somebody else was in the room and didn't want to get near the door. But the screaming, convoluted instructions, and rifles probably would have unnerved somebody that was stone cold sober.
 
#7,592
#7,592
RockyTop85 said:
Are you saying it was a violent protest?

Link?
Click to expand...
I wouldnt say it was "violent" but the actions and clearing werent surprising. As I said, I was watching it on periscope. There isnt a link and periscope only shows a limited amount of recently viewed and I viewed a bunch of Jax stuff. You act like I benefit from being dishonest.
 
#7,594
#7,594
RockyTop85 said:
Oh so you want me to repeat myself to catch you up on a conversation that you jumped in the middle of?

I’ll mark these clearly so you don’t get confused, again.

Response to your post: To say that the gathering in Lafayette Park was a “violent protest” is a lie.

Argument Supporting of Response: A violent protest isn’t something you have to watch three or four times to catch. You know it when you see it. I did eventually find the footage of the one styrofoam cup that got tossed. Probably a half-dozen people turned and shouted not to throw things, which you could then hear echoed by dozens of others behind them. For the other 28 minutes of the video preceding the “assault” by police, nothing was thrown and no new debris ends up on the ground when the camera would pan away. There was no contact between police and protestors other than one officer carefully pushing a woman away to give himself a bit of space in front of the barricade. She complied. It appeared mutually respectful. Most of the protestors were on their knees with their hands raised after the police approached the barricade. Furthermore, there are numerous eyewitness accounts available for anyone willing to google and read them. These too say it was nonviolent.

Conclusion of Response: The video speaks for itself. It makes clear that this wasn’t a riot or a violent protest sufficient to warrant the government applying that level of force against the entire crowd. The crowd was overwhelmingly peaceful, policed itself with regard to one incident, and was clearly not a threat to the police or endorsing dangerous behavior.

My Main Idea: The context of Barr’s statement isn’t simply that the protest was violent, but that this was part of the justification for the timing of “expanding the perimeter.“ Even if reasonable minds could differ about the nature of the protest, to say that this was part of the justification is clearly a lie.

Argument Supporting Main Idea: The police launched tear gas and smoke at the crowd at approx. 28:30 in the video, but they had been redeploying in anticipation of moving on the crowd for almost the entire video. You can see more officers arriving and see them all redeploying. By the time anything was thrown, they’re already moving into position and advancing on the barricade. Other officers formed up on H Street about 5 minutes before they launch the gas. This is consistent with eyewitness accounts and yoi can see people pointing and looking and talking about it. This clearly signals theit intent to move the crowd and it happens well before the police in front of the camera walk up to the barricade (which is when the lone styrofoam cup is thrown.) So they had already decided to move the protestors before anything happened.

But wait there’s more: still argument supporting main idea Trump walked into the rose garden for a press conference while the protest was still ongoing. He delivered a 10ish minute speech and ends by announcing his intent to walk to St. John’s Episcopal. If the decision to gas the protestors prior to curfew was a spontaneous reaction to their violence, Trump would not have known the path would be clear for him to go to the Church. He had to know before the speech started that they would be gone when his speech was concluded. Presidential schedules being what they are, he knew when they would start removing the protestors. It was preplanned.

Conclusion of Main Idea: The timing of the redeployment, and Trump’s own words prove that this was premeditated and not a reaction to nonexistent violence, which was half of Barr’s justification.

Dispensing with the other half of Barr’s excuse: Premeditation is partially consistent with but not conclusive of “expanding the perimeter.” However, the timing is inconsistent with the reasoning. The perimeter expansion was supposed to be a safety measure. Timing it during an ongoing, lawful protest and using force to expel the protestors was clearly not safe for either the protestors or the officers. This is why Barr had to lie about the violence. I see no need to accept the word of a liar AG from a lying administration who offers a self-serving justification that is half unverifiable and half lie.

Why this argument, picked by NCFisher, doesn’t matter: The need to expand the perimeter, even if true, is too remote to justify what happened. Ok it’s less humiliating than clearing Trump’s path but it’s still not a justification for what happened. It’s just an excuse to pander to people who already think those protestors deserved what they got based on their beliefs, but aren’t willing to say that out loud.
Click to expand...


Why that was a long-winded way for Rockytop85 to say "I stepped in my own crap".
You bought into the "Trump violated 1A rights of peaceful protestors just to stage a photo op". You lack impulse control.

The violent protests Fri-Sun determined the need for an expanded security perimeter in the Monday morning meeting between Barr and a 1/2 dozen LE agencies. You don't approve of it, but then you're out of your lane, aren't you? What you can't argue after three days of rioting, looting, arson, and the injury to 120 officers, is that it is unwarranted or unconstitutional.

Barr did not describe the Monday protest as violent, but that there were knots of violent protesters among them throwing items at police. I've already posted the transcript excerpt and link for you once:
W. Barr - The second part of your question, Pierre, I think one of the difficulties is that while there are peaceful demonstrators and participants in these protests, the instigators, those committed to violence, basically shield themselves by going among them and carrying out acts of violence. I saw the projectiles on Monday when I went to Lafayette Park to look at the situation. And as one of the officials said, he pointed out various knots of people where the projectiles were coming from and we could see… and it was a lot of demonstrators. And it’s hard to know exactly where they’re coming from. Frequently, these things are thrown from the rear of the demonstration, but we could not continue to protect the federal property involved and protect the safety of our agents with such a tight perimeter. And so our object was to move it out by one block. Next question, please.
William Barr & Chris Wray DOJ Press Conference Transcript on George Floyd Death - Rev

"The video proves it" (Rockytop85's point, aka - the thrown styrofoam cup from the grassy knoll):
Gee, this video disproves it:



Yet you didn't consider for a moment what you might not be seeing in your video might not be a total picture along H St. vicinity. Or that it's editors might not have included a broad view. I don't see any styrofoam projectiles. Perhaps floating like a feather makes it a pretty bad projectile.

What happened: Even though the violent cadre was not the majority, the majority refused to move back a block from H Street to I Street after being requested to do so three times. At that point, it is not the obligation of police to concede; you get moved. Police used firm but humane measures to carry out a perfectly legal measure. Unless you wish to make the argument that is unconstitutional (which you can't), you've no argument.

Why this argument by NCFisher matters: Because now you are emancipated from the false narrative that bound you. No longer held captive by CNN halfwits serving as Praetorian guard for the DNC, you are illuminated in light & knowledge.

All for you, my friend...all for you.
 
Last edited:
#7,595
#7,595
clarksvol00 said:
They may have been afraid somebody else was in the room and didn't want to get near the door. But the screaming, convoluted instructions, and rifles probably would have unnerved somebody that was stone cold sober.
Click to expand...

I think the report said there were six officers in the hall. They had ample personnel.
I think the officer's instructions were too complex, too drawn out, and he was probably intimidated by the scenario himself. He's the same age as the suspect, 26.
 
#7,599
#7,599
RockyTop85 said:
Somebody stopped listening halfway through Barr’s answer. Makes sense. He tends to drone when he’s lying.

The video(s) speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

No, and in fact I posted the transcript link in my recent replies.

You mean this video?: You and your 'styrofoam cup".

The transcript proves you wrong. "The video" proves you wrong.
 
#7,600
#7,600
SpaceCoastVol said:
Interesting that that was from 2015. I wonder how he feels now. (Not really)
Click to expand...

I noticed the year that it was being said but still thought it could or it might be relevant to some in here.
Just me personally but ...... I can't stand to hear the guy say two words about anything on any subject.
I find him to be a big loud mouth that likes to talk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top