George Floyd Protest/Riots

#9,901
#9,901
GreveHaller said:
Sadly, Floyd's brother was testifying last week saying how he admired and looked up to his brother. His idol wasnt MLK or Obama. It was his brother. The brother that had been arrested 13 times and held a gun to a pregnant woman's stomach. SMH. That's whats wrong with this movement
Click to expand...
The collective world has lost its mind
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol, 615vols, Orangeslice13 and 2 others
#9,902
#9,902
rjd970 said:
I understand the officer’s reaction and it is understandable if (when) they are cleared.

My issue is the situation could have been diffused by not insisting on arresting him and I think that shooting someone while fleeing...not fighting...but fleeing, is wrong. The assumption he would have kept running is just as strong...if not stronger....than the assumption he would have stopped, turned around, and got the officer’s gun and finished him. I just don’t buy that the officer’s life was in any real danger. In the heat of the moment, however, I can understand why they reacted the way they did.

That said, the guy shouldn’t have resisted either. I’m not sure what he thought would happen by grabbing the taser and taking off. It was pretty stupid.

There is culpability on both sides IMO and it is definitely a sad situation.
Click to expand...
Why should they not try to arrest him? He was passed out in the drive thru with the car running? Should they not arrest anyone out of fear that the person may fight back causing a violent interaction?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrumpedUpVol and Rickyvol77
#9,906
#9,906
rjd970 said:
I understand the officer’s reaction and it is understandable if (when) they are cleared.

My issue is the situation could have been diffused by not insisting on arresting him and I think that shooting someone while fleeing...not fighting...but fleeing, is wrong. The assumption he would have kept running is just as strong...if not stronger....than the assumption he would have stopped, turned around, and got the officer’s gun and finished him. I just don’t buy that the officer’s life was in any real danger. In the heat of the moment, however, I can understand why they reacted the way they did.

That said, the guy shouldn’t have resisted either. I’m not sure what he thought would happen by grabbing the taser and taking off. It was pretty stupid.

There is culpability on both sides IMO and it is definitely a sad situation.
Click to expand...

The MSM media more than likely killed this young man. They're pushing the narrative that young black men are being hunted and murdered by cops. Having been force-fed this, he probably believed it with everything in his bones.

He gets high/drunk, passes out in a drive through, wakes up to cops around him, and panics, thinking he's been hunted found, and is about to be murdered by cops.

It's incredibly sad. Whether he is a businessman or a dead beat dad pot head. I don't care. Human life has value, and it's incredibly sad to see it end like that.

Everybody needs to get some context and show some responsibility with the platform they've been given. Serious changes need to be made in our law enforcement system. Serious, and quick. Laws need to changed, methods need to change, training needs to change, and attitudes need to be drastically transformed. The welfare/entitlement system needs to be drastically transformed so that it stops creating generational dependence and poverty, penalizing intact homes, and rewarding laziness. Politicians need tocare about communities and not votes, power and control. The media needs to take their platform seriously, report the news, and stop with the stupid, politicized, divisive, reckless narrative building.

And I'll say it... The black community needs to take an ounce of personal responsibility and look inward to see what part of AA culture is contributing to their problems. Make positive cultural/family structure changes that will improve their lot for generations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oz615, BartW and Rickyvol77
#9,907
#9,907
rjd970 said:
I understand the officer’s reaction and it is understandable if (when) they are cleared.

My issue is the situation could have been diffused by not insisting on arresting him and I think that shooting someone while fleeing...not fighting...but fleeing, is wrong. The assumption he would have kept running is just as strong...if not stronger....than the assumption he would have stopped, turned around, and got the officer’s gun and finished him. I just don’t buy that the officer’s life was in any real danger. In the heat of the moment, however, I can understand why they reacted the way they did.

That said, the guy shouldn’t have resisted either. I’m not sure what he thought would happen by grabbing the taser and taking off. It was pretty stupid.

There is culpability on both sides IMO and it is definitely a sad situation.
Click to expand...
He turned, pointed the taser and fired it and not even a second later falls to the ground. Watch the Wendy's cam view. He wasnt just taking off and got shot in the back, he was engaging
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol and Rickyvol77
#9,914
#9,914
utvols88 said:
He was in the Wendy's drive thru.
Click to expand...
Orange_Crush said:
For everone responding to my comment about thought crime... This is the post I responded to. Please try to contextualize the response. That is a bad law.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about him. I'm talking about the law. But if they need a thought crime law to convict him for what he'd done in the past (to get to that drive through), they're too lazy to do their jobs as investigators.
 
#9,916
#9,916
Rickyvol77 said:
If an intoxicated person is in the vehicle at any time with access to keys it’s aDUI
Click to expand...

This reminds me of the TV episode that's on TV Land re-runs of "Everybody loves Raymond". That's where Debra is charged w/a DUI just for falling asleep at the wheel in the parking lot & NOT driving after having a couple of drinks at a party. She had to go through red tape & jump through hoops to be able to get her drivers license back. If that was true back in 2003 (when the show was made) then it's still a current law ..... even buzz driving is drunk driving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#9,919
#9,919
Orange_Crush said:
I'm not talking about him. I'm talking about the law. But if they need a thought crime law to convict him for what he'd done in the past (to get to that drive through), they're too lazy to do their jobs as investigators.
Click to expand...
Its not a thought crime at that point in the drive thru though. You can complain about someone sitting in the parking lot of a bar and passing out. Sure I get that argument. This one ain't it though. I'd be an advocate for allowing a car on but you're in the back seat. The atl guy isnt the example to use to pound that table.
 
#9,920
#9,920
BigOrangeD said:
Click to expand...

The more things change, the more they stay the same?

Founded in 1865, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for black Americans. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.

https://www.history.com/topics/reconstruction/ku-klux-klan
Click to expand...
 
#9,921
#9,921
utvols88 said:
Its not a thought crime at that point in the drive thru though. You can complain about someone sitting in the parking lot of a bar and passing out. Sure I get that argument. This one ain't it though. I'd be an advocate for allowing a car on but you're in the back seat. The atl guy isnt the example to use to pound that table.
Click to expand...
Again... Look at the post I replied to. That was what I was complaining about...the law. You guys just went ahead and figured that my disagreement with "any time" was actually a disagreement with "this time".
 
#9,923
#9,923
Orange_Crush said:
Again... Look at the post I replied to. That was what I was complaining about...the law. You guys just went ahead and figured that my disagreement with "any time" was actually a disagreement with "this time".
Click to expand...
You linked it here:

"But if they need a thought crime law to convict him for what he'd done in the past (to get to that drive through), they're too lazy to do their jobs as investigators."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top