cop suffocates man

[Catalyst52]

You are a very resilient debater. Great read so far. Very thought provoking.

 

[resilient1]

? A few countries have conceal-carry regulations, but with strict regulations, but if you show up in a public space with a rifle, or waving a handgun around, expect to be arrested or shot.

But if you beat up two cops, steal their weapon and try and use it on them there is no expectation of getting shot??
So you say protesters carry guns should be shot, not criminals. Makes sense to me!

Show me evidence of protestors carrying guns. The only one's I've seen are some backwoods Heil Hitler wannabes.

Beat up? Who beat up two cops? Did you watch the video? He struggled against the police attempt to restrain him, grabbed a discharged taser and took off. Tasers can't be used over and over, which was made clear in the deposition by the state prosecutor. The cops already knew it had been discharged twice as they had fired it. So, the guy grabs a discharged, ineffective, benign, non-lethal weapon, and runs away. That justifies shooting him in the back? Oh, in his haste to gun down the fleeing individual fired three times, not taking into consideration that a family was in a van. One of those bullets struck that van. Had an innocent bystander been killed I'm sure that's all in a day's work for the retards in blue, right?

 

[superbeast]

Objective, initially, but based on factual data, not convenient captions painting a picture that someone wants me to see. I don't watch the news, I read. I review articles and assess credibility based on multiple, legitimate sources that can be corroborated. If I wanted to be told what to think I'd watch CNN or Fox. So, what I stated does not transfer. It is based on data provided by policing and enforcement agencies. But, if law enforcement agencies and the FBI made those statement, I guess that must mean they are all part of the same conspiracy?

Further, the highlighted text was part of a larger comment. Way to cherry pick.

I take it there are no protests tonight?
At least they give you Sunday off.

 

[resilient1]

The free time is great actually.
Wife and i have worked very hard over the years. Its paying off nicely. Probably take next summer off too.

You're very fortunate, I'm studying, trying to improve my employment opportunities once the dust settles. Hopefully secure something decent in the IT sector.

 

[resilient1]

I take it there are no protests tonight?
At least they give you Sunday off.

You must be bored, that was a reply to a comment that wasn't even directed at you. See my above post for what occupies my time. Anyhow, this shit isn't going to learn itself. I only have another couple hours before I will need to crash. I'll be sure to check in as time permits. G'night.

 

[superbeast]

You must be bored, that was a reply to a comment that wasn't even directed at you. See my above post for what occupies my time. Anyhow, this shit isn't going to learn itself. I only have another couple hours before I will need to crash. I'll be sure to check in as time permits. G'night.

Yes sir. Very bored. And drunk. But now going to eat and watch netflix.
have a good night..

 

[Cog]

Yeah, that's exactly what I suggested. Did you look into these claims? Of course you didn't. Are you aware that all of the police departments contacted refuted the claims that pallets of bricks had been strategically placed? I didn't think so. Yes, some people have thrown bricks during the protests, but the pallets of bricks in photos were not placed as any part of some nefarious plot.

" NBC News found that some of the bricks shown in Dallas were close to a construction site and had been there for months."
" BBC News found that bricks show in Fayetteville had also been there since before the Floyd protests began."
" evidence showed that in many cases "suspicious" bricks depicted on social media were on streets for ongoing construction projects, not "planted" for protesters"

Some people will believe anything.

So these bricks had merely sat "close"to construction sites for months?Any materials for a project would be within the perimeter,likely behind temporary fencing
Think of the liabilities.How close is close?
Makes zero sense as usual .
Don't really care to argue this,just enjoying sitting back and watching the mayhem in Seattle.

 

[biguglynewf]

Objective, initially, but based on factual data, not convenient captions painting a picture that someone wants me to see. I don't watch the news, I read. I review articles and assess credibility based on multiple, legitimate sources that can be corroborated. If I wanted to be told what to think I'd watch CNN or Fox. So, what I stated does not transfer. It is based on data provided by policing and enforcement agencies. But, if law enforcement agencies and the FBI made those statement, I guess that must mean they are all part of the same conspiracy?

Further, the highlighted text was part of a larger comment. Way to cherry pick.

No cherry picking. You said what you said and it is totally contradictory to other things you’ve said.

Sorry. There’s no way to explain that away.

That’s cherry picking by definition.....

Or sucking and blowing.

 

[biguglynewf]

Show me evidence of protestors carrying guns. The only one's I've seen are some backwoods Heil Hitler wannabes.

Beat up? Who beat up two cops? Did you watch the video? He struggled against the police attempt to restrain him, grabbed a discharged taser and took off. Tasers can't be used over and over, which was made clear in the deposition by the state prosecutor. The cops already knew it had been discharged twice as they had fired it. So, the guy grabs a discharged, ineffective, benign, non-lethal weapon, and runs away. That justifies shooting him in the back? Oh, in his haste to gun down the fleeing individual fired three times, not taking into consideration that a family was in a van. One of those bullets struck that van. Had an innocent bystander been killed I'm sure that's all in a day's work for the retards in blue, right?

Again.... you weren’t there. By your own words in other applications.... how are you capable of telling people what happened and what didn’t happen.

Lol. Sorry pal. You’re done.

 

[resilient1]

Again.... you weren’t there. By your own words in other applications.... how are you capable of telling people what happened and what didn’t happen.

Lol. Sorry pal. You’re done.

Oh, I'm not telling anyone anything. The statement I provided is based on disclosures made by the attorney general prosecuting the officers, the video evidence, and statements made by the police. I don't need to be there when the sources available provide a detailed account, by the officer's own admission, of what took place. It was the first disclosure, but there will be a trial, and I'm sure in the interest of self-preservation these two p.o.s will lie their asses off, as I'm sure they have already been advised by their policing union. Justice is blind, and ignorant?

It is your right to believe whatever you want, but why not provide information that refutes my statement? In the end you may be able to say I was wrong they were acquitted. But based on the evidence I cannot condone the actions. What idiot fires bullets at a suspect fleeing, and in a parking lot with civilians present? This is the standard of policing that you are defending? How was Brooks a threat to anyone if he was running away with a spent taser? How is that any different than fleeing with an empty can of pepper spray? Are you trying to tell me that the cops don't know that a taser can only be fired twice? Does that mean they don't know how many bullets are in their magazines? Does their training condone firing at an unarmed assailant in an occupied fast-food parking lot? Is their focus so severely narrowed that they are incapable of surveying the environment for possible risk and unintended casualties when firing off rounds? I suppose it's a good thing he hit Brooks immediately as I bet he would have emptied his clip trying. I'm sure had one of those bullets mistakenly struck the child in that van there would be no debate on the issue. He would be dead to rights, and the policing union would hang him out to dry.

 

[resilient1]

No cherry picking. You said what you said and it is totally contradictory to other things you’ve said.

Sorry. There’s no way to explain that away.

That’s cherry picking by definition.....

Or sucking and blowing.

Sorry bud, you missed the entire point of that comment. It was a continuation of an earlier comment, supported by multiple sources, which have evidence that other fringe groups and are actors present who are capitalizing on the protests to use them for their own benefit to exacerbate the tensions. The point that one cannot attribute the incidents to a single group has been well-documented. See earlier posts, or research the topic for yourself. I will not waste effort on what I've already done.

It is only contradictory if you view it from an enclosed bubble denying the larger context to which it applies, and was already discussed, which is the case.

 

[biguglynewf]

Sorry bud, you missed the entire point of that comment. It was a continuation of an earlier comment, supported by multiple sources, which have evidence that other fringe groups and are actors present who are capitalizing on the protests to use them for their own benefit to exacerbate the tensions. The point that one cannot attribute the incidents to a single group has been well-documented. See earlier posts, or research the topic for yourself. I will not waste effort on what I've already done.

It is only contradictory if you view it from an enclosed bubble denying the larger context to which it applies, and was already discussed, which is the case.

Don’t agree. Lol.

Suck and blow double standard and you can’t explain your way out of it.

 

[superbeast]

Sorry bud, you missed the entire point of that comment. It was a continuation of an earlier comment, supported by multiple sources, which have evidence that other fringe groups and are actors present who are capitalizing on the protests to use them for their own benefit to exacerbate the tensions. The point that one cannot attribute the incidents to a single group has been well-documented. See earlier posts, or research the topic for yourself. I will not waste effort on what I've already done.

It is only contradictory if you view it from an enclosed bubble denying the larger context to which it applies, and was already discussed, which is the case.

Sorry but the protests and riots can be contributed to a single group. The DNC. This is nothing more than a political campaign.
These rioters are demanding policy change through politics. Their demands line up with the radical left.
i thought when an organized group uses threats of violence, fear and intimidation it used to be called terrorism?

 

[biguglynewf]

Oh, I'm not telling anyone anything. The statement I provided is based on disclosures made by the attorney general prosecuting the officers, the video evidence, and statements made by the police. I don't need to be there when the sources available provide a detailed account, by the officer's own admission, of what took place. It was the first disclosure, but there will be a trial, and I'm sure in the interest of self-preservation these two p.o.s will lie their asses off, as I'm sure they have already been advised by their policing union. Justice is blind, and ignorant?

It is your right to believe whatever you want, but why not provide information that refutes my statement? In the end you may be able to say I was wrong they were acquitted. But based on the evidence I cannot condone the actions. What idiot fires bullets at a suspect fleeing, and in a parking lot with civilians present? This is the standard of policing that you are defending? How was Brooks a threat to anyone if he was running away with a spent taser? How is that any different than fleeing with an empty can of pepper spray? Are you trying to tell me that the cops don't know that a taser can only be fired twice? Does that mean they don't know how many bullets are in their magazines? Does their training condone firing at an unarmed assailant in an occupied fast-food parking lot? Is their focus so severely narrowed that they are incapable of surveying the environment for possible risk and unintended casualties when firing off rounds? I suppose it's a good thing he hit Brooks immediately as I bet he would have emptied his clip trying. I'm sure had one of those bullets mistakenly struck the child in that van there would be no debate on the issue. He would be dead to rights, and the policing union would hang him out to dry.

Haha... nice try.

Try harder.

You have no evidence, you have no statements. You have only what you are allowed to see. You think you have disclosure? C’mon sir.... you’re smarter that that.

Any evidence leaked will fuck anything the prosecutor has invested in it. Again.... try to find a favourable jury. Isn’t going to happen.

And watch what any decent defence cousrl does with the DA’s statement. He completely hung himself. Maybe by choice?

Jovial.... lmfao.

Keep talking in circles and trying to turn things back around. It doesn’t work on me and it never will.

You made a fatal error in your argument. Nothing further will ever hold water.

 

[superbeast]

Haha... nice try.

Try harder.

You have no evidence, you have no statements. You have only what you are allowed to see. You think you have disclosure? C’mon sir.... you’re smarter that that.

Any evidence leaked will fuck anything the prosecutor has invested in it. Again.... try to find a favourable jury. Isn’t going to happen.

And watch what any decent defence cousrl does with the DA’s statement. He completely hung himself. Maybe by choice?

Jovial.... lmfao.

Keep talking in circles and trying to turn things back around. It doesn’t work on me and it never will.

You made a fatal error in your argument. Nothing further will ever hold water.

Careful. If you keep calling out bullshit you may be classified as a gang member.
LOL

 

[resilient1]

No cherry picking. You said what you said and it is totally contradictory to other things you’ve said.

Sorry. There’s no way to explain that away.

That’s cherry picking by definition.....

Or sucking and blowing.

[How do you know that those individuals are part of the left-wing protesters? As has been clearly indicated by law enforcement agencies at all levels, there are multiple actors involved. There are people out there who are taking advantage of the situation, extremists on the left and right. Furthermore, to make such a claim without being there doesn't mean anything. You see a short video clip, so what? What about the stuff you didn't see that happened 2 minutes before, or 10 minutes before?]

The above comment was made as a reply to a specific comment that it was protesters who were involved in attacks on people. I provided sources quoting law enforcement agencies, as well as the FBI, who had documented proof that aspects of the protests included extremist fringe elements. Critiquing a comment about video content doesn't undermine anything, it reinforces the fact that what you 'see' is not the full picture, and as such should not be basing an opinion on such content. Again, the evidence of fringe elements is based on information from verified sources, not a video image, that is the point, one which you clearly missed.

And, no that's not cherry picking by definition. Cherry picking is "taking only the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc., from what is available." An example? How about basing an entire argument on a video, which is exactly what I was disputing. What it is not is stating an alternative opinion that is substantiated and corroborated by evidence from multiple reputable sources, which is what I did.

The comments on the protests were based on factual data from reliable sources. Fortunately, there are still a variety of news sources in the U.S. which are not painting everything with the same brush, unfortunately, there does not seem to be enough people who take the time to read. That is a criticism of the American public. What news agency would risk a lawsuit claiming to have obtained source material from the FBI, various policing agencies, government departments, etc. if they did not?


Lastly, my original comment above, the one you claim undermined all of my arguments, had nothing to do with the shooting of Rayshard Brooks. If you want to call me on that, fine. I will admit that my opinion on that topic is just that, an opinion, and is open to scrutiny, and cannot be proven one way or the other. But, as much as you might wish upon a star for it to diminish or undermine the legitimacy of previous comments, it doesn't. To point out once more, the previous comments were all backed by researched data from multiple sources.

We clearly don't agree on the unfortunate events that unfolded in that Wendy's parking lot, and I said early on none of it needed to happen. I admitted then, and am still confounded over his actions, but I still do not believe the shooting was justified. Had it been a clean-cut white guy I do not believe they would have even drawn their guns.

Oh, suck and blow refers to holding two contradictory opinions, not remotely the same as cherry picking. Not at all.

 

[biguglynewf]

[How do you know that those individuals are part of the left-wing protesters? As has been clearly indicated by law enforcement agencies at all levels, there are multiple actors involved. There are people out there who are taking advantage of the situation, extremists on the left and right. Furthermore, to make such a claim without being there doesn't mean anything. You see a short video clip, so what? What about the stuff you didn't see that happened 2 minutes before, or 10 minutes before?]

The above comment was made as a reply to a specific comment that it was protesters who were involved in attacks on people. I provided sources quoting law enforcement agencies, as well as the FBI, who had documented proof that aspects of the protests included extremist fringe elements. Critiquing a comment about video content doesn't undermine anything, it reinforces the fact that what you 'see' is not the full picture, and as such should not be basing an opinion on such content. Again, the evidence of fringe elements is based on information from verified sources, not a video image, that is the point, one which you clearly missed.

And, no that's not cherry picking by definition. Cherry picking is "taking only the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc., from what is available." An example? How about basing an entire argument on a video, which is exactly what I was disputing. What it is not is stating an alternative opinion that is substantiated and corroborated by evidence from multiple reputable sources, which is what I did.

The comments on the protests were based on factual data from reliable sources. Fortunately, there are still a variety of news sources in the U.S. which are not painting everything with the same brush, unfortunately, there does not seem to be enough people who take the time to read. That is a criticism of the American public. What news agency would risk a lawsuit claiming to have obtained source material from the FBI, various policing agencies, government departments, etc. if they did not?


Lastly, my original comment above, the one you claim undermined all of my arguments, had nothing to do with the shooting of Rayshard Brooks. If you want to call me on that, fine. I will admit that my opinion on that topic is just that, an opinion, and is open to scrutiny, and cannot be proven one way or the other. But, as much as you might wish upon a star for it to diminish or undermine the legitimacy of previous comments, it doesn't. To point out once more, the previous comments were all backed by researched data from multiple sources.

We clearly don't agree on the unfortunate events that unfolded in that Wendy's parking lot, and I said early on none of it needed to happen. I admitted then, and am still confounded over his actions, but I still do not believe the shooting was justified. Had it been a clean-cut white guy I do not believe they would have even drawn their guns.

Oh, suck and blow refers to holding two contradictory opinions, not remotely the same as cherry picking. Not at all.

Blah blah blah.... all you do is prove my point with each word you type... lol!

 

[resilient1]

Blah blah blah.... all you do is prove my point with each word you type... lol!

Sure bud. You never had a valid point in the first place. If you want to play pretend that's your prerogative.

 

[Cog]

Sure bud. You never had a valid point in the first place. If you want to play pretend that's your prerogative.

Are you still searching for the white supremcists at these occupations and monument destruction episodes?

 

[resilient1]

Are you still searching for the white supremcists at these occupations and monument destruction episodes?

Why don't you prove to me that they aren't present? I've already provided ample evidence that they are, and won't be baited into an debate you have already lost.