Four Minnesota police officers fired after black man dies in custody

First topic message reminder :

Four Minnesota police officers have been fired after the death of a black man who was taken into custody and seen on video being pinned down by his neck.
Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo said the four officers were now "former employees".
Footage shows the man, George Floyd, groaning and repeatedly saying "I can't breathe" to the white officer.
The incident echoed that of Eric Garner, a black man who died being arrested in New York City in 2014.
The FBI has said it will investigate the Minneapolis incident, which took place on Monday evening.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52806572

So ... Minneapolis is a pretty big city up in the north of the U.S. ... can we blame this man's death on Southerners in any way?

Seen a few blogs and newspaper articles with a similar or almost identical title to this one. Some of the readers did not get into the spirit of the thread and express any sympathy for the dead guy - or even bother to make any reference to the tragedy. Instead they just grumbled about the looters.  

Nowt as strange as folk!!!

As odious as the rioting and looting was, that was a side issue, where thieving opportunists unconnected with the protests, struck.

JulesV wrote:Ah that must be the reason then.
I will track his progress day by day.
Bless his old heart.

Let's us know. The poor old gent didn't deserve such treatment.

JulesV wrote:Seen a few blogs and newspaper articles with a similar or almost identical title to this one. Some of the readers did not get into the spirit of the thread and express any sympathy for the dead guy - or even bother to make any reference to the tragedy. Instead they just grumbled about the looters.  

Nowt as strange as folk!!!

As odious as the rioting and looting was, that was a side issue, where thieving opportunists unconnected with the protests, struck.

The looting is a separate matter, not to be confused with the death of George Floyd, or the legitimate protests. Those are the false equivalencies that the RW'ers want people to make. They want to bury the victim in dirt, so that he is diminished in the eyes of the public.

But does anyone think that looting is payment for crushing a man's esophagus until he dies? It's a variation on blaming the victim...only, in this case, it's smearing the cause of the victim.

''I will lose many friends over what I'm about to say.

I will possibly be called a racist or even a white supremacist (even though I'm a brown man, who's been beaten to a pulp by neo-Nazis wearing steel toed boots).

But maybe, just maybe, the fact that I am getting 100% of
my information from the black scholars in the picture - The Great Thomas Sowell, Glenn Loury, Shelby Steele, John McWorther, Coleman Hughes, Kmele Foster and Thomas Chatterton Williams, allows me some room for thought?

I’ve been watching the narrative play universally over
the heinous killing of George Floyd, and the complete and utter lack of facts about African Americans in The US has been infuriating.

Unfortunately, anyone who doesn’t submit to the dominant narrative will be called a heretic, a racist, a whites supremacist etc.
Still, I can’t stop myself.

1. Black Lives Matter don’t care about black people. Want evidence? Name me a single time - just once - when they’ve protested against black people being killed by other black people? Whether in America or elsewhere?
Why is this relevant?
Because the biggest cause of death for black men aged 15-45 in USA is... other black men. Compare to white people, where it’s traffic accidents for the younger portion and heart attacks for those over 35.
Or how about the black lives in Sudan, East Timor, Libya?
Why do we only ever hear from BLM when it’s a white person killing a black person?

2. Speaking of which - imagine if white people started doing the reverse. Imagine every time a white person was killed by a black person, there’d be protests, riots, looting and social media campaigns. First thing to notice is that it would be more frequent, because African Americans kill more white people in the US than white people kill African Americans. Now what?
Should we really start applying the race card every time there’s a murder involving more than one pigmentation? Where will it end?

3. Police killings. The video of the murder of George Floyd is so visceral, by showing the casual evil with which officer Derek Chauvin kills
George Floyd. People are rightly outraged, and no one can honestly defend the officer, who rightly has been arrested and hopefully will spend his remaining years behind bars (although the prosecutor has been idiotic in moving the case from 2nd degree to first degree murder -
a burden of proof they will most likely fail to provide).

But... The only reason people are up in arms about these is that the social media and MSM attention focuses disproportionately on these incidents when the victim is black and the officer isn't. Don't believe me?
Let me prove it:

You've all heard of Tamir Rice - a 12 year old black boy who was murdered when brandishing a toy gun. It was all over the news, there were riots and marches, hashtags and universal condemnation all over the media.
But how many of you have heard of Daniel Shaver?
A white man who was showing his friends a scoped air rife used to exterminate birds who entered his store, and was killed for this?

You may remember the case of Sam DuBose, a black man who was shot dead for driving his car away from from the police.
The exact same thing happened to before that to Andrew Thomas, a white man driving away from the police. None of you have heard of him.

Alton Sterling was a black man shot dead by the police when reaching into his pocket for his wallet - a travesty.
The same thing happened to a white guy named Dylan Noble. Sterling made national headlines, none of us heard a word about Noble. Loren Simpson was a white teenager who was shot dead by the police in eerily similar circumstances as George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin.

You've not heard of the former, but demanded justice for the latter. You've not heard of James Boyd, Alfred Redwine, Brandon Stanley or Mary Hawkes.

But you've heard of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile.
Because the only times police killings make the news is when the victim is black and the officer isn't.

Here are the FBI, NCJRS and BJS statistics:

For every 10, 000 black people arrested for violent crime, 3 are killed by the police.
For every 10, 000 white people arrested for violent crime, 4 are killed by the police.

In 2019, 49 unarmed people were killed by the police. 9 were black. 19 were white.
The likelihood for a black person being shot by the police is as high as being struck by lightning.
Yet, we are seeing riots, every single post on Instagram and Twitter is in support of Black Lives Matter and denunciation of police in America...

4. "Systemic Racism" / "Institutionalised racism".

Sound good, don't they? Such powerful words...
and completely inaccurate. First, let's see what the claims being made are:

Both insinuate built-in racism within various official institutions (police, law, governments etc).
Yet, when they are challenged, by asking the proponents to provide *evidence* for these, nothing is provided. Name one single law that is targeting exclusively black people. Just one. There isn't one.
If the police is "systematically" anti-black, explain how it is possible that 20% of the Police Force in America is black (African Americans in America constitute roughly 14% of the population, meaning that blacks are *overrepresented* within the police force!)?
Now, imagine how incredibly racist it is to say that the 100, 000 plus black police officers are too stupid to know that they are working inside and within a racist institution? That really is racism. And none of them have come out and said anything???
None of them have gone on 60 Minutes and said "We are being trained to be racists"? Seriously?

How about governments? Well, let's leave aside the fact that America just had a two-term black president (whose second name was Hussein, by the way).
Some of America's worst run cities have black mayors, black governors and majority black councils. Look at two of the worst cities in America to be black in:
Baltimore and Chicago. Why is it that a place where the people in power are black can be *worse* for the African American
Community, than cities that aren't run by black politicians? This is a knock-down argument.

5. Disparity.

People often look at the economic disparities between blacks and whites, and claim it to be evidence for institutionalised racism. It says something about the power of a
narrative, when it has been debunked decades ago - by BLACK ECONOMISTS (like The Great Thomas Sowell) - yet the myth persists.

First of all, at no point in human history has any two groups of people had the same level of wealth or income as each other.
It would be an absolute miracle to expect that people with different backgrounds, cultures, histories, values and ethics to have the same level of wealth.

This is even true within so called races - compare for example Black Americans (generational) vs Black Immigrants...
particularly the ones from West Indies (Jamaica, Barbados etc.).

You couldn't tell these people apart, just by looking at them, and whatever racism is in place for one group must by definition be applied for the second group.
But what they have is completely different values and work ethics (the Jamaicans arriving in the US does so commonly to achieve greater heights than what he or she can in their home country).
Whatever level of systemic racism exists, they are subjected to it as much as the African American.

Yet, already in the 1970's (!!!), when racism was far more prevalent than it is today, Black Americans from the West Indies were earning 58% more than the Black American whose
generations go back centuries in the United States. How could that be, if there's supposed to be such a thing as "systemic racism"?

Disparities are only proof of disparities. Just because Group X doesn't have the same as Group Y, doesn't mean that it's explained by racism.
And why does this so called "White Supremacy" only run against one group of Black Americans? Why doesn't it run against Asian Americans, who out earn White Americans by over 60%? Why doesn't it apply to Jewish Americans? Or Indian Americans, all of whom earn more than...
White Americans??

Maybe there's something else going on...?

In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan published his report "The Negro Family: The Case For National Action", where he saw that African American households were 25% single mothers - a frightening statistic that would have
devastating consequences. Since then, Jim Crow laws and Red Lining have all been removed from the books, Martin Luther King Jr. and The Civil Rights Movement made tremendous strides and we've now even had a black two-term president.

But, today, black households with no paternal
figure, and only a single mother constitute SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT of all black households in America!!! SEVENTY FIVE!!!!

Now you tell me, which is the better explanation for young black children ending up in a life of crime - the lack of a father figure, or the mythical,
non-explainable entity known only as "institutional racism", which for some reasons doesn't apply to Nigerian immigrants, to black immigrants from West Indies, to Indian people, to Jewish people, to Asian Americans...?

6. Criminality.
"Why are blacks being disproportionately imprisoned? There's a racist Prison Industry Complex!"

The key word here is "disproportionately". Because it most certainly is true that African Americans make out the majority of prisoners in America, but what is the evidence that
this is disproportionate? It's non-existent.

Let's look at the stats:

Black Americans constitute roughly 14% of the population in America, yet they commit 50% of all the murders. But, this is misleading - because it's not the elderly, nor the children nor the women who commit
the murders. It's almost exclusively the young men (15-40). That constitutes about a fourth of the black population, which means that about 3.5% of the American population are responsible for 50% of all the murders!

Read this again: 3.5% of Americans are responsible for 50% of
all murders.

You will find similar astonishing figures for drug related crimes, armed robberies, breaking and entering and gang violence.

So, even though it is true that black people make up the majority of the prison population, the incarceration rates are only proportionate
against the crime rate, not the population.

7. History of slavery, Jim Crow and Red Lining

"Well, that maybe so, but it's because of the history of slavery and Jim Crow!"

I don't doubt the good intentions of those making these arguments, but they don't actually see how it is
a classic case of Racism of lower expectations.

No one has been able to provide a logical link between historical racism and the plight of people today.

First of all, what's unique about racism in America (and Britain, for that matter) is that these countries abolished slavery
when they did! They were among the first countries in the world to do so, and America even fought a bloody civil war to implement the 13th Amendment. Almost every country in the world practiced slavery, and there are many - particularly in Subsaharan Africa - who still do to this
day.

And it most certainly is true that racism didn't end with slavery, and evil practices such as Jim Crow, segregation and Red Lining were practiced until the 70's. But - and here is the most astonishing fact of all - African American's had *more* wealth and less unemployment
during those times than today, when such practices have been abolished and are rightly considered moral evils.

Now, before anyone makes the nonsensical claim that "You're saying we should oppress them then, because they had it better!?", let me explain that correlation does not
mean causation. But just as facts don't care about feelings, reality won't comply with narrative.

8. "America is a White Supremacist society!"

This is one of the most egregious claims out there. First of all, compared to what? Show me a country where blacks are a minority, but
still get to be elected presidents, have more than 50 Mayors, congressmen and women, run city councils and have had multiple presidential candidates. Show me one.

America (and Britain) are two of the least racist societies on earth and in history. For god's sake, look at the
response from the murder of George Floyd! Just look at the outpouring of support for black people, the universal condemnation of racism from exactly all corners of the political spectrum, the complete solidarity from every white person with a social media account.
9. "Black Lives Matter"

This is a big one. Because I don't know of many organisations who care less about black lives than Black Lives Matter. 93% of all killings of black people are done by other blacks - BLM are completely silent on this.
BLM has never - not a single time - had a march or campaign black people being killed en massé in places like Sudan, Eritrea, Somalia or Libya.

Instead, what they have done is to have chants like "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" (about the police), which inspired a
lunatic in Dallas to murder 3 police officers.

During the current riots, a 77 year old, black former Police Captain - David Dorn - was murdered by rioters. BLM has not said a word.

BLM reject Martin Luther King Jr.'s sentiment that people should
"...be judged based on the content of their character, not the colour of their skin". If you've actually listened to the "I have a dream" speech, that line is the one which got the loudest cheers and applauses.
BLM believe people who aspire to apply this principle of colour blindness are racists.

Conclusion:

I can go on and on. I've provided my sources below, and I can point to the works of economists and criminologists and historians for further data.
But I don't it will matter - the narrative is too strong, and people are too emotionally invested. Facts don't stand a chance.

People are so keen to use the tragic murder of George Floyd to wave their anti-racism badges and flags. It makes them feel good.
Black friends of mine, who are incredibly successful in their fields, are talking about how they've been victims all their lives, even though they are some of the luckiest people who have ever lived, regardless of race.

All I ask of you, if you're reading this
(and I doubt many will, certainly not to the end) is to ask yourself "What if what Amir is saying is true?"

That's all I can hope for.''




Amir Pars

You fell for it as well.

All over Facebook and twatter.

A hoax.

Brutus wrote:You fell for it as well.

All over Facebook and twatter.

A hoax.

fell for what?

he's just giving his thoughts and opinions

what do you mean a hoax?

How do you know that ?

There is no person called "Amir Pars".

It is an account, on Facebook, Twatter and other media sites set up by a black right wing group.

Brutus wrote:There is no person called "Amir Pars".

It is an account, on Facebook, Twatter and other media sites set up by a black right wing group.

uh? how does that even matter?

there is no person called ''Brutus'' either but you still have media accouts and give your opinions

i don't get how the name is even relevant

try looking at the content

maybe there are numerous lies and misinformation contained therein.

pick that apart if you like but don;t get hung up on the name on the account

gelico wrote:

Brutus wrote:There is no person called "Amir Pars".

It is an account, on Facebook, Twatter and other media sites set up by a black right wing group.

uh?  how does that even matter?

there is no person called ''Brutus'' either but you still have media accouts and give your opinions

i don't get how the name is even relevant

try looking at the content

maybe there are numerous lies and misinformation contained therein.

pick that apart if you like but don;t get hung up on the name on the account

gelico wrote:

Brutus wrote:You fell for it as well.

All over Facebook and twatter.

A hoax.

fell for what?
he's just giving his thoughts and opinions



what do you mean a hoax?  

There have been a lot of hoax cases, yes straight up HOAX.

HOAX is where a particular group is posing as another group, and making very poisonous toxic posts while pretending to be this other group. People posing as their rivals!!

Last week FB had to remove several accounts of far right groups posing as a far left group and posting toxic/illegal/violent material.

(btw, gelico, in addition to this I read that   ……. ''FB has removed nearly 200 social media accounts linked to supremacy groups that planned to encourage members to attend protests over police killings  — in some cases with weapons.The accounts on Facebook and Instagram were tied to the Proud Boys and the American Guard, two hate groups already banned on the platforms.'')

JulesV wrote:

gelico wrote:


fell for what?
he's just giving his thoughts and opinions



what do you mean a hoax?  

There have been a lot of hoax cases, yes straight up HOAX.

HOAX is where a particular group is posing as another group, and making very poisonous toxic posts while pretending to be this other group. People posing as their rivals!!

Last week FB had to remove several accounts of far right groups posing as a far left group and posting toxic/illegal/violent material.

(btw, gelico, in addition to this I read that   ……. ''FB has removed nearly 200 social media accounts linked to supremacy groups that planned to encourage members to attend protests over police killings  — in some cases with weapons.The accounts on Facebook and Instagram were tied to the Proud Boys and the American Guard, two hate groups already banned on the platforms.'')

that may well be the case, jules but again it is irrelevant

what about the content of the post from the 'persona' of Amir Pars, which is neither toxic nor poisonous nor hate filled and certainly not violent

does anyone want to comment on the content rather than where it came from?

Brutus wrote:There is no person called "Amir Pars".
.

I think this post confused people on here, Brutus. It confused me too, at first.


Let's keep this simple !!
Using a pen name is a well established tradition in the media and message boards. Some bloggers and journalists do it. Even authors writing books use pen names, sometimes. It is an accepted tradition.  


That is a completely different thing from hoax  which is of course illegal  and I have explained it in my previous post.

I'm not on any social media sites but I know there's a massive difference between using a pen name/nom de plume  which is a perfectly acceptable practise …….. as opposed to HOAX which is a malicious illegal practice designed to harm a rival group.

does anyone want to comment on the content rather than where it came from?

gelico wrote:

that may well be the case, jules but again it is irrelevant

what about the content of the post from the 'persona' of Amir Pars, which is neither toxic nor poisonous nor hate filled and certainly not violent

does anyone want to comment on the content rather than where it came from?

I've never heard of him, gelico. I will read it when I have time. I run a forum too - so I don't have as much free time as most other people on forums.

Be mindful tho - that there is a lot of self loathing in the black community and such people post awful, hateful stuff about their own.

In some cases it's real self hate..... with issues.
In some other cases it' financially motivated - they deliberately post controversial clickbait stuff in order to get lots of followers. And they say whatever they think these followers want to hear. Resist getting reeled in!

Laters x

I'm not sure about the '75% of black children in US grow up with just a single mother as parent' claim... I've never heard that before... That is surprisingly high rate...


But everything else that was said in the post above that Gelico posted, is true!

gelico wrote:1. Black Lives Matter don’t care about black people. Want evidence? Name me a single time - just once - when they’ve protested against black people being killed by other black people? Whether in America or elsewhere?
Why is this relevant?
Because the biggest cause of death for black men aged 15-45 in USA is... other black men. Compare to white people, where it’s traffic accidents for the younger portion and heart attacks for those over 35.
Or how about the black lives in Sudan, East Timor, Libya?
Why do we only ever hear from BLM when it’s a white person killing a black person?

Well, Gels, you just didn’t dig your shovel deep enough. People under pressure kill for short-term solutions to long term conditions: robbery of a liquor store, or a drug deal gone wrong, any number of attempts to grab trinkets just to survive.

The fact is that black people are cheated on health care, cheated on housing, cheated on education, employment, neighborhoods and all of the benefits of the institutions of modern society. They have no choice but to grab-n-dash the trinkets that are left lying around for for them.

The trinkets that they grab and the crimes they commit are the ones that are in the neighborhood. Did Robin Hood try to do an initial public offering at the Nottingham National Bank? Hell, no. He merely robbed wanderers in Sherwood Forest…short-term solutions, available in the neighborhood. When you can only grab the trinkets in the neighborhood, you end up with your neighbors as the victims.

That’s the reason for black-on-black crime: People under pressure, grabbing from each other, because the white-man dominated institutions doesn’t provide enough food and sustenance, or fairly distribute the same, for all.

The author of the post Gels submitted says in point 3....




3. Police killings. The video of the murder of George Floyd is so visceral, by showing the casual evil with which officer Derek Chauvin kills
George Floyd. People are rightly outraged, and no one can honestly defend the officer, who rightly has been arrested and hopefully will spend his remaining years behind bars (although the prosecutor has been idiotic in moving the case from 2nd degree to first degree murder -
a burden of proof they will most likely fail to provide)."

When did this happen? As far as I have read it was changed from 3rd degree to 2nd degree, and that's where it is at the moment.

Syl wrote:The author of the post Gels submitted says in point 3....




3. Police killings. The video of the murder of George Floyd is so visceral, by showing the casual evil with which officer Derek Chauvin kills
George Floyd. People are rightly outraged, and no one can honestly defend the officer, who rightly has been arrested and hopefully will spend his remaining years behind bars (although the prosecutor has been idiotic in moving the case from 2nd degree to first degree murder -
a burden of proof they will most likely fail to provide)."

When did this happen? As far as I have read it was changed from 3rd degree to 2nd degree, and that's where it is at the moment.

Yes... I was going to say this too... As far as I know it was changed from 3rd degree to 2nd degree...



Think that might just have been a slight mistake by the poster...

gelico wrote:But... The only reason people are up in arms about these is that the social media and MSM attention focuses disproportionately on these incidents when the victim is black and the officer isn't. Don't believe me?

Did you forget 200-years of slavery? Did you forget peonage? Did you forget Jim Crow? Did you forget separate-but-equal? Did you forget redlining and “colored schools”? Did you forget black ghettos? Did you forget that the entire nineteenth-century was consumed by segregation?

Was that all just the “unbalanced and biased” media? Your argument reduces to: look over there, don’t look over here. Don’t look at us, who caused this problem, start your investigation at the gossips who talk about it.

Well, gels, where there’s smoke, there’s fire: the white man caused this institution of bias, and that’s where the causal chain begins.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:The author of the post Gels submitted says in point 3....




3. Police killings. The video of the murder of George Floyd is so visceral, by showing the casual evil with which officer Derek Chauvin kills
George Floyd. People are rightly outraged, and no one can honestly defend the officer, who rightly has been arrested and hopefully will spend his remaining years behind bars (although the prosecutor has been idiotic in moving the case from 2nd degree to first degree murder -
a burden of proof they will most likely fail to provide)."

When did this happen? As far as I have read it was changed from 3rd degree to 2nd degree, and that's where it is at the moment.

Yes... I was going to say this too... As far as I know it was changed from 3rd degree to 2nd degree...



Think that might just have been a slight mistake by the poster...

It's quite an important point though.....there have been appeals from George Floyds family amongst others to upgrade the charge but unless he is privy to info the public dont know the charge stands at 2nd degree murder.

I am half way through his writing.... he talks a lot of sense imo.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:




Yes... I was going to say this too... As far as I know it was changed from 3rd degree to 2nd degree...



Think that might just have been a slight mistake by the poster...

It's quite an important point though.....there have been appeals from George Floyds family amongst others to upgrade the charge but unless he is privy to info the public dont know the charge stands at 2nd degree murder.

I am half way through his writing.... he talks a lot of sense imo.

His point was correct that the change in degree of murder requires a lot more proof... And which will be impossible to prove... Although it was clearly a mistake to say '2nd to 1st'... But the general point was correct that a change from 3rd to 2nd or to 1st would mean that intent to kill would need to be conclusively proved...


A third-degree murder conviction would not require proof that the defendant wanted the victim to die, only that their actions were dangerous and were carried out without regard to human life.


This charge is blatantly true...


However...


First- and second-degree murder under Minnesota law require proof that the defendant intended to kill. First-degree in most cases requires premeditation, with second-degree more related to crimes of passion.

gelico wrote:America (and Britain) are two of the least racist societies on earth and in history. For god's sake, look at the
response from the murder of George Floyd! Just look at the outpouring of support for black people, the universal condemnation of racism from exactly all corners of the political spectrum, the complete solidarity from every white person with a social media account.

You’re selling coals to Newcastle with this one. You say, “look at the response to the murder”. You should be saying ‘look at the cause of the murder”: white cops, third-world style, beating a black man to death in order to impose the white dictator’s rule.

In the end, gels, you are just apologizing for a third-world dictatorship. You see these types of events in Turkey, Brazil or Russia, and the arguments those men put up in apologia are the same arguments you are making.

Obviously, you did not write this piece. But whoever did is in lock-step with the way authoritarian dictators have justified themselves over the centuries. It’s: us against disorder, no matter the cause, and we will use any means to crush the people!

gelico wrote:BLM reject Martin Luther King Jr.'s sentiment that people should
"...be judged based on the content of their character, not the colour of their skin". If you've actually listened to the "I have a dream" speech, that line is the one which got the loudest cheers and applauses.
BLM believe people who aspire to apply this principle of colour blindness are racists.

How reminiscent of George Orwell’s concept of ‘doublespeak’, in his book, 1984.

Again, you are mixing cause with effect. King’s words were prospective, not retrospective. We have racism. We aspire to a time when people are “judged based on the contend of their character, not the color of their skin.”

BLM is addressing the now, not the future. Now, we have racism! It must stop! When it does, we will enter the world Dr. King envisions. But now is now…the police are killing people of color. We have to correct the now, in order to enter the beautiful world that Dr. King spoke of.

In USA...

4 in 10,000 white people arrested by police, die while being arrested/restrained etc...


3 in 10,000 black people arrested by police, die while being arrested/restrained etc...


Seems the real racists are the ones who only care when it is a black person who dies...

Tommy Monk wrote:
In USA...

4 in 10,000 white people arrested by police, die while being arrested/restrained etc...

3 in 10,000 black people arrested by police, die while being arrested/restrained etc...

Seems the real racists are the ones who only care when it is a black person who dies...

I doubt that.

Tommy Monk wrote:
In USA...

4 in 10,000 white people arrested by police, die while being arrested/restrained etc...


3 in 10,000 black people arrested by police, die while being arrested/restrained etc...


Seems the real racists are the ones who only care when it is a black person who dies...

I follow Shuan King. He will mention white folks being killed. As you roll through comments you get a pretty good feeling for what his followers feel. About a third are upset, about a third dont care and about third say "now you know how we feel".

Unfortunately, most white folks either think the cops didnt do anything wrong, or they csnt use the death of a white man to push their liberal agenda.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:The author of the post Gels submitted says in point 3....

3. Police killings. The video of the murder of George Floyd is so visceral, by showing the casual evil with which officer Derek Chauvin kills
George Floyd. People are rightly outraged, and no one can honestly defend the officer, who rightly has been arrested and hopefully will spend his remaining years behind bars (although the prosecutor has been idiotic in moving the case from 2nd degree to first degree murder -
a burden of proof they will most likely fail to provide)."

When did this happen? As far as I have read it was changed from 3rd degree to 2nd degree, and that's where it is at the moment.

Yes... I was going to say this too... As far as I know it was changed from 3rd degree to 2nd degree...



Think that might just have been a slight mistake by the poster...

I think that the anti-black bias that Chavin showed in killing Floyd, has crept up into the various District Attorney's offices around the states. We saw that graphically in Brunswick, GA, where the GBI is calling for an investigation of the charging process in that county.

When there are questions raised as to bias, a city or county authority will typically be removed, and the State authority will take over. As an assistant Attorney General in Arizona, I recommended relieving several lower officials of their duties in cases because of bias.

Once a case is in new hands, a whole different approach may be taken. Partly, this is in an effort to correct the bias, as in the Brunswick case, and partly this is because of fresh hands. In the Minneapolis case, I have a feeling that the County Attorney was malingering, perhaps because of ideology. But I don't know...they appear to have covered up any seams.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Yes... I was going to say this too... As far as I know it was changed from 3rd degree to 2nd degree...



Think that might just have been a slight mistake by the poster...

I think that the anti-black bias that Chavin showed in killing Floyd, has crept up into the various District Attorney's offices around the states. We saw that graphically in Brunswick, GA, where the GBI is calling for an investigation of the charging process in that county.

When there are questions raised as to bias, a city or county authority will typically be removed, and the State authority will take over. As an assistant Attorney General in Arizona, I recommended relieving several lower officials of their duties in cases because of bias.

Once a case is in new hands, a whole different approach may be taken. Partly, this is in an effort to correct the bias, as in the Brunswick case, and partly this is because of fresh hands. In the Minneapolis case, I have a feeling that the County Attorney was malingering, perhaps because of ideology. But I don't know...they appear to have covered up any seams.

What 'anti black bias' did he show...?


The guy had just passed a counterfeit note to buy some cigarettes and appeared to be drunk/high on drugs... He resisted arrest and was fighting against being put in the car... He was saying he couldn't breathe and was falling down before the cop was holding him down on the floor... An ambulance was called and he was being held there until the ambulance arrived...


How is any of that 'anti black bias'...?

Brutus wrote:There is no person called "Amir Pars".

It is an account, on Facebook, Twatter and other media sites set up by a black right wing group.

Tommy Monk wrote:What 'anti black bias' did he show...?

He terminated him...with extreme prejudice.

Nothing to do with him being black...

Tommy Monk wrote:The guy had just passed a counterfeit note to buy some cigarettes and appeared to be drunk/high on drugs... He resisted arrest and was fighting against being put in the car... He was saying he couldn't breathe and was falling down before the cop was holding him down on the floor... An ambulance was called and he was being held there until the ambulance arrived...

1. A “counterfeit” note.

A “counterfeit” note, at best, calls for an arrest and bail/OR. The physical altercation was a huge overreaction to a non-violent, property charge.

2. Cigarettes.

Cigarettes are not illegal.

3. “Resisting arrest/fighting”?

By whose account? Was there a disinterested witness—i.e., one not a party? What do those witnesses say.

Moreover, there were 4 police officers present, more than enough to place him in a squad car, where no harm could come to him. Why this breach of procedure?

It will be interesting to see how the other officers plead, and what they have to say at Chauvin's trial.

4. “Couldn't breathe and was falling down before the cop was holding him…”

Are you questioning the cause of death? That’s for the jury to decide at Chauvin’s trial.

5. “An ambulance was called and he was being held there until the ambulance arrived…”

Procedure dictates he should have been held in the squad car. If for some medical reason he could not be moved, why a knee to the neck for 8:43 minutes?

The actual murder was caught on camera, for all to see. End of…

Tommy Monk wrote:Nothing to do with him being black...

Chauvin is not charged with racism.  Although, depending on what witnesses say he said at the time, he may be hit with a 'hate crime' enhancement. Witnesses say Chauvin used the N-word several times.

I posted already what was said by an independent witness...


He was resisting arrest and struggling so as to prevent being put in the car... He was also claiming he couldn't breathe and falling to the ground before the cop had his knee on him ..


He was high on drugs and/or drunk too, it was reported...

Tommy Monk wrote:I posted already what was said by an independent witness...

His fellow officers are now saying that Chauvin was using the N-word directed at Floyd, and that he (Chauvin) began the violence. Independent civilian witnesses are saying that all George Floyd did was ask what he was being charged with…then Chauvin attacked him.

Tommy Monk wrote:He was resisting arrest and struggling so as to prevent being put in the car... He was also claiming he couldn't breathe and falling to the ground before the cop had his knee on him ..

Again, Chauvin's fellow officers are now saying that Chauvin prompted the violence. Common sense tells you that 4 officers could handle one man, without killing him. Procedure says: put a suspect in the back seat of a squad car, which is like a jail cell. Four officers could easily have handled that.

Tommy Monk wrote:He was high on drugs and/or drunk too, it was reported...

I haven't seen a toxicology report, but I'm sure police procedure does not dictate that police must murder all drunks. If it's true, I'm sure it will come out at Chauvin's trial.

It fits into Tom's racist narrative that Floyd must be guilty of contributing to his own death, rather than being murdered by an out of control lunatic in uniform.

Tommy Monk wrote:I posted already what was said by an independent witness...


He was resisting arrest and struggling so as to prevent being put in the car... He was also claiming he couldn't breathe and falling to the ground before the cop had his knee on him ..


He was high on drugs and/or drunk too, it was reported...

according autopsy report he was high on meth and something else, can't remember what exactly

that cop was still wrong though for doing what he did. the other 3 were just standing there. if he was already in handcuffs they were capable of restraining him without the need to kneel on his neck

don't you think?

I've already said that what the cop did by kneeling on his neck was wrong... And he is rightly going to face trial for it!

Yes, but you also said this about Floyd:

Tommy Monk wrote:Nothing to do with him being black...

I thought you needed to be brought up-to-date, in that Chauvin's fellow officers are now saying Chauvin was using racial slurs.  This suggests that it was racially motivated.

They were all wearing body cameras... So that will be easy to prove if it is true...


We will have to wait and see...

Tommy Monk wrote:They were all wearing body cameras... So that will be easy to prove if it is true...

We will have to wait and see...

But I heard that those 4 policemen had their body cameras turned off. It doesn't surprise me. Cops today treat all scrutiny as the enemy. It's very much like Trump and his, the press is the enemy of the people!

It's indicative that police today have become more of a police state, than a peace state.

And just think, if nobody had filmed the old guy getting shoved over, it would simply have been a case of doddery old guy aged 75 tripped, fell and banged his head.
That is what the initial report said. I wonder if body cams were turned on in that instance?
Luckily, witnesses videoed it, and the original report was redacted at 2 officers suspended.

Jeez, I mean, are US cops that bloody dense to realise when they are operating in a hostile atmosphere, in a crowd, they WILL be getting filmed.
So why bother making up false reports?

Brutus wrote:And just think, if nobody had filmed the old guy getting shoved over, it would simply have been a case of doddery old guy aged 75 tripped, fell and banged his head.
That is what the initial report said. I wonder if body cams were turned on in that instance?
Luckily, witnesses videoed it, and the original report was redacted at 2 officers suspended.

Jeez, I mean, are US cops that bloody dense to realise when they are operating in a hostile atmosphere, in a crowd, they WILL be getting filmed.
So why bother making up false reports?

And it's not just people making videos. There are permanent video cameras everywhere.

Heretofore, police have always lied and gotten away with it. What a shock for them. They have now gone from the most credible of voices, to the least credible.

JulesV wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Police attack 75-year old man.

Ouch!!!!      .........

OK I said I'd track this guy's progress.
Good news.
He's out of intensive care now (tho still hospitalised)
Get well soon, Mr Gugino.

75 years old and battling cancer, yet he's still out there trying to help people. Fricking awesome!

Original Quill wrote:Yes, but you also said this about Floyd:

Tommy Monk wrote:Nothing to do with him being black...

I thought you needed to be brought up-to-date, in that Chauvin's fellow officers are now saying Chauvin was using racial slurs.  This suggests that it was racially motivated.

Yet they stood by and did nothing....the three other non-white officers.

Black people make up 13 percent of the U.S. population yet account for one third of the people killed by police.

If you are black and in police custody, you are three times more likely to die than if you're white and in police custody, in America.

That's why the Black Lives Matter movement started. Not because of black-on-black killing, but because of the way law enforcement agencies across the country treat black suspects differently than they treat white suspects.

When there is a massive disparity in the way people are treated, and the only common denominator is race, you have a racial problem. It's entirely logical for people to rise up, demonstrate and demand equal treatment by their government when such problems arise.

The next time you find yourself thinking that BLM is hypocritical because some black people kill other black people, just remind yourself -- BLM's purpose is to get police to treat black people the same way they treat white people, and that's all.

Interesting.



"George Floyd and the police officer charged with his murder knew each other "pretty well" and regularly "bumped heads" when they worked together at a nightclub in Minneapolis, a co-worker has claimed.
Former police officer Derek Chauvin has been charged with second-degree murder after he was filmed kneeling on Mr Floyd's neck for nearly nine minutes in the street on May 25.
Speaking to CBS on Tuesday, David Pinney said he worked with the pair as a security guard at El Nuevo Rodeo last year.
"They bumped heads," Mr Pinney said. "It has a lot to do with Derek being extremely aggressive within the club with some of the patrons, which was an issue."
Mr Pinney said the two men knew each other "pretty well" and said that Mr Chauvin probably knew who Mr Floyd was when he arrested him."


https://uk.news.yahoo.com/george-floyd-murder-accused-derek-082725553.html

Clearly were not best of mates.
Could even be described as enemies.
And the cop has history of being an aggressive brute.
That augers well for his defence.

The club owner said the day after George Floyd was murdered that he and Chauvin both worked for her as security guards at the same time. She stopped short of confirming that they definitely knew each other.
Seems they did and there was history between them.