The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I find it very scary to see that people are protesting this.  Even with body camera footage that shows a justified use of force, people are protesting.  It shows that people want to riot and protest and go after cops for no reason.  Is anybody other than me disturbed by this?

It doesn't mean that people want to riot and protest and go after cops for no reason.  You're starting with a failed premise.

Meh, they're doing it with that fat girl the knife too. It's the norm now. Only a small percentage of these cases are really about police brutality. Like I said on the other thread, let only black officers work in majority black areas and let me know how that works out.

  Then why?

  I agree with this.  Chauvin's case was, but most of the others are not

First off, movements are not one person or one idea.  There is no "woke mob" with a singular solution. 

This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.  Police have been brutalizing the black community for 200 years.  So, you will find cases where perhaps they are justified and that community is so accustomed to being fucked by that system that they don't believe it or that it doesn't matter.  And even if you can say that this use of deadly force is authorized, it's very reasonable to think that this same deadly force wouldn't have been used if the knife-holder were white.  I'm not making that claim, but if you've been on the receiving end of police bullshit in your community for your whole life, maybe you'd feel that way.

There is a larger question of how the police interacts with people in general, and with the black community specifically.  That problem doesn't go away with one guilty verdict.  I think what you also need to realize is that Chauvin was found guilty because it was on video and other officers testified against him.  The official report was that he died due to a "medical incident", so it's likely that nothing would've happened had it not been videoed.  Chauvin was the exception, so that community doesn't trust police, in short.  Shit, even on this site, there are a handful of people saying he died from drugs.

Maybe, just maybe if you're being fucked over by people. You learn a lesson and don't put yourself in that situation. You would think that someone with any type of common sense that sees people on TV getting shot when they resist and fight with police, that they wouldn't fight with police. Most people are smart enough not to play with poisonous snakes. But there are some retarded idiots that do play with poisonous snakes and a percentage of them get bit. Play stupid games...

Can you or anyone else for that matter say 100% that drugs or underlying heart disease didn't play a role or cause in his death? As I have said, his actions were stupid, reckless, and extreme and he needs to be held accountable. But your premise that these things don't happen in a vacuum is 100% wrong. Each case should be judged on the specific facts of that singular case. That's exactly why the jury is usually sequestered. Chauvin shouldn't have to pay for anything anyone else did in the past. That's exactly why the jury is usually sequestered and should have been in this case. If you think he got a fair trial you're just as crazy as the people burning down shit. The verdicts returned were due to pressure from the leftist WOKE MOB screaming for "justice" for all the perceived past wrongdoings done to black people.  It was purely political, anyone can see that. He should have been found guilty, but not of 2 murder charges and a manslaughter charge.

Venomous snakes not poisonous.  If it bites you and you die it's venomous.  If you bite it and die it's poisonous....

Continue the discussion.

Thank you sir for your input. I actually appreciate it and unlike other people around here, I can admit when I'm wrong. They could care less couldn't care less whether they're wrong or not, LMFAO. Anyhow, gotta keep the "proper use of terminology" to keep the discussion on track.

Strange that you continually espouse this kind of "If you resist police at all, in any way, your life is forfeit" position that justifies lethal force from police at the drop of a hat, yet when it comes to people invading the US Capitol to stop the certification of a presidential election, somehow I don't see you saying that every single person on Capitol grounds that day should have left in a bodybag.

To my knowledge none of them are dead because they resisted arrest when law enforcement tracked them down and arrested them. That would be a more comparable situation. Now, if when law enforcement tracked them down and if they resisted arrest, assaulted law enforcement, and presented a threat. Whether they were white, black, Asian, Latino, fat, skinny, gay, straight, or TRANSformers. Then by all means, shoot their ass dead just like that fat ass chick with the knife. That should clear up any confusion that you have.

Now, if you would like to start a thread about what happened at the Capital. You are more than welcome to do that.

Not one bit disturbed or surprised by this.   The people protesting the Bryant case are blinded by BLM's bullshit.  They are unable to think rationally.   Anyone who thinks rationally would know that if a cop observes you attacking someone with a deadly weapon, you are going to get shot.

You're talking about arrests after the fact, days after they were already allowed to freely go home.
I'm talking about when they were committing the crime.

Ma'Khia Bryant wasn't attacking a police officer; she was committing another crime (assault, possibly attempted murder) and was shot dead in the attempt (which you loudly support).  So why weren't you calling for the Capitol invaders to be shot dead in the act of committing their crimes?

You clearly have different standards for when lethal force is warranted, and it's not based on the crime - it's based on the suspect.

It's really pretty simple. The title of this thread is "The Bryant Case is Disturbing" and that's what I'm discussing. Not discussing "Why didn't they shoot the people that participated in the capital riot" or any other red herring topics that your randomly picking from the last 10 years to misdirect the thread.


No, it's based on the circumstances. Obviously you didn't read my last post, like this part here.

Spider, do you support the police shooting a person attempting to murder another person?

When discussing inconsistencies in a person's position, it is necessary to refer to their prior statements in past examples; in this case, regarding the appropriate use of force by law enforcement for what an officer perceives to be a crime in progress.

Your attempts to insist that we only talk about this position you hold right now and not the previous positions you have held that contradict it is, in effect, trying to avoid accountability for your past statements.

[edit: moved to later post]

Anyhow, back on topic. Spider, do you support the police shooting a person attempting to murder another person?
 

I apparently edited this in while you were replying, so I'll move it here to address your question:

You haven't heard me criticize the officer that shot Bryant because I haven't had reason to.  The irony is that you are screaming and shouting for the liberals to do exactly what you claim you DON'T do: declare an opinion before all the facts are known.  But thats not surprising, because you don't actually follow that supposed guideline. Your version of "waiting to pass judgment" is NEVER to silently withhold your opinion; it is, nearly without exception, to offer excuses and rationalizations for the officer's actions.

  So your answer is yes.    I too, prefer to wait for the facts to be in.  I may have done this too hastily, in the George Floyd case because I can't fathom any reason why an unconscious suspect poses any threat. 

In the Floyd case, I believe most of the Chauvin defenders (yourself included) were arguing that Floyd coincidentally died from a drug overdose that had nothing to do with being pinned to the ground with a knee on his neck.  Therefore, the question of any "threat presented" was immaterial, as Chauvin didn't use any excessive force and Floyd's OD was completely unrelated to the arrest.

Nobody's defending Chauvin's actions.  I agree with Pondwater that he is a scumbag and deserved to be convicted of something, but not second degree murder.  There was no damage to Floyd's carotid artery, which means that Chauvin kneeling on his neck is not what killed him.

You're still defending Chauvin now by saying that he didn't kill Floyd.  This implies two things:

1) Chauvin was unjustly convicted of a crime he didn't commit and is the victim here
2) Floyd is to blame for his own death

Again, I'm not defending anyone. Your premise is faulty. I only accept a guilty verdict after the trial is because of two fundamental reasons.

1. In this country, we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
2. Only the jury can render a guilty verdict after the facts are on the table. Our opinions don't really matter.

No, Chauvin isn't a victim. And I have always maintained that he should be held accountable. But he was unjustly convicted of 2 murder charges. In fact, some of the verdicts are likely to be overturned. At which time you'll conveniently go silent and/or condone when the riots ensue, people are killed, and cities are burned to the ground.

Actually, cause comes before effect. If Floyd wasn't commiting a crime(s), he wouldn't have ever come in contact with Chauvin or any other law enforcement that day. Likewise, if Floyd would have simply gotten into the back of the police car, he wouldn't have been on the pavement.

I wonder why no one ever addresses why these people resist arrest in the first place. Why don't they want to be arrested or go to jail so badly that they'll risk their life fighting with police?

Hey Spider, if the cops arrest you. Are you going to resist arrest and fight with the police?

I was actually responding to ArtieChokePhin above me, but while we're here:

It sounds like you didn't accept the guilty verdict after the trial, either.  Almost like you had already made up your mind long before, instead of "withholding judgement until all the facts are on the table."


You are making a definitive statement that Floyd was "committing a crime." However:


The problem should be obvious: you only appear to believe in due process for cops.  When a cop claims a suspect was resisting arrest, you seem to believe that bypasses the rest of the legal system.

Let's be clear, I fully accept that he was guilty of a crime. However, I don't agree with the multiple charges he was found guilty of due to political pressure. I also think the jury should have been sequestered for the full trial.

That's your own brainwashed imagination, no one ever said that. Floyd absolutely deserved due process. But that's not what we're talking about. I was answering your question

But now you're trying to pivot to something else to circumvent the issues you won't address. The police didn't just target him and harass him. The police were called on him for committing a crime. Then he was non compliant, didn't follow law enforcement directions, and resisted arrest. So yes, Floyd's poor decisions and behavior that day directly led to his own death. That doesn't mean he deserved to die. It doesn't mean that Chauvin wasn't guilty of a crime. It means Floyd's poor decisions and behavior that day directly led to his own death. 

Again, I wonder why no one ever addresses why these people resist arrest in the first place. Why don't they want to be arrested or go to jail so badly that they'll risk their life fighting with police?

Hey Spider, if the cops arrest you. Are you going to resist arrest and fight with the police?

Hey pondwater, are you in favor of police executing suspects before they are given a trial?  It's pretty easy to boil issues down to strawman questions.

"Why did they resist arrest?" is not only a pointless question, it's a redundant one, for many reasons:

- resisting arrest is a charge like any other, where you are innocent until proven guilty in court
- on conviction, that charge does not carry the death penalty
- resisting arrest is, by definition, a secondary charge, so instead of asking "Why resist arrest?" it would be more appropriate to ask "Why pass a counterfeit bill?" or "Why sell loose cigarettes?"... except that those are also CHARGES, and the suspect is still innocent until proven guilty of those, too!

Furthermore, by YOUR standard, we can't even watch a video and say that a person was definitively "resisting arrest," because you watched a video of a cop clearly murdering a handcuffed man by kneeling on his neck for 9 minutes, and your response was "We can't rush to judgement until after the trial is done!  Maybe it was a drug overdose!"

You only extend the presumption of innocence to cops.  The civilians killed by these innocent-until-proven-guilty cops receive no such courtesy from you.

  I thin many of them do want to riot and destroy things for fun

More quitting https://www.independentsentinel.com/police-officers-leave-in-droves-as-minneapolis-becomes-murderapolis/ (https://www.independentsentinel.com/police-officers-leave-in-droves-as-minneapolis-becomes-murderapolis/)

Soooo, are we supposed to assume from your hormonal rant that you also encourage and approve of citizens committing crime, resisting arrest, assaulting law enforcement, and being a threat to other's lives?

We already know you support violent riots that included innocent deaths, burning down cities, and destroying millions of dollars of property in order to keep racial division and hate brewing in the country.

So Mr. "Stop Changing The Subject!" doesn't want to talk about the attempted overthrow of our government earlier this year, but is very interested in talking about last summer's protests.  Curious, indeed.

From my end, this is pretty simple: I think everyone deserves their day in court, even alleged criminals accused of passing counterfeit bills, driving with a broken taillight, or even resisting arrest.  We cannot have a functioning society where cops are presumed innocent-until-proven-guilty but civilians are presumed guilty-until-proven-innocent.

The problem is that some of the people you're defending don't want to go to court and don't want to be arrested. Some of them are a danger to other people's lives. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that fact.

Sure we can talk about the violent rally in DC. Go start a thread. This thread is about the Bryant Case. They are two separate topics that have nothing to do with each other.