Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

BattleCorp wrote: »

My point though is that if you behave yourself appropriately, those traffic stops and other police interactions won't end up with you at the receiving end of police violence in about 99.999% of occasions.

It's quite simple in my mind. If George Floyd had obeyed the police officers and gotten into the car peacefully, Floyd wouldn't have died at the knee of Chauvin that day.

If Rayshard Brooks had obeyed the police officers and allowed himself to be arrested, he wouldn't have died at the hands of the police that day.

If Jacob Blake had obeyed the police officers and allowed himself to be arrested, he wouldn't be in a wheelchair today.

If you obey the law or at the very least obey the police when you are stopped or arrested, then that gives them very little reason to get violent with you.

I understand your point

I also understand why people would get the hump with the cops if they're continuously being pulled over due to the colour of their skin

Mic 1972 wrote: »

it's relevant to the fact that you can be stopped by the cops and it's ok.
the cops are doing their job, they are not your enemy

If they've a valid reason to stop you they are

If they're stopping you cos you've a nice car and are black I disagree

the dunne wrote: »

Not at all. I'm just wondering if you had an example of a country which didn't have a history of racism/questionable laws or a country which was more progressive.

Because if you didn't, it seems a little silly to make that declaration as if it was unique to America.

Good job on ignoring the point in an attempt to deflect. I expect nothing less from you.

the dunne wrote: »

Again, you are purposely misrepresenting what I said.

If you act like a thug, you are a thug, regardless of what banner you are under.

If you align yourself with a disreputable organisation, you are disreputable.

Simple as that.

It's very possible to attend an anti racism rally and not be a thug.

It's very possible to attend a pro Catholic protest and not be a thug.

If you go to one and go to one under the banner of ira or BLM, then you're a tit.

But you are insistent on framing it that I am calling everyone a thug. It's absolutely clear I am not. You've also called me narrow minded and pathetic.

I'm going to not engage with you anymore because you are purposely trying to inflame the conversation and I'm not willing to rise to your bait.

But to bookmark the point, racism is never acceptable, but it's absolutely ok to oppose people's methods of getting their point across. (That includes the right of people like you opposing the boo)

Talk about me trying to inflame the conversation when you call 15 - 26 million people that were involved in BLM protests 'racist thugs' and then conflate BLM to the IRA - the latter an organisation that murdered close to two thousand people, many civilians.

You know what you're doing calling a group of black people 'thugs', it is a well known dog whistle. The continued willful ignorance between the BLM organisation and the BLM movement is no excuse for it.

For someone who claims to be against racism, the rage you have against the wider BLM movement and anything tangentially related to it is so mystifying that I struggle to believe the former.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they don't even need to be far right nationalists. America is an institutionally racist country. they didnt even let them sit at the front of public buses until just before I was born. that cultural memory doesn't disappear overnight.

Nor does the economic impact.

Posters like to post the crime rates by the black community but across the world poor communities have higher crime rates. This poverty can be directly connected to America's racist history, some very recent.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I did before I answered. They (The Supreme Court) set a very high bar for the defendant to prove their counsel was ineffective. Chauvins attorney doesn't even come close.

You don't really know that is the case.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

except they don't, do they? If the video of the floyd murder didn't exist Chauvin would not be in prison now. he would probably still be a cop.

You don't know that for sure. There were lots of witnesses. Chauvin may well have been charged and convicted if there was no video footage.

Anyway, I'm tired and off to bed. Goodnight.

the dunne wrote: »

But you see, I didn't do that sweetheart.

BLM aren't a group of black people. I am not dog whistling at all.

The BLM organisation leadership is nearly all black (I haven't seen any white people on it) and every protest I was involved in was led by non-white people, predominantly black. Calling them and those marching alongside them 'thugs' is an obvious dog whistle.

I also EXPLICITLY said that people could go to anti racism rally's and not be thugs.

The only people I consider thugs (in this context) are people who act in a thuggish manner and people who "identify" as BLM activists.

That is a lie. You repeatedly abused people who even attend BLM movement protests (below in the last 24 hours).

the dunne wrote: »

If you go to one and go to one under the banner of ira or BLM, then you're a tit.

the dunne wrote: »

The gesture is linked to BLM. Regardless of what anyone else says. It's intrinsically linked because of the actions of racist thugs over the past year or so.

If you want to abuse specific people then do so, if you're abusing all of those that marched under the BLM then you're abusing 15 - 26 million people.

I only conflated BLM and the ira because you tried to associate BLM supporters and Catholics. I countered by saying that BLM and ira supporters would be more accurate. (Not saying they are the same btw)

It was your shaky association which spawned that analogy. Not mine.

It was a desperate attempt to point score that was again offensive to 15 -26 million people that marched - aligning them with a terrorist group that has killed nearly 2000 people.

And your last paragraph where you imply I am a racist... That's despicable and incredibly insulting.

It's on brand for you but still, it's noted and I just want to highlight it so everyone can see your level of discourse.

Have the courage of your convictions to outwardly accuse me of something rather than hide behind snide comments.

And you had the cheek to call me disgusting...

Come on, you won't stop openly calling BLM and those associated with them racists and thugs (a group that I would identify myself as being included in having attended several protests in the last year) and now you're pearl clutching that I stated that I am struggling to reconcile your incredible aggressive polar opposite claims?