Death of George Floyd and Subsequent Riots.

[Love Mountain]

What’s wrong with police violence.

What's right with it? Violence is inherently wrong.

False. Whites are shot more often.

Black men are the largest prison population.

Okay but where’s the riots.

Why is that important?

Okay but what’s the significance of George Floyd’s race.

How is that relevant to the topic at hand?

[Exarch]

It should be a foregone conclusion now that african americans require their own nation in the north american continent; a safe space for african americans to live without fear of murder.

We can take the eg of the Kosovans after the break up of Yugoslavia; they were similarly being executed and exterminated by serbs and successfully broke away with their own nation state.

African Americans can similarly form their own state.

[Aexodus]

What's right with it? Violence is inherently wrong.

Police require use of force to enforce the law.

Black men are the largest prison population.

Why is that important?

How is that relevant to the topic at hand?

It's not just one guy.



The riots started because the police killed an unarmed black man. They then responded to protests about police brutality, with police brutality. If you want this kind of nonsense to stop, then law enforcement and federal authorities need to commit to law enforcement reform.



If I may propose a theory, it is well known in Seattle that bicycle cops look feminine ("bunch of pussies" as my friend put it). I believe that bicycle cops are compensating for that appearance with a much more brutish approach than they would otherwise take.

I'm not sure what you're asking. The link contains plenty of examples of police violence against protesters. As well as alleging countless others. Police brutality is not an isolated issue.



1. African American males are by far the most targeted demographic.
2. There are protests for White victims as well.
3. George Floyd footage speaks for itself, as well as a number of other high profile African American police shootings that were publicized shortly after.

We are talking about police violence, not arrests and prison sentences. We are talking about riots, and you brought up George Floyd’s race, at least twice.

[PointOfViewGun]

I imagine disciplinary procedures come after duty not during. It would undermine the operation to start arresting an officer.

This is mind boggling. Most people are numb to such fundamental failure of basic concepts but its what degenerates our society. You're saying that arresting an officer who is committing a crime while he is committing it, or even intervening to stop him from committing it, undermines the operation. Sigh. If that's the case, yes, it should undermine the operation.

[Exarch]

Look at this incident by way of an eg:
https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/s...22489065238528

Look at the way the police are behaving; they are behaving not as police officers but rather, as occupying soldiers in enemy territory. The hyper vigilance, the ease of resorting to violence, the mass paranoia and suspicion of innocent bystanders simply recording them...all is not well in america.

[Cope]

The officer who shot Jacob Blake, Rusten Sheskey, will not face charges. This should not come as a surprise to those who paid attention to the case.

The Kenosha police officer who shot Jacob Blake seven times in August will not be criminally charged, Kenosha County District Attorney Michael Graveley announced Tuesday.

The officer who fired the shots, Rusten Sheskey, could successfully argue self-defense before a jury because Blake had a knife, Graveley said during a Tuesday news conference. He also considered evidence that could not be seen on cellphone video of the incident, which showed Sheskey shooting Blake, 29, as he got into a vehicle with his children inside.

Blake, who was shot four times in the back and three in the side, according to Graveley, was left paralyzed. The video, which was widely shared on social media, sparked protests, vandalism and arson.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

[PointOfViewGun]

Yes, as someone who paid attention to the case I'm not surprised to see this coward cop getting free from shooting a man in the back seven times.

[Big War Bird]

Raping a woman, fighting with cops with a knife and trying to steal a car is a good way to get shot. Justice is served.

[Infidel144]

The "wubing fascist" M3p of Portand Ted Wheeler, Communazi, on the New Years Eve riots:

"PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler minced no words in his opening remarks at a New Year’s Day press conference following a riot on New Year’s Eve in downtown.
Wheeler laid out the “who, what, when, where and why” of what happened Thursday.
“The who: violent antifa and anarchists,” the mayor said. They rampaged through downtown Portland causing tens of thousands of dollars of damage with spray painting, window breaking, fires and fireworks."

Violent Antifa? Antifa is totally peaceful and only engage in defensive activities, from behind, in groups, while armed.

“Why? This is the hardest question of all to answer,” Wheeler said. “Why would a group of largely white, young and some middle age men destroy the livelihood of others who are struggling to get by?”
The mayor said he sees himself as a caring and honest person. “It is hard for me to accept that there are some people who are just bent on destruction.”

You had been very accepting of it, for what, 8 months?

He said he’s been in contact with Multnomah County DA Mike Schmidt and wants more prosecutions and everyone held accountable. And Wheeler also said it’s time to use additional tools to end this violence.

It's time now? I wonder what changed...

“My good faith efforts at de-escalation have been met with ongoing violence and even scorn from radical antifa and anarchists,” Wheeler said. “In response it will be necessary to use additional tools and to push the limits of the tools we already have to bring the criminal destruction and violence to an end.”

Well, scorn and burning you out of your apartment building...

Besides there was no violence. The totally un-nazi, un-pathetic, un-coward Antifa only defends itself from fascists like crippled WWII vets, old ladies in wheelchairs, reporters, universities, banks, coffee shops, Bernie supporters and the like.

Wheeler said he is committing to 3 things:
“Federal, state, county and local law enforcement to convene to deal with anarchist violence. as soon as possible,” even next week.
Calling on state legislature to increase penalties for repeat offenders
“I believe people convicted of criminal destruction be required to meet with those whose businesses they damaged,” Wheeler said, “and be required to do public service.”

Wait. Federal law enforcement? But, but, but Federal law enforcement was the problem, Teddy.
Teddy has gone full nazi. Antifa is only exercising it's constitutionally guaranteed rights and only a pathetic gutless coward nazi would try and prevent that. Next thing you know he'll call for martial law and summary stripping of rights and imprisonment...

Also, someone should tell little Teddy boy that Antifa does not exist and is only an idea...

https://www.koin.com/local/multnomah...ss-conference/

[Love Mountain]

Police require use of force to enforce the law.

It is necessary for a police officer to taze you, in order to issue a speed ticket?

We are talking about police violence, not arrests and prison sentences. We are talking about riots, and you brought up George Floyd’s race, at least twice.

Are you claiming that all of those are unrelated? George Floyd's race is the reason why the riots are there in the first place, and the nature of police response can quite clearly differ depending on the nature of the riot, especially in regards to the topic of race.

The officer who shot Jacob Blake, Rusten Sheskey, will not face charges. This should not come as a surprise to those who paid attention to the case.

Clearly demonstrated by all of the people who were surprised by the DA's decision.

[Aexodus]

It is necessary for a police officer to taze you, in order to issue a speed ticket?

I imagine not. It may be necessary for the officer to defend themselves however.

Are you claiming that all of those are unrelated?

No. Can you link it to police brutality that we were discussing.

It's not just one guy.



The riots started because the police killed an unarmed black man. They then responded to protests about police brutality, with police brutality. If you want this kind of nonsense to stop, then law enforcement and federal authorities need to commit to law enforcement reform.



If I may propose a theory, it is well known in Seattle that bicycle cops look feminine ("bunch of pussies" as my friend put it). I believe that bicycle cops are compensating for that appearance with a much more brutish approach than they would otherwise take.

George Floyd's race is the reason why the riots are there in the first place, and the nature of police response can quite clearly differ depending on the nature of the riot, especially in regards to the topic of race.

How and why does the police response differ?

[Love Mountain]

I imagine not. It may be necessary for the officer to defend themselves however.

Hard to see how the police response to protest and rioting is an exercise of "self-defense."

No. Can you link it to police brutality that we were discussing.

George Floyd and BLM protests are largely about police brutality. And the police frequently responds to such protests and riots with... police brutality.

How and why does the police response differ?

Likely a difference of political opinion. Law enforcement felt the need to respect people's right to protest, and to minimize potential loss of life during DC protests. Whereas the obvious sentiment has been shown over many months of BLM protests. This is indicative of a deep problem of racial discrimination and police impunity within United States.

[Aexodus]

Law enforcement felt the need to respect people's right to protest, and to minimize potential loss of life during DC protests.

And who all made that decision? The chief, the mayor etc?

[Cope]

Clearly demonstrated by all of the people who were surprised by the DA's decision.

Anyone who paid attention to the facts of the case as they relate to police guidelines and the law will be unsurprised.

[Infidel144]

Peaceful Protesters peacefully protesting encounter the "wubbing Fascist" M3p of Portland Ted Wheeler at a restaurant:
"A group of people raucously confronted Mayor Ted Wheeler while he was dining in Northwest Portland on Wednesday night."
"The mayor tried to ignore the hecklers, Middaugh said, but the group eventually “pushed their way past restaurant employees” and confronted the mayor."
"Wheeler asked the group to leave. Then, “at that point, one member of the group started swatting at the Mayor and made physical contact with him,” Middaugh said."
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/...-portland.html

[Cope]

The British parliament is set to introduce legislation to protect historic monuments from political radicals in response to the tearing down of the Colston statue and the defacement of a Churchill monument during the Floyd "protests". "The legislation would require planning permission for any changes and a minister would be given the final veto" the BBC said. In reporting the proposals, Auntie did not fail to dutifully regurgitate the "mostly peaceful" talking point when describing the costliest period of unrest in US history.

[pacifism]

Well, I agree that it is best for memorials to be removed by certified experts with the proper equipment to do it quickly and safely. Someone is more likely to get hurt otherwise. The part of the proposal sounds good to me. The minister veto is where they lost me. Is Jenrick or someone in the federal government the one with a veto power?

In that way, this proposal reminds me of a certain law in Alabama that requires the removal of memorials over 40 years old to be approved by the state legislature. There are provisions in both that are clearly meant to not only prevent statues from being thoughtlessly or unsafely removed but also to prevent statues from being removed at all. It makes no sense to me why a state or federal government should be able to decide that a city must keep and repair its own monuments. It's simply not their job.

As always, remembering history is different from memorializing it, a fact that some people conveniently forget. Most statues give a degree of honor that we can decide is not appropriate. I can see there being a debate on the appropriateness of memorializing Churchill and in what form that would take. Colston... not so much. I say "most statues" because I can think of a few counterexamples, like the Lenin statues in the U.S. -- most prominently in Seattle -- that I would argue are in no way being used to honor Lenin. They're privately owned, for starters.

[Cope]

Well, I agree that it is best for memorials to be removed by certified experts with the proper equipment to do it quickly and safely. Someone is more likely to get hurt otherwise. The part of the proposal sounds good to me. The minister veto is where they lost me. Is Jenrick or someone in the federal government the one with a veto power?

The UK has no federal government; a minister is a member of the Commons or the Lords chosen by the prime minister to run a government department. Robert Jenrick is Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

In that way, this proposal reminds me of a certain law in Alabama that requires the removal of memorials over 40 years old to be approved by the state legislature. There are provisions in both that are clearly meant to not only prevent statues from being thoughtlessly or unsafely removed but also to prevent statues from being removed at all. It makes no sense to me why a state or federal government should be able to decide that a city must keep and repair its own monuments. It's simply not their job.

As always, remembering history is different from memorializing it, a fact that some people conveniently forget. Most statues give a degree of honor that we can decide is not appropriate. I can see there being a debate on the appropriateness of memorializing Churchill and in what form that would take. Colston... not so much. I say "most statues" because I can think of a few counterexamples, like the Lenin statues in the U.S. -- most prominently in Seattle -- that I would argue are in no way being used to honor Lenin. They're privately owned, for starters.

The purpose of the legislation is to protect monuments from puritan mobs and/or radical local officials who have no interest in debate. The legislation allegedly provides for "consultation with local communities". Jenrick said: "Local people should have the chance to be consulted whether a monument should stand or not. What has stood for generations should be considered thoughtfully, not removed on a whim or at the behest of a baying mob."

[Aexodus]

I say "most statues" because I can think of a few counterexamples, like the Lenin statues in the U.S. -- most prominently in Seattle -- that I would argue are in no way being used to honor Lenin. They're privately owned, for starters.

What difference does private ownership make? Why are some statues memorialising and some aren’t?

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

What difference does private ownership make? Why are some statues memorialising and some aren’t?

Public statues, in democratic societies, represent a consensus of the local populace that a certain person or their work should be honored and their erection and maintenance are, usually, publicly funded. Private statues, on the other hand, represent an opinion of a single person or a group, are located on private property, and are usually privately funded without the assistance of taxpayers.

Now, if someone straps a Lenin bust on their back and carries it on the street, which is public property, I believe as long as that bust doesn't touch the ground they're fine.