SectionC3

Interesting that this thread has been up for about a day and we still haven’t heard from @Deranged Rhino. I wonder why?

You have a pretty warped view of justification. Last I looked, resisting arrest doesn’t justify seven gunshots to the back.

Actually that’s the purpose of the thread. I’d like you to educate me on your expert communist arsonist detection skills and techniques. Based on the criteria I was able to uncover, the guys in the photos qualify as commies. Do you have different criteria? And, if so, can you please share? We all would like to improve our ability to identify the communist arsonists who cause you to tremble in fear. This definitely adds a new layer of complication to our analysis.

Good data point. Fugliness is not an essential commie trait. Well done.

I agree except for the undercurrent. I worked the streets in 2016. I had a bad vibe in September. I sensed the persuadables were going to break for Trump. Close the book on the Clintons, I thought, was a great line at the end. but otherwise, completely agree.

I don’t assume anything. I just want to know whether the fact of a prior sexual assault justifies shooting someone seven times in the back. There seems to be a real struggle to answer that question on the part of the people who read this thread. Fake news.

OK. So let’s move to the next step. Does the information with respect to the sexual assault, assuming the officer in question had that information and knew that he was dealing with Blake immediately before the shooting, justify shooting Blake seven times?

Now we’re getting somewhere. Someone finally has a metric for identifying a communist. Next we need to know how others identify these communist arsonists who are terrifying so many people across our country.

Your point, sir?

Not the issue yet. Let’s take it slow. Did the officer know of the sexual assault at the time the officer shot Blake? One question at a time.

Hoax. You just can’t come up with anything better. We all know it.

Hoax. I have never started a thread with the intent of drawing attention to an anonymous Internet profile. Was my intent to mock those who take their anonymous Internet profiles far to seriously? I plead the Fifth.

indeed it is. Now, did the officer who shot Blake know of that history when the trigger was pulled?

Nice job changing the quote. I ask again, how is the sexual assault relevant to that incident?

Flattery!

That’s some pretty witty stuff. The Internet is better for that contribution.

So why mention sexual assault? How is that relevant? Unless, of course, you’re trying to mislead and confuse.

Interestingly, none of those who quake in fear of communist arsonists and Antifa has shared their tips for identifying such terrorists.

A fair point. But watch the video. It’s not good for the guy with the knife.

And again there’s no other new coronavirus from 2019 that is circulating, so the COVID-19 designation is sufficient to alert all as to the virus in question. There is no need for additional geographic or political description, such as “China Virus,” “Chinese Virus,” or “Wuhan Virus.” Unless, of course, you happen to support xenophobia and bigotry.

Another guy with nothing with nothing of substance to say.

Was a sexual assault imminent at the time Jacob Blake was shot seven times in the back? That will be for the jury to decide. And based on the totality do the video evidence, it’s going to be a tough sell.

Good point. Cells are filling with those in the Trump orbit. Even if Soros was convicted of something, there probably wouldn’t be room to incarcerate him.

There you go. Using the word comrade is a telltale sign of a communist. You’re now under commie suspicion.

I have a hard time believing as much. If you were taking a shot at the Chinese government, then the appropriate moniker would be the Beijing Virus. But you’re not taking that shot. Instead promoting and repeating a canard. We’ve been over this. We agree to disagree.