Liberal Protests

[Tiberius]

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Mr Floyd was shot? I must’ve missed that part of the video. This all makes way more sense now!

I asked you before and you did not give me an answer, but are you also another poster on this board? 

[billsfan1959]

11 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

What? Let me see if I understand. When the police respond to guy robbing a liquor store, you don’t expect him to be arrested on the spot and walked away in handcuffs? You believe “the process” should allow itself to play out? OK

 

Look. Violent crimes are committed everyday in this country. Sometimes people are arrested immediately and sometimes they are not. Those decisions are made by those that are responsible for making them. It is an imperfect system. Sometimes they are not popular to those on the outside. That is fine. You might no like it. That's fine.

 

The point is, those decisions shouldn't be made by you or others, and certainly shouldn't be made based on emotion.

 

I don't believe in public lynchings even if the person ultimately deserves to be lynched. I prefer it be handled according to the facts and the law. 

 

If people don't like it, then maybe they should have the laws changed that allow people to be arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced by public opinion and just do away with the legal process.

 

9 minutes ago, Warren Zevon said:

 

You already know why. 

 

Why was the reporter arrested on the spot for a non-violent act? 

 

I don't already know why. Explain it to me.

Edited May 29, 2020 by billsfan1959

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Look. Violent crimes are committed everyday in this country. Sometimes people are arrested immediately and sometimes they are not. Those decisions are made by those that are responsible for making them. It is an imperfect system. Sometimes they are not popular to those on the outside. That is fine. You might no like it. That's fine.

 

The point is, those decisions shouldn't be made by you or others, and certainly shouldn't be made based on emotion.

 

I don't believe in public lynchings even if the person ultimately deserves to be lynched. I prefer it be handled according to the facts and the law. 

 

If people don't like it, then maybe they should have the laws changed that allow people to be arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced by public opinion and just do away with the legal process.

You’re aware that arrested is not the same as convicted right? I just to want to make sure we have our basic vocabulary clear here. Sheeesh

[Warren Zevon]

2 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

I don't believe in public lynchings even if the person ultimately deserves to be lynched. I prefer it be handled according to the facts and the law. 

 

 

From the clown yelling #FLYNNDICATED!

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Look. Violent crimes are committed everyday in this country. Sometimes people are arrested immediately and sometimes they are not. Those decisions are made by those that are responsible for making them. It is an imperfect system. Sometimes they are not popular to those on the outside. That is fine. You might no like it. That's fine.

 

The point is, those decisions shouldn't be made by you or others, and certainly shouldn't be made based on emotion.

 

I don't believe in public lynchings even if the person ultimately deserves to be lynched. I prefer it be handled according to the facts and the law. 

 

If people don't like it, then maybe they should have the laws changed that allow people to be arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced by public opinion and just do away with the legal process.

 

Well said. The officer who applied the knee is in deep legal (criminal) trouble.  The other ones I’m not entirely sure about.  I need to see more video, hear eyewitness accounts, check for cell and other surveillance video, and see where it goes.  None of the questions with respect to any of the officers should be answered without a reasoned investigation.  

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

You’re aware that arrested is not the same as convicted right? I just to want to make sure we have our basic vocabulary clear here. Sheeesh

And lynching occurs AFTER conviction which occurs AFTER arresting. 

Just now, SectionC3 said:

 

Well said. The officer who applied the knee is in deep legal (criminal) trouble.  The other ones I’m not entirely sure about.  I need to see more video, hear eyewitness accounts, check for cell and other surveillance video, and see where it goes.  None of the questions with respect to any of the officers should be answered without a reasoned investigation.  

Which is done AFTER he’s arrested!

[billsfan1959]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

You’re aware that arrested is not the same as convicted right? I just to want to make sure we have our basic vocabulary clear here. Sheeesh

 

I am absolutely aware of the vocabulary. 

 

So, let me get this straight. If you were suspected of committing a crime, would you be fine with being arrested because that is what the public wants? After all, it is only an arrest...

 

Sheeesh

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

You’re aware that arrested is not the same as convicted right? I just to want to make sure we have our basic vocabulary clear here. Sheeesh

 

We’re clear on the basic vocabulary.  Frankly the only reason to arrest the most culpable officer now would be to prevent absconder (unlikely here; there’s probably eyes on the guy) or to quell the riots.  But to arrest now also kick-starts a process involving indictment, disclosure, and speedy trial considerations.  Sometimes it takes a little time to administer justice the right way. 

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

I am absolutely aware of the vocabulary. 

 

So, let me get this straight. If you were suspected of committing a crime, would you be fine with being arrested because that is what the public wants? After all, it is only an arrest...

 

Sheeesh

59....you have this out of order. The public is pissed off because he wasn’t arrested immediately. Which he should’ve been. Just like you would be when pulled over for DUI. I’m not suggesting he should be arrested because the public is pissed. I’m suggesting the public is pissed because he should’ve been arrested....get it?

 

And by the way....the Police do NOT administer ‘justice’. They simply make the arrest. The courts are the venue for justice.

Edited May 29, 2020 by SoCal Deek

[billsfan1959]

6 minutes ago, Warren Zevon said:

 

From the clown yelling #FLYNNDICATED!

 

That's actually a different thread. However, the principle for me is the same. I don't like the legal system driven by politics, emotion, or anything other than the facts and the law. If you want to pursue this, then post in the the thread where this is being discussed and I will be happy to address it further.

 

cheers

[SectionC3]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

59....you have this out of order. The public is pissed off because he wasn’t arrested immediately. Which he should’ve been. Just like you would be when pulled over for DUI. I’m not suggesting he should be arrested because the public is pissed. I’m suggesting the public is pissed because he should’ve been arrested....get it?

 

What crime should the officer have been charged with if he was arrested?  Intentional murder? Depraved indifference murder (assuming there is such a crime in Minnesota)?  Man 1? Man 2? Criminally negligent homicide?  And do you want the other cops at the scene to roll on the guy?  Maybe you do, depending on what the evidence says.  If you jump the gun on the primary target the less culpable guys might completely clam up (I realize they’re unlikely to talk without some sort of cooperation agreement) because they fear a rush to judgment against them, too.  (This, of course, also assumes that the prosecutor is willing to accept cooperation from the potentially less culpable officers in exchange for potential leniency.) 

 

This case might not be as clear-cut as you think, and for that reason it makes sense to look at everything you can (within a reasonable amount of time) before proceeding against the most culpable officers and potentially the other officers.  There are a lot of calculations to be made here.  Justice isn’t always an immediate or fast-moving thing. 

[billsfan1959]

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

59....you have this out of order. The public is pissed off because he wasn’t arrested immediately. Which he should’ve been. Just like you would be when pulled over for DUI. I’m not suggesting he should be arrested because the public is pissed. I’m suggesting the public is pissed because he should’ve been arrested....get it?

 

I understand that people are pissed because he hasn't been arrested. That doesn't change my stance. Your belief that he should have been arrested immediately is simply your opinion. Many other people may share that same opinion. I might share that same opinion. The point is, we don't make those determinations and, ultimately, when he is arrested has absolutely no bearing on whether justice has been served.

 

Our legal system is an imperfect system. It may not give us what we want, when we want it; however, it is the system we have - and decisions made within that system should be, as much as possible, free of emotion.

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by billsfan1959

[Boatdrinks]

22 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You believe that that’s what would happen to you? Really? The ‘process’ would dictate? 

There is a separate process for officers acting under the color of law, yes. An investigation will ensue, and it appears certain to me the officer(s) will be charged. They must proceed carefully to put him behind bars. Don’t pretend that you, a civilian ( I assume) would get the same consideration here. If you don’t understand why there is a difference, I’m not sure where to begin but you need to look into it. As for the officer, he did not appear to act within the scope of his training, imo.I’m confident that the evidence supports this and he will be convicted. That process needs to play out, though. 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

I understand that people are pissed because he hasn't been arrested. That doesn't change my stance. Your belief that he should have been arrested immediately is simply your opinion. Many other people may share that same opinion. I might share that same opinion. The point is, we don't make those determinations and, ultimately, when he is arrested has absolutely no bearing on whether justice has be served.

 

Our legal system is an imperfect system. It may not give us what we want, when we want it; however, it is the system we have - and decisions made within that system should be, as much as possible, free of emotion.

59....the people are complaining because there appear to be TWO SYSTEMS of justice. You don’t understand that? Really?

2 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

There is a separate process for officers acting under the color of law, yes. An investigation will ensue, and it appears certain to me the officer(s) will be charged. They must proceed carefully to put him behind bars. Don’t pretend that you, a civilian ( I assume) would get the same consideration here. If you don’t understand why there is a difference, I’m not sure where to begin but you need to look into it. As for the officer, he did not appear to act within the scope of his training, imo.I’m confident that the evidence supports this and he will be convicted. That process needs to play out, though. 

And you expect the people to put up with this process for very much longer? Really? The system needs to change!

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[Boatdrinks]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

59....the people are complaining because there appear to be TWO SYSTEMS of justice. You don’t understand that? Really?

And you expect the people to put up with this process for very much longer? Really? The system needs to change!

No, it doesn’t. A civilian is not an officer of the law. That’s how it is, and how it has to be. A case will be built against this officer, and I believe he will serve jail time. You don’t dismantle the required protections due to the actions of a rogue officer. A cops job is difficult enough as it is. The looters and rioters are just looking for an excuse for their lawlessness. 

[Niagara Bill]

20 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Look. Violent crimes are committed everyday in this country. Sometimes people are arrested immediately and sometimes they are not. Those decisions are made by those that are responsible for making them. It is an imperfect system. Sometimes they are not popular to those on the outside. That is fine. You might no like it. That's fine.

 

The point is, those decisions shouldn't be made by you or others, and certainly shouldn't be made based on emotion.

 

I don't believe in public lynchings even if the person ultimately deserves to be lynched. I prefer it be handled according to the facts and the law. 

 

If people don't like it, then maybe they should have the laws changed that allow people to be arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced by public opinion and just do away with the legal process.

 

 

I don't already know why. Explain it to me.

Again your point is well taken but these people are trying to have the law changed, starting 60 years ago up to Kapernick, but with no one listening so it goes. When you stop defending acts that are obviously wrong you can begin to hear and solve. It is ironic that this takes place under the heading Liberal protests....again a word that creates emotion and does not allow people to hear and be heard. The issue deserves not to have people pigeon holed as they speak. 

Some of your citizens thinks this is a version of the old kkk lynchings. Do you hear that....ignore the professional agitators, ignore the paid Agent's rhetoric, just ,listen to the cry of your fellow citizens.

[Boatdrinks]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

I agree that guns make cops jobs way more dangerous and guns are the reason cops are so afraid and open fire too easily at times. Good point. Mr. Saturday Night Special is a song of truth 

How would I be able to do that count to get a percentage? Really dumb question 

Criminals with guns are what make cops jobs dangerous. 

[billsfan1959]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

59....the people are complaining because there appear to be TWO SYSTEMS of justice. You don’t understand that? Really?

 

You do not seem to understand my point. Whatever the public thinks and is complaining about should never have a place in the decision-making process of arresting or charging anyone. Again, the legal system is imperfect. There are legitimate avenues to correct those imperfections and the legal system has evolved considerably based on legitimate ways of addressing deficiencies on everything from arrests to capital punishment.

 

People can be upset, that is their right. I don't believe it justifies criminal behavior on their part and I don't believe it should be a factor in when an arrest is made.

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Criminals with guns are what make cops jobs dangerous. 

Yes! So easy for criminals to get guns. No wonder the cops are so afraid. So afraid, they are shooting unarmed people that did nothing wrong. 

 

Guns are just making police work so very dangerous that it corrupts the entire system. 

[billsfan1959]

2 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

Again your point is well taken but these people are trying to have the law changed, starting 60 years ago up to Kapernick, but with no one listening so it goes. When you stop defending acts that are obviously wrong you can begin to hear and solve. It is ironic that this takes place under the heading Liberal protests....again a word that creates emotion and does not allow people to hear and be heard. The issue deserves not to have people pigeon holed as they speak. 

Some of your citizens thinks this is a version of the old kkk lynchings. Do you hear that....ignore the professional agitators, ignore the paid Agent's rhetoric, just ,listen to the cry of your fellow citizens.

 

1. Please tell me what law have they been trying to change. Perhaps this will help me respond to this point.

 

2. Nobody is defending the actions of these officers.

 

3. Tell me how arresting and charging someone because of public emotion is not the same principle as a public lynching. 

[Boatdrinks]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Yes! So easy for criminals to get guns. No wonder the cops are so afraid. So afraid, they are shooting unarmed people that did nothing wrong. 

 

Guns are just making police work so very dangerous that it corrupts the entire system. 

No solution for this, unfortunately. Criminals rarely follow the legal process for obtaining a weapon, but hey they’re people too, right? A cop must be vigilant, but not afraid. A scared cop won’t last in most towns. Cops don’t often shoot the unarmed out of fear itself. These things usually happen when the subject refuses to follow simple instructions and moves suddenly or doesn’t keep their hands up and visible. They don’t know that the individual is unarmed, but if they act as if they have a weapon the officer must respond to protect themselves or others. Even unarmed criminals have a problem taking an order from a cop. Of course, none of this seems relevant to the Floyd case. It looks to me like a rogue cop doing exactly what training protocol says not to do. Another stands by and does nothing about it. Charges will be filed here, what they will be depends on the cause of death among other things. 

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

No solution for this, unfortunately. Criminals rarely follow the legal process for obtaining a weapon, but hey they’re people too, right? A cop must be vigilant, but not afraid. A scared cop won’t last in most towns. Cops don’t often shoot the unarmed out of fear itself. These things usually happen when the subject refuses to follow simple instructions and moves suddenly or doesn’t keep their hands up and visible. They don’t know that the individual is unarmed, but if they act as if they have a weapon the officer must respond to protect themselves or others. Even unarmed criminals have a problem taking an order from a cop. Of course, none of this seems relevant to the Floyd case. It looks to me like a rogue cop doing exactly what training protocol says not to do. Another stands by and does nothing about it. Charges will be filed here, what they will be depends on the cause of death among other things. 

But it should be stated in every debate on gun violence and police shootings. It IS the main reason police shoot unarmed people. Cops are only human 

[Niagara Bill]

8 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

1. Please tell me what law have they been trying to change. Perhaps this will help me respond to this point.

 

2. Nobody is defending the actions of these officers.

 

3. Tell me how arresting and charging someone because of public emotion is not the same principle as a public lynching. 

1.I am not a citizen lawyer or politician so what law I do not know, but you said they should have it changed.

2. I did not suggest you are defending the officers, but the response to death in Minn and Georgia are a symbol of an issue you are refusing even acknowledge so how can it be solved.

3. Lynching is death, arresting is the start of a process that shows the citizens that this obvious violent incident is being placed into the proper public judicial system. How can you not see this...stop defending the indefensible.

 

[njbuff]

14 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

1. Please tell me what law have they been trying to change. Perhaps this will help me respond to this point.

 

2. Nobody is defending the actions of these officers.

 

3. Tell me how arresting and charging someone because of public emotion is not the same principle as a public lynching. 

I don’t know ONE person who is defending what those cops did, but why let this crisis go to waste to ramp up racial tensions, AGAIN.

[SectionC3]

32 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

There is a separate process for officers acting under the color of law, yes. An investigation will ensue, and it appears certain to me the officer(s) will be charged. They must proceed carefully to put him behind bars. Don’t pretend that you, a civilian ( I assume) would get the same consideration here. If you don’t understand why there is a difference, I’m not sure where to begin but you need to look into it. As for the officer, he did not appear to act within the scope of his training, imo.I’m confident that the evidence supports this and he will be convicted. That process needs to play out, though. 

 

Sort of.  I suspect the “color of law” issue probably arises in the context of 42 USC 1983.  But that’s out of my lane.  With respect to the most culpable officer, the state criminal case most likely is going to be about culpable mental state (intent to cause death, intent to cause physical injury that resulted in death, recklessly causing death, etc.) and whether the exertion of what in this case was deadly physical force was justified (that is, privileged under the circumstances and therefore lawful).   The other officers might have issues with respect to accomplice liability, and depending on what the evidences shows the review might be a lot more complicated with respect to them.  

 

 

[Boatdrinks]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

But it should be stated in every debate on gun violence and police shootings. It IS the main reason police shoot unarmed people. Cops are only human 

What is the main reason? Guns ? Belief that one’s own life is in danger ? Belief that the subject is reaching for a weapon? I’m not sure what the it is that you are referencing here. 

[SectionC3]

17 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

1. Please tell me what law have they been trying to change. Perhaps this will help me respond to this point.

 

2. Nobody is defending the actions of these officers.

 

3. Tell me how arresting and charging someone because of public emotion is not the same principle as a public lynching. 

 

I agree.  Far be it for me to translate for someone who is rightfully deeply pissed off about what occurred in Minnesota what the protesters are mad about.  This seems to be a reaction not just to what happened this week, but to deep systemic issues and complaints with respect to law enforcement - not with respect to a particular law. 

4 minutes ago, njbuff said:

I don’t know ONE person who is defending what those cops did, but why let this crisis go to waste to ramp up racial tensions, AGAIN.

 

I’d like to leave politics out of this one.  It’s nice to find an issue that transcends politics and focuses on our (supposedly but not always) neutral justice and law enforcement systems.  There will be a political discussion later, and it’s going to cut both ways, just as it did in 1968.  But the focus now should rest on process and the prompt and fair administration of justice.  

[billsfan1959]

1 minute ago, Niagara Bill said:

1.I am not a citizen lawyer or politician so what law I do not know, but you said they should have it changed.

2. I did not suggest you are defending the officers, but the response to death in Minn and Georgia are a symbol of an issue you are refusing even acknowledge so how can it be solved.

3. Lynching is death, arresting is the start of a process that shows the citizens that this obvious violent incident is being placed into the proper public judicial system. How can you not see this...stop defending the indefensible.

 

 

1. How can you say, "but these people are trying to have the law changed, starting 60 years ago up to Kapernick, but with no one listening" and not know what law you are talking about? I never said any law should be changed. I believe I said if people want to change the laws or the system, there is a process to do so and they are welcome to it.

 

2. I am not refusing to acknowledge any issue. Any issue that needs to be resolved begins with an accurate definition of what that issue is. So, give me your definition of the issue.

 

3. I didn't equate death with an arrest, so don't even go down that disingenuous path. People are not arrested to "shows the citizens that this obvious violent incident." They are arrested based on an evaluation of te facts and the evidence specific to that situation. 

 

[njbuff]

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I agree.  Far be it for me to translate for someone who is rightfully deeply pissed off about what occurred in Minnesota what the protesters are mad about.  This seems to be a reaction not just to what happened this week, but to deep systemic issues and complaints with respect to law enforcement - not with respect to a particular law. 

 

I’d like to leave politics out of this one.  It’s nice to find an issue that transcends politics and focuses on our (supposedly but not always) neutral justice and law enforcement systems.  There will be a political discussion later, and it’s going to cut both ways, just as it did in 1968.  But the focus now should rest on process and the prompt and fair administration of justice.  

Those cops are going down, rightfully so.

 

But people are rioting over this, destroying minority owned businesses in the process.........

 

and for what?

[Boatdrinks]

8 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

1.I am not a citizen lawyer or politician so what law I do not know, but you said they should have it changed.

2. I did not suggest you are defending the officers, but the response to death in Minn and Georgia are a symbol of an issue you are refusing even acknowledge so how can it be solved.

3. Lynching is death, arresting is the start of a process that shows the citizens that this obvious violent incident is being placed into the proper public judicial system. How can you not see this...stop defending the indefensible.

 

Look, the proper system is being followed. An officer acted under the color of law. There is a process for this, and it’s a necessary one. Cops are not 007’s. They have certain indemnifications in the use of force, including deadly physical force if certain conditions are met. That protection is necessary to perform the job as described. It is not , however absolute. The actions must be fully investigated to determine if charges are warranted and exactly what those charges will be. That takes a little time. It would obviously take less time if the incident involved two civilians and not an officer of the law. Procedures must be followed if this is to result in the desired outcome of a conviction. 

5 minutes ago, njbuff said:

Those cops are going down, rightfully so.

 

But people are rioting over this, destroying minority owned businesses in the process.........

 

and for what?

Because those rioters are violent criminals. They don’t care about the businesses or the issue. 

[Niagara Bill]

9 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

1. How can you say, "but these people are trying to have the law changed, starting 60 years ago up to Kapernick, but with no one listening" and not know what law you are talking about? I never said any law should be changed. I believe I said if people want to change the laws or the system, there is a process to do so and they are welcome to it.

 

2. I am not refusing to acknowledge any issue. Any issue that needs to be resolved begins with an accurate definition of what that issue is. So, give me your definition of the issue.

 

3. I didn't equate death with an arrest, so don't even go down that disingenuous path. People are not arrested to "shows the citizens that this obvious violent incident." They are arrested based on an evaluation of te facts and the evidence specific to that situation. 

 

Wow....I now understand how these issues continue for generations. 

[Tiberius]

16 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

What is the main reason? Guns ? Belief that one’s own life is in danger ? Belief that the subject is reaching for a weapon? I’m not sure what the it is that you are referencing here. 

Fear of guns, main reason. 

[billsfan1959]

5 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I agree.  Far be it for me to translate for someone who is rightfully deeply pissed off about what occurred in Minnesota what the protesters are mad about.  This seems to be a reaction not just to what happened this week, but to deep systemic issues and complaints with respect to law enforcement - not with respect to a particular law. 

 

 

I don't disagree at all. Anything I have written is not to diminish the feelings of anyone who is genuinely upset over the incident or what they genuinely believe to be deep systemic issues within law enforcement.  My only point, and I am sure you agree, is that those emotions, no matter how genuine, should influence legal decisions.

 

As to the issue of the feelings about deep systemic issues within law enforcement, I stated in another post that we need to arrive at accurate definitions of what those issues are before we can truly address them. We certainly are not there and never will be until we have an honest dialogue free of politics.

[BuffaloHokie13]

2 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

Wow....I now understand how these issues continue for generations. 

In your truest colors you have finally recognized that the overarching issue is due process and it should be done away with?

[Tiberius]

?

 

es

Minneapolis City Council Vice President Andrea Jenkins said George Floyd and fired police officer Derek Chauvin knew each other for many years because they worked security at the same night club. On Monday, Chauvin, who is white, was captured on video with a knee on Floyd’s neck. Floyd, who was black, died.

Both men worked at El Nuevo Rodeo on Lake Street before their last encounter.

“They were both bouncers at that restaurant for 17 years,” Jenkins told CNN. “So, Officer Chauvin, he knew George. They were co-workers for a really long time.”

[billsfan1959]

11 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

Wow....I now understand how these issues continue for generations. 

 

Seriously? I tried to have an honest, reasonable courteous, non-political discussion with you. Your response is to insinuate that my views are not only consistent with racist oppression, but responsible for perpetuating it.

 

No reasonable, rational person could have read any of my posts in this thread and come close to this interpretation.

 

Cheers.

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by billsfan1959

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I absolutely and unequivocally support the burning of the police station and any and all other government structures, and the terrorization of government officials, specifically police, in relation to this.

 

Government needs to be afraid of its people.  Terrified, in fact.

 

And if you have 10 bad cops, and 1000 good cops, but the 1000 good cops protect the 10 bad cops, then you have 1010 bad cops.  Bad cops should be tarred and feathered.

I think you are going to far with this statement but I will state that good cops should actively try and force out bad cops. The good cops will pay for the actions of this guy for years and it is apparent that this not his first time if the reports are true. Also all four should be arrested immediately since there is no way their will not be a criminal trial. But I will not blame all cops for the actions of a few.

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

Ya'll love a good conspiracy on here, right? Tell me this sounds crazier than Rhino's Q-Anon BS

Not saying it's true, but after hearing about Hillary's kill lists, and secret coups and the deep state it seems right up your alley

 

[Niagara Bill]

3 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Seriously? I tried to have an honest, reasonable courteous, non-political discussion with you. Your response is to insinuation that my views are not only consistent with racist oppression, but responsible for perpetuating it.

 

No reasonable, rational person could have read any of my posts in this thread and come close to this interpretation.

 

Cheers.

Never ever thought you were a racist, never crossed my mind. Only know you were being way to technical in an issue which has gone past technical. Citizen vs citizen needs listening and desire to reach a national solution to what is obvious. Replace Floyd with Stephon Diggs and tell me the reaction is not different to part of the citizenry, or substitute Josh Allen as Floyd, . The CNN Newsman was arrested for nothing before the policeman. 

As a result of the judicial system not openly caring about some citizens, they protected some citizens, hiding behind a process than many sense is just a block, then caused many other citizens the loss of their business and property. Nobody won. Everyone should feel the loss. 

Riots are wrong, military police are wrong, loss of life is wrong and loss of property is wrong. Defending a process that causes this result is???