Threats of violence concerning Chauvin case

[Horu]

So I mentioned that a certain group making threats of violence if Chauvin wasn't convicted. And while I agree with the verdict, I don't agree with the circumstances under which the verdict was reached. A court should not be held under a threat of violence and the judge should've rescheduled the court date without releasing said information to the public. Essentially, this trial is too convoluted to call it fair. And I know a mistrial will be called. But my lack of support for terrorists doesn't seem to fly well with some folks here. I explicity stated that there is no need to villify BLM because they have proven to be exactly what I called them. They are terrorists. Simple as that.

Black lives matter. What about all the black cops? What about the black business owners? Black paramedics? Their lives didn't seem to matter when BLM was rioting and murdering cops. What about the black families that were just trying to go about their day? Did their lives matter? No.

Does this look like a peaceful protest?

Does this look like a call for justice to you?

Does this look peaceful?

Is this a peaceful protest?

This is just a small amount of what you can find.

[cr47t]

"lack of support for terrorists" isn't what you're being mad about on this forum at all - what we are actually objecting to, in essence, is your insistence of constructing every aspect of your argument about BLM on the basis of "one bad all bad", with all your thems and theys and posts constructed to blame the many for the actions of the few.

there's always going to be nasty people planning on doing, or actually managing to do, nasty things at mass politically-charged gatherings - it's the state of the union right now. does that excuse the things the nasty people do? of course not, the answer is a cold hard no. but do they stand for the whole of the cause, movement, or 'side' that they do it for? the answer is almost always also no, and i don't see this as an exception because all you've done since the chauvin thread, specifically on the subject of BLM, is point at specific cases, say "one bad all bad", and expect us to take your word for it.

that's what you're still doing here, and by implying that dissent from your view is pro-terrorism ("my lack of support for terrorists doesn't seem to fly well with some folks here"), you're trying to decide other people's worldviews on your own terms - not interpreting, not misconstruing, but determining. me and the rest have tried to the best of our ability to have a fair and earnest exchange of ideas with you, but whenever there's an opportunity to play foul you take it, and whenever there isn't you make one up like you did by directing the conviction topic's discussion away from what it was originally about. 

all this would be unacceptable in any reasonable person's book, and i don't understand why you do it, since it actually hurts your point; but in any case you keep disrespect the rules of respectable debate and take advantage of "the other side"'s insistence on playing fair. enough is enough

TLDR: you're relying on "one bad all bad", disrupting existing debates about other things, and now you're trying to determine other people's stances on your own terms. stop.

[Horu]

I'm saying the guy deserves a fair trial without the court having the threat of violence weighing on the minds of the people making the decision. This trial simply taught BLM that they can make threats and the US government will cave to their demands. Chauvin had already been arrested when the riots happened. The problem I have is that looming threat of violence gave this man an out and not only him but every cop that legitimately racist and kills somebody while wearing the badge. Also, I found another video of George Floyd being arrested and I did find the behavior of the police quite strange. But it happened before Chauvin showed up.

I'll post the video when I get home. I'm sure you'll find it pretty odd too.

[cr47t]

2 minutes ago, Horu said:

I'm saying the guy deserves a fair trial without the court having the threat of violence weighing on the minds of the people making the decision. This trial simply taught BLM that they can make threats and the US government will cave to their demands. Chauvin had already been arrested when the riots happened. The problem I have is that looming threat of violence gave this man an out and not only him but every cop that legitimately racist and kills somebody while wearing the badge. Also, I found another video of George Floyd being arrested and I did find the behavior of the police quite strange. But it happened before Chauvin showed up.

I'll post the video when I get home. I'm sure you'll find it pretty odd too.

i do think the trial was as fair as it could be under the circumstances. i also have a problem with clowns in the crowd going well beyond what is acceptable, but what i'm objecting to here is you conflating them with the entirety of BLM; even if those jokers describe themselves as BLM, we don't have a reason for believing that they stand for all BLM, or even are telling the truth at all about being BLMers - american political wars have gotten both much more confrontational and much more conspiratorial lately (i'm not so much meaning politicians, because that goes w/o saying, so much as everyday culture warriors.)

the problem that some clowns in the crowd (no, i won't one bad all bad BLM here) were going way too far, and that that gave a potential easy out for chauvin and other legitimately racist cops who kill or would kill, is a real problem - but why didn't you say anything about it until now?

and based on your description, i do think that video would be much more intriguing and valuable to everyone than the clownery of the original post in this thread. we'll have to see though

 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The president and congress people should not have weighed in pre-verdict

[Horu]

I watched the entire video. I find it odd that there was a police cruiser right there but they walked him down the street. As mentioned, this is before Chauvin stepped in. Granted, there is mild resistance from Floyd but that isn't what concerns me. I'm more curious about why he was pulled out of view from anyone or any cameras. Something just seems off here. Also, there had to be a reason he was resisting those officers when Chauvin arrived.

[cr47t]

1 hour ago, Horu said:

 I'm more curious about why he was pulled out of view from anyone or any cameras. Something just seems off here. Also, there had to be a reason he was resisting those officers when Chauvin arrived.

after watching the video, i think the reasons for these two are related:  floyd was probably resisting arrest out of fear of being killed (which i wouldn't put out of range of policemen for whom racism is the law, such as chauvin) and when chauvin arrived this possibility was confirmed, albeit outside PDHQ. the other requires asking a question: if a 'bad egg' is using excessive force or other means of harm against civilians, and the other cops don't join in but don't stop the guy, are they good cops for staying out, or bad for letting it happen?

i lean more towards the bad cop answer, because the police are supposed to protect civilians from danger to their lives or rights, because that's why we have the law - take that away and you've got fuck-you legalism, or worse. the point is: since they didn't stop chauvin for the several minutes they could have, they likely approved what chauvin was doing; maybe they were looking for an opportunity, and that's why they made such an odd move as to go offcam.

but then again, you said in the original chauvin thread that you were blaming floyd. there is no reason to: he had reason to believe he was going to get killed, and that's what happened. and i find it odd that you insisted on screeching BLM for the whole of the actual chauvin thread, but when you make a thread to do just that we go back. i can't tell whay you're really after, and i'm just tired of going back and forth; so, i'm just going to go back to my fiction writing and leave it here, w/ one final comment:

you've shifted between floyd being to blame, then to chauvin deserving the guilty verdict, and back and forth again. if it was floyd's fault, that would mean chauvin isn't at fault and should have acquitted; and if floyd wasn't at fault, or was acting out of fear for his life, then chauvin is to blame because his worries proved true to the real life situation - pick.

 

[Horu]

Also, it is more likely that the officer laying over Floyd and compressing his lungs against the street likely did a lot more damage to him than Chauvin did. But the placement of the knee at the base of the neck is standard police training (should seek to change that if we don't want another Chauvin/Floyd incident). But yeah, with Chauvin in place, the other officers obviously took advantage of a defenseless Floyd and generally constricted him.

[Horu]

7 hours ago, cr47t said:

after watching the video, i think the reasons for these two are related:  floyd was probably resisting arrest out of fear of being killed (which i wouldn't put out of range of policemen for whom racism is the law, such as chauvin) and when chauvin arrived this possibility was confirmed, albeit outside PDHQ. the other requires asking a question: if a 'bad egg' is using excessive force or other means of harm against civilians, and the other cops don't join in but don't stop the guy, are they good cops for staying out, or bad for letting it happen?

Most definitely bad cops that could have made Floyd seem more dangerous than he really was. Although, Chauvin should have known better once the officers dragged him from the vehicle and damn near cracked Floyd's head on the street. Seriously, his bodycam footage shows him catching Floyd by the back of the neck. If Chauvin wouldn't have been there, hard to imagine how far those officers would've went or how much worse Floyd's position would've been.

7 hours ago, cr47t said:

i lean more towards the bad cop answer, because the police are supposed to protect civilians from danger to their lives or rights, because that's why we have the law - take that away and you've got fuck-you legalism, or worse. the point is: since they didn't stop chauvin for the several minutes they could have, they likely approved what chauvin was doing; maybe they were looking for an opportunity, and that's why they made such an odd move as to go offcam.

Again, hard to say what happened to Floyd offcam. I suspect they ruffed him up quite a bit considering cam footage here shows Floyd in a white muscle shirt and he was wearing a black shirt in Chauvin's bodycam footage. This is also a very concerning detail.

7 hours ago, cr47t said:

but then again, you said in the original chauvin thread that you were blaming floyd. there is no reason to: he had reason to believe he was going to get killed, and that's what happened. and i find it odd that you insisted on screeching BLM for the whole of the actual chauvin thread, but when you make a thread to do just that we go back. i can't tell whay you're really after, and i'm just tired of going back and forth; so, i'm just going to go back to my fiction writing and leave it here, w/ one final comment:

you've shifted between floyd being to blame, then to chauvin deserving the guilty verdict, and back and forth again. if it was floyd's fault, that would mean chauvin isn't at fault and should have acquitted; and if floyd wasn't at fault, or was acting out of fear for his life, then chauvin is to blame because his worries proved true to the real life situation - pick.

 

I can't really point the finger at Floyd or Chauvin in this instance. Both were in the wrong. But I do wanna give Floyd the benefit of the doubt because you can see him begging Chauvin for help. Maybe not verbally but his fear of the two officers is pretty clear in his eyes. Also, if standard training is to pin the guy down in that manner (referring to how Chauvin had Floyd pinned down), it would make sense that Floyd likely had bruised ribs at the time of his death and this would've been ignored and thrown out as "it was a result of the officer pinning him against the street". And yes, bruised ribs can make it very hard to breathe. Especially when you're pinned to the ground with 200 pounds right on top of your ribcage. So yeah, Chauvin was more accessory than he was the actual killer.

Also, I wanna thank you for actually giving a real world viewpoint and offering critical thought.

[cr47t]

On 4/24/2021 at 4:23 AM, Horu said:

Most definitely bad cops that could have made Floyd seem more dangerous than he really was. Although, Chauvin should have known better once the officers dragged him from the vehicle and damn near cracked Floyd's head on the street. Seriously, his bodycam footage shows him catching Floyd by the back of the neck. If Chauvin wouldn't have been there, hard to imagine how far those officers would've went or how much worse Floyd's position would've been.

Again, hard to say what happened to Floyd offcam. I suspect they ruffed him up quite a bit considering cam footage here shows Floyd in a white muscle shirt and he was wearing a black shirt in Chauvin's bodycam footage. This is also a very concerning detail.

I can't really point the finger at Floyd or Chauvin in this instance. Both were in the wrong. But I do wanna give Floyd the benefit of the doubt because you can see him begging Chauvin for help. Maybe not verbally but his fear of the two officers is pretty clear in his eyes. Also, if standard training is to pin the guy down in that manner (referring to how Chauvin had Floyd pinned down), it would make sense that Floyd likely had bruised ribs at the time of his death and this would've been ignored and thrown out as "it was a result of the officer pinning him against the street". And yes, bruised ribs can make it very hard to breathe. Especially when you're pinned to the ground with 200 pounds right on top of your ribcage. So yeah, Chauvin was more accessory than he was the actual killer.

Also, I wanna thank you for actually giving a real world viewpoint and offering critical thought.

i'm just wondering, where was the critical thought from you in the original thread, before i started posting here? you were so insistent on diverting the convo to your views on BLM for every one of everybody's posts since your first on that one, and now that you're offering critical thought after the original thread got locked for going off the topical rails, i'm wondering why you didn't do it then, since your posts in this thread (excluding the original post in this thread) clearly show you're capable. i guess i could be more grateful - better late than never, i suppose - but the bullshit spewed before is still frustrating me, since it took mod action and multiple threads (mine and then yours) to get the critical exchange of ideas (regarding the topic of chauvin's conviction) that i started the first topic hoping to see.

[Horu]

1 hour ago, cr47t said:

i'm just wondering, where was the critical thought from you in the original thread, before i started posting here? you were so insistent on diverting the convo to your views on BLM for every one of everybody's posts since your first on that one, and now that you're offering critical thought after the original thread got locked for going off the topical rails, i'm wondering why you didn't do it then, since your posts in this thread (excluding the original post in this thread) clearly show you're capable. i guess i could be more grateful - better late than never, i suppose - but the bullshit spewed before is still frustrating me, since it took mod action and multiple threads (mine and then yours) to get the critical exchange of ideas (regarding the topic of chauvin's conviction) that i started the first topic hoping to see.

I offered some critical thought. But everytime I offer any level of critical thought instead of posting a news article that tells me what I should think. I showed threats being made and still got attacked. That's why I went off. While what I said may have been harsh, I was the one that was attacked first. I simply stated that the circumstances of Chauvin's conviction shows weakness in our government and I was instantly targeted. And from there, I was attacked nonstop in that thread regardless of how respectful I was.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

46 minutes ago, Horu said:

I offered some critical thought. But everytime I offer any level of critical thought instead of posting a news article that tells me what I should think. I showed threats being made and still got attacked. That's why I went off. While what I said may have been harsh, I was the one that was attacked first. I simply stated that the circumstances of Chauvin's conviction shows weakness in our government and I was instantly targeted. And from there, I was attacked nonstop in that thread regardless of how respectful I was.

there's too much to unpack here but i'm just going to say

You think far too highly of yourself and/or you've got incredible blinders on if this is your honest view on that situation

[Horu]

31 minutes ago, God Emperor Cow said:

there's too much to unpack here but i'm just going to say

You think far too highly of yourself and/or you've got incredible blinders on if this is your honest view on that situation

Cow, I told the truth in my first post on that thread. That is exactly how people will see that. The judge should've recognized this and rescheduled a closed court.

[Horu]

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMeQK84jS/

Derailing the train for minute cause this tiktok literally sums up every liberal vs conservative debate perfectly.

Lois is liberals

Stewie is conservatives

[Phantom Roxas]

14 hours ago, Horu said:

I offered some critical thought. But everytime I offer any level of critical thought instead of posting a news article that tells me what I should think. I showed threats being made and still got attacked. That's why I went off. While what I said may have been harsh, I was the one that was attacked first. I simply stated that the circumstances of Chauvin's conviction shows weakness in our government and I was instantly targeted. And from there, I was attacked nonstop in that thread regardless of how respectful I was.

None of this is what happened.

You did not offer any critical thought, you repeated conspiracies, fearmongering, and paranoia, and when I asked you to back up your theory that BLM somehow influenced the verdict, you just repeated your theory that the jury caved to pressure. Stating your own personal theories isn't telling the truth, 

The first news article I posted was about something tangentially related, but otherwise was not addressing your point, since I was focused on explaining how it was impossible for the jury to have been pressured. You posted two news articles to tell us why the mistrial should stick, so despite what you claim, you were indee guilty of posting news articles than offering even a minimum level of critical thought.

I'm not sure how to explain this to you, but citing actual experts who testified in the trial isn't just "posting a news article" or whatever.

Asking you to back up your theories is hardly a personal attack.

[Phantom Roxas]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/derek-chauvin-juror-trial-watching-die-daily-basis/story?id=77361744

One of the jurors confirmed that they were persuaded by the evidence and testimony, and did not watch the news or were aware of the protests. Most of the stress and pressure came from repeatedly watching Derek Chauvin murder George Floyd, 

To the surprised of nobody except the people who rely on dog whistles, the entire premise of this thread is still inherently wrong and relies on Horu lying for the sake of his grudge.

[Horu]

Treyvon Martin: Riot

Breonna Taylor: Riot

George Floyd: Riot

See where I'm going with this?

BLM has done nothing good. All of these people were turned into a sad ass excuse to murder cops. They didn't receive justice. Their deaths meant nothing.

I can easily see a jury caving to threats of violence especially with BLM "protestors" outside the courthouse. Their lives were in danger. They all took the coward's way out.

[The Nyx Avatar]

I'm just going to lock this thread.

You're hardly bringing anything fruitful to this discussion, Horu. In a thread that was already pretty flawed from the start.

Don't speak in absolutes. Let's say another user condemned republicans because of uncalled for actions from Trump supporters. And even then not all Trump supporters. I'm sure you wouldn't take kindly to that, right?

It's nothing short of prejudice to do stuff like lump peaceful protesters with more violent outliers.