George Floyd Died From Heart Disease, Not Asphyxiation

originally posted by: murphy22
OP? You are the "disease''! I hate to tell you buddy, but you ain't helping. People like you? Are the problem!

Questioning the narrative, and digging for actual facts does make them a problem. You have to have a more open mind, and see all the multitudes of possibilities, and then realize you still don't know wtf happened. None of us do. The actual case will play out and once all evidence is presented then a verdict can be made. Until then I see a lot of people assuming things, inferring, and implying what they want. I just like to look at all sides of a case like this, and not rush to a decision based on a media blitz.

a reply to: illusion987
But yet? You could've been "restrained". Your entertaining "story" is, "entertaining" to say. But how far does "your story" need to go?.. For you to be "restained".

Do you actually need a "license"/permit? To live?...
I'm just asking.

a reply to: visitedbythem

You would be upset by it. It's a snuff film. The guy dies on camera.

originally posted by: illusion987
a reply to: frogs453

So you don't believe the medical examiner? Read the original link I posted. It means the police didn't cause his death. You also didn't know you had a counterfeit bill? Yet, the dude noticed in 20 seconds? Sounds like you do this type of thing often and suck at it.

That's not what the ME said. He said the police and underlying conditions contributed to his death. If I stroll up on a guy and pull a gun and he dies of a heart attack, I'm the one that's liable. I don't get to walk free and say, "hey, He had a weak heart and heart disease *shrug* "

I'm all about giving police the benefit of the doubt. I think Ferguson was a justified shoot and bad actors inflamed the community -- but there is zero excuse for what that officer did or for the three that sat and watched it happen. Zero excuses. If nothing else, they are up for negligent homicide.

You will never convince me that with four officers there was no other way to safely restrain a suspect even if he was resisting, which is not evident from video. Nor any evidence that he needed to be continually restrained in such a manner for several minutes -- including when he was unconscious. It's a gross misapplication of force where none was warranted.

It's hard to believe that corrupt cops have become a racial and/or political issue, but here you are...

originally posted by: KnoxMSP

originally posted by: murphy22
OP? You are the "disease''! I hate to tell you buddy, but you ain't helping. People like you? Are the problem!

then realize you still don't know wtf happened. None of us do. .

We've got video of unjustified use of force that resulted in a man's death. Sorry, but while the points you raise are generally valid, particularly about the media and rabblerousers, they are also not applicable here.

a reply to: illusion987
Yeah and JFK died from a cerebral hemmorrage.

a reply to: KnoxMSP

KnoxMSP: I have been put, more than a couple times, in this "LEO" position.
It's a hard thing, to live with, believe me. You'll question yourself, for years, after.
Being trained, to bring "death and destruction" upon an "enemy", is one thing. But a "LEO" it does not make! But to put a knee, in a fellow citizens neck? Is way above my "education".

It's not a "narrative". It is a PROBLEM,.. That needs to be fixed!
Unless you're one of them "useful idiots", that believe, you can not be trusted to "govern yourself"? Or you need a "law", to define your moral obligation?

I personally have no use for you.

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: KnoxMSP

KnoxMSP: I have been put, more than a couple times, in this "LEO" position.
It's a hard thing, to live with, believe me. You'll question yourself, for years, after.

How ignorant. You realize you know nothing about me, right? Had the same and worse. I didn't grow up in the nice suburbs, or rural, like a lot of people on here. I grew up in low income areas my whole life. Talking out the side of your face like that isn't very becoming.

a reply to: illusion987
so this man resisted and refused to get in the car, was he right to do that, after all it was a trivial crime. if indeed he was even aware it was a counterfeit bill. shouldn't proof of id and the issue of a court summons have been enough for this incident and leave it there,then the cops could go to other calls and do some real cop work and not be wasting departments time making a big rigmarole out of such a petty crime.

Consequences: For everything you do or decide there will be a reaction to that decision. in this case the reaction was fatal and that reaction was directly caused by the cop, regardless of the medical condition of the suspect.

in such a case the cops involved as none of them done anything to help the suspect in his pleas that he could not breathe. should all be convicted of aiding and abetting the cop who carried out the over reaction to an unarmed and non aggressive person, who don't forget may not have been aware he had a counterfeit bill. No one knows if he knowingly tried to pass it. One thing is certain it was way over the top to deal with this man the way they did and nothing any coroner can say should lessen their punishment. Maximum Jail sentence is the only way forward.

originally posted by: illusion987
a reply to: alldaylong

He shouldn't have committed a crime being so fragile, should he? If you commit the crime, you do the time. Remember how the cop said, "Dont do drugs kids". He wasnt being funny. He had some idea what was happening to him. Probably he second or third overdose that day.

"Probably he second or third overdose that day'" ???

Trying to make George Floyd look like a junkie who deserved this? What kind of racist trash are you?

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: illusion987

Using a counterfeit $20 bill is hardly a crime befitting a death sentence.

That wasn't the only crime. If he was indeed inebriated, as per the coroner's report, and 911 call, he was also DUI for behind the wheel of the vehicle.

This thread is an excellent example of why folks are in the streets.

And why some of them are enraged.

I feel disgusted to see the lengths some will go to justify a murderer.

a reply to: KnoxMSP

You're aware of a report the rest of us aren't? That report does not state he was under the influence of anything. The word possibly is not an affirmative. I understand you would like the situation to fit your narrative, but making stuff up doesn't cut it.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: KnoxMSP

You're aware of a report the rest of us aren't? That report does not state he was under the influence of anything. The word possibly is not an affirmative. I understand you would like the situation to fit your narrative, but making stuff up doesn't cut it.

You missed the part where I said IF, apparently. I shouldn't expect much of people I suppose.

Reading comprehension > you

And what narrative? The fact that I want all the facts before anyone jumps to a verdict. Yea, totally unreasonable "narrative"...

SMDH. I clearly said they used too much force earlier in this thread. But, yeah, you can't be expected to read.

a reply to: KnoxMSP

You alluded to more than one crime committed which is not a fact.

When using the two words "as per" instead of "per" Per is a preposition and means: for each and by means of. While as per is a phrase, which means in accordance with. The two are demonstrably different and not interchangeable, ie: witness: "As per the forecast, it will rain this afternoon." -- This prophecy will be coming true later.

The report does not state that there were any known substances. You stated " if he was indeed inebriated as per the coroner's report" My reading comprehension is fine.

a reply to: illusion987

YOUR TRASH, I HOPE ALL FOUR COPS ROT IN JAIL

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: KnoxMSP

You alluded to more than one crime committed which is not a fact.

When using the two words "as per" instead of "per" Per is a preposition and means: for each and by means of. While as per is a phrase, which means in accordance with. The two are demonstrably different and not interchangeable, ie: witness: "As per the forecast, it will rain this afternoon." -- This prophecy will be coming true later.

The report does not state that there were any known substances. You stated " if he was indeed inebriated as per the coroner's report" My reading comprehension is fine.

I am just saying if the police were investigating this subject, they would have two crimes they were investigating. You are just too emotional.

Having someone inebriated in a motor vehicle is grounds to remove and detain them. The 911 call said the man was inebriated. But let's just ignore that.

Also, what narrative am I pushing, again? You still haven't clarified.

a reply to: magnetik

Excellent point. I am so glad you one, know how to spell correctly and two, don’t let emotions influence your choices.

That's kinda like saying that a guy died of a heart attack right when he was ran over by a bus. The bus didn't kill him. His heart gave out.


Like saying... It's not the fall that kills you... It's the sudden stop.

originally posted by: TheBoomersRBusted
a reply to: illusion987
Yeah and JFK died from a cerebral hemmorrage.

"Hemorrhage".

Takes less than 5 seconds to find out how it's spelled.