The coming riots

a reply to: Bluntone22

Look for riots when people learn they may have major fertility issues from these vaccines. Hospitals are going to burn.

a reply to: UKTruth

I don’t think it’s illegal . It’s illegal to possess illegal drugs . Do they arrest people because of drugs in their system no the don’t . I live in America . Who knows where you live . I dislike cops . I’ll ask again . Have you been beaten by cops ???????? Once you have your opinion changes . Cops are not noble . None of them are . They’re scum who will lie on the stand whenever it supports the states case . I would never kneel on anyone’s neck because it’ll hurt them . Is that what you do ??? Kneel on your child’s neck ???? Do you intentionally try to hurt people . I think I’m done talking to you . Your ignorance is sad

Have the bricks shown up yet? Asking for a friend

Defense is up to bat... Another home run incoming...

originally posted by: Thenail
I would never kneel on anyone’s neck because it’ll hurt them

So a person 6'4" 240 pounds starts fighting with you and you are 100 pounds below them, what are you going to do when you can't run away. Would you taser them... Personally I'm not a cop so I'm taking out their knees that way they can lay on the floor in pain and I don't need to be near them.

BTW how do you know whether the restraint he used would hurt someone? Go watch Crowder where he had one of his team members do the same thing for over 9 mins on him and his team member weighed 90 lbs over Chauvin.

originally posted by: LSU2018
Defense is up to bat... Another home run incoming...

Notice how this expert witness said "knee on the NECK" ?

originally posted by: TXRabbit
Have the bricks shown up yet? Asking for a friend

We might see cinderblocks this time...

originally posted by: TXRabbit

originally posted by: LSU2018
Defense is up to bat... Another home run incoming...

Notice how this expert witness said "knee on the NECK" ?

Yes. And I saw where he spent an extensive amount of time over nearly a year picking out the perfect still-shots. Nelson is destroying him already, it's pleasant...

originally posted by: LSU2018

Yes. And I saw where he spent an extensive amount of time over nearly a year picking out the perfect still-shots. Nelson is destroying him already, it's pleasant...

Don't know man. That doc was pretty convincing..

originally posted by: TXRabbit

originally posted by: LSU2018

Yes. And I saw where he spent an extensive amount of time over nearly a year picking out the perfect still-shots. Nelson is destroying him already, it's pleasant...

Don't know man. That doc was pretty convincing..

All of the experts have been convincing. It's when the defense gets up there and Nelson starts asking the whys and wheres and hows that the experts fall apart. It's like Biden getting softball yes or no questions from Cuomo and then getting the real questions from Tucker Carlson.

originally posted by: Thenail
a reply to: Bluntone22

What evidence did you see ? All I saw was the guy kneel on the guys neck until he died . The guy on the ground warned him he couldn’t breath . Jerk didn’t care and kneeled on his neck until he died . That’s what I remember, I could be wrong

You are. The trial so far has proven that he wasn't kneeling on his neck, he was kneeling on his back, as he was trained to do.

The trial has also shown that, according to the prosecutions own witness, Chauvin used less force that the circumstances warranted (he could have used his taser).

The trial has also shown that George was complaining aof breathing problems long before they put him on the ground, and he was resisting a lot prior to, warranting the continued restraint until the EMTs got there.

The prosecutions own witness explicitly stated that this was all done in accordance with Chauvins training and police policy.

The dude is being railroaded.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: UKTruth


"Arrests are not made on the basis of someone being a threat".
Really, Baker Act anyone? How many Peeps get arrested, errr detained, for failing to ID even though not required to do so in many states? Tens of thousands of youtube clips and lawsuits say you is wrong.

"They are made when someone breaks the law.
Floyd broke the law, then resisted arrest."

Riiiiight, the ole resisting arrest hooey.

Guess you are OK with theses thugs costing taxpayers $300 million in lawsuits a year then.

abcnews.go.com...


And lets get to the real point here, if this was a dog or a pretty blonde, the narrative would be 180 out. Especially as evidenced in the thread about the officer beating his K9 partner.

a reply to: tanstaafl

No he didnt in fact officers testifying all said it was accesive force.

Lt. Richard Zimmerman, who leads the Minneapolis Police Department's homicide unit, said Chauvin's use of force while Floyd was already pinned down and handcuffed was "totally unnecessary."

Police Chief Medaria Arradondo testified that officers are not trained to kneel on the necks of suspects.

Sgt. Jody Stiger, an LAPD use of force expert, said Chauvin had employed "excessive" force.
“Because he was in the prone position, he was not resisting, he was handcuffed, he was not attempting to evade, he was not attempting to resist. And the pressure that he was –that was being caused by the body weight could cause positional asphyxia which could cause death.”

You have to really screw up for officers to be willing to come forward and testify. Look at the rodney King trial not one officer testified against them.

a reply to: Bluntone22

The longer I think about it, the more I'm starting to think there won't actually be much significant rioting after this trial. Maybe small riots here and there, but nothing all that excessive.

At this point, I think they're headed towards it being a hung jury.


After that, maybe lesser charges in a 2nd trial, and then maybe more rioting.
And probably not but possibly even a plea deal.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I've been keeping an eye on the trial in Minnesota.
My wife works in a bank in an urban area so I want to be aware of possible issues of the riot variety.

From everything I've seen on the news and social media, the cop is going to be found guilty...
In the actual courtroom, the cop is going to be acquitted. The prosecution is failing miserably.

Im not here to discuss the trial itself as that's been beaten to dust around here but.....

The media coverage is in my opinion slanting their coverage either towards their desired outcome or in a blatant attempt to poke the public opinion bear.

So from a legal standpoint, is the media liable for the damage done in the coming riots?

Opinions?
Anyone?
Bueller?

Someone, anyone better get impeached!

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: tanstaafl

No he didnt in fact officers testifying all said it was accesive force.

Yes - until cross-examined, where the defense got the ones that mattered to admit under oath that it actually wasn't excessive.

Police Chief Medaria Arradondo testified that officers are not trained to kneel on the necks of suspects.

Except he wasn't kneeling on his neck, he was kneeling on his back, as he was trained to do.

Again, the defense has completely demolished the entire narrative the MSM and prosecution has been pushing.

And this is only from the cross-examinations, the defense hasn't even begun presenting their case.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

So from a legal standpoint, is the media liable for the damage done in the coming riots?

Opinions?
Anyone?
Bueller?

I think the issue here is large entities that are spread out, similar to large corporations, and governments. The small number of people pushing the agendas out, but they have a large crew of minions assisting them.

Who do or would they hold accountable, false info, data and hyperbole has become the norm these days, so accountability has gone out the window legal in many cases.

Our courtrooms are going to be taxed even further as time progresses, prisons, and more.


Unfortunately I believe there are going to be riots no matter what the outcome is.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Donald Trump isn't president anymore. They don't need riots anymore to show how bad things are under his presidency. Rioters are now officially useful idiots. I wouldn't be surprised if TPTB want an epic chimp out just so they can put it under their boot once and for all.

These things do happen in Democrat strongholds after all. Surely they don't want chaos full time.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: jtrenthacker
I feel like there will be riots either way.

Maybe, but on different scales.
If he is found guilty on all counts the riots will be more of a celebration like a superbowl win.

Innocent on all counts....
Lock and load

If they're looting businesses, dragging average joes out of trucks to smash their heads with a brick, burning down buildings, and behaving like demons, does it really make a hill of bean's difference whether it's in celebration or protest? Lock and load either way, literally it is the only way to stop this cycle of asshattery once and for all.

After witnessing the violence and mayhem in '20, and thinking back to my childhood to the footage of truck driver Reginald Denny being dragged from hist vehicle and viciously attacked for no reason, that was all the motivation I needed to go out and acquire my CCW this year. It took more than 8 months, due to the process Connecticut puts in place to gently impede folks from obtaining their permit, but with the Chauvin verdict pending, I am so glad that I put the time in to get my permit and start stockpiling weapons and ammo.

It's all just words, debate and emotions until unruly mobs surround your vehicle, impede you from driving and reach inside to put their hands on you, that's when it's time to introduce them to my little friend.

I'm not alone in wishing that this trial would reach its conclusion WITHOUT triggering mob violence, rioting and mayhem, but sometimes it feels like these trials are fulcrums for certain groups to go bonkers and then blame their actions on a court decision.

I wonder if there would be any way legally, to delay/defer announcement of the verdict for some X period of time, not depriving the defendants to a fair speedy trial, and not completely censoring the legal proceedings from the public, but just adding a 'cool down' period of say 18-24 months before announcing the verdict publicly, to try to tamp down public emotions and deprive opportunists who use the verdict to instigate violence and sow anarchy. Would completing the Chauvin trial now, and delaying announcement of the verdict and punishment 24 months later serve to lessen the furor from either side on the verdict? Is it a fair and legal practice, and would it even work? Just something that popped into my head...

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Here's the thing though. If asked, I'd be willing to bet 90% +/- of the idiots rioting wouldn't have a clue who floyd is. It's just a name and an "excuse" to destroy, attack innocent people and loot nothing else.