71% of Americans Agreed Chauvin was Guilty

a reply to: LABTECH767

Agree but the dumb as did what he did and the other guy is dead. He knew what "race card" was already in play and so do so many others yet they keep adding fuel.

I always wondered whether he was a radicalized cop. By others. Articles are written about the same for our US Troops.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I remember when firsts watching the footage how clearly it was a murder by police.
My question is why did the police murder Floyd, it just wasn’t random surely

Just to extreme to be a simple “police brutality” something is going on people don’t know about

It was random, just a senior cop, showing new cops how to do things..good f'ing riddance.

And it starts a war, good f’ing riddance?
Stupidity creates this, and the street wars, well done, stupid people all sing the chorus

All lives matter

Ya..good riddance!!!!!!!!

As for war..no damn idea what you are talking about, if there was a war, it was already ongoing

a reply to: Edumakated

71% of the people probably didn't watch the trial. Just because the majority of the populace believes something doesn't make it true or right.

You are accurate, true and of moral justice. However in the USA today all that has all gone away since 2012. Plus the alpha agencies are so corrupted the rules of law is no more.

You have to morph into a Colonist and fight that way. others all is lost forever. thn again it may be way too late as its not 1770's any more.

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: NightVision

What does proof have to do with it? Its all about perception and articles such as this fuels same.

Make yourself a champion of usefulness and and go debunk the article.

I get what you are saying. How does one debunk a poll though?

Should read 71% of Americans ASKED, instead of trying to claim 71% of Americans. The guy was high on drugs and a criminal. Could that cop handled it better, sure but he's not guilty of murder. The biggest losers in all this are tax payers in Minneapolis. They dished out 27 million dollars.

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: panoz77

Not according to the polls I saw. The youtube poll I saw was 92% that Chauvin did not get a fair trial.

OK so provide the link. I just went onto YouTube ad typed it in. I typed; "Chauvin Verdict Poll" and "Chauvin Poll"

I saw nothing you are referring do.

It was a pop up poll, there is no link. It was one of those polls they insert in between videos in your feed. When you choose an answer, it shows you the current results.

a reply to: vonclod

The war has started, true, but not on the scale it could erupt into if justice is denied.
Expect more cops to die as people seek revenge from those who act and don’t suffer justice

That’s how life works
They will burn it ALL down

originally posted by: NightVision

originally posted by:


I get what you are saying. How does one debunk a poll though?

Usually by proving that the question was leading or that the people being polled weren't a representative sample.

For example if you were to poll only women on college campuses in California you'd not have a representative sample of American.

It's why polls on Fox and CNN are often wildly different.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Avardan
Anyone thinking that this whole situation may cause a mass exodus from public law enforcement due to unreasonable personal risk?

because police have no duty to "protect" us at all

What about the slogans on police cars: "To Protect And Serve." When did that change?

a reply to: Waterglass

There's one small problem... Floyd overdosed. His killer was released from jail and is walking the streets, selling the same kinds of drugs to other junkies right now.

I think a majority of the people who think Chauvin is guilty are the same ones who think all cops are guilty no matter the situation. I rushed to judgement when I saw the video of Floyd, I finally saw an incident where I could support the suspect. Then more and more evidence came out and I started to see it a little differently. Then I watched the bodycam footage and that sealed the deal for me. I knew Chauvin wasn't guilty of murder, but I knew he'd go down as the sacrificial lamb for the democrats since people like nancy pelosi were thanking Floyd for his sacrifice (seriously) and maxine waters was threatening violence, and the president was pretending to care about a black guy.

a reply to: LABTECH767

The knee wasn't directly on the neck for that long. And it's a restraint that has been used time and time again.

originally posted by: Specimen88
And the fact he was having a possible heart attack or failure, stating I cant breathe before Chauvin took him out of the car?

Black Lesibians Matter!!! What, what.

Chauvin didn't even arrive on the scene until Floyd got to the police car. He watched his other two guys struggle with Floyd, trying to get him in the cop car, and he watched a handcuffed Floyd worm his way out of the back seat with two police trying to restrain him. That's when Chauvin got involved and helped hold him down after Floyd requested to be put on the ground.

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind
What about the slogans on police cars: "To Protect And Serve." When did that change?

I frequently believe government slogans.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Me too. Like "We're here to help."

originally posted by: AutomateThis1
Me too. Like "We're here to help."

"Just say no."

LOL, sure.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: AutomateThis1
Me too. Like "We're here to help."

"Just say no."

LOL, sure.

"Users are Losers, so don't do drugs."
I believe that one.

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind
"Users are Losers, so don't do drugs."
I believe that one.

It's okay, I'm sure there are plenty of people thinking cannabis is still a 'gateway drug' due to government propaganda. My grandmother and her glaucoma disagree.

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

What about the slogans on police cars: "To Protect And Serve." When did that change?

About 1855:

Since 1855, the Supreme Court of the United States has consistently ruled that law enforcement officers have no duty to protect any individual, despite the motto "protect and serve". Their duty is to enforce the law in general. The first such case was in 1855. The most recent in 2005: Castle Rock v. Gonzales.

Wikipedia: Police

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Avardan
Anyone thinking that this whole situation may cause a mass exodus from public law enforcement due to unreasonable personal risk?

because police have no duty to "protect" us at all

What about the slogans on police cars: "To Protect And Serve." When did that change?

Locally?
August 9, 2020, to wit.

After having Park Ridge police assist in property theft, outright overseeing and abetting the process,
I was hauled off with militant force for remarking to the approaching officer, who uses
a fake fake name, for saying smart meters ‘interact with biology’.

# 1388

a reply to: LABTECH767

I agree with all the points you make, but one would hope that a police officer would have a sense of morals that would intervene, and a conscious which would also intervene beyond any training, or a lack of training, which would prevent him/her from murdering someone in that manner.

This officer that did this obviously had no higher governor to tell him what he was doing was very wrong.

This means it is all on him alone. He is guilty of his actions, and no one else can be blamed for it.

I suppose one could fault their hiring process though. They could use lots of improvement in screening police applicants, and not hire people with no true moral compass.