Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]

Options
1…153154156158159…354

Comments

  • Options
    #4652
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,789 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Mr. Karate wrote: »
    Much like George Floyd that guy was probably hopped on so much drugs that it caused his death more than anything the Police did.

    You could well be right but I can't say that's the case because I simply don't know.

    But the evidence in the short video clip doesn't seem to show that the cops did much wrong. Certainly nothing in that video clip appears to have been the cause of death.

    Maybe there's extended footage somewhere but I can't really blame the police based on the short clip I've seen.


  • Options
    #4653
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,789 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    weisses wrote: »
    Ambulance crew tried to resuscitate him brought him to Hospital but was put off life support after a week ... He died as a result of asphyxiation ... Lets say the bag over his head and the actions of the cop didn't help, as was being high on pcp

    Defunding the police and allocate the money so these cases can be dealt with by people who are trained and employed to provide proper care is what is needed

    How did the spit hood cause asphyxiation? They are designed in such a way so that they allow the wearer to breathe.

    Did he vomit and asphyxiate on his own vomit?


  • Options
    #4654
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Ambulance crew tried to resuscitate him brought him to Hospital but was put off life support after a week ... He died as a result of asphyxiation ... Lets say the bag over his head and the actions of the cop didn't help, as was being high on pcp

    Defunding the police and allocate the money so these cases can be dealt with by people who are trained and employed to provide proper care is what is needed

    Defund the police. That will definitely improve the training given when called out to situations like this.


  • Options
    #4655
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,483 ✭✭✭weisses


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Defund the police. That will definitely improve the training given when called out to situations like this.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/06/19/what-does-defund-the-police-mean-and-does-it-have-merit/

    I think when properly done yes


  • Options
    #4656
    Mr. Karate
    Registered Users Posts: 1,373 ✭✭✭Mr. Karate


    weisses wrote: »
    And you got your medical degree where exactly ??

    It was determined that drugs were found in Floyd's system at the time of his arrest and the drugs led to his death. Ofocurse it got buried because it doesn't fit the "Police Officers are out to kill Black People" narrative.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4657
    Mr. Karate
    Registered Users Posts: 1,373 ✭✭✭Mr. Karate


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    You could well be right but I can't say that's the case because I simply don't know.

    But the evidence in the short video clip doesn't seem to show that the cops did much wrong. Certainly nothing in that video clip appears to have been the cause of death.

    Maybe there's extended footage somewhere but I can't really blame the police based on the short clip I've seen.

    Most of these guys that end up getting into confrontations with police are usually hopped up on something.

    I'm not guaranteeing that spit bag dude was on drugs, but it wouldn't be too surprising.


  • Options
    #4658
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,483 ✭✭✭weisses


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    How did the spit hood cause asphyxiation? They are designed in such a way so that they allow the wearer to breathe.

    Did he vomit and asphyxiate on his own vomit?
    A medical examiner concluded that Prude’s death was a homicide caused by “complications of asphyxia in the setting of physical restraint.” The report lists excited delirium and acute intoxication by phencyclidine, or PCP, as contributing factors.

    https://time.com/5885860/daniel-prude-police-spit-hood/


  • Options
    #4659
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,483 ✭✭✭weisses


    Mr. Karate wrote: »
    It was determined that drugs were found in Floyd's system at the time of his arrest and the drugs led to his death. Ofocurse it got buried because it doesn't fit the "Police Officers are out to kill Black People" narrative.

    Ohh it wasn't the cop sitting on his neck ...... pview what a relieve
    The 20-page report also indicates that Floyd had fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system at the time of his death, although the drugs are not listed as the cause.]


  • Options
    #4660
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users Posts: 10,493 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    weisses wrote: »
    https://time.com/5885860/daniel-prude-police-spit-hood/

    That's a tough one. Presumably there's guidelines for using the hood, which would have to have been assessed and approved for use. First time I've heard of it myself.


  • Options
    #4661
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Broadstone Bob wrote: »
    Very poor quality video of the LA shooting....

    https://twitter.com/AttorneyCrump/status/1301238367821205505?s=20

    Not justifying anything but this shows how fast things can go wrong for cops...

    https://twitter.com/KarluskaP/status/1299354341090955267?s=20

    I remember talking to cop based in and around portland years ago. he said after after some bad media coverage about shootings, they invited some journalists to do some of the scenarios that his dept train for, nothing technical all about decision making and observation. Just so they'd get an understanding of police decision making

    All the journos "died" in the excercises :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4662
    Carfacemandog
    Registered Users Posts: 2,042 ✭✭✭Carfacemandog


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    To be fair, he owns more than the land. He owns the building too. And he's out of pocket because of the actions of BLM supporters who burned down his building and robbed him of some of his livelihood.

    He does not own the business. He could have been introduced as the owner of the land, or the owner of the building. Instead, knowing that he was not (as the actual owner had turned him down), Trump still insisted on introducing this guy as "the owner of Rode's Camera Shop", which is hardly surprising given that he is about the walking definition of a pathological liar.


  • Options
    #4663
    1800_Ladladlad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,364 ✭✭✭1800_Ladladlad


    We all know Cuomo is a weasel and a white-collar scumbag, his brother too, but there has to be consequences for him saying Trump 'better have an army to protect him if he comes to NYC'. Was Cuomo alluding to how much of a unsecured ****hole NYC has become and as result of his gross imcompetants its now unsafe or was he just giving Trump some friendly advice (going off recent crime stats) and it was not a threat. He thought he was being slick, I knew he was tick but his he's a grade A clown!

    https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1301320935656521731


  • Options
    #4664
    Carfacemandog
    Registered Users Posts: 2,042 ✭✭✭Carfacemandog


    WrenBoy wrote: »
    What doesn't play well with the base is that cities are being burned down and innocent lives destroyed but all you and many seem to care about is catching Trump out in the most inconsequential detail of the whole thing. Who cares if he's the shop owner or the property owner !?? Is that really the problem here ?
    The problem is a president who is showing himself to be entirely unable to deal with civil unrest like those before him have, and often actively engaged in goading for further violence, which has led to the largest protests and riots in American history. This is why the city of Kenosha didn't even want him to visit there in the first place.


  • Options
    #4665
    Biker79
    Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭Biker79


    OK - a bunch of lefties go on a rampage and destroy their cities. They hope the president will crack down so they can call him a fascist.

    When he doesn't bite, they blame him for not stopping them.

    Sounds about right.


  • Options
    #4666
    Hande hoche!
    Registered Users Posts: 7,755 ✭✭✭Hande hoche!


    1800_Ladladlad wrote: »
    We all know Cuomo is a weasel and a white-collar scumbag, his brother too, but there has to be consequences for him saying Trump 'better have an army to protect him if he comes to NYC'. Was Cuomo alluding to how much of a unsecured ****hole NYC has become and as result of his gross imcompetants its now unsafe or was he just giving Trump some friendly advice (going off recent crime stats) and it was not a threat. He thought he was being slick, I knew he was tick but his he's a grade A clown!

    https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1301320935656521731


    He is probably hooked on the publicity at this stage.


  • Options
    #4667
    Carfacemandog
    Registered Users Posts: 2,042 ✭✭✭Carfacemandog


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Former owner of the business, and the current owner of the property (which would be the land and the building itself).

    You really want to get outraged over this?

    Simple truth is that as the owner of property he stands to lose on revenue, and as the former owner of the business itself, he can still remark on the loss because of the damage to the property... due to his experience previously running the business.

    I swear people will bend over backwards to find something to be outraged over.
    There's a problem with your straw man, which is that I'm not outraged by it. It's just typical Trump, needlessly lying like he has done for the last three and a half years in office. I was simply pointing out that it was indeed a lie that this person was the owner of the business, when he was the owner of the property. Had Trump never approached the owner of the actual business, there would be room to call it a misunderstanding. Had Trump said the person was the owner of the land, the owner of the building, or the former owner of the business, he would not have been lying. But with Trump being Trump, he predictably went with the lie when it was just as easy to tell the truth.
    And if his own intention/desire was for the uniting of the country, he could have supported Trump. Instead, he chose to highlight the story, encourage further criticism of Trump, and increase those divisions himself. Ahh yes, because uniting the country can only happen if people stand against Trump?
    The problem here is that Trump has spent years sowing discord, so no, falling in line behind the person who only a few months ago was himself calling for armed 'liberation' of states would not do much to help unify anything. The actual owner of the business said he didn't want to be a part of this whole circus, and I can't really blame him.
    What is so dangerous about this "lie"?
    First, I never said it was dangerous, not sure why you keep insisting on putting up straw men?

    Secondly, it is a lie, which I was pointing out. Simple stuff really, here's the definition of the word if it helps you: "(of a thing) present a false impression."
    No, seriously. If this story hadn't been raised, what is the danger to Trump parading about the damage to the building? After all, the damage happened. Is Trump lying about how the damage happened?
    Again, I never said Trump lied about how the damage, did I? I simply pointed out that he lied by claiming that the person he was with was "the owner of Rodes Camera Shop", and that it was not a mistake as he had already approached the actual owner, who turned him down. If you would rather people not point out lies that is grand, though also wishful thinking.


  • Options
    #4668
    WrenBoy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,614 ✭✭✭WrenBoy


    Carfacemandog wrote: »
    The problem is a president who is showing himself to be entirely unable to deal with civil unrest like those before him have, and often actively engaged in goading for further violence, which has led to the largest protests and riots in American history. This is why the city of Kenosha didn't even want him to visit there in the first place.

    I get you don't like him, I don't think he's all that either, but the way I see it these riots have been whipped up just as much (if not more so) by rhetoric from the Dems and local governments stance of backing the riots using them as a weapon against Tump.
    This talk of the city didn't want him to visit, maybe because they are all Anti-Trump ? that may be true, very hard to gauge that, another possibility is they are afraid of what BLM will do to the city if Trump visits. Its almost like a hostage situation.


  • Options
    #4669
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,686 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    1800_Ladladlad wrote: »
    We all know Cuomo is a weasel and a white-collar scumbag, his brother too, but there has to be consequences for him saying Trump 'better have an army to protect him if he comes to NYC'. Was Cuomo alluding to how much of a unsecured ****hole NYC has become and as result of his gross imcompetants its now unsafe or was he just giving Trump some friendly advice (going off recent crime stats) and it was not a threat. He thought he was being slick, I knew he was tick but his he's a grade A clown!

    Oh the irony.


  • Options
    #4670
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Carfacemandog wrote: »
    There's a problem with your straw man, which is that I'm not outraged by it.

    Where has this desire to throw "strawman" come from? Are you sure of its meaning and usage, considering you're applying it to my post?
    <snipped>

    First, I never said it was dangerous, not sure why you keep insisting on putting up straw men?

    Secondly, it is a lie, which I was pointing out. Simple stuff really, here's the definition of the word if it helps you: "(of a thing) present a false impression."

    Again, I never said Trump lied about how the damage, did I? I simply pointed out that he lied by claiming that the person he was with was "the owner of Rodes Camera Shop", and that it was not a mistake as he had already approached the actual owner, who turned him down. If you would rather people not point out lies that is grand, though also wishful thinking.

    Err... you're reading crap that I didn't write. You also didn't answer/address my points, instead taking them as an opportunity to repeat your own statements.


  • Options
    #4671
    Carfacemandog
    Registered Users Posts: 2,042 ✭✭✭Carfacemandog


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Where has this desire to throw "strawman" come from? Are you sure of its meaning and usage, considering you're applying it to my post?

    Err... you're reading crap that I didn't write. You also didn't answer/address my points, instead taking them as an opportunity to repeat your own statements.
    You are claiming I was outraged by this, but at no point did I say I was outraged - it's just typical Trump, lying as usual. That is definitively straw-manning.
    • an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
    • "her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

    My argument is that Trump was knowingly lying. Your straw man was exaggerating that I was outraged by his lying.

    Likewise, asking "what is so dangerous about this "lie"?" is implying I was considering it was a dangerous lie to tell, which I never claimed in any way - another straw man, by exaggerating what I my argument. Again, my argument is that Trump was lying - which he was.

    What did I read that you never wrote?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4672
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Carfacemandog wrote: »
    You are claiming I was outraged by this, but at no point did I say I was outraged - it's just typical Trump, lying as usual. That is definitively straw-manning.
    • an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
    • "her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

    My argument is that Trump was knowingly lying. Your straw man was exaggerating that I was outraged by his lying.

    Likewise, asking "what is so dangerous about this "lie"?" is implying I was considering it was a dangerous lie to tell, which I never claimed in any way - another straw man, by exaggerating what I my argument. Again, my argument is that Trump was lying - which he was.

    What did I read that you never wrote?

    You're so full of the need to moan about Trump that you're incapable of engaging in a discussion. Your outrage is due to the manner of your posts on this issue.. and there's nothing strawman about it, since it's an opinion about what you wrote. Since the objective of the post was not about your outrage... this is simply more arguing of smaller issues in order to deflect.

    The only way you could really highlight strawmanning would be to show that my statement about the ownership about the property was wrong, and without grounds. Hence the lack of relevant evidence (not that I need evidence since what I wrote comes from the articles)

    As for my reference to "dangerous".. I didn't say that you had said it. I asked a rather simple series of questions, which you have chosen to misinterpret.


  • Options
    #4673
    Carfacemandog
    Registered Users Posts: 2,042 ✭✭✭Carfacemandog


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You're so full of the need to moan about Trump that you're incapable of engaging in a discussion. Your outrage is due to the manner of your posts on this issue.. and there's nothing strawman about it, since it's an opinion about what you wrote. Since the objective of the post was not about your outrage... this is simply more arguing of smaller issues in order to deflect.

    The only way you could really highlight strawmanning would be to show that my statement about the ownership about the property was wrong, and without grounds. Hence the lack of relevant evidence (not that I need evidence since what I wrote comes from the articles)

    As for my reference to "dangerous".. I didn't say that you had said it. I asked a rather simple series of questions, which you have chosen to misinterpret.

    I have already given you the definition of straw manning, if you do not like that it's not my problem. I'm not outraged by Trump lying about this, no matter how much you want to continue with that narrative - it's entirely expected from him. I am simply pointing out that he was lying, which is a black and white fact.


  • Options
    #4674
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Carfacemandog wrote: »
    I have already given you the definition of straw manning, if you do not like that it's not my problem. I'm not outraged by Trump lying about this, no matter how much you want to continue with that narrative - it's entirely expected from him. I am simply pointing out that he was lying, which is a black and white fact.

    Jaysis, I'd hate to have to read your posts about things you are outraged about.


  • Options
    #4675
    Carfacemandog
    Registered Users Posts: 2,042 ✭✭✭Carfacemandog


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Jaysis, I'd hate to have to read your posts about things you are outraged about.

    Then you're best off avoiding my posts about Trump policy of forcibly removing children from their parents and throwing them into concentration camps. That would be an aspect of his presidency I am quite outraged about.


  • Options
    #4676
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Carfacemandog wrote: »
    The person Trump met with is the LAND owner. Why did they lie and pretend he was the BUSINESS owner when he is not?

    If someone owns a property like a shopping centre or retail lot, they do not own call of the businesses inside. They own the land, which the business owners - who own the businesses - rent.

    So why were they lying that this person was the business owner when that clearly wasn't the case?

    His name is still on the business. Is he leasing it to the current occupant? If so it’s still his business being run by someone else. This isn’t a shopping centre.


  • Options
    #4677
    Mr. Karate
    Registered Users Posts: 1,373 ✭✭✭Mr. Karate


    1800_Ladladlad wrote: »
    We all know Cuomo is a weasel and a white-collar scumbag, his brother too, but there has to be consequences for him saying Trump 'better have an army to protect him if he comes to NYC'. Was Cuomo alluding to how much of a unsecured ****hole NYC has become and as result of his gross imcompetants its now unsafe or was he just giving Trump some friendly advice (going off recent crime stats) and it was not a threat. He thought he was being slick, I knew he was tick but his he's a grade A clown!

    https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1301320935656521731

    Him and Wilhem better pray that nothing happens to the President. Despite all their public bluster they've been on their knees like $2 whore begging the President for bailouts. And they were begging because of their stupid policies. Now they have the riots... I mean "Mostly peaceful protests that happen to end up on fire during" to add on top of that.


  • Options
    #4678
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,146 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    gozunda wrote: »
    Well done. You've now arrived at level 1.1 comprehension and understanding of one of the core issues.

    In this thread we've seen some repeatedly supporting BLMs condemnation of every member of the police. Of local government. Of 'white' people. Based exactly as you say on "condemning everyone ... due to certain individuals involved"

    Horses for courses. Anyone supporting the idea - that the blm movement should not to be judged on the actions of rogue individuals ) whilst not acknowledging that at the same time the blm insists that the actions of rogue individuals means condeming everyone (whether that is is the police or whoever) - needs an urgent reality check for sure.

    There is a fundamental difference between rouge members making unhelpful statements and rouge members assaulting and murdering people. The police are currently doing the latter and their colleagues and unions are defending and in many cases lying about them


  • Options
    #4679
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    weisses wrote: »
    Ambulance crew tried to resuscitate him brought him to Hospital but was put off life support after a week ... He died as a result of asphyxiation ... Lets say the bag over his head and the actions of the cop didn't help, as was being high on pcp

    Defunding the police and allocate the money so these cases can be dealt with by people who are trained and employed to provide proper care is what is needed

    What course can you do that teaches you how to deal with people off their banger on angel dust?? All you can do is restrain them and hope to deal with them when sober.


  • Options
    #4680
    Carfacemandog
    Registered Users Posts: 2,042 ✭✭✭Carfacemandog


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    His name is still on the business. Is he leasing it to the current occupant? If so it’s still his business being run by someone else. This isn’t a shopping centre.
    The current owner of Rodes Camera Shop bought the business 8 years ago. This is why the Trump administration tried to get him first, because he owns the business.

    If you own a business, and someone owns the property on which the business operates, they do not own your business.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4681
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,647 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Mr. Karate wrote: »
    It was determined that drugs were found in Floyd's system at the time of his arrest and the drugs led to his death. Ofocurse it got buried because it doesn't fit the "Police Officers are out to kill Black People" narrative.

    Anybody with even a passing interest in pharmacology would know this is not true.


Advertisement