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

Justin Credible Darts

mod defending mod shocker

Sudden Valley

I see a multi million dollar settlement of the Breonna Taylor case according to the bbc

Overheal

Sudden Valley wrote: »

I see a multi million dollar settlement of the Breonna Taylor case according to the bbc

7 figures wouldn't shock me. Par for the course, tbph. 8 figures would be impressive.

When a deputy killed this kid in my local area the family got a $2.15M settlement.

nullzero

Overheal wrote: »

I don't know how many other ways to explain to you but I already roundly addressed your question, despite many attempts to shift the goalposts. Quite bored of trying to constantly re-litigate the fact to you every couple posts and I can't imagine for others it's anything less than tedious to read. Clearly, you'll need to agree to disagree with me at this point.

I agree it is tedious.

You haven't backed up your original statement in any way shape or form.

You have been incredibly petulant in your dealings with me and continually lied and misrepresented me and dodged the fact that you haven't been able to prove your point, simply because your point was ridiculous and without foundation, and yet you attempt to claim the moral high ground.

I'll gladly stop discussing this with you as talking to you is an exercise in futility.

Ten of Swords

Take it to PM or the feedback forum, do not discuss moderation on thread, it's off topic

suicide_circus

Why are peopke asking a poster to back up things which are clearly articles of faith to them? Asking a devout Christian for evidence of the biblical flood is pointless as you know they can't.

Justin Credible Darts

....

MisterAnarchy

Deleted User wrote: »

I reckon Overheal is one of those paid disinformation agents..

I think he is a bot as he seems to spend his whole day posting on boards.ie.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

7 figures wouldn't shock me. Par for the course, tbph. 8 figures would be impressive.

When a deputy killed this kid in my local area the family got a $2.15M settlement.

True enough, the family has been given the impressive sum of $12M

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/15/us/breonna-taylor-settlement-louisville.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/516499-breonna-taylors-family-to-receive-12-million-settlement

The deal is the largest settlement that the city has paid in a police misconduct case, shattering the previous top figure of $8.5 million, according to the Courier Journal.

I don't see any details yet on police reforms that were mentioned this morning that were meant to be tied to the settlement.

edit: the press conference is in half an hour.

mynamejeff

Overheal wrote: »

True enough, the family has been given the impressive sum of $12M

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/15/us/breonna-taylor-settlement-louisville.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/516499-breonna-taylors-family-to-receive-12-million-settlement



I don't see any details yet on police reforms that were mentioned this morning that were meant to be tied to the settlement.

edit: the press conference is in half an hour.

I wonder will the rest of her drug trafficking network get a cut ,

disgusting isn't it

Overheal

mynamejeff wrote: »

I wonder will the rest of her drug trafficking network get a cut ,

disgusting isn't it

No sense getting so emotional. She is innocent until proven guilty* and only circumstantial evidence suggests she was remotely engaged in any drug enterprise.

*though the courts don't prosecute the dead.

mynamejeff

Overheal wrote: »

No sense getting so emotional. She is innocent until proven guilty* and only circumstantial evidence suggests she was remotely engaged in any drug enterprise.

*though the courts don't prosecute the dead.

hardly emotional

there's ample proof posted here on many occasions to show that she is anything but innocent

here it is again , mucho evidence , you haven't read it though have you ,


https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/63943132/breonna-taylor-summary-redacted1

she was a criminal killed in the course of her business and now her family are rich , I was simply wondering if her drug trafficking gang will get a cut to make up for her loss to them

TheFactMan

Overheal wrote: »

No sense getting so emotional. She is innocent until proven guilty* and only circumstantial evidence suggests she was remotely engaged in any drug enterprise.

*though the courts don't prosecute the dead.

Except police officers tho and anyone that doesn't align completely with blm, they are all guilty instantly regardless of evidence or anything else isn't that right

I'm impressed by how long you have been trolling the thread tbh. Bravo. Alot of the useers you have antagonized have got cards and thread bans... Fair play!

Overheal

mynamejeff wrote: »

hardly emotional

there's ample proof posted here on many occasions to show that she is anything but innocent

here it is again , mucho evidence , you haven't read it though have you ,


https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/63943132/breonna-taylor-summary-redacted1

she was a criminal killed in the course of her business and now her family are rich , I was simply wondering if her drug trafficking gang will get a cut to make up for her loss to them

I have read it. As I said, a lot of circumstantial evidence, no smoking gun as it were of her engaged in any criminal activity. Another case of agree to disagree I guess; carry on defaming a dead woman if it makes you feel better.

TheFactMan

Overheal wrote: »

I have read it. As I said, a lot of circumstantial evidence, no smoking gun as it were of her engaged in any criminal activity. Another case of agree to disagree I guess; carry on defaming a dead woman if it makes you feel better.

Your willingness to defend drug dealers who kill and poison communities, in order to further false narratives really says alot.

mynamejeff

Overheal wrote: »

I have read it. As I said, a lot of circumstantial evidence, no smoking gun as it were of her engaged in any criminal activity. Another case of agree to disagree I guess; carry on defaming a dead woman if it makes you feel better.

by saying that you are showing that you are lying and haven't read it at all


you are disputing documented proven facts again

telling the truth about a dead criminal is hardly defamation .

just like George Floyd was a violent criminal as are many heros of the blm movement isn't that true

Overheal

TheFactMan wrote: »

Your willingness to defend drug dealers who kill and poison communities, in order to further false narratives really says alot.

I'm clearly not though. My position that she is not a drug dealer is unambiguous.

Overheal

mynamejeff wrote: »

by saying that you are showing that you are lying and haven't read it at all

you are disputing documented proven facts again

telling the truth about a dead criminal is hardly defamation .

just like George Floyd was a violent criminal as are many heros of the blm movement isn't that true

The problem with your theory there is I did in fact read it. Again, it's all circumstantial, like referring to a "trap house" which was something I've had friends do with their own homes as a joke, and not any indication they were engaged in selling or even using drugs (they played a lot of beer pong though).

Not saying George Floyd wasn't convicted for violent crimes. Only thing I ever clarified is that in the armed robbery, he wasn't the gunman. Certainly, he was an accomplice to the gunman and got the victim to open her front door. He was duly convicted in a court of law.

Justin Credible Darts

TheFactMan wrote: »

Except police officers tho and anyone that doesn't align completely with blm, they are all guilty instantly regardless of evidence or anything else isn't that right

I'm impressed by how long you have been trolling the thread tbh. Bravo. Alot of the useers you have antagonized have got cards and thread bans... Fair play!

amazing how the cop that was kneeling on Floyd the scumbag was not given the same "innocent til proven guilty" treatment.
We are then told there is no agenda.....

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

Exposed? How? There’s the recording and all. There’s the database and all. “Exposed” :rolleyes:

I'm afraid that's little better than bluster Overheal

The source for your claim regarding the two recordings of police radio conversations were two music hip hop entertainment / fanzines websites.

The first article linked contained a disclaimer that the story was possibly not true due to reports of police radios been stolen

According to the report from TMZ, the audio did come from a police radio, but NYPD officials said several radios have gone missing since the riots, so there is a chance those radio calls did not come from the actual police.

The article also states that the source of said claim was another music entertainment website (TMZ)

Yet have glibly chosen to believe the first part of the article whilst oddly denying their could be any truth in the disclaimer concerning the theft of police radios

And your reply continued with that argument despite a third website detailing Police Radio thefts and the illegal use of same

Just in case you've forgotten or something ...

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114615285&postcount=5446

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114615403&postcount=5454

The reported incident happened in June, it failed to get any mainstream coverage and there is no follow up. And yet you still bizarrely are screaming that it happened???

Whatever about your comments in general - that's certainly not a logically sound argument for sure

Overheal

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

amazing how the cop that was kneeling on Floyd the scumbag was not given the same "innocent til proven guilty" treatment.
We are then told there is no agenda.....

Hasn't he, though? I see that lot's of people called for his prosecution, which happened, and he will too be tried before a court of law. So, he remains innocent until proven guilty does he not, along with the 3 other officers?

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

I'm afraid that's little better than bluster Overheal

The source for your claim regarding tye two recordings of police radio conversations were two music hip hop entertainment / fanzines websites.

The first article linked contained a disclaimer that the story was possibly not true due to reports of police radios been stolen



The article also states that the source of said claim was another music entertainment website (TZM)

Yet have glibly chosen to believe the first part of the article whilst oddly denying their could be any truth in the disclaimer concerning the theft of police radios

And your reply continued with that argument despite a third website detailing Police Radio thefts and the illegal use of same

Just in case you've forgotten or something ...

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114615285&postcount=5446

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114615403&postcount=5454

The reported incident happened in June, it failed to get any mainstream coverage and there is no follow up. And yet you still bizarrely are screaming that it happened???

Whatever about your comments in general - that's certainly not a logically sound argument for sure

We will just have to agree to disagree then. You've certainly established there's a reasonable doubt. My take on it however has been clear, as has yours. The recording is still the recording regardless of the host/outfit reporting it.

mynamejeff

Overheal wrote: »

The problem with your theory there is I did in fact read it. Again, it's all circumstantial, like referring to a "trap house" which was something I've had friends do with their own homes as a joke, and not any indication they were engaged in selling or even using drugs (they played a lot of beer pong though).

Not saying George Floyd wasn't convicted for violent crimes. Only thing I ever clarified is that in the armed robbery, he wasn't the gunman. Certainly, he was an accomplice to the gunman and got the victim to open her front door. He was duly convicted in a court of law.

Again a lie
you did not read it , if you had you would have seen

there are pages of transcripts of prison phone calls discussing her involvement and how best to cover it up , hiding phones and destroying evidence , surveillance photos maps statements

Taylor was a criminal who was killed because of that fact ,

Overheal

mynamejeff wrote: »

Again a lie
you did not read it , if you had you would have seen

there are pages of transcripts of prison phone calls discussing her involvement and how best to cover it up , hiding phones and destroying evidence , surveillance photos maps statements

Taylor was a criminal who was killed because of that fact ,

Don't know what to tell you but I did read it. Best leave it at that if it will come down to name-calling.

mynamejeff

Overheal wrote: »

Don't know what to tell you but I did read it. Best leave it at that if it will come down to name-calling.

name calling ? what are you on about ?

a statement of fact isn't name calling

Overheal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl2d8evZQ6A

Live conference is supposed to broadcast here, imminently.

mynamejeff wrote: »

name calling ? what are you on about ?

a statement of fact isn't name calling

Calling someone a liar is name-calling, yes. I've been pulled up on it before myself.

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

We will just have to agree to disagree then. You've certainly established there's a reasonable doubt. My take on it however has been clear, as has yours. The recording is still the recording regardless of the host/outfit reporting it.

Ok - that there is a recording is evident. The issue is who is being recorded. Police radios were reported stolen in the article you linked and elsewhere as per my reply.

Do you think that if the account of the police had been found to be true - it wouldn’t have been plastered all over every major news station?

Imo the websites detailing the story wisely added the disclaimer so they wouldn't get their asses sued for libel...

mynamejeff

Overheal wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl2d8evZQ6A

Live conference is supposed to broadcast here, imminently.



Calling someone a liar is name-calling, yes. I've been pulled up on it before myself.

when some one lies , they are by definition a liar ,

google it

you are claiming something that is not true ,

TheFactMan

Overheal wrote: »

I'm clearly not though. My position that she is not a drug dealer is unambiguous.

You are saying she is not a drug dealer not because you care in the slightest but because it aligns with the false narrative you ve been trying to push all along,

It's the same with all these convient victims u list off.

You just hate the police and will use any victim or any situation as a stick to attack em.

It's plain to see at this stage you aren't interested in fairness or even anything remotely fair .

Justin Credible Darts

Overheal wrote: »

Calling someone a liar is name-calling, yes. I've been pulled up on it before myself.

ah right...overheal logic.



You can spew lies about a poster, make up false claims and statements they supposedly said, but when said poster points out your lies and call you a liar, then that is name calling and you are the victim


WOW