George Floyd Riots: A Possible False Flag?

[Mike41090]

Google doesn't show his criminal record, where did you see it?

I didn’t see it, it’s more of an assumption to be honest. But people that resist arrest like that USUALLY have a criminal record. And I’m not talking shoplifting or any petty stuff. There’s a reason why the media hasn’t released his record, because it doesn’t fit thier narrative. Take George Floyd for example, he did a home invasion on a pregnant lady. Didn’t see that one in the news until a week after his death and I had to dig just a little for it (articles online). Not tell me this: would you feel comfortable having George Floyd being your next door neighbor knowing he did this (even if it was in 2007 I believe), or would you believe he was rehabilitated? I do not know Brook’s criminal history, but more than likely this isn’t his first, 5th or 10th arrest. Just a heavy assumption for the record. But I bet my left but he’s done some **** without it being in the news. Normal people do not get into this situations. Majority of the time.

 

[Black Widow Void]

Google doesn't show his criminal record, where did you see it?

Good call.

 

[AttackFormation]

I didn’t see it, it’s more of an assumption to be honest. But people that resist arrest like that USUALLY have a criminal record. And I’m not talking shoplifting or any petty stuff. There’s a reason why the media hasn’t released his record, because it doesn’t fit thier narrative. Take George Floyd for example, he did a home invasion on a pregnant lady. Didn’t see that one in the news until a week after his death and I had to dig just a little for it (articles online). Not tell me this: would you feel comfortable having George Floyd being your next door neighbor knowing he did this (even if it was in 2007 I believe), or would you believe he was rehabilitated? I do not know Brook’s criminal history, but more than likely this isn’t his first, 5th or 10th arrest. Just a heavy assumption for the record. But I bet my left but he’s done some **** without it being in the news. Normal people do not get into this situations. Majority of the time.

I indeed looked up Floyd's record, which aside from general thoroughness is why I wanted to check this one as well. But until you see it, you can't conclude anything even if you have an assumption.

Good call.

 

[Mike41090]

I indeed looked up Floyd's record, which aside from general thoroughness is why I wanted to check this one as well. But until you see it, you can't conclude anything even if you have an assumption.

I don’t necessarily conclude it, I highly assume it. I’d be shocked if it was a light record.

 

[zekko]

We know now that Brooks took and aimed the stun gun at the police. But it all happened so fast, was that cop sure it was a stun gun? Maybe he just saw him pointing something at him, thought it might be a gun, and shot him. It's easy to judge these things in hindsight. Surely it's not a good idea to aim something at an armed officer? Well, maybe it's okay in the new reality.

I originally heard that Brooks shot the stun gun in the direction of the police, but now I keep hearing he just aimed it. When you watch the video there's a flash, but that might just be a trick of the light, maybe that's where that idea came from.

 

[Epicenter]

I indeed looked up Floyd's record, which aside from general thoroughness is why I wanted to check this one as well. But until you see it, you can't conclude anything even if you have an assumption.

You can find a lot of it at reddit and also and youtube

 

[Spaz]

In the end, how was justice served?

 

[Mike41090]

In the end, how was justice served?

I dk. I think when either someone is arrested for an arrest able offense or a THREAT is neutralized so to speak, it’s necessarily justice being served. I’m thinking more in terms of: was the law properly enforced? Maybe someone could come up with a better phrase in regards to this situation or crimes in general.

 

[Spaz]

I dk. I think when either someone is arrested for an arrest able offense or a THREAT is neutralized so to speak, it’s necessarily justice being served. I’m thinking more in terms of: was the law properly enforced? Maybe someone could come up with a better phrase in regards to this situation or crimes in general.

With regards to that recent incident, the police acted professionally at the beginning but yet ended up shooting a man who was drunk and sleeping it off.

Could they have handled it better? I think those policemen could have.

They should have just issued him a ticket and let him explain it to a judge the next morning.

Lock the car wheels for his safety and others.

A man dying over sleeping it off doesn't sound like justice is being served.

 

[Mike41090]

With regards to that recent incident, the police acted professionally at the beginning but yet ended up shooting a man who was drunk and sleeping it off.

Could they have handled it better? I think those policemen could have.

They should have just issued him a ticket and let him explain it to a judge the next morning.

Lock the car wheels for his safety and others.

A man dying over sleeping it off doesn't sound like justice is being served.

But what’s wrong with them arresting him and doing there job though? They were doing there job when Floyd resisted arrest and grabbed one of there tasers. If a civilian tried to grab a cops taser even by simply passing him in the street I do not think that person should get a pass on jack ****. Here’s another point I’ve been thinking about lately.... I understand cops sign up to be cops and understand the risks and dangers. But with all these videos going around and what not, civilians and humanity in general only seem to give a **** about getting everything on video and watching this type of **** unfold from behind the window shopping glass. I just think there should be laws that hold citizens a little bit more accountable in regards to just sitting back like there at the movie theatre when stuff like this goes down. This whole mess in our country going on has really shown people’s true colors and motives. I find it impossible to Monday morning quarterback the cop in the Atlanta situation because it happened so quick and he had absolute reason to think his life was in danger (taser pointed at him). The cop should easily slide when this is brought to a courtroom imo. If he doesn’t then you might as well take firearms away from cops at this point and just let the mob mentality of this country be the rule of law.

 

[Spaz]

But what’s wrong with them arresting him and doing there job though? They were doing there job when Floyd resisted arrest and grabbed one of there tasers. If a civilian tried to grab a cops taser even by simply passing him in the street I do not think that person should get a pass on jack ****. Here’s another point I’ve been thinking about lately.... I understand cops sign up to be cops and understand the risks and dangers. But with all these videos going around and what not, civilians and humanity in general only seem to give a **** about getting everything on video and watching this type of **** unfold from behind the window shopping glass. I just think there should be laws that hold citizens a little bit more accountable in regards to just sitting back like there at the movie theatre when stuff like this goes down. This whole mess in our country going on has really shown people’s true colors and motives. I find it impossible to Monday morning quarterback the cop in the Atlanta situation because it happened so quick and he had absolute reason to think his life was in danger (taser pointed at him). The cop should easily slide when this is brought to a courtroom imo. If he doesn’t then you might as well take firearms away from cops at this point and just let the mob mentality of this country be the rule of law.

Try visiting Japan, the land of sake, go ahead and do the same.

You won't be shot, I can almost guarantee that.

And yet, they have one of the lowest if not the lowest cases of homicide worldwide.

Police shootings are rare to almost non existent.

Don't forget, its also the land of the Yakuza.

 

[Epicenter]

Try visiting Japan, the land of sake, go ahead and do the same.

You won't be shot, I can almost guarantee that.

And yet, they have one of the lowest if not the lowest cases of homicide worldwide.

Police shootings are rare to almost non existent.

Don't forget, its also the land of the Yakuza.

Not surprising in a violent society the police probably is violent too and vice versa i guess.
It would be surprising if in a violent society police would be peaceful.

 

[Spaz]

Not surprising in a violent society the police probably is violent too and vice versa i guess.
It would be surprising if in a violent society police would be peaceful.

Then it's a problem with the culture.

The solution is obvious.

But the thing about culture is that it takes time to change.

Another thing that's seems strange to me, how is it when in Japan, the yakuza doesn't carry firearms nor swords but in America they don't mind doing so.

 

[Epicenter]

Then it's a problem with the culture.

The solution is obvious.

But the thing about culture is that it takes time to change.

Another thing that's seems strange to me, how is it when in Japan, the yakuza doesn't carry firearms nor swords but in America they don't mind doing so.

There are many theories about it. Most of them are not PC I guess. Bottom line I guess is thatt Japan is a homogenic (northern) culture without too much foreign disruption besides ww2 and the A-bomb so they could evolve more decently.

Fox example in most countries in the world chaos was ruling. Invaders came and go and then some Mongols too. If the mongols would have taken over Japan that have might disturbed their development. Korea as a powerful culture did not have that luck for example. They had a very chaotic history.

Muslims and some historians still blame the Mongols for the problems in Islam.

The thing with culture is it is not easy to change specially for the better. You can do some irreversible error which pushes you back in your develepment. It's like brain surgery. Not easy and high risk.

 

[Spaz]

There are many theories about it. Most of them are not PC I guess. Bottom line I guess is thatt Japan is a homogenic (northern) culture without too much foreign disruption besides ww2 and the A-bomb so they could evolve more decently.

Fox example in most countries in the world chaos was ruling. Invaders came and go and then some Mongols too. If the mongols would have taken over Japan that have might disturbed their development. Korea as a powerful culture did not have that luck for example. They had a very chaotic history.

Muslims and some historians still blame the Mongols for the problems in Islam.

The thing with culture is it is not easy to change specially for the better. You can do some irreversible error which pushes you back in your develepment. It's like brain surgery. Not easy and high risk.

Let's put it into something that's easier to understand.

Say for example, that u r a newly appointed Director, charged to bring in profits from say ur multiple African branches that sells shoes.

After visiting most if not all of the branches you realise that its the culture (mindset) of the management team there thats pulling things down.

In their mindset, Africans are poor and don't really wear shoes, they prefer to run bare footed.

But in ur mind, holy shiet!!...there's such a huge untapped market! So many people are not wearing shoes!!!!

What should you do?

 

[Epicenter]

Let's put it into something that's easier to understand.

Say for example, that u r a newly appointed Director, charged to bring in profits from say ur multiple African branches that sells shoes.

After visiting most if not all of the branches you realise that its the culture (mindset) of the management team there thats pulling things down.

In their mindset, Africans are poor and don't really wear shoes, they prefer to run bare footed.

But in ur mind, holy shiet!!...there's such a huge untapped market! So many people are not wearing shoes!!!!

What should you do?

I would do what I would think is most reasonable. If I think I can sell them shoes I would do it I guess.

I guess there is a huge difference to the president of a country. He is bound to the constitution and to the will of the people. That are the rules in a democracy.

That is why some people prefere dictatorships. It can be ruled little bit like a company with one real chief without much boundaries.

 

[Epicenter]

The thing is, that didn't stop the Japanese from invading China (and engaging in some depraved shyt that goes beyond simple racism), and attacking the U.S. as recently as 1941. Like a lot of nations they were violent aggressors when they felt they needed to be. The A-bomb beat Japan to within an inch of its life, and the country rebuilt itself as an economic power with a peaceful homeland. A lot of European countries did this too and are far safer than the U.S. Of course a lot of peaceful countries are protected by American military bases and ships, let's not kid ourselves. But that makes it even sadder that America can't make and keep the peace within its own borders. The rationalizations I keep seeing are that people in safer countries are just government-subjugated cucks. But if you get your head beaten in or blown off by a cop you're not? Lol.

The US has fought countless wars. Maybe it has already a PTSD. The more you look into the abyss the more you become one, I guess.

 

[FairShake]

Taser is not considered deadly, at least by police procedure. So they were not neutralizing a deadly threat by their own definition. Even had he shot one of them with the Taser, which would be amazing since he was running away, there were multiple cops who were there to keep said Tased officer safe.

Personally I wish more cops were less concerned about "making the arrest" and boosting their numbers and more concerned that everyone: themselves, the perp, and the community goes home safe that night.

A couple key things they could have done to keep this man alive, the Wendy's intact, and community relations a little stronger is let the man sleep it off in the parking lot (with a citation), let the man walk home or take an Uber (with a citation), or let the man run off (with a citation and arrest warrant for fleeing). But no, they had to make the arrest and kill him and put the community at danger.

 

[Spaz]

Technically, he wasn't sleeping it off. Sleeping it off would imply he pulled over, and parked his car somewhere. According to the report, he passed out behind the wheel. Fortunately, he was in the drive-thru lane, and not on the highway, when he lost consciousness. However, the police were responding to a complaint, not simply hassling some poor soul sleeping it off in a safely parked car.

He was blocking the drive-thru lane, and someone called in a complaint. Once the police arrived, they were obligated to determine whether Brooks was alive and well, at the minimum. Not rousting him wasn't even an option. Plus, once determining he was drunk, they couldn't just leave him there. They could, conceivably, decide to take him home, if they determined he wasn't a danger to anyone, but just leaving a drunk in his car is irresponsible, and could lead to Brooks causing someone else to come to a tragic end, not merely himself; if left unattended, he could've regained consciousnesses long enough to resume driving, and to kill an innocent family.

Should Brooks have been shot? In this particular case, we could second guess the cops' split second decision, forever. Should one of the officers standing around have had a taser on the ready, once Brooks started violently resisting, and have used it the moment he broke contact with the officers with whom he was scuffling? Sure, if there'd been more officers there (I'm not aware that their were, but if there were, they were definitely negligent). However, the cops can't just leave drunks in their cars, even when they aren't passed out in drive-thru lanes. If the drunk driver wakes up and kills someone, the cops who left him there will be responsible... morally and legally. Imagine your teenage daughter is on her way home from the prom, when she's killed by a drunk driver that the police left to "sleep it off." The officer who made that call would be fired, and he and the department would be sued into bankruptcy.

Should the man who violently resisted arrest, and attempted to flee the scene with one of the officer's weapons have been shot, though? Well, it definitely wasn't the best PR decision....but, I doubt the cop was thinking like a politician, while the violent "gentle giant" drunk was attempting to disappear into the night, with one of the officer's weapons. Also, if Brooks had succeeded in disabling the pursuing officer with the taser, he could easily have disarmed the incapacitated officer, and have killed the officer, his partner, or someone else with the ceased firearm.

Still, should the officer have shot Brooks? If he hadn't, Brooks would have gotten away with the officer's taser, or given himself a stroke trying(he didn't really look like he'd ever run longer than the length of a football field...but, who knows), and could've used the officer's taser on someone else(to commandeer another escape vehicle, possibly), and the officer would, again, be responsible, for allowing Brooks to escape with one of his weapons.

Think about it, if resisting arrest and attempting to escape are rewarded with failure to pursue and escalate, the passivity of the permissive officers will only encourage more violent resistsnce and escape attempts from suspects, resulting in the eventual loss of Iife and personal tragedy, among the thus encouraged suspects, and the officers who deal with them.

If this event serves a good purpose, it would be that it might discourage future idiots from violent resistance and escape attempted that could get them or others hurt or killed.

Let me ask you this: if Brooks had been sentenced to 3 years in prison, for felony DUI, had no prior violent criminal record, but stole the remanding officer's taser, and fled the courthouse on foot, would it be permissible to stop his escape by shooting him? If not, if he later attempts to escape prison, do the guards have your permission to attempt to stop him by shooting? You see where this is going? If the police and prisons are rendered completely impotent, by stripping from them the option of the use of deadly force, they'll quickly become incapable of either arresting or holding criminals who present the gravest danger to public safety. If there's no penalty for violent resistance and escape from custody, everyone will attempt both, at every opportunity. Then, we might as well disband the police

It doesn't matter since its all what if, there's no end to what's if's.

What matters here is that, could they have done better to get a different outcome?

Right now 1 life is lost and those officers involved basically ended their career in law enforcement.

Plenty of suffering just for something that could have been simply resolved.

If those officers were trained differently the outcome would be different and everyone would end up happy.

 

[Spaz]

The thing is, according to recruitment preferences, the ideal cop is of average intelligence and above average athleticism....not including the affirmative action female patrolman hires, of course. A lot of former high school athletes, as well as washed up college athletes gravitate to the job, and tend to make some of the better cops. Recruiting actively tries to avoid hiring people who engage in this type of analysis paralysis, monday morning quarterbacking, in favor of those who can be trained to act/react according to policies and standards. The officer did what he was trained to do. We can't fault him for being what the department wanted, and acting/reacting according to department policies and procedures. Cops aren't Aristotelian philosophers, in a debating club; such deliberation can get them killed. We should cut them some slack.

Look what has happened to this country, because of one video, in which what people thought they saw was a sadistic cop viciously murdering a cuffed suspect in his care, in cold blood, and out of racial hatred.

What we now know about George Floyd's death is that we didn't see what the BLM(Bolshevik Lynch Mob) hallucinated they saw. According to the independent autopsy commissioned by Floyd's family, George's primary cause of death was asphyxiation, not strangulation. So, the officer who killed Floyd wasn't the "White Supremacist" on his shoulder, but the Black cop on his back(compressing his lungs so that he couldn't sufficiently inhale). His airway wasn't obstructed; his lungs just couldn't expand. So, someone with a hotline to the Bolshevik Lynch Mob, please ask them if they think the Black cop deliberately murdered Floyd, "for the crime of being Black."

This has gotten out of hand. Yes, the cops in the Floyd situation should have handled things differently, and did restrain Floyd for too long. They should be punished according to their role in his death, and according to their responsibility for his safety...but "murder"? A retributive injustice doesn't correct an injustice. Even manslaughter is too extreme. It's negligent homicide, at the most.

All of what you said herein is a path.

All of what you said in another of ur post is possible future paths.

Both paths has negative outcomes for ALL parties involved.

BUT those paths need not be treaded on IF a different action was taken.

Then the policemen involved would not have ruined their lives and those of their immediate family.

The men under arrest would not have died.

Unproductive riots wouldn't have happened.

AND those men would have faced a judge to plead their case.

All would be good.

I trust you understand where I'm heading with this.