You are nuts...90% of the board are liberals.
You are nuts...90% of the board are liberals.
govlie1 wrote:
Not all areas are the same wrote:
You must not wear any clothes than, or does slave labor, horrible working conditions, etc. mean less to you than what a few of us whackos say on a running website?
You missed the point by a lot.
If I see someone wearing a nike shirt - I don’t assume they support child slavery.
If I see someone wearing a LRC shirt - I would assume they call black people “thugs” and have weirdly strong opinions about the LGBTQ community and hate wearing masks.
wut?
If i see someone wearing nike (always), i assume they are either ignorant of suuporting slavery or supporting slavery.
If i see somene wearing an lrdc shirt (ever?) i assuume they view life thru a rojo lens, wotever that is.
i would go out of my way to be friendly with the lrc wearer, and obv keep my dorter away from the nike slave trader.
Not all areas are the same wrote:
pupil3142 wrote:
i guess he's had the ban hammer for something.
Racism?
Hate crimes?
Sorry to disappoint you. Sheer boredom. I've read graffiti on toilet walls that's more informative than this thread.
Ward Cleaver wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The medical examiner stated George Floyd was dying before officers were summoned to the scene of the crime he had committed. (quote).
Wrong. There has been no official medical finding that Floyd was already dying before the police arrived. But even if it were true - it isnt - the police actions would have either hastened his death or actually caused it. In both respects, that constitutes homicide.
As for your diatribe about racism, you might just as well say that about the thousands of Americans - most of them black - outraged at Floyd's death and all too familiar with police racism. The latter I suspect you know quite a bit about, being a police officer yourself.
This seems to sum up discussions with/lectures from Armstonglivs.
But even if it were true - it isnt!
I understand your confusion; you can only read half a sentence.
Burning Bush wrote:
Armstrong, these are my PR's. Nothing special, but I did run a 1:54.9 half mile at the age of 15.
PR's in yards, not meters...
10.1 - 21.9 - 48.8 - 1:51.1 - 4:18 (mile) - 10:02 (2-mile) - 35:24 (10k) - 1:19 (half marathon) - 2:54 (marathon)
Yours?
I see you took my question seriously. Your times are about as interesting - and impressive - as your comments about Chauvin.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Ward Cleaver wrote:
This seems to sum up discussions with/lectures from Armstonglivs.
But even if it were true - it isnt!
I understand your confusion; you can only read half a sentence.
Good Morning, Armstronglivs!
No, I'm capable of reading whole sentences, but was confused by this that you wrote"
Wrong. There has been no official medical finding that Floyd was already dying before the police arrived. But even if it were true - it isnt - the police actions would have either hastened his death or actually caused it. In both respects, that constitutes homicide.
If you are so sure what you state is true, why has it never happened before? To me, it's either true, OR it isn't, correct?
pupil3142 wrote:
This is ging to be a serious problem;
The judge handed the defense a victory by ruling that the jury can hear evidence from Floyd’s 2019 arrest, but only information possibly pertaining to the cause of his death in 2020. He acknowledged several similarities between the two encounters, including that Floyd swallowed drugs after police confronted him.
The judge previously said the earlier arrest could not be admitted, but he reconsidered after drugs were found in January in a second search of the police SUV that the four officers attempted to put Floyd in last year. The defense argues that Floyd’s drug use contributed to his death.
Cahill said he'd allow medical evidence of Floyd's physical reactions, such as his dangerously high blood pressure when he was examined by a paramedic in 2019, and a short clip of an officer’s body camera video. He said Floyd’s “emotional behavior,” such as calling out to his mother, won’t be admitted.
But Cahill said he doesn’t plan to allow the testimony of a forensic psychiatrist for the prosecution. Floyd said he had claustrophobia and resisted getting into the squad car before the fatal encounter last year, and the state wanted Dr. Sarah Vinson to testify that his actions were consistent with a normal person experiencing severe stress, as opposed to faking or resisting arrest.
The Floyd 2019 arrest/drug ingestion was a difficult evidentiary ruling for the judge to make. I think he made the right call, and showed he's going to strive to be fair, and that he is not afraid to change his previous rulings in light of new evidence (we now know Floyd was chewing on fentanyl/meth pills in the police car minutes prior to his death).
I also like that he took a few shots at the city of Minneapolis that is actively (and successfully it turns out) trying to bias and influence the jury pool. The judge seems to be doing what he can to try for a fair trial, even if the media, the local government and the public are against it in this instance.
Muldoon wrote:
pupil3142 wrote:
This is ging to be a serious problem;
The judge handed the defense a victory by ruling that the jury can hear evidence from Floyd’s 2019 arrest, but only information possibly pertaining to the cause of his death in 2020. He acknowledged several similarities between the two encounters, including that Floyd swallowed drugs after police confronted him.
The judge previously said the earlier arrest could not be admitted, but he reconsidered after drugs were found in January in a second search of the police SUV that the four officers attempted to put Floyd in last year. The defense argues that Floyd’s drug use contributed to his death.
Cahill said he'd allow medical evidence of Floyd's physical reactions, such as his dangerously high blood pressure when he was examined by a paramedic in 2019, and a short clip of an officer’s body camera video. He said Floyd’s “emotional behavior,” such as calling out to his mother, won’t be admitted.
But Cahill said he doesn’t plan to allow the testimony of a forensic psychiatrist for the prosecution. Floyd said he had claustrophobia and resisted getting into the squad car before the fatal encounter last year, and the state wanted Dr. Sarah Vinson to testify that his actions were consistent with a normal person experiencing severe stress, as opposed to faking or resisting arrest.
The Floyd 2019 arrest/drug ingestion was a difficult evidentiary ruling for the judge to make. I think he made the right call, and showed he's going to strive to be fair, and that he is not afraid to change his previous rulings in light of new evidence (we now know Floyd was chewing on fentanyl/meth pills in the police car minutes prior to his death).
I also like that he took a few shots at the city of Minneapolis that is actively (and successfully it turns out) trying to bias and influence the jury pool. The judge seems to be doing what he can to try for a fair trial, even if the media, the local government and the public are against it in this instance.
I believe many in the "public" have had a change in heart after seeing and hearing more of the facts, at least that is what I'm seeing.
Burning Bush wrote:
Presenting, hero of conservatives everywhere, murderer, George Zimmerman!
hooded hero,
Are you trying to make the case that George Floyd was such an awful person that he deserved to die? Or just that George Zimmerman's trial means nothing to you because George Zimmerman has had behavioral issues? There are two important things you need to grasp; This is a running forum and when people come here to vent their anger and spread their hate, they should be reminded of the pathology of such actions. The second is, like almost all others who felt the need to get on the internet to share with people who mostly ignore them, that they hate George Floyd and therefore he is a murderer, there actually was a trial, despite the fact the original grand jury saw no need for one. I guess when the president sends his pit bulls to Florida and orders a trial, there needed to be one. The facts of that trial were that George Zimmerman lawfully followed a suspicious person who was peering into nearby homes. He called 911 and reported the person. That person was Trayvon Martin, who was staying with his fathers and his fathers girlfriend while serving suspension from school. Trayvon had a history of fighting and acting out a gangster lifestyle, stealing property, posting pictures online wearing a gold grill and smoking dope while holding a pistol. Evidence presented at trail showed that Trayvon was talking to a female friend, Rachel Jeantel, on his cell phone while he returned to the home he was staying at from the 7/11, where he purchased ingredients for a drink called lean. Jeantel stated Martin knew he was being followed and despite making it all the way back to the home, he made the decision to turn around and stalk Zimmerman, after Jeantel suggested to him that the person following him was possibly a homosexual. Martin came up behind Zimmerman and as Zimmerman turned towards him, Martin punched him in the face, fracturing his nose and knocking him to the ground. Zimmerman was lying partially on the grass and partially over the concrete sidewalk as Martin climbed on top of him and began lifting him up and slamming his head down onto the concrete sidewalk. Zimmerman was heard screaming for help. At that point of the felony assault, Zimmerman was able to pull a handgun from his pocket and fire one shot into the chest of Martin. Martin fell over and died.
The judge was a very pro-prosecution judge. The jury seemed to be the best possible jury to get a conviction. Yet the jury unanimously agreed that Zimmerman lawfully defended himself after being brutally assaulted by Martin and they acquitted Zimmerman of all charges.
Perhaps you were too busy following the Michael Brown saga and telling everyone on the internet how innocent he was to notice the Zimmerman verdict. George Zimmerman is not a murderer. He is a citizen who lawfully defended himself from a felony assault.
Now please go running or find a running story you can make a positive comment on and use this site for what it is intended for. Go spread your hateful comments on some hateful internet site I'm sure you are already a member of.
You're good, Burning Bush. I've studied the Trayvon/Zimmerman case even more extensively than you, I believe, and you've got a much better master of the facts than 99% of people out there. The narrative you offer is, in my view, pretty close to what happened--although you do state as fact things that we don't actually know to be fact. We know what Zimmerman claimed, and there's a range of physical evidence and witness testimony that can either confirm or impeach GZ's claims. We don't, for example, know--beyond Zimmerman's claims--how the physical altercation that resulted in TM's death actually began. I think you're right that TM made it back home after the initial encounter with GZ, then returned and jumped him. The timeline certainly suggests that this might be the case. But we don't actually have evidence, beyond GZ's claims, that this is how the fight started. We do, however have the eyewitness testimony of John Good, who lived in a townhouse directly adjacent to where the brawl took place. He gave a statement to the cops that night and he returned and testified in the trial. He always struck me as entirely believable. He didn't see how the fight began, but he saw somebody dressed like TM raining down blows on somebody dressed like GZ.
I'm not at all convinced that TM was looking into townhouses with an eye on burglarizing them, as GZ claimed. TM was madly in love with the girl he was talking to on the phone. He name was Diamond Eugene. She was gorgeous. He'd been on the phone with her several hours already. As Joe Gilbert makes clear in "The Trayvon Hoax: Unmasking the Witness Fraud that Divided America," Rachel Jeantel was Diamond's cousin and was swapped in as a trial witness; she was NOT somebody that Trayvon would have been madly in love with. But Diamond was.
In my view, the explanation for Trayvon's rage at GZ lies here: he was NOT, in fact, casing townhouses. He was minding his own business--and, yes, as you note, carrying home the materials for lean (purple drank), Skittles and Arizona Watermelon Juice Cooler. He was minding his own business. And Zimmerman, for perfectly understandable reasons--young black men had been preying on the residents of The Retreat, black and white alike--got out ahead of the facts and, yes, profiled Trayvon.
I believe that Trayvon got incredibly pissed off at this. He KNEW he was being profiled. And he knew he wasn't doing anything wrong. So he came back and jumped Zimmerman. And the rest is history.
Each of us makes of the known facts what we will. That's how the facts speak to me. I've studied the case for a long time. I know that the MSM lied to me about what went on. I don't blame GZ for profiling TM. There's plenty of evidence that The Retreat at Twin Lakes had a crime problem; plenty of evidence (and no, I'm not talking about Frank Taafe) that younger black men were committing the bulk of the crimes. But I still think Zimmerman made a mistake in this case; jumped to a mistaken conclusion. Trayvon felt that as an insult. Nobody likes to be profiled. So he decided to teach GZ a lesson.
GZ is a piece of trash, but he's not even a cop. He has proven this again and again.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-george-zimmerman-controversies-20160512-story.html
Chauvin is a piece of trash (proven again and again):
https://www.insider.com/derek-chauvin-minneapolis-police-background-life-2020-6
Chauvin is a hero and more of a man than these angry liberals on here will ever be.
Chauvin was also singled out for bravery. Files show he won two medals of valor, one in 2006 for being part of a group of officers who opened fire on a stabbing suspect who pointed a shotgun at them, and another in 2008 for a domestic violence incident in which Chauvin broke down a bathroom door and shot a suspect in the stomach.
He also won medals of commendation in 2008 after he and his partner tackled a fleeing suspect who had a pistol in his hand, and in 2009 for single-handedly apprehending a group of gang members while working as an off-duty security guard at the El Nuevo Rodeo, a Minneapolis nightclub.
everyone knows it wrote:
Chauvin is a hero and more of a man than these angry liberals on here will ever be.
Chauvin was also singled out for bravery. Files show he won two medals of valor, one in 2006 for being part of a group of officers who opened fire on a stabbing suspect who pointed a shotgun at them, and another in 2008 for a domestic violence incident in which Chauvin broke down a bathroom door and shot a suspect in the stomach.
He also won medals of commendation in 2008 after he and his partner tackled a fleeing suspect who had a pistol in his hand, and in 2009 for single-handedly apprehending a group of gang members while working as an off-duty security guard at the El Nuevo Rodeo, a Minneapolis nightclub.
Do you have any sources that can back your story? I would not be surprised that the media wouldn't report on this, but I don't believe everything I hear or read. There is so much misinformation out there.
Not in my hood wrote:
everyone knows it wrote:
Chauvin is a hero and more of a man than these angry liberals on here will ever be.
Chauvin was also singled out for bravery. Files show he won two medals of valor, one in 2006 for being part of a group of officers who opened fire on a stabbing suspect who pointed a shotgun at them, and another in 2008 for a domestic violence incident in which Chauvin broke down a bathroom door and shot a suspect in the stomach.
He also won medals of commendation in 2008 after he and his partner tackled a fleeing suspect who had a pistol in his hand, and in 2009 for single-handedly apprehending a group of gang members while working as an off-duty security guard at the El Nuevo Rodeo, a Minneapolis nightclub.
Do you have any sources that can back your story? I would not be surprised that the media wouldn't report on this, but I don't believe everything I hear or read. There is so much misinformation out there.
right at the end of that incredibly biased 'insider' piece, they say;
Chauvin was also praised at various points in his career, according to the Star Tribune — two women commended him in 2008 and 2013 after he handled domestic-violence calls, and he was awarded a Medal of Commendation in 2008 after he disarmed a man during one of his nightclub security shifts.
He was even recommended for a Medal of Valor in 2006 in connection with the fatal police shooting of Wayne Reyes, according to the Star Tribune.
But giving Chauvin any sort of credit really annoyed them so they quaified this by getting the victims daughter to say something bad about the person who was commended for shooting her father;
Reyes' daughter Leanne told The Washington Post that she was horrified to see Chauvin's name surface again in the news.
"I already knew what kind of monster that man is," she said. "And all I could feel was heartbreak that this had happened again."
oh, wapo, sheesh.
Anyhow, nowhere near as much as the previous poster said, but there is definitely another side being hidden from us.
Ward Cleaver wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I understand your confusion; you can only read half a sentence.
Good Morning, Armstronglivs!
No, I'm capable of reading whole sentences, but was confused by this that you wrote"
Wrong. There has been no official medical finding that Floyd was already dying before the police arrived. But even if it were true - it isnt - the police actions would have either hastened his death or actually caused it. In both respects, that constitutes homicide.
If you are so sure what you state is true, why has it never happened before? To me, it's either true, OR it isn't, correct?
What you fail to understand is a quite simple point. The scenario posted by the commenter's false claim that Floyd was already dying would not change a finding of homicide. A simple point, as I said - but beyond you, of course.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Ward Cleaver wrote:
Good Morning, Armstronglivs!
No, I'm capable of reading whole sentences, but was confused by this that you wrote"
Wrong. There has been no official medical finding that Floyd was already dying before the police arrived. But even if it were true - it isnt - the police actions would have either hastened his death or actually caused it. In both respects, that constitutes homicide.
If you are so sure what you state is true, why has it never happened before? To me, it's either true, OR it isn't, correct?
What you fail to understand is a quite simple point. The scenario posted by the commenter's false claim that Floyd was already dying would not change a finding of homicide. A simple point, as I said - but beyond you, of course.
Okay, even if what you say is true - then why doesn't it happen more often? I read a statistic somewhere that the knee restraint technique has been used hundreds of times with no deaths. Difference between those cases and this one?
Ward Cleaver wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
What you fail to understand is a quite simple point. The scenario posted by the commenter's false claim that Floyd was already dying would not change a finding of homicide. A simple point, as I said - but beyond you, of course.
Okay, even if what you say is true - then why doesn't it happen more often? I read a statistic somewhere that the knee restraint technique has been used hundreds of times with no deaths. Difference between those cases and this one?
1) There is no “even if” about it...it is a homicide regardless to if the individual was already dying. Period. If a person with terminal cancer is killed during a robbery attempt...I hope the defense team’s angle would not be “whelp the person was already dying”.
2) The difference in those cases and this one is 9mins of neck compression. If you don’t think that makes a huge difference, please sign a waiver of liability and consent to being restrained with you arms behind your back and having someone kneel on your neck for 9mins.
I would tell you to come back and tell us how it goes, but you wouldn’t be able to. Hopefully we would be able to read up on your predictable findings!
Kneeling on the side of someone's neck doesn't kill them. Chauvin is being prosecuted because of hatred of the police by blacks and liberals.
runnerboy70 wrote:
Kneeling on the side of someone's neck doesn't kill them. Chauvin is being prosecuted because of hatred of the police by blacks and liberals.
Conservative hate the police. That's why all the people who stormed the capitol building and fought and killed the police were Trump supporters. Many of them were ex-military and law enforcement (disgusting!):
https://apnews.com/article/ex-military-cops-us-capitol-riot-a1cb17201dfddc98291edead5badc257And in the front row, leading the way. just happened to be 'insurrectionUSA' founder and leftist agitator, John Sullivan. I mean, he even gets CNN air time. What are the odds? hmphhh
https://myvalleynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/CNN-John-Sullivan.jpg
Correction: Sullivan is the founder of 'Insurgence USA'
My bad.
