Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is America burning? (Black Lives Matter protests, civil unrest and riots 2020)

I don't get how the fuck arguing that George Floyd was on drugs absolves the cop of responsibility. The man was face down on the ground, with his hands cuffed behind his back. That's unarguably a position of vulnerability. So the cop kneeling on Floyd's neck was completely unnecessary, because he was already subdued. Cops are expected to deal with all members of the public, including those who may be of frail health for any of a number of reasons. So this implication of "oh, how could he have known?", well maybe that should be the reason you don't fucking kneel on the necks of people you've already subdued, hmmm? It's not like it's some new and unprecedented scientific discovery that people, even when they're in good health, don't respond very well to having some fat fucking pig kneeling on their air passages and major blood vessels. Anyone with a basic fucking understanding of human anatomy could have told you that.
 
Last edited:
I don't get how the fuck arguing that George Floyd was on drugs absolves the cop of responsibility. The man was face down on the ground, with his hands cuffed behind his back. That's unarguably a position of vulnerability. So the cop kneeling on Floyd's neck was completely unnecessary, because he was already subdued. Cops are expected to deal with all members of the public, including those who may be of frail health for any of a number of reasons. So this implication of "oh, how could he have known?", well maybe that should be the reason you don't fucking kneel on the necks of people you've already subdued, hmmm? It's not like it's some new and precedented scientific discovery that people, even when they're in good health, don't respond very well to having some fat fucking pig kneeling on their air passages and major blood vessels. Anyone with a basic fucking understanding of human anatomy could have told you that.
Nah, the thing is that "on drugs" is just a way of discrediting Floyd, and his right to live. They won't even try to prove that his alleged drug user status was linked to his death - all they have to do is dehumanise him as a druggie, in the hope that enough of the jury will be shortsighted enough to be influenced by it. Cunts.
 
Nah, the thing is that "on drugs" is just a way of discrediting Floyd, and his right to live. They won't even try to prove that his alleged drug user status was linked to his death - all they have to do is dehumanise him as a druggie, in the hope that enough of the jury will be shortsighted enough to be influenced by it. Cunts.
Should get chauvin on the floor and kneel on his neck for a minute, to demonstrate the way this works on even a cop
 
It's a combination. They're also going with the 'Chauvin was doing what he was TRAINED to do' line and citing approved restraint procedures, thus diminishing personal liability.
But, of course, that excuse won't mean that the liability will transfer to the implementor of those rules...the accountability will simply evaporate in a puff of obscuratory smoke, same as it always does.
 
Should get chauvin on the floor and kneel on his neck for a minute, to demonstrate the way this works on even a cop
"So, Mr Chauvin, are you a drug user? No? Good, then you will be able to demonstrate, by having someone kneel on your neck for 9 minutes, that such a thing is perfectly survivable to non-drug users. Kindly lie down just here."
 
They literally contain ingredients to paralyse you as you slowly die. The ensuing final suffering is very much deliberate, in my opinion. They could have chosen any of a number of easily-administered substances that kill rapidly with no pain, but instead they chose a perverse brew of paralytics and heart-stopping medications, without any painkillers or anxiolytics.

They use a dose of a barbiturate that can be lethal by itself (same as they do for dogs), as well as the other agents. Unless there are some exceptions you know about (in terms of not using it - 11 states use the barbiturate alone).

Granted, there are valid concerns about duration of effect as well as the issues in your follow-up post.

And yeah, it’s a horrible Vaudeville mockery, much like most of the other ways they do it.
 
Last edited:
I think they’re going to argue it the other way round.

i.e. Chauvin couldn’t possibly have known he’d have (insert as many drugs as they could test him positive for here) in his system. Therefore innocent.

Floyd was on the ground and was already restrained when the pig scum began to slowly murder him on camera. Even if Floyd was hale and hearty, there was no justification whatsoever for further use of force. I feel like I'm being fucking gaslit just reading about these arguments, I know you're not defending them but it's just so fucking wrong. I saw the look in that piece of shit's eyes as he was kneeling. The filth fucking knew what he was doing.

I'm an ocean away and I can see the wrong in that. If they let the fucker get away with this then I reckon something's gonna burn.
 
I don't get how the fuck arguing that George Floyd was on drugs absolves the cop of responsibility. The man was face down on the ground, with his hands cuffed behind his back. That's unarguably a position of vulnerability. So the cop kneeling on Floyd's neck was completely unnecessary, because he was already subdued. Cops are expected to deal with all members of the public, including those who may be of frail health for any of a number of reasons. So this implication of "oh, how could he have known?", well maybe that should be the reason you don't fucking kneel on the necks of people you've already subdued, hmmm? It's not like it's some new and unprecedented scientific discovery that people, even when they're in good health, don't respond very well to having some fat fucking pig kneeling on their air passages and major blood vessels. Anyone with a basic fucking understanding of human anatomy could have told you that.

I don't know why they're being allowed to argue that in the first place. Generally, its not a defense to murder if you rob a bank and one of the teller's dies of a heart attack. That seems to be what's being argued here and it wouldn't fly with most judges.
 
It feels like the whole of the US policing industry is also on trial. Chauvin acted either inside or outside the bounds of policing limits as defined by the US state, there is no 3rd option - it's murder, or this is what the police are trained to do and we should all accept it.
 
Current subject of discussion seems bemusing to me. While this guy is as entitled to a defence as anyone, I’d figured it was just assumed that there was no chance in hell he would not be found guilty.

Whole thing was filmed, was really long. And I thought they’d settled the matter of what the training said ages ago.
 
I don't know why they're being allowed to argue that in the first place. Generally, its not a defense to murder if you rob a bank and one of the teller's dies of a heart attack. That seems to be what's being argued here and it wouldn't fly with most judges.
Ah, but the perpetrator would be a CRIMINAL in the example you give. This death was (allegedly :hmm:) caused by the police, who never do anything criminal, or if they do, they're bad apples so it doesn't count.
 
Do Yank cops seriously not receive even the most basic first aid training? What are they supposed to do if one of their own is seriously injured and needs attention before paramedics can arrive?
 
Do Yank cops seriously not receive even the most basic first aid training? What are they supposed to do if one of their own is seriously injured and needs attention before paramedics can arrive?

They got quite a lot when I worked in a cop shop. I was just in the office and I had a CPR/first aid certification. I'm told they get more than that now and it includes things like how to use a defibulator and administer Narcan.

I believe one of the arriving paramedics testified that Chavin had to be removed from kneeling on George Floyd and any treatment they had to give was delayed by that.
 
Back
Top Bottom