George Floyd was a victim

Status
Not open for further replies.
rgp said:
I worked with guys that marched with King ....they say he wasn't the angel so many think that he was.
I didn't know him, he was in his prime & killed when I was just a teen/young man. So I won't say anymore but, these men really opened my eyes [& others] about him.
Click to expand...
You prefer anecdotes about a man, rather than read his autobiography, and discover how during fifteen days in solitary confinement he wrote his response to fellow ordained ministers criticising his campaign of none violent protest, and whilst explaining where they were failing to understand him, he did all that was possible to keep them as his friends. Your words about MLK, echo comments I'm listening to tonight as James Baldwin, who you may have heard of, (I hadn't), narrates the experiences he'd had in 1950s/1960s USA, and do you know, he seemed to understand those who may have been just like the stereotype you seem to me to be displaying. Listening to folks who say they knew another MLK assuages you from any responsibility for seeing him as a human being. Don't say anymore about him, as "that rabbit I won't chase for you".
BTW have you held these same views all your !life, or is that " classified information?". :unsure:.
 

grahamg said:
You prefer anecdotes about a man, rather than read his autobiography, and discover how during fifteen days in solitary confinement he wrote his response to fellow ordained ministers criticising his campaign of none violent protest, and whilst explaining where they were failing to understand him, he did all that was possible to keep them as his friends. Your words about MLK, echo comments I'm listening to tonight as James Baldwin, who you may have heard of, (I hadn't), narrates the experiences he'd had in 1950s/1960s USA, and do you know, he seemed to understand those who may have been just like the stereotype you seem to me to be displaying. Listening to folks who say they knew another MLK assuages you from any responsibility for seeing him as a human being. Don't say anymore about him, as "that rabbit I won't chase for you".
BTW have you held these same views all your !life, or is that " classified information?". :unsure:.
Click to expand...
That’s all well and good, but don’t ever try to convince me on any other person that MLK never was in favor of riots. Later in life, after his “I Have A Dream” speech, and in a packed high school auditorium in Detroit, he said, “...It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear?…It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.”

To me, these words are profound and if I had to make a point to it, I would tell you and anyone else that “Our chickens have come home to roost.”
 
Interesting quote, Been There. I don't think that MLK was in favor of riots; all I have ever heard about him his whole life was anti-violence. I think what he was saying here is that when people are stuck in intolerable living conditions, with no other hope of improvement , they are driven to violent behavior out of desperation. That isn't supporting the violence; it's just ruefully explaining why people are driven to it. He thought that was a tragic thing, not a thing that he was promoting.
 

Sunny said:
Interesting quote, Been There. I don't think that MLK was in favor of riots; all I have ever heard about him his whole life was anti-violence. I think what he was saying here is that when people are stuck in intolerable living conditions, with no other hope of improvement , they are driven to violent behavior out of desperation. That isn't supporting the violence; it's just ruefully explaining why people are driven to it. He thought that was a tragic thing, not a thing that he was promoting.
Click to expand...
Criticised by Malcolm X as being like churchmen centuries earlier telling people to turn the other cheek, he defended his groups campaign using nonviolent direct action, saying it did not mean those supporters facing police dogs, baton charges and the like whilst maintaining their will not to respond with violence, were not "uncle Toms", (he covers this in his autobiography too). Now when challenged over whether he would condemn strikers, or as you say maybe even those driven to violence by despair, he did perhaps move his position, (he'd faced quite a bit of violence himself by then, including a bomb going off in the front of his house, whilst his family were at home).

However not condemning something is not advocating violence, especially coming from someone the authorities tried to break, but who continued to advocate nonviolent action. He said many profound things as we all know, and one interesting one was when challenged as to whether " he wished to see the law upheld"? His response "that to challenge unjust laws was to show the utmost respect for justice" was profound wasn't it, and so many of these great thoughts were inspired by things he read or understood from the bible, (for all those with a jaundiced view of religion/the bible).

My question above to the first to criticise MLK on the basis of anecdotes from people who say they'd met him, shows just the level of debate those civil rights leaders, knew they would experience, and did experience over and over again, ("those who cannot see" comes to mind to use another biblical reference), but all this objecting to MLK on spurious grounds is exactly the childish behaviour to expect. If any man or woman had half his guts they'd be brave people in my view, but forget that, we know we won't see any let up, and straight forward questions like, "Have you always thought like this?" will continue to be ducked, because living up to reality isn't a strong point being displayed as those civil rights leaders knew so well.
 
grahamg said:
You prefer anecdotes about a man, rather than read his autobiography, and discover how during fifteen days in solitary confinement he wrote his response to fellow ordained ministers criticising his campaign of none violent protest, and whilst explaining where they were failing to understand him, he did all that was possible to keep them as his friends. Your words about MLK, echo comments I'm listening to tonight as James Baldwin, who you may have heard of, (I hadn't), narrates the experiences he'd had in 1950s/1960s USA, and do you know, he seemed to understand those who may have been just like the stereotype you seem to me to be displaying. Listening to folks who say they knew another MLK assuages you from any responsibility for seeing him as a human being. Don't say anymore about him, as "that rabbit I won't chase for you".
BTW have you held these same views all your !life, or is that " classified information?". :unsure:.
Click to expand...


"You prefer anecdotes about a man, rather than read his autobiography, "

Yes, as I said these men marched with him, knew him on a personal level.

As for ........... "rather than read his autobiography,"

You or I can write anything about ourselves , IMO an outside observer may see things differently.

I did not know him {MLK} I knew these these guys , I believed what they said.

If based on that , you do not ? and / or do not believe me, or have an opposing opinion? That is your prerogative.
 
rgp said:
"You prefer anecdotes about a man, rather than read his autobiography, "Yes, as I said these men marched with him, knew him on a personal level. As for ........... "rather than read his autobiography,"
You or I can write anything about ourselves , IMO an outside observer may see things differently. I did not know him {MLK} I knew these these guys , I believed what they said.
If based on that , you do not ? and / or do not believe me, or have an opposing opinion? That is your prerogative.
Click to expand...
I have a come back you may not expect, but MLKs "autobiography", was compiled from his papers largely, after his death, by someone who I'd guess knew him better than your friends. Friends who perhaps only marched with him once, or perhaps "twice", that kind of " knew him", (according to your account). It still doesn't make sense to me that anyone would prefer to base their opinion on essentially gossip, fed to you by those claiming to have been on marches(?). Everyone cannot expect to have personal knowledge of any leader, personal info they are sure trumps everything else can they? What are vast numbers of people to base their opinions on, (your secondhand accounts at best?)?
You won't have to do so obviously, but you appear incapable of answering whether the views you put forward about criminals have always been the same, ( I'm seeking to try to uncover your powers of introspection if I can?)? :unsure: .
 
Sunny said:
Interesting quote, Been There. I don't think that MLK was in favor of riots; all I have ever heard about him his whole life was anti-violence. I think what he was saying here is that when people are stuck in intolerable living conditions, with no other hope of improvement , they are driven to violent behavior out of desperation. That isn't supporting the violence; it's just ruefully explaining why people are driven to it. He thought that was a tragic thing, not a thing that he was promoting.
Click to expand...
If that’s what you want to believe. Sometimes, people will say things that they, themself wouldn’t do, but by stating the thought, it plants a seed in the mind. It’s a way of psychologically planting an idea into a mind. Psychologists call it manipulate. Why else raise the issue? If you are all about peace and love and equality, you don’t bring up riots and other vitriol subjects. That kind of defeats the purpose or one’s agenda.

The riots back when King was alive, like for example, the Watts riots, had purpose. I know that sounds odd, but it’s what the Heritage Institute wrote shortly after the riots. Today’s riots are not the same. Today’s riots are more about just destroying and bringing about chaos. We all watched on TV as young blacks brought out of the Target store in Minneapolis the large screen TV’s and place them on carts. We all watched as blacks and whites raided drug stores and stole countless numbers of pills. We all watched as buildings were set on fire and police were attacked. Did anyone wonder why the cops didn’t draw their weapon and shoot these people? Do you know?

Did you ever wonder why whites are involved in riots? Whites have no purposeful agenda. They want us to believe that they want racial equality and I’m sure some do, but the majority of whites that are involved in these riots are only there to raise Hell and bring about chaos. The longer they can keep it going, the more it works in their favor. Seattle is an example.

Please don’t confuse the word ‘riots’ with ‘protest.’
 
grahamg said:
I have a come back you may not expect, but MLKs "autobiography", was compiled from his papers largely, after his death, by someone who I'd guess knew him better than your friends. Friends who perhaps only marched with him once, or perhaps "twice", that kind of " knew him", (according to your account). It still doesn't make sense to me that anyone would prefer to base their opinion on essentially gossip, fed to you by those claiming to have been on marches(?). Everyone cannot expect to have personal knowledge of any leader, personal info they are sure trumps everything else can they? What are vast numbers of people to base their opinions on, (your secondhand accounts at best?)?
You won't have to do so obviously, but you appear incapable of answering whether the views you put forward about criminals have always been the same, ( I'm seeking to try to uncover your powers of introspection if I can?)? :unsure: .
Click to expand...


I do not remember everything I felt / thought, 50 years ago. I never said [kind of knew] him, I said they claimed to know him , on a personal level. I also said I believed them, on their personal accounts at the time. I am capable of answering current questions, and some form back in the day . Accept that or don't....I don't care one way or the other.
 
rgp said:
I do not remember everything I felt / thought, 50 years ago. I never said [kind of knew] him, I said they claimed to know him , on a personal level. I also said I believed them, on their personal accounts at the time. I am capable of answering current questions, and some form back in the day . Accept that or don't....I don't care one way or the other.
Click to expand...
How much each of us cares about the views of the other, isn't likely to worry anybody. Those civil rights leaders in the 1960s described people giving them responses just like I believe you demonstrate here. They understood you, in my view, why you say the things you say, the inability to see any criminal, or even suspected criminal, as a human being, your hard nosed attitude, and all the rest. Claiming special knowledge in any argument is a well known method of manipulation in arguments, a ploy in other words. Who really cares if a "group" (not sure how many in the group?), who claim to have marched with MLK say they think or believe anything negative about him, all equally negative as far as we've been told(?). I'd suggest its just possible people who know you tell you what you want to hear, rather than trying to dispelled notions in your head, so thats as likely to be the "special!list knowledge" you say you've got, to try to create doubts over the reputation of a revered public figure.
Let's leave it now, you won't answer straight forward questions, or not so straight forward questions, and in my view, thats a just another characteristic, one I'm not keen on. :( .
 
911 said:
Break Sometimes, people will say things that they, themself wouldn’t do, but by stating the thought, it plants a seed in the mind. It’s a way of psychologically planting an idea into a mind. Break
The riots back when King was alive, like for example, the Watts riots, had purpose. I know that sounds odd, but it’s what the Heritage Institute wrote shortly after the riots. Today’s riots are not the same. Today’s riots are more about just destroying and bringing about chaos. We all watched on TV as young blacks brought out of the Target store in Minneapolis the large screen TV’s and place them on carts. We all watched as blacks and whites raided drug stores and stole countless numbers of pills. We all watched as buildings were set on fire and police were attacked. Did anyone wonder why the cops didn’t draw their weapon and shoot these people? Do you know?

Did you ever wonder why whites are involved in riots? Whites have no purposeful agenda. They want us to believe that they want racial equality and I’m sure some do, but the majority of whites that are involved in these riots are only there to raise Hell and bring about chaos. The longer they can keep it going, the more it works in their favor. Seattle is an example.

Please don’t confuse the word ‘riots’ with ‘protest.’
Click to expand...
Do you believe there would have been more, or less rioting, had MLK never argued for nonviolent direct action, and only civil rights leaders calling for violent protests existed?
 
grahamg said:
Maybe the human rights of former police officers could be respected, even when they have the label correctly attached to them of "criminal", should a court convict them(?). :unsure: .
I've sympathy even for the officer accused of murdering George Floyd, because he's a human being, probably with a clean record until this event, and because feeling no sympathy at all for anyone suspected of as crime, who ends up losing their !life, where there was viable alternative action the police could have taken, seems an unnecessarily polarised position to take.
There is one thing about having " devils advocate" arguments being put forward, it prompts more discussion doesn't it. :sneaky: .
Click to expand...

Actually, that cop had a very long record of complaints and incidents of overuse of force, etc. This wasn't his first dance, by any stretch; but it was his first murder.
 
Butterfly said:
Actually, that cop had a very long record of complaints and incidents of overuse of force, etc. This wasn't his first dance, by any stretch; but it was his first murder.
Click to expand...
In the UK I've very little knowledge of criminal activity, anything that might lead to someone find their lives in jeopardy should police be called, and whatever they're suspect of make them foolishly think of resisting arrest, or taking flight. I did once let a room in my house to two young people, both from very wealthy and privileged backgrounds, and they were overall a pleasure to have around for the few months they stayed, before getting married at a lavish affair.
However, both admitted to being involved in what you might describe as "low level, posh crime", meaning they passed off items of jewelry as real gold, that were in their words, " hookey gold"!
She worked looking after young kids in a nursery to fill in the time, and was very caring and responsible, and he had a successful career, and both were very well connected. Their "hookey gold" crime, they passed off to unsuspecting secondhand shops etc they said, wasn't their only felony as he owned two firearms, one a pump action shotgun, the other a rifle, legally owned in the sense he had a licence, and had expertise handling them, having served in the army. The illegal aspect was I found these two weapons in a wardrobe, not locked in a gun cabinet, as required here, and the police made aware they held them at the property. When I raised the issue, the guns were taken away to their patents, and the problem solved, but he tried to explain away having them in the wardrobe, "for defence in case I'd chosen to attack them"!

Now the point, yes the point of this tale at last, if these two people were to be shot by law enforcement here, in the unlikely event they were met by armed officers here because of these criminal things they did probably to give themselves a " high", feeling they were being daring, would this serve them purposes of society in any way, if they ran away, or did something stupid like that when confronted by police?
 
Butterfly said:
That, Marci, is the $64,000 question.
Click to expand...
I doubt the question of "keeping these people on the payroll" is the biggest question.
Accepting what should be a tragic loss of life, as being an inevitable consequence of someone not following every instruction they're given by a police officer, seems a pretty big question too. Whether enough of the population will make a change in their own behaviour, or vote differently, where these changes might reduce the death toll, is a big question. Continuing to fund wages of officers, especially officers yet to be convicted, seems small by comparison, and maybe fully justifiable. :unsure: .
 
grahamg said:
How much each of us cares about the views of the other, isn't likely to worry anybody. Those civil rights leaders in the 1960s described people giving them responses just like I believe you demonstrate here. They understood you, in my view, why you say the things you say, the inability to see any criminal, or even suspected criminal, as a human being, your hard nosed attitude, and all the rest. Claiming special knowledge in any argument is a well known method of manipulation in arguments, a ploy in other words. Who really cares if a "group" (not sure how many in the group?), who claim to have marched with MLK say they think or believe anything negative about him, all equally negative as far as we've been told(?). I'd suggest its just possible people who know you tell you what you want to hear, rather than trying to dispelled notions in your head, so thats as likely to be the "special!list knowledge" you say you've got, to try to create doubts over the reputation of a revered public figure.
Let's leave it now, you won't answer straight forward questions, or not so straight forward questions, and in my view, thats a just another characteristic, one I'm not keen on. :( .
Click to expand...

I have answered the questions ....... period. You don't get to choose the manner in which I do so.

But, OK, deal ...... since I haven't found anything about you that i am keen on either.
 
Last edited:
MarciKS said:
why? why is it ok to bring up one and not the other? i think it's only fair.
Click to expand...
Criminal behaviour is what it is, however, police (naturally) are held to a much higher level and standard than typical criminals, so deserve to be scrutinized and ostracised to the highest level and degree.
 
Aunt Marg said:
Criminal behaviour is what it is, however, police (naturally) are held to a much higher level and standard than typical criminals, so deserve to be scrutinized and ostracised to the highest level and degree.
Click to expand...
i've seen other videos where they were arresting him and having to struggle with him. so yes the cop killed him and it was awful. i saw that. but, other times they've had to struggle with him means that they would likely go in expecting to fight with him too. not being a cop i'm sure there is a level of difficulty in never knowing what to expect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top