George Floyd was a victim

Status
Not open for further replies.
Y’all, RGP wants to be engaged with which is why he keeps baiting you, so that you will respond. Every time you do, he got what he wanted (conversation) and so then he turns around and offers something else.....a question, a deflection, a dig...something, ANYTHING to keep the conversation going.

More than winning the argument, more than proving a point, more even than being right, he just wants to be engaged with. As long as you keep engaging he’ll keep the conversation going. You simply will not get ANY agreement with any of the very compelling points you’ve raise because that’s not RGP’s focus. He’s not really interested in enlightenment. He just doesn’t want you to go away and you will if there’s nothing more to fight about!!

Even making this statement will give him something else to focus on and be able to use to keep the conversation going.😉
 

Ronni said:
Y’all, RGP wants to be engaged with which is why he keeps baiting you, so that you will respond. Every time you do, he got what he wanted (conversation) and so then he turns around and offers something else.....a question, a deflection, a dig...something, ANYTHING to keep the conversation going.

More than winning the argument, more than proving a point, more even than being right, he just wants to be engaged with. As long as you keep engaging he’ll keep the conversation going. You simply will not get ANY agreement with any of the very compelling points you’ve raise because that’s not RGP’s focus. He’s not really interested in enlightenment. He just doesn’t want you to go away and you will if there’s nothing more to fight about!!

Even making this statement will give him something else to focus on and be able to use to keep the conversation going.😉
Click to expand...
I think were on the same page concerning RGP's need to have responses to his ridiculous position. I'm done with responding to him.
 
To @rgp First of all I have a great deal of respect for Police Officers and that they put their lives on line to protect us, but in this case I don't think the Police operated in the correct way. Floyd was in handcuffs with many Policemen around him. It was not necessary in anyway to kneel on his neck. I can't believe with the amount of officers around him they could just as easily picked him up and put in Police car and driven him to jail. He did not need to receive the kneeling on his neck until he died. How would you react if something like that happened to someone in your family.
 
Why the need to pile on?

I usually understand the point RGP makes with his posts and I usually agree with some of it or at least understand how he arrived at his conclusion.

In many of the incidents involving police brutality, one fact comes up time after time and that is a persons refusal to comply with a lawful request which results in an escalation that often ends badly for everyone involved.

In the most recent incident where Rayshard Brooks was killed by Atlanta police, the initial contact seemed to go smoothly until the police attempted to take him into custody. IMO if Mr. Brooks had complied with the request he would still be alive to argue his case in court. I'm not saying that I agree with the police shooting him and killing him. I believe that the situation could have and should have been resolved without firing a weapon. What I am saying is that work needs to be done to improve both the police response and the public response when we engage with law enforcement.
 
win231 said:
Something to think about:
Here are some arrests of murderers and mass murderers: (no comparison to a counterfeit cash suspect who was innocent until proven guilty.)
Charles Manson & several of his followers
Brenda Spencer (Killed 2 elementary school students)
Gary Gilmore (killed 2 during robbery)
Ted Bundy (killed at least 8 women)
Mark Chapman (killed John Lennon)
Lynette Fromme (attempted to kill President Ford)
Sirhan Sirhan (killed Robert Kennedy & wounded several others)
John Hinckley Jr. (shot President Reagan & wounded several others)
Lee Harvey Oswald (killed President Kennedy and also killed a police officer when confronted)
Richard Ramirez (killed at least 12 people in their homes while they were sleeping)

They were all arrested without incident. No beating, no choking. What do they have in common?
None of them were black.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY Win! Don't forget
~James E Holmes, mass murderer who killed 12 people and wounded 58 others in the Colorado theater in 2012.
~"Son of Sam" killer David Berkowitz who in 1976 murdered 8 people at separate times. He was taken into custody without incident.
~Nicolas Cruz who killed 17 people and wounded 17 others in his school in Florida after he was expelled. He was arrested with incident.
 
Aunt Bea said:
Why the need to pile on?

I usually understand the point RGP makes with his posts and I usually agree with some of it or at least understand how he arrived at his conclusion.

In many of the incidents involving police brutality, one fact comes up time after time and that is a persons refusal to comply with a lawful request which results in an escalation that often ends badly for everyone involved.

In the most recent incident where Rayshard Brooks was killed by Atlanta police, the initial contact seemed to go smoothly until the police attempted to take him into custody. IMO if Mr. Brooks had complied with the request he would still be alive to argue his case in court. I'm not saying that I agree with the police shooting him and killing him. I believe that the situation could have and should have been resolved without firing a weapon. What I am saying is that work needs to be done to improve both the police response and the public response when we engage with law enforcement.
Click to expand...
True, BUT the Derek Chauvins of the world cause concern about what police officers may do after a suspect is handcuffed and helpless.
 
Ronni said:
Y’all, RGP wants to be engaged with which is why he keeps baiting you, so that you will respond. Every time you do, he got what he wanted (conversation) and so then he turns around and offers something else.....a question, a deflection, a dig...something, ANYTHING to keep the conversation going.

More than winning the argument, more than proving a point, more even than being right, he just wants to be engaged with. As long as you keep engaging he’ll keep the conversation going. You simply will not get ANY agreement with any of the very compelling points you’ve raise because that’s not RGP’s focus. He’s not really interested in enlightenment. He just doesn’t want you to go away and you will if there’s nothing more to fight about!!

Even making this statement will give him something else to focus on and be able to use to keep the conversation going.😉
Click to expand...


So you too ?...... expect me to just at some point stop, accept the other responder's as the end of discussion? As long as i feel i am correct .... that will never happen.

Then you put that little 'ditty' at the end , and expect me not to respond ?
 
Aunt Bea said:
Why the need to pile on?

I usually understand the point RGP makes with his posts and I usually agree with some of it or at least understand how he arrived at his conclusion.

In many of the incidents involving police brutality, one fact comes up time after time and that is a persons refusal to comply with a lawful request which results in an escalation that often ends badly for everyone involved.

In the most recent incident where Rayshard Brooks was killed by Atlanta police, the initial contact seemed to go smoothly until the police attempted to take him into custody. IMO if Mr. Brooks had complied with the request he would still be alive to argue his case in court. I'm not saying that I agree with the police shooting him and killing him. I believe that the situation could have and should have been resolved without firing a weapon. What I am saying is that work needs to be done to improve both the police response and the public response when we engage with law enforcement.
Click to expand...

Aunt Bea, this is what is known as blaming the victim.

Yes, a wise, mature person with better judgement would know it is just common sense to comply with police requests. But when people argue, struggle, fail to comply, etc. there is absolutely no excuse for law enforcement professionals to decide to execute them.
 
In the case of Mr. Brooks, the Atlanta mayor said the police should have just let him go and just gone around to his house and picked him up there. They had his name and address from his license. That would have saved Mr. Brooks' life, the officers' jobs, and a lot of money and hassle for the police department and the city, not to mention that the Wendy's wouldn't probably have been burned down. But no, the cops had to shoot him in the back. For what purpose? He was a (probably) drunk guy, on foot, carrying the officer's taser, which isn't even considered a deadly weapon by the Atlanta PD. But they had to shoot him in the back.
 
Aunt Bea said:
Why the need to pile on?

I usually understand the point RGP makes with his posts and I usually agree with some of it or at least understand how he arrived at his conclusion.

In many of the incidents involving police brutality, one fact comes up time after time and that is a persons refusal to comply with a lawful request which results in an escalation that often ends badly for everyone involved.

In the most recent incident where Rayshard Brooks was killed by Atlanta police, the initial contact seemed to go smoothly until the police attempted to take him into custody. IMO if Mr. Brooks had complied with the request he would still be alive to argue his case in court. I'm not saying that I agree with the police shooting him and killing him. I believe that the situation could have and should have been resolved without firing a weapon. What I am saying is that work needs to be done to improve both the police response and the public response when we engage with law enforcement.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Sensible as always. (y)
 
Butterfly said:
In the case of Mr. Brooks, the Atlanta mayor said the police should have just let him go and just gone around to his house and picked him up there. They had his name and address from his license. That would have saved Mr. Brooks' life, the officers' jobs, and a lot of money and hassle for the police department and the city, not to mention that the Wendy's wouldn't probably have been burned down. But no, the cops had to shoot him in the back. For what purpose? He was a (probably) drunk guy, on foot, carrying the officer's taser, which isn't even considered a deadly weapon by the Atlanta PD. But they had to shoot him in the back.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah sure .... send that message to the criminal element. Just fight back, run if ya can, and the police will just let ya go ........ Bad message.
 
Butterfly said:
In the case of Mr. Brooks, the Atlanta mayor said the police should have just let him go and just gone around to his house and picked him up there. They had his name and address from his license. That would have saved Mr. Brooks' life, the officers' jobs, and a lot of money and hassle for the police department and the city, not to mention that the Wendy's wouldn't probably have been burned down. But no, the cops had to shoot him in the back. For what purpose? He was a (probably) drunk guy, on foot, carrying the officer's taser, which isn't even considered a deadly weapon by the Atlanta PD. But they had to shoot him in the back.
Click to expand...
Takes a real hero to shoot someone in the back. With cops like that, who needs enemies. :mad:
 
Boy, Ronni was right on the button in post #326! (Others have written basically the same point.) This has nothing to do with police murdering people for minor offenses, or no offenses at all. It is 100% about rgp getting in some obnoxious last word, over and over again, except it really isn't a last word. He seems to be terrified of having any exchange end, so he keeps baiting and baiting.

Stay tuned. You'll see him back here very soon.
 
Sunny said:
Boy, Ronni was right on the button in post #326! (Others have written basically the same point.) This has nothing to do with police murdering people for minor offenses, or no offenses at all. It is 100% about rgp getting in some obnoxious last word, over and over again, except it really isn't a last word. He seems to be terrified of having any exchange end, so he keeps baiting and baiting.

Stay tuned. You'll see him back here very soon.
Click to expand...


And yet here you are ...... making derogatory remarks about me ..... and yet you accuse me of baiting ?..
 
I am really having issues with the Taser issues that have come forth. When we first received our Tasers, I volunteered to be Tasered in front of 27 fellow Troopers. After I had my physical and heart tested via having a heart catheterization performed and a doctor and ambulance standing by, I was Tasered with only 30,000 of the potential 50,000 volts available. For about 30-45 seconds, I was frozen in time. Not cold, but unable to move.

We later spoke with 2 different higher ups at the Axon Corporation, which manufactured our Tasers and 1 said yes, it was a lethal weapon and the other told us that Tasers are not a deadly weapon. I still don’t comprehend the difference.
 
Both cops have been charged with murder. Some relevant details: The suspect was kicked & one officer stood on him as he lay dying. Also did not call paramedics as required.

As Rayshard Brooks lay dying in a Wendy's parking lot — shot twice in the back — Atlanta police officers kicked him and stood on his body, according to Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard.
Even if someone considers the shooting justified, how could anyone justify making sure the suspect dies?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/of...elony-murder/ar-BB15CkiF?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top