Transcript of George Floyd's murder prove that he was cooperating

Show where there is a law, procedure... anything... that gives cops authority to kill people for the sole reason you just made up of "establishing themselves as violent thugs" despite the fact that they pose no threat to anybody.

I don't think you're going to answer this, so... I'm not wasting more time.

 

The implication, clearly, was that he posed a threat to the police. There was no "sole" reason.

 

The poster is struggling to find some reason... any reason... that justifies this murder. He/she tried "threat to the police" and failed. Now that they realized that he posed no threat to the police they think they can rely on vagueness. I don't think they'll fare any better with a challenge to be precise.

 

Until a jury finds those cops guilty of ANY degree of "MURDER," the thread title is inflammatory and blatantly misleading. Leftists will say this excuses the four cops. It does not. It is proper use of the legal term which is at question here. "Homicide" surely applies better until adjudicated.

 

He was fighting with the police. He turned around and fired a taser. Depending on the taser, he could have fired again. Additionally the cop said he was not sure he had fired the taser. He only knew he turned and pointed it at him. It is easy to say he was wrong now. The problem was he did not have hours and days to decide, it was a second or less.

You say he was not a threat to the police. You do not know that for sure. You are only assuming that the taser only had one shot and that is all based on hindsight, not when he was concerned about being able to live through the next few seconds.

It is easy to say it was not threat when it is not your life which is in danger.

I try to find an instance in my life which is somewhat comparable and there is none. The closest I can remember was Vietnam when my Air Base was being attacked with rockets and mortars. All I know is that rounds are hitting the base and making a lot of noise. As I am running for the bunker, I wonder whether I will make it. After it is all over I learn that none of the rounds landed within a quarter of mile of me and I would have been just as safe to have walked. I reacted according to what I thought the threat was at the time, not the actual threat which I learned hours later.

Don't resist and live. Resist and you stand a chance of dying.

 

Rationality is not in the liberal programming. The only programs they propose which ever work are the ones spending money the fastest.

 

Wrong! You are guilty of a crime when you commit the crime. You are found guilty of a crime when a jury finds you guilty.

It is theoretically possible that you could be guilty of a crime, and a jury doesn't find you guilty. Maybe because there was a plea deal, or an incompetent prosecutor, or... they just bought your lies. But this does not make the act you committed just... "magically" disappear.

Don't get yourself confused just because obfuscation helps your pre-conceived notions.

 

He pulled the trigger of an empty taser. Neither of which is justification for murder.

That is very true. Ask George Floyd.

But there is no justification for a cop who knows he is under no threat. If he didn't know this, he has no business being a cop.

 

You answer that in those words during jury selection and you'd be amazed how fast they boot you. Your preconceived notions about the difference between homicide (the charge levied during arrest) and being found guilty of a higher-degree offense (any degree under that state's murder categories).

 

You do not know whether that taser could fire again or not. And according to the cop, he did not know either.

Apparently you have never faced an uncertain time which turned out later to be of no consequence. For the umpteenth time. Hindsight is wonderful and most of the time it is even correct. But, apparently, not all the time.

 

Oh God! Does that mean I wouldn't get the $10 a day they pay you?

If the parameter is how much we know about legal concepts, I think you'd have a better chance of being kicked out than me. Given that you don't know the difference between committing the act itself (which is independent of the legal consequences) and proving it in a court of law (which is where the consequences come in)

You see, if you're in a jury, you don't get to define if the act was committed. What you determine is if the available evidence has met the burden of proof. So if you know the difference between an act and the legal proceedings surrounding that act, you know that it doesn't matter what you "believe". It only matters what has been proven.

 

Street lawyers are funny. Cops just love 'em.

 

Looks like a great case for "defund the police". I don't believe it, but it doesn't justify the murder anyway. A taser is not a lethal threat. Especially when fired by a guy running away from him. If he didn't know that, then whoever trained him should be tried as an accessory to negligent manslaughter... or something.

I can say I've never even come close to killing somebody because of one.

 

Wrong in so many ways. Why does it make a difference which way he is running? Turning around and firing can be done faster than a person can react. He had already demonstrated he could turn around while running. The Atlanta prosecuting attorney said before that a taser was potentially lethal. And as I have mentioned numerous times already, it has the potential of making the cop incapable of defending himself and Brooks taking his gun.

Neither have I, but I have never been placed in a situation where defending myself might save my life. However, you did not know the outcome ahead of time and could not be sure you were taking the right action. In particular, your life never depended on it.

 

Anybody with a heart monitor willing to get Tased, to see how harmless they are?

 

Is there actually people out there defending those cops who took out Floyd? Lowest life forms on this planet.

 

We are talking about Brooks.

 

The OP is about Floyd.

 

When you said "his death was not justified" you should have stopped there....everything else is a half-assed, sideways excuse for fatal excessive force.

 

If he had not resisted, he would most likely still be alive today. Those deaths almost invariably start out with resisting.

We were talking about a taser. That was Brooks.

 

Every spring thousands of young white folk invade Florida to party likes it 1999, or going beserk in celebration of a Big Ten college football team win....to date I have yet to hear of reports of deaths of college kids who resisted arrest for an array of minor offenses. And yet, for black folk just doing a daily routine...well, you get the picture.

 

I know nothing of what happens in Florida. More whites than blacks are killed by the police. Blacks are eight times more likely to resist arrest than whites.

The picture I get is that all or nearly all those deaths are after resisting arrest. Most of the resisting arrests, white or black, do not end in death.

 

What part about "using a weapon against a police officer" are you not comprehending? Hell, you don't even have to be a cop for that to apply, depending on where you live (unfortunately), in most jurisdictions it justifies the use of deadly force even by a civilian.

 

I guess it would be the part about how an empty taser would be a lethal weapon. But I can't say I don't understand it. I do. It's the response of people who get the nonsense hammered into their head on wingnut media that cops have some sort of "right" to kill black people because "being black" is supposed to be a deadly threat to them.

No! You have to be a trained professional cop who knows that being black is not, in and of itself, a threat. The concept that they are a threat is the product of institutional racism. But a cop who is either not trained or refuses to overcome institutional racism before he is issued a gun is a danger to others. BLM is doing their job in demanding that they don't issue guns to such people.

People who are not cops might argue that they acted out of panic. Cops cannot argue this. But if they still do, that would mean that we need to completely rethink the whole concept of Police.

 

But you do not know it was an empty weapon. Additionally, the cop did not know it was an empty weapon.

Are you saying that a cop should be completely without feeling. Just a robot. Where do you find such a person and do you really want such a person as a policeman?