Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Response to the killing of George Floyd
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #41
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
I’m seeing a lot of y’all on Twitter of peaceful protestors being tear gassed and dispersed in DC to allow Trump to walk to a church for a photo op. Any details saying they were violent or violating curfew?
06-01-2020 08:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-01-2020 08:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 07:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 07:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 06:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As an aside, are we clear that there were not 4 cops sitting on him? I mean, with the way you have mangled everything else, then rely upon a Twitter thread as proof of cause of death, I really want to make sure.

Sure... there were more than one but less than four cops sitting on him. Not sure that is germane to the overall discussion but I admit that my "4 cops sitting on him" was not accurate.

I didn't use it as "proof as cause of death"... where did I identify the cause of death? I used the expert on twitter to provide background on that original statement that came out a few days ago. The statement that you took to cast doubt as to whether George Floyd was actually killed by the police officers.

Funny, you still are clueless that the 'exert on Twitter' was wrong. That is my point entirely. I simply waited for the real examination. Facts. Not Twitter roll garbage.

I am not taking *any* statement to cast doubt. What the hell is so frigging hard to understand about 'waiting for the official COD before I leap to stunning conclusions' --- like you did? Or is the religion on the cause of death so friggin ingrained into you that you dont care what a pathologist says -- with all due respect you have already said something akin to that, so why?

I fail to see any germane role that your Dr twitter has in the issue -- that is aside from you pulling out a Twitter feed with nothing but supposition at the time, *and* ends up being fundamentally wrong in its assessment.

But, I guess it made you feel good to do that. Different strokes, I guess....

This entire episode has been me saying, I am waiting to see what the hell the official COD is; then you going bonkers that I have the temerity to do that, that I dont see how obvious that your view is. Then you pull out some bull**** Twitter garbage that says 'its obvious it was asphyxia' to somehow prove your point.

Hate to tell you, the dude died from a heart attack. Not asphyxia like your Dr Twitter Expert in a Can said. You know, the one you pulled out to somehow *prove* that waiting for an expert opinion that had actual access to the body (instead of some *ahem* non-professional know it all opinion on a message board) was oh-so incorrect.

Well we got the official statement, didnt we? So please do tell, how is it so amazingly obvious that the knee caused a heart attack? The heart attack doesnt surprise me -- Floyd was exhibiting signs of that during his initial detention. It looks like he could very well have been having that *as* he was being led from his car to the patrol car, based on the witnesses.

And no, this doesnt excuse Chauvin's actions. But it seems far from settled that 'but for' Chauvin that the COD (again, a heart attack) happened.

I can think of other theories of how murder can be attributed to him. But your imagery of the knee on the neck doesnt seem to be the factual and actual cause of death. Apparently much to your chagrin.


Now, I would disagree with the 'more than one cop' sitting on him. Can you direct me to footage that shows any other officer 'sitting on him'? All I have seen is Chauvin doing that. The only other contact that I have seen is one holding his ankles, and, at a later point, one with a single hand on the small of his back.

Kind of hard to say for sure given the distance from the action... but it looks to me like three of the cops are, in fact, kneeling on him. Looks to my eye more than "a single hand on the small of his back". Not sure that you can say for sure what the guy in back is doing. Again, to me it looks like he is kneeling on him however hard to be certain.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/05/29...eo-vpx.cnn

Quote:But that has less rhetorical impact that your grndiose '4 cops sitting on him', doesnt it?

I should have said "Three cops kneeling on him (with one on his neck for > 8 minutes)." That is even worse than my original "grandiose" statement.

Honestly, given the graininess, the shakiness, and the angle of the video , I cant tell where anyone really is. Not even the guy the who has the knee on the neck (i.e. the first one in line -- Chauvin).

Hey, given that sharp eye of yours to note that so definitively, can I hire you to come over to my house and find an old set of keys?
(This post was last modified: 06-01-2020 08:47 PM by tanqtonic.)
06-01-2020 08:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-01-2020 08:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m seeing a lot of y’all on Twitter of peaceful protestors being tear gassed and dispersed in DC to allow Trump to walk to a church for a photo op. Any details saying they were violent or violating curfew?

I would assume the Secret Service ordered the crowd dispersed preemptively. They tend to get a little anal when it comes to the safety of the POTUS mind you. The crowds there have already injured 40-50 SS officers, and could you imagine how bat **** crazy a crowd would get with Orange Man Bad in their midst?

And, in all honesty, when it comes to Secret Service details, they have the full force of law to clear any point at any time if they deem any portion to be a threat to POTUS. That was drilled into us for a Presidential visit at a place I worked.

And, from the photos of the situation just prior, the congregation of the protesters in the street and blocking it was probably illegal at the get go. And has been for 4 or 5 days. In 'normal' times if you even *jaywalk* across that street along Lafayette Park, odds are about even you will get grabbed and hustled aside by the omnipresent security detail. Blocking it completely with a mob milling about is way above jaywalking, imo.

How *dare* they do that for security reasons.... the horrors....
(This post was last modified: 06-01-2020 08:50 PM by tanqtonic.)
06-01-2020 08:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,672
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 23
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #44
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-01-2020 08:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 08:10 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 07:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 07:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 06:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As an aside, are we clear that there were not 4 cops sitting on him? I mean, with the way you have mangled everything else, then rely upon a Twitter thread as proof of cause of death, I really want to make sure.

Sure... there were more than one but less than four cops sitting on him. Not sure that is germane to the overall discussion but I admit that my "4 cops sitting on him" was not accurate.

I didn't use it as "proof as cause of death"... where did I identify the cause of death? I used the expert on twitter to provide background on that original statement that came out a few days ago. The statement that you took to cast doubt as to whether George Floyd was actually killed by the police officers.

Funny, you still are clueless that the 'exert on Twitter' was wrong. That is my point entirely. I simply waited for the real examination. Facts. Not Twitter roll garbage.

I am not taking *any* statement to cast doubt. What the hell is so frigging hard to understand about 'waiting for the official COD before I leap to stunning conclusions' --- like you did? Or is the religion on the cause of death so friggin ingrained into you that you dont care what a pathologist says -- with all due respect you have already said something akin to that, so why?

I fail to see any germane role that your Dr twitter has in the issue -- that is aside from you pulling out a Twitter feed with nothing but supposition at the time, *and* ends up being fundamentally wrong in its assessment.

But, I guess it made you feel good to do that. Different strokes, I guess....

This entire episode has been me saying, I am waiting to see what the hell the official COD is; then you going bonkers that I have the temerity to do that, that I dont see how obvious that your view is. Then you pull out some bull**** Twitter garbage that says 'its obvious it was asphyxia' to somehow prove your point.

Hate to tell you, the dude died from a heart attack. Not asphyxia like your Dr Twitter Expert in a Can said. You know, the one you pulled out to somehow *prove* that waiting for an expert opinion that had actual access to the body (instead of some *ahem* non-professional know it all opinion on a message board) was oh-so incorrect.

Well we got the official statement, didnt we? So please do tell, how is it so amazingly obvious that the knee caused a heart attack? The heart attack doesnt surprise me -- Floyd was exhibiting signs of that during his initial detention. It looks like he could very well have been having that *as* he was being led from his car to the patrol car, based on the witnesses.

And no, this doesnt excuse Chauvin's actions. But it seems far from settled that 'but for' Chauvin that the COD (again, a heart attack) happened.

I can think of other theories of how murder can be attributed to him. But your imagery of the knee on the neck doesnt seem to be the factual and actual cause of death. Apparently much to your chagrin.


Now, I would disagree with the 'more than one cop' sitting on him. Can you direct me to footage that shows any other officer 'sitting on him'? All I have seen is Chauvin doing that. The only other contact that I have seen is one holding his ankles, and, at a later point, one with a single hand on the small of his back.

But that has less rhetorical impact that your grndiose '4 cops sitting on him', doesnt it?

I don't see anything in that report to suggest this was a "heart attack". In light of your spittle-filled (h/t Lad) diatribe on Twitter experts, it's funny that you apparently pulled that term from the tweet of a local reporter.

As far as I understand, a "heart attack" occurs when a blockage in a coronary artery causes a critical lack of blood flow to an area of the heart. I don't see any mention of that in the pathology report. The term they use in the actual report is "cardiopulmonary arrest". I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that just means the cardiovascular system stops working (which I assume can be due to a myriad of causes). Unless you can provide more evidence to support your claim, let's quit referring to this as a "heart attack".

So... for a guy who has been going on a diatribe about details and "Twitter experts" it seems to me that perhaps you could tone it down a bit?

I also note that the independent autopsy was consistent with asphyxiation. I'll let you lawyers comment as to the value of independent medical examiners in cases such as these.

He died from a failure of the heart. My bad for for using a somewhat alternate term.

No problem. It just seemed that being accurate was like super-important to you so I was surprised to see you throw around that erroneous term so frequently.

Quote:And he had a history of heart disease.

Yeah... high blood pressure is ridiculously prevalent in black men... if he wasn't taking care of it then the findings on the autopsy aren't that surprising.

Quote:And he was collapsing and complaining of a shortness of breat *as* he was being detained.

Yet no evidence of heart attack on the autopsy.

Quote:As for 'independent autopsy' ---well someone pays that 'independent pathologist'. You know, the one the family brought in. But couch that fact away.

Right. That's why I said what I said about an those exams.

Quote:Please do tell which pathologist has zero skin in the game? Doesnt take a rocket scientist to answer that one, mind you.

Yep. Honest question... is there a possibility that the County Medical Examiner had "skin in the game" to protect their police colleagues? Is that a concern here?

Quote:Diatribe 'against Twitter experts'? Not at all. More of a diatribe against people that pull them out of their back pocket to support their own predispositon. You should clue into that.

I thought her credentials would give opinions some weight. Certainly more weight than anybody commenting on this thread at least.

Quote:I find it strange that you are still on a butthurt roll because I wanted to see what the medical examiner said, as opposed to taking your expert view.

The official medical examiner has spoken, hasnt he? As opposed to your Twitter expert that you rolled out of the woodwork, the findings of the Hennepin County Pathologist say: heart stopped, fentynal, meth, cadiovascualr disease, restraint.

Homicide is what they called it. You left that one out.

Quote:Honestly I wish it had been officially asphyxiation --- then it would be cleaner. The official finding is far from that. And, it will seemingly get you pissed that it wasnt cleaner -- since in 93 world it is OBVIOUS that the knee on the neck is the cause, and how dare *anyone* actually say they are going to wait for the official COD.

I mean, it must be strange for someone to dare to wait for an official COD before opining that Floyd was killed, especially when you have Dr Twitter in a Can to fall back on. Lolz.

The umbrage that you exhibited because someone wants to wait on actual facts before joining the '93 chorus of 'what is and ever shall be' is really kind of mind boggling from this perspective.

I just thought it weird that somebody could look at that video and not think that the cops killed George Floyd.
(This post was last modified: 06-01-2020 09:03 PM by Rice93.)
06-01-2020 08:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,672
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 23
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #45
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-01-2020 08:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 08:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 07:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 07:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 06:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As an aside, are we clear that there were not 4 cops sitting on him? I mean, with the way you have mangled everything else, then rely upon a Twitter thread as proof of cause of death, I really want to make sure.

Sure... there were more than one but less than four cops sitting on him. Not sure that is germane to the overall discussion but I admit that my "4 cops sitting on him" was not accurate.

I didn't use it as "proof as cause of death"... where did I identify the cause of death? I used the expert on twitter to provide background on that original statement that came out a few days ago. The statement that you took to cast doubt as to whether George Floyd was actually killed by the police officers.

Funny, you still are clueless that the 'exert on Twitter' was wrong. That is my point entirely. I simply waited for the real examination. Facts. Not Twitter roll garbage.

I am not taking *any* statement to cast doubt. What the hell is so frigging hard to understand about 'waiting for the official COD before I leap to stunning conclusions' --- like you did? Or is the religion on the cause of death so friggin ingrained into you that you dont care what a pathologist says -- with all due respect you have already said something akin to that, so why?

I fail to see any germane role that your Dr twitter has in the issue -- that is aside from you pulling out a Twitter feed with nothing but supposition at the time, *and* ends up being fundamentally wrong in its assessment.

But, I guess it made you feel good to do that. Different strokes, I guess....

This entire episode has been me saying, I am waiting to see what the hell the official COD is; then you going bonkers that I have the temerity to do that, that I dont see how obvious that your view is. Then you pull out some bull**** Twitter garbage that says 'its obvious it was asphyxia' to somehow prove your point.

Hate to tell you, the dude died from a heart attack. Not asphyxia like your Dr Twitter Expert in a Can said. You know, the one you pulled out to somehow *prove* that waiting for an expert opinion that had actual access to the body (instead of some *ahem* non-professional know it all opinion on a message board) was oh-so incorrect.

Well we got the official statement, didnt we? So please do tell, how is it so amazingly obvious that the knee caused a heart attack? The heart attack doesnt surprise me -- Floyd was exhibiting signs of that during his initial detention. It looks like he could very well have been having that *as* he was being led from his car to the patrol car, based on the witnesses.

And no, this doesnt excuse Chauvin's actions. But it seems far from settled that 'but for' Chauvin that the COD (again, a heart attack) happened.

I can think of other theories of how murder can be attributed to him. But your imagery of the knee on the neck doesnt seem to be the factual and actual cause of death. Apparently much to your chagrin.


Now, I would disagree with the 'more than one cop' sitting on him. Can you direct me to footage that shows any other officer 'sitting on him'? All I have seen is Chauvin doing that. The only other contact that I have seen is one holding his ankles, and, at a later point, one with a single hand on the small of his back.

Kind of hard to say for sure given the distance from the action... but it looks to me like three of the cops are, in fact, kneeling on him. Looks to my eye more than "a single hand on the small of his back". Not sure that you can say for sure what the guy in back is doing. Again, to me it looks like he is kneeling on him however hard to be certain.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/05/29...eo-vpx.cnn

Quote:But that has less rhetorical impact that your grndiose '4 cops sitting on him', doesnt it?

I should have said "Three cops kneeling on him (with one on his neck for > 8 minutes)." That is even worse than my original "grandiose" statement.

Honestly, given the graininess of the video and the angle, I cant tell where anyone really is. Not even the guy the who has the knee on the neck (i.e. the first one in line -- Chauvin).

Hey, given that sharp eye of yours to note that so definitively, can I hire you to come over to my house and find an old set of keys?

LOL to the bolded.

Your description in italics is legit though. Good eye.
06-01-2020 08:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #46
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-01-2020 08:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 08:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m seeing a lot of y’all on Twitter of peaceful protestors being tear gassed and dispersed in DC to allow Trump to walk to a church for a photo op. Any details saying they were violent or violating curfew?

I would assume the Secret Service ordered the crowd dispersed preemptively. They tend to get a little anal when it comes to the safety of the POTUS mind you. The crowds there have already injured 40-50 SS officers, and could you imagine how bat **** crazy a crowd would get with Orange Man Bad in their midst?

And, in all honesty, when it comes to Secret Service details, they have the full force of law to clear any point at any time if they deem any portion to be a threat to POTUS. That was drilled into us for a Presidential visit at a place I worked.

And, from the photos of the situation just prior, the congregation of the protesters in the street and blocking it was probably illegal at the get go. And has been for 4 or 5 days.

How *dare* they do that for security reasons.... the horrors....

Is there a limit to what is deemed a presidential threat? That seems like a recipe for disaster, having an arm of law enforcement that can use the full force of the law based on a whim.

Sounds like you’re pretty well informed on this issue and there wasn’t a drop of a 1st Amendment violation. Like I said, just saw a bunch of talking on Twitter and haven’t seen much detail.
06-01-2020 08:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-01-2020 08:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 08:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 08:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m seeing a lot of y’all on Twitter of peaceful protestors being tear gassed and dispersed in DC to allow Trump to walk to a church for a photo op. Any details saying they were violent or violating curfew?

I would assume the Secret Service ordered the crowd dispersed preemptively. They tend to get a little anal when it comes to the safety of the POTUS mind you. The crowds there have already injured 40-50 SS officers, and could you imagine how bat **** crazy a crowd would get with Orange Man Bad in their midst?

And, in all honesty, when it comes to Secret Service details, they have the full force of law to clear any point at any time if they deem any portion to be a threat to POTUS. That was drilled into us for a Presidential visit at a place I worked.

And, from the photos of the situation just prior, the congregation of the protesters in the street and blocking it was probably illegal at the get go. And has been for 4 or 5 days.

How *dare* they do that for security reasons.... the horrors....

Is there a limit to what is deemed a presidential threat? That seems like a recipe for disaster, having an arm of law enforcement that can use the full force of the law based on a whim.

Sounds like you’re pretty well informed on this issue and there wasn’t a drop of a 1st Amendment violation. Like I said, just saw a bunch of talking on Twitter and haven’t seen much detail.

What is deemed a Presidential threat is a pretty low threshold. Having a mob in the street at the front probably crosses even the most jaded threshold.

If there was a simple peaceful assembly with no history of attacks that werent blocking the street and were in Lafayette Park -- yeah, there might be a 1st Amendment issue.

A mob illegally in the street bounding Lafayette? My guess is no issue in clearing them for 1st Amendment issues.

A mob where in the previous 3 nights 40 or so Secret Service agents had already been injured? My guess is no issue in clearing them for 1st Amendment issues.

The combination of the history and of the illegal presence in the street? That is kind of a no-brainer for for 1st Amendment issues.

If there were 50 people chanting *in* Lafayette Park, with no movement to the street en masse, no illegal occupying of the public thoroughfare, and no immediate history of violence -- yeah there might be a 1st Amendment issue. But none of those factors is there.
06-01-2020 08:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,372
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 608
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #48
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-01-2020 08:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 08:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m seeing a lot of y’all on Twitter of peaceful protestors being tear gassed and dispersed in DC to allow Trump to walk to a church for a photo op. Any details saying they were violent or violating curfew?

I would assume the Secret Service ordered the crowd dispersed preemptively. They tend to get a little anal when it comes to the safety of the POTUS mind you. The crowds there have already injured 40-50 SS officers, and could you imagine how bat **** crazy a crowd would get with Orange Man Bad in their midst?

And, in all honesty, when it comes to Secret Service details, they have the full force of law to clear any point at any time if they deem any portion to be a threat to POTUS. That was drilled into us for a Presidential visit at a place I worked.

And, from the photos of the situation just prior, the congregation of the protesters in the street and blocking it was probably illegal at the get go. And has been for 4 or 5 days. In 'normal' times if you even *jaywalk* across that street along Lafayette Park, odds are about even you will get grabbed and hustled aside by the omnipresent security detail. Blocking it completely with a mob milling about is way above jaywalking, imo.

How *dare* they do that for security reasons.... the horrors....

Which president?
06-01-2020 09:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-01-2020 08:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I just thought it weird that somebody could look at that video and not think that the cops killed George Floyd.

Perhaps I read about the condition he exhibited prior to his final face down position.

Again, when he was removed from his car, he complained about a shortness of breath. When leading him to the cruiser, he collapsed. He was brought back up, then collapsed again. He was brought to his feet a second time, and again he complained of a shortness of breath.

One might surmise he is, at the point of being brought out of his car, already having an attack of some sort. That series is kind of spot on how my grandfather died.

Second, had the initial findings noted asphyxia, I wouldnt have much doubt. They didnt show that.

I look at that video and I see a horrible assault on a man being detained.

And, even before knowing about the symptoms he exhibited before he fell for the last time, I dont automatically assume that the very horrific assault led to his death. Did it seem possible? Of course. Probable? Maybe. But I have seen other actions that I would have sworn to the Bible and back would/should have led to death but didnt. Perhaps I am jaded on the concept of 'actual causation' and have myself fallen for the hook line and sinker of a kneejerk assumption.

There is a concept called 'cause in fact', and requirement of that is --- well -- fact. There were no underlying facts to automatically assume the belief that the knee in the neck would cause that death. There is good cause to think that, but there is also that realm that it did not when underlying facts are missing.

As it stands, the knee on the neck doesnt have such a clear link to the physical reason of his death by heart failure. The prosecutors are going to have a bear of a time proving a murder that way.

The easier mode is this: Chauvin had reason to know Floyd was under physical distress *at the time he was removed from his car*. He exhibited all the classic symptoms of heart failure. When cops detain you, they assume all responsibility for your well being. Chauvin ignored those very visible symptoms. In that short little summary, you have at the very least negligent homicide -- a manslaughter 2 count. Right then and there.

The act of the knee on the neck *even in light* of the classic symptoms of heart failure shows potentially a depraved indifference to Chauvin's well being -- in fact to Chauvin's life. His continued refusal to heed the calls by his other cops is another point; as is the continued refusal to heed the calls of the bystanders. That is enough for a murder 3 count -- depraved or reckless indifference.

The other key is that Chauvin both had an official responsibility for Floyd's well being, but he also had 'physical control' of Floyd at the very same time.

But you all are so gd fixated that the knee was the cause in fact to the death, that the more realistic alternative seems to fly right past you.

Floyd's heart stoppage and symptoms at the point of being detained, and the fact that they were not just ignored, but adamantly ignored is enough. And that fits precisely into the facts given by the witnesses about his collapsing, *and* comforms precisely to the COD meted out by the actual official pathologist.

The analysis to hisn cohorts is more problematic. But blood is in the water, and the acolytes (like you) wont be satisfied with the Chauvin target alone -- the blood lust that you all exhibit guarantee that the others will be charged, even if on that scenario.

And when they are let go at the appellate level for an 'insufficiency of evidence' or a 'just a friggin wrong application of the law to the facts', it will be attitudes like yours that guarantee another city going up in smoke. Got to love that bloodlust.

But that is why I am not a tremendously large fan of progressive causes for the whole part.

So, go ahead and preemptively believe that a knee in the neck causes heart failure. Sounds like fun to me. Also sounds like a belief system that I would prefer not to practice -- that is the belief trumps the factual record.
(This post was last modified: 06-01-2020 09:31 PM by tanqtonic.)
06-01-2020 09:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-01-2020 09:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 08:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 08:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m seeing a lot of y’all on Twitter of peaceful protestors being tear gassed and dispersed in DC to allow Trump to walk to a church for a photo op. Any details saying they were violent or violating curfew?

I would assume the Secret Service ordered the crowd dispersed preemptively. They tend to get a little anal when it comes to the safety of the POTUS mind you. The crowds there have already injured 40-50 SS officers, and could you imagine how bat **** crazy a crowd would get with Orange Man Bad in their midst?

And, in all honesty, when it comes to Secret Service details, they have the full force of law to clear any point at any time if they deem any portion to be a threat to POTUS. That was drilled into us for a Presidential visit at a place I worked.

And, from the photos of the situation just prior, the congregation of the protesters in the street and blocking it was probably illegal at the get go. And has been for 4 or 5 days. In 'normal' times if you even *jaywalk* across that street along Lafayette Park, odds are about even you will get grabbed and hustled aside by the omnipresent security detail. Blocking it completely with a mob milling about is way above jaywalking, imo.

How *dare* they do that for security reasons.... the horrors....

Which president?

Obama
06-01-2020 09:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,372
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 608
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #51
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
The public thinks it is a slam dunk, but legally, in court, it may be hard to make the case. I think a plea bargain of manslaughter will be offered and accepted. That will bring out more rioting and claims of no justice.
06-01-2020 09:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-01-2020 08:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
Quote:And he had a history of heart disease.

And he was collapsing and complaining of a shortness of breat *as* he was being detained.

Yet no evidence of heart attack on the autopsy.

Funny, I read the physical cause of death of 'his heart arrested'. Maybe you didnt read that far. The symptoms of cardiac arrest parallel what was happening there.

Quote:
Quote:Diatribe 'against Twitter experts'? Not at all. More of a diatribe against people that pull them out of their back pocket to support their own predispositon. You should clue into that.

I thought her credentials would give opinions some weight. Certainly more weight than anybody commenting on this thread at least.

And not nearly as much as someone who actually sees and examines the body. Funny that. That is a problem with Dr Twitter in a Can in this instance. As noted, I prefer the actual facts instead of the opinion of Dr Twitter in a Can. I hope you can appreciate the very major differences therein.

Quote:
Quote:I find it strange that you are still on a butthurt roll because I wanted to see what the medical examiner said, as opposed to taking your expert view.

The official medical examiner has spoken, hasnt he? As opposed to your Twitter expert that you rolled out of the woodwork, the findings of the Hennepin County Pathologist say: heart stopped, fentynal, meth, cadiovascualr disease, restraint.

Homicide is what they called it. You left that one out.

I included the physical manifestations of the body (i.e. the physical issues of the body that led to Floyd's death). Please do tell what the physical manifestations of 'homicide' are.
(This post was last modified: 06-01-2020 09:52 PM by tanqtonic.)
06-01-2020 09:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #53
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-01-2020 08:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 08:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 08:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 08:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m seeing a lot of y’all on Twitter of peaceful protestors being tear gassed and dispersed in DC to allow Trump to walk to a church for a photo op. Any details saying they were violent or violating curfew?

I would assume the Secret Service ordered the crowd dispersed preemptively. They tend to get a little anal when it comes to the safety of the POTUS mind you. The crowds there have already injured 40-50 SS officers, and could you imagine how bat **** crazy a crowd would get with Orange Man Bad in their midst?

And, in all honesty, when it comes to Secret Service details, they have the full force of law to clear any point at any time if they deem any portion to be a threat to POTUS. That was drilled into us for a Presidential visit at a place I worked.

And, from the photos of the situation just prior, the congregation of the protesters in the street and blocking it was probably illegal at the get go. And has been for 4 or 5 days.

How *dare* they do that for security reasons.... the horrors....

Is there a limit to what is deemed a presidential threat? That seems like a recipe for disaster, having an arm of law enforcement that can use the full force of the law based on a whim.

Sounds like you’re pretty well informed on this issue and there wasn’t a drop of a 1st Amendment violation. Like I said, just saw a bunch of talking on Twitter and haven’t seen much detail.

What is deemed a Presidential threat is a pretty low threshold. Having a mob in the street at the front probably crosses even the most jaded threshold.

If there was a simple peaceful assembly with no history of attacks that werent blocking the street and were in Lafayette Park -- yeah, there might be a 1st Amendment issue.

A mob illegally in the street bounding Lafayette? My guess is no issue in clearing them for 1st Amendment issues.

A mob where in the previous 3 nights 40 or so Secret Service agents had already been injured? My guess is no issue in clearing them for 1st Amendment issues.

The combination of the history and of the illegal presence in the street? That is kind of a no-brainer for for 1st Amendment issues.

If there were 50 people chanting *in* Lafayette Park, with no movement to the street en masse, no illegal occupying of the public thoroughfare, and no immediate history of violence -- yeah there might be a 1st Amendment issue. But none of those factors is there.

I guess press shouldn’t be there either?

Video of an Australian news crew that was huddling in the corner, suddenly advanced upon and assaulted by the police.

https://twitter.com/asb_breaking/status/...86528?s=21

As one anchor put it, what’s interesting is they’re not discriminating between the protestors and media.

Edit: view of the camera man being throttled by a cop.
Brutal.

https://i.imgur.com/RBTDYjW.gifv
(This post was last modified: 06-01-2020 10:25 PM by RiceLad15.)
06-01-2020 10:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,672
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 23
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #54
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-01-2020 09:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 08:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I just thought it weird that somebody could look at that video and not think that the cops killed George Floyd.

Perhaps I read about the condition he exhibited prior to his final face down position.

Again, when he was removed from his car, he complained about a shortness of breath. When leading him to the cruiser, he collapsed. He was brought back up, then collapsed again. He was brought to his feet a second time, and again he complained of a shortness of breath.

One might surmise he is, at the point of being brought out of his car, already having an attack of some sort. That series is kind of spot on how my grandfather died.

And yet the pathology report made no mention of heart attack.

Quote:Second, had the initial findings noted asphyxia, I wouldnt have much doubt. They didnt show that.

I look at that video and I see a horrible assault on a man being detained.

And, even before knowing about the symptoms he exhibited before he fell for the last time, I dont automatically assume that the very horrific assault led to his death. Did it seem possible? Of course. Probable? Maybe. But I have seen other actions that I would have sworn to the Bible and back would/should have led to death but didnt. Perhaps I am jaded on the concept of 'actual causation' and have myself fallen for the hook line and sinker of a kneejerk assumption.

Sure. Strange things happen. Probably not likely. Enough to freak out on my use of the term "killing" in the thread title? IMO, no.

Quote:There is a concept called 'cause in fact', and requirement of that is --- well -- fact. There were no underlying facts to automatically assume the belief that the knee in the neck would cause that death. There is good cause to think that, but there is also that realm that it did not when underlying facts are missing.

As it stands, the knee on the neck doesnt have such a clear link to the physical reason of his death by heart failure. The prosecutors are going to have a bear of a time proving a murder that way.

I've see you've got your doctor hat on again. I doubt the experts will agree with you on this assertion. Time will tell.

Quote:The easier mode is this: Chauvin had reason to know Floyd was under physical distress *at the time he was removed from his car*. He exhibited all the classic symptoms of heart failure. When cops detain you, they assume all responsibility for your well being. Chauvin ignored those very visible symptoms. In that short little summary, you have at the very least negligent homicide -- a manslaughter 2 count. Right then and there.

The act of the knee on the neck *even in light* of the classic symptoms of heart failure shows potentially a depraved indifference to Chauvin's well being -- in fact to Chauvin's life. His continued refusal to heed the calls by his other cops is another point; as is the continued refusal to heed the calls of the bystanders. That is enough for a murder 3 count -- depraved or reckless indifference.

Seems like you are trying to describe a heart attack here.

Quote:The other key is that Chauvin both had an official responsibility for Floyd's well being, but he also had 'physical control' of Floyd at the very same time.

But you all are so gd fixated that the knee was the cause in fact to the death, that the more realistic alternative seems to fly right past you.

What was the more realistic alternative? I'm confused again. "Heart failure" unrelated to the knee in the neck?

Quote:Floyd's heart stoppage and symptoms at the point of being detained, and the fact that they were not just ignored, but adamantly ignored is enough. And that fits precisely into the facts given by the witnesses about his collapsing, *and* comforms precisely to the COD meted out by the actual official pathologist.

I'll be interested to see if actual medical experts agree with your proposed sequence here. Perhaps even medical experts that post on Twitter?

Quote:The analysis to hisn cohorts is more problematic. But blood is in the water, and the acolytes (like you) wont be satisfied with the Chauvin target alone -- the blood lust that you all exhibit guarantee that the others will be charged, even if on that scenario.

Ummm... ok?

Quote:And when they are let go at the appellate level for an 'insufficiency of evidence' or a 'just a friggin wrong application of the law to the facts', it will be attitudes like yours that guarantee another city going up in smoke. Got to love that bloodlust.

But that is why I am not a tremendously large fan of progressive causes for the whole part.

So, go ahead and preemptively believe that a knee in the neck causes heart failure. Sounds like fun to me. Also sounds like a belief system that I would prefer not to practice -- that is the belief trumps the factual record.

I think a prolonged knee in the neck could cause cardiopulmonary arrest as described by the pathology report. I'm a bit confused still... what exactly are you proposing led to his death? Why do you think that the pathology report used the term homicide?
06-01-2020 10:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-01-2020 10:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 08:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 08:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 08:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 08:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’m seeing a lot of y’all on Twitter of peaceful protestors being tear gassed and dispersed in DC to allow Trump to walk to a church for a photo op. Any details saying they were violent or violating curfew?

I would assume the Secret Service ordered the crowd dispersed preemptively. They tend to get a little anal when it comes to the safety of the POTUS mind you. The crowds there have already injured 40-50 SS officers, and could you imagine how bat **** crazy a crowd would get with Orange Man Bad in their midst?

And, in all honesty, when it comes to Secret Service details, they have the full force of law to clear any point at any time if they deem any portion to be a threat to POTUS. That was drilled into us for a Presidential visit at a place I worked.

And, from the photos of the situation just prior, the congregation of the protesters in the street and blocking it was probably illegal at the get go. And has been for 4 or 5 days.

How *dare* they do that for security reasons.... the horrors....

Is there a limit to what is deemed a presidential threat? That seems like a recipe for disaster, having an arm of law enforcement that can use the full force of the law based on a whim.

Sounds like you’re pretty well informed on this issue and there wasn’t a drop of a 1st Amendment violation. Like I said, just saw a bunch of talking on Twitter and haven’t seen much detail.

What is deemed a Presidential threat is a pretty low threshold. Having a mob in the street at the front probably crosses even the most jaded threshold.

If there was a simple peaceful assembly with no history of attacks that werent blocking the street and were in Lafayette Park -- yeah, there might be a 1st Amendment issue.

A mob illegally in the street bounding Lafayette? My guess is no issue in clearing them for 1st Amendment issues.

A mob where in the previous 3 nights 40 or so Secret Service agents had already been injured? My guess is no issue in clearing them for 1st Amendment issues.

The combination of the history and of the illegal presence in the street? That is kind of a no-brainer for for 1st Amendment issues.

If there were 50 people chanting *in* Lafayette Park, with no movement to the street en masse, no illegal occupying of the public thoroughfare, and no immediate history of violence -- yeah there might be a 1st Amendment issue. But none of those factors is there.

I guess press shouldn’t be there either?

Video of an Australian news crew that was huddling in the corner, suddenly advanced upon and assaulted by the police.

https://twitter.com/asb_breaking/status/...86528?s=21

As one anchor put it, what’s interesting is they’re not discriminating between the protestors and media.

I guess if one has the super secret lad world instant press identifier and decoder ring that would be good.

I had a friend who was embedded as a journalist in the First Gulf War -- he got the same level of pissiness when he was shot at from a distance. The press feels the need to get 'into the action' to 'report on the action', yet have prickliness when they get caught up in the action.

Sucks that the press got caught up in a street clearing. **** happens. Color me surprised. The horrors......

When the Secret Service does a 'make the path safe', unless you are pre-vetted to the nth degree you get hauled out. When the Secret Service clears a street that they deem to have danger associated with the denizens, I would assume they arent going to pussyfoot around and do phone checks if someone claims they are a journalist. To their eyes, they dont give a **** if you arent pre-cleared in that situation.

Again, that sucks. But, that is business as usual for that scenario, I would imagine.
06-01-2020 10:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #56
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
Man, all these protestors will feel really stupid when they find out the guy who was restrained and held down to the point of yelling how he couldn’t breathe really died of a heart attack while being pinned down, and not the knee to the neck...
06-01-2020 10:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,672
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 23
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #57
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-01-2020 09:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 08:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
Quote:And he had a history of heart disease.

And he was collapsing and complaining of a shortness of breat *as* he was being detained.

Yet no evidence of heart attack on the autopsy.

Funny, I read the physical cause of death of 'his heart arrested'. Maybe you didnt read that far. The symptoms of cardiac arrest parallel what was happening there.

Quote:
Quote:Diatribe 'against Twitter experts'? Not at all. More of a diatribe against people that pull them out of their back pocket to support their own predispositon. You should clue into that.

I thought her credentials would give opinions some weight. Certainly more weight than anybody commenting on this thread at least.

And not nearly as much as someone who actually sees and examines the body. Funny that. That is a problem with Dr Twitter in a Can in this instance. As noted, I prefer the actual facts instead of the opinion of Dr Twitter in a Can. I hope you can appreciate the very major differences therein.

Quote:
Quote:I find it strange that you are still on a butthurt roll because I wanted to see what the medical examiner said, as opposed to taking your expert view.

The official medical examiner has spoken, hasnt he? As opposed to your Twitter expert that you rolled out of the woodwork, the findings of the Hennepin County Pathologist say: heart stopped, fentynal, meth, cadiovascualr disease, restraint.

Homicide is what they called it. You left that one out.

I included the physical manifestations of the body (i.e. the physical issues of the body that led to Floyd's death). Please do tell what the physical manifestations of 'homicide' are.

Well you included the term "restraint" which is not a "physical issue of the body" so I wasn't sure were you are going.

What do you think about the cause of death listed on the report when they said: Cardiopulmonary arrest, restraint, neck compression?

Do you think "restraint/neck compression" are related to the knee in his neck? Do you think that the "cardiopulmonary arrest" could be related to the knee in the neck or do you think this guy was having a heart attack when he was arrested (but prior to him being kneeled on)?
06-01-2020 10:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
At Ease Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,077
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 117
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #58
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd

06-01-2020 10:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-01-2020 10:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 09:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 08:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I just thought it weird that somebody could look at that video and not think that the cops killed George Floyd.

Perhaps I read about the condition he exhibited prior to his final face down position.

Again, when he was removed from his car, he complained about a shortness of breath. When leading him to the cruiser, he collapsed. He was brought back up, then collapsed again. He was brought to his feet a second time, and again he complained of a shortness of breath.

One might surmise he is, at the point of being brought out of his car, already having an attack of some sort. That series is kind of spot on how my grandfather died.

And yet the pathology report made no mention of heart attack.

Where did I mention 'heart attack' above, please.

Quote:
Quote:Second, had the initial findings noted asphyxia, I wouldnt have much doubt. They didnt show that.

I look at that video and I see a horrible assault on a man being detained.

And, even before knowing about the symptoms he exhibited before he fell for the last time, I dont automatically assume that the very horrific assault led to his death. Did it seem possible? Of course. Probable? Maybe. But I have seen other actions that I would have sworn to the Bible and back would/should have led to death but didnt. Perhaps I am jaded on the concept of 'actual causation' and have myself fallen for the hook line and sinker of a kneejerk assumption.

Sure. Strange things happen. Probably not likely. Enough to freak out on my use of the term "killing" in the thread title? IMO, no.

I will call a kneejerk assumption a kneejerk assumption. Your kneejerk assumption is still somewhat of a kneejerk assumption.

Quote:
Quote:There is a concept called 'cause in fact', and requirement of that is --- well -- fact. There were no underlying facts to automatically assume the belief that the knee in the neck would cause that death. There is good cause to think that, but there is also that realm that it did not when underlying facts are missing.

As it stands, the knee on the neck doesnt have such a clear link to the physical reason of his death by heart failure. The prosecutors are going to have a bear of a time proving a murder that way.

I've see you've got your doctor hat on again. I doubt the experts will agree with you on this assertion. Time will tell.

Can you cite where in your esteemed knowledge a knee on the neck leads to cardiac arrest?

Quote:
Quote:The easier mode is this: Chauvin had reason to know Floyd was under physical distress *at the time he was removed from his car*. He exhibited all the classic symptoms of heart failure. When cops detain you, they assume all responsibility for your well being. Chauvin ignored those very visible symptoms. In that short little summary, you have at the very least negligent homicide -- a manslaughter 2 count. Right then and there.

The act of the knee on the neck *even in light* of the classic symptoms of heart failure shows potentially a depraved indifference to Chauvin's well being -- in fact to Chauvin's life. His continued refusal to heed the calls by his other cops is another point; as is the continued refusal to heed the calls of the bystanders. That is enough for a murder 3 count -- depraved or reckless indifference.

Seems like you are trying to describe a heart attack here.

I am noting some of the symptoms of heart failure as well. That is, cardiac arrest. That is cardiopulmonary arrest.

Quote:
Quote:The other key is that Chauvin both had an official responsibility for Floyd's well being, but he also had 'physical control' of Floyd at the very same time.

But you all are so gd fixated that the knee was the cause in fact to the death, that the more realistic alternative seems to fly right past you.

What was the more realistic alternative? I'm confused again. "Heart failure" unrelated to the knee in the neck?

It's only confusing when you ignore his issues after being detained and prior to his final collapse. That is, the 'heart failure' that is denoted in the Hennepin County patholology report. You seem extraordinarily resistant to the official COD for some fing reason.

Quote:I'll be interested to see if actual medical experts agree with your proposed sequence here. Perhaps even medical experts that post on Twitter?

Strangely the Hennepin County pathologist agrees that heart failure was a COD. Strangely you studiously ignore that.

Quote:
Quote:And when they are let go at the appellate level for an 'insufficiency of evidence' or a 'just a friggin wrong application of the law to the facts', it will be attitudes like yours that guarantee another city going up in smoke. Got to love that bloodlust.

But that is why I am not a tremendously large fan of progressive causes for the whole part.

So, go ahead and preemptively believe that a knee in the neck causes heart failure. Sounds like fun to me. Also sounds like a belief system that I would prefer not to practice -- that is the belief trumps the factual record.

I think a prolonged knee in the neck could cause cardiopulmonary arrest as described by the pathology report. I'm a bit confused still... what exactly are you proposing led to his death?

Funnily I am proposing cardiopulmonary arrest, and restraint as the primary physical COD. You know, those things listed on the Hennepin County pathology report.

Quote:Why do you think that the pathology report used the term homicide?

Perhaps you should ask them. I dont know. The report doesnt note that. But you know that, so it is kind of a dumbshit question to ask, isnt it? More of a rhetorical question. Perhaps like this one?

Strangely you omnisciently seemingly know. Good for you. That must be a terrible burden to bear.
06-01-2020 10:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #60
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd
(06-01-2020 10:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 10:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 08:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 08:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 08:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I would assume the Secret Service ordered the crowd dispersed preemptively. They tend to get a little anal when it comes to the safety of the POTUS mind you. The crowds there have already injured 40-50 SS officers, and could you imagine how bat **** crazy a crowd would get with Orange Man Bad in their midst?

And, in all honesty, when it comes to Secret Service details, they have the full force of law to clear any point at any time if they deem any portion to be a threat to POTUS. That was drilled into us for a Presidential visit at a place I worked.

And, from the photos of the situation just prior, the congregation of the protesters in the street and blocking it was probably illegal at the get go. And has been for 4 or 5 days.

How *dare* they do that for security reasons.... the horrors....

Is there a limit to what is deemed a presidential threat? That seems like a recipe for disaster, having an arm of law enforcement that can use the full force of the law based on a whim.

Sounds like you’re pretty well informed on this issue and there wasn’t a drop of a 1st Amendment violation. Like I said, just saw a bunch of talking on Twitter and haven’t seen much detail.

What is deemed a Presidential threat is a pretty low threshold. Having a mob in the street at the front probably crosses even the most jaded threshold.

If there was a simple peaceful assembly with no history of attacks that werent blocking the street and were in Lafayette Park -- yeah, there might be a 1st Amendment issue.

A mob illegally in the street bounding Lafayette? My guess is no issue in clearing them for 1st Amendment issues.

A mob where in the previous 3 nights 40 or so Secret Service agents had already been injured? My guess is no issue in clearing them for 1st Amendment issues.

The combination of the history and of the illegal presence in the street? That is kind of a no-brainer for for 1st Amendment issues.

If there were 50 people chanting *in* Lafayette Park, with no movement to the street en masse, no illegal occupying of the public thoroughfare, and no immediate history of violence -- yeah there might be a 1st Amendment issue. But none of those factors is there.

I guess press shouldn’t be there either?

Video of an Australian news crew that was huddling in the corner, suddenly advanced upon and assaulted by the police.

https://twitter.com/asb_breaking/status/...86528?s=21

As one anchor put it, what’s interesting is they’re not discriminating between the protestors and media.

I guess if one has the super secret lad world instant press identifier and decoder ring that would be good.

I had a friend who was embedded as a journalist in the First Gulf War -- he got the same level of pissiness when he was shot at from a distance. The press feels the need to get 'into the action' to 'report on the action', yet have prickliness when they get caught up in the action.

Sucks that the press got caught up in a street clearing. **** happens. Color me surprised. The horrors......

When the Secret Service does a 'make the path safe', unless you are pre-vetted to the nth degree you get hauled out. When the Secret Service clears a street that they deem to have danger associated with the denizens, I would assume they arent going to pussyfoot around and do phone checks if someone claims they are a journalist. To their eyes, they dont give a **** if you arent pre-cleared in that situation.

Again, that sucks. But, that is business as usual for that scenario, I would imagine.

Typically, the large camera helps identify press. But they also often wear press badges, clearly identifying they are with the media.

I just wonder why you’re so happy to defend Trump’s decision (or whoever’s decision it was to send Trump down this road), when a completely reasonable alternative of “not waking unannounced to a nearby church” wouldn’t have provoked an actually peaceful protest.

Just a stupid ******* decision, and an impressive display on your part carrying water for it.
06-01-2020 10:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: cr11owl, 3 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.