Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man

[KG1]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/black-lives-matter-mural-painted-132829727.html

Looks like according to the article it was a clap back at Trump by the Mayor for clearing the area of protesters so he could take a walk to the church.

 

[JettaKnight]

But again, that wasn't the point.

Indeed.

This whole thing is way beyond, points, facts, reality...

 

[chipbennett]

What is relevant is the riots, fires and deaths in the aftermath all across America and how they were incited, organized and financed.

I saw similar inciting, organizing, and financing for Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, both of whom were two-bit criminals with a demonstrated proclivity for violence. So, why would it matter? Those who agitate are going to agitate regardless of any background circumstances.

The only difference is that in this case, the death by all appearances actually was unjustified.

 

[chipbennett]

Why did you guys say he was saying something he specifically called out that he wasn't saying? Hey, I gave you the benefit of doubt and blamed it on simple lack of coffee. I'd just take that at this point.

Please quote where I said anything that resembles what you are claiming that I said ("Why did you guys say...").

 

[foszoe]

NNBD! NNBD, NNBD!

I guess in Lake Wobegon, it's OK for police to commit homicide on camera if the person has a rap sheet.

At least that's what NNBD infers.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/black-lives-matter-mural-painted-132829727.html

Are we going to see more of these popping up in cities around the country, and will they become the high crime areas in cities around the country much like the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Avenues are?

 

[foszoe]

I have seen the rap sheet surface in a number of places recently. It is immaterial. So is whatever good he did in the community. Neither of those are relevant factors, in my mind, when deciding if the police were justified in the use of force against George Floyd, as most of these factors would not be known to them at the time of the incident.

That is the keyest of points in this point.

There COULD be a caveat to that though. Is there truth to what I have heard about Floyd and Chauvin working together? If so, depending on any conversations they had, some of that could have been known. However, even if they were known, at some point excessive force is still excessive force.

 

[JettaKnight]

Are we going to see more of these popping up in cities around the country, and will they become the high crime areas in cities around the country much like the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Avenues are?

Are you insinuating that naming a street MLK leads to increased crime?




And contrary to the story, I don't call painting the street a "mural" - it's straight out graffiti.

 

[nonobaddog]

Right. And the incident in which he was a victim had nothing to do with his priors, nor was it influenced by his priors. Whether he was John the Baptist or Jack the Ripper had no bearing on whether the police officer was justified or unjustified in the use of force in restraining him.

Normally you read very well, what happened?

this in no way justifies what the police did that killed him. Just showing how the media incites more rioting by what they publish and what they don't and how they portray people to suit their agenda.

The rap sheet is simply facts. Six Felony charges. If you prefer you can continue to buy into the "gentle giant" that the leftist media is selling.
It is a psychological thing. The leftist media wants to portray him as an angel to incite more riots so they ignore the truth - if they even bothered with it.

I feel there is nothing wrong with facts - they are neutral. You can make your own choice, know the truth or believe the lies, whatever makes you happy.

 

[jamil]

You might need a mirror in this case, Jamil. Reread my post. I assumed nothing about what NNBD was implying.

You said "I'm trying, and failing, to grasp the relevance of this information."

If I have misread your intent, it's not for lack of reading comprehension. He told you the relevance in the post you quoted. If you had made no assumptions about what NNBD was saying (he did not imply, he explicitly stated his point) the following would not have been necessary in your later statement because you would have understood that he wasn't making a statement opposed to the point you made here:

Right. And the incident in which he was a victim had nothing to do with his priors, nor was it influenced by his priors. Whether he was John the Baptist or Jack the Ripper had no bearing on whether the police officer was justified or unjustified in the use of force in restraining him.

I don't think I'm misreading what you said. This quote seems quite confirming what you were thinking. And I'm pretty sure that I'm not misreading NNBD either, that at no time did he indicate that he would disagree with your sentiment expressed in the quote. In fact he stated that too. His post was about the media driving a narrative, which is true enough, and is at least relevant enough to justify making the point. I don't know what else can or should be said about that.

 

[jamil]

Normally you read very well, what happened?



The rap sheet is simply facts. Six Felony charges. If you prefer you can continue to buy into the "gentle giant" that the leftist media is selling.
It is a psychological thing. The leftist media wants to portray him as an angel to incite more riots so they ignore the truth - if they even bothered with it.

I feel there is nothing wrong with facts - they are neutral. You can make your own choice, know the truth or believe the lies, whatever makes you happy.

I honestly don't understand why we're all still talking about this. I thought the point was clear enough. Yet panties twisted anyway.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Are you insinuating that naming a street MLK leads to increased crime?




And contrary to the story, I don't call painting the street a "mural" - it's straight out graffiti.

Might be a chicken/egg kinda thing actually.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

I would bet lots of folks are wondering why you all are still discussing this.

 

[nonobaddog]

I assumed nothing about what NNBD was implying.

I didn't imply anything. I listed some facts. You are the one creating some imaginary implication.

 

[chipbennett]

Normally you read very well, what happened?

The rap sheet is simply facts. Six Felony charges. If you prefer you can continue to buy into the "gentle giant" that the leftist media is selling.
It is a psychological thing. The leftist media wants to portray him as an angel to incite more riots so they ignore the truth - if they even bothered with it.

I feel there is nothing wrong with facts - they are neutral. You can make your own choice, know the truth or believe the lies, whatever makes you happy.

I never "bought into" the gentle giant portrayal, nor did I ever dispute it. I frankly never knew it existed.

When one presents facts without context, it is reasonable for others to question the relevance/application of those facts to the ongoing discussion.

You said "I'm trying, and failing, to grasp the relevance of this information."

If I have misread your intent, it's not for lack of reading comprehension. He told you the relevance in the post you quoted.

And I responded to that by asking what the relevance of that aspect was. I do not think his priors have any relevance to the occurrence in question, nor do I think that the media pushing the same narrative they always push has any relevance on either that occurrence or on our discussion of that occurrence.

If you had made no assumptions about what NNBD was saying (he did not imply, he explicitly stated his point) the following would not have been necessary in your later statement because you would have understood that he wasn't making a statement opposed to the point you made here:

I don't think I'm misreading what you said. This quote seems quite confirming what you were thinking. And I'm pretty sure that I'm not misreading NNBD either, that at no time did he indicate that he would disagree with your sentiment expressed in the quote. In fact he stated that too. His post was about the media driving a narrative, which is true enough, and is at least relevant enough to justify making the point. I don't know what else can or should be said about that.

Nice bait-and-switch, there. What you quoted was in response to NNBD saying (and I quote): "He was the victim." It was not in response to his original post. Had it been in response to the original post, you would have a point. But, it wasn't. And it doesn't confirm anything about what I said in the former post; the former and the latter stand on their own - especially given the lack of connection between the two of NNBD's posts to which each was a reply.

 

[chipbennett]

I didn't imply anything. I listed some facts. You are the one creating some imaginary implication.

Jamil was the one who was talking about you implying or not implying something; not me.

 

[Alpo]

Might be a chicken/egg kinda thing actually.

In a strange city, I always thought of it as: Here, there be dragons.

 

[jamil]

I never "bought into" the gentle giant portrayal, nor did I ever dispute it. I frankly never knew it existed.

When one presents facts without context, it is reasonable for others to question the relevance/application of those facts to the ongoing discussion.



And I responded to that by asking what the relevance of that aspect was. I do not think his priors have any relevance to the occurrence in question, nor do I think that the media pushing the same narrative they always push has any relevance on either that occurrence or on our discussion of that occurrence.



Nice bait-and-switch, there. What you quoted was in response to NNBD saying (and I quote): "He was the victim." It was not in response to his original post. Had it been in response to the original post, you would have a point. But, it wasn't. And it doesn't confirm anything about what I said in the former post; the former and the latter stand on their own - especially given the lack of connection between the two of NNBD's posts to which each was a reply.

I wasn't going to bother to reply and further this thread of discussion. We've said what we've said. But the bold text is a jab not earned. It's not a bait and switch. I kinda think your reply is the thing you had in mind all along. I also kinda think that in your reply to "He was the victim" means you still thought at the time you wrote it that he's talking about "that occurrence".

The gentle giant reference possibly clears this up. It's a reference to the Brown shooting in Ferguson where the media played the narrative that Brown was a gentle giant, when in reality he was anything but gentle. It seemed to a lot of people that this was deliberate, beyond just the customary eulogistic sense that T.Lex talked about. Similar with Floyd, the praise seemed beyond the eulogistic sense. The similarity ends there. Full stop.

 

[Alpo]

Danger Will Robinson!!!!!

 

[jamil]

Jamil was the one who was talking about you implying or not implying something; not me.

You might need a mirror in this case, Jamil. Reread my post. I assumed nothing about what NNBD was implying.

...If you had made no assumptions about what NNBD was saying (he did not imply, he explicitly stated his point) ...