I mean Truth Detector - he was banned from a site I got sick of and moved away from
https://www.debatepolitics.com/membe...-detector.html
They cared about Daniel Shaver, and he was white.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver
I mean Truth Detector - he was banned from a site I got sick of and moved away from
https://www.debatepolitics.com/membe...-detector.html
Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
pain in abortion.
Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
which has begun. To abort life is to end it.
Walt (05-28-2020)
The question is not whether he was innocent or not. The police do not get to decide that.
The question is whether they needed to kill him to defend themselves or others. They continued to choke him minutes after he was dead. Assuming he was not a zombie, he was definitely no danger to anyone after he was dead.
The surveillance video shows him clearly cooperating with police. He may have been drunk, and slow to understand, but was not physically causing trouble. There was no reason to choke him in the first place.
Was he guilty of trying to pass a counterfeit $20 bill? Maybe, or maybe not. You would have to prove he knew it was counterfeit. His cooperation at least demonstrates a likelihood that he did not think he had committed a crime.
Earl (05-28-2020)
Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
pain in abortion.
Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
which has begun. To abort life is to end it.
We should definitely ignore the looting. Any looting happened AFTER the murder, so could not be a justification for the murder. But also, should not be used as a justification for convicting him of murder. The looting should play no part in the criminal investigation into the killing.
Why would cooperating with police be more likely to indicate someone didn't commit a crime? There's not a lot of positive that comes from resisting arrest. You can get a longer sentence to get potentially getting your *ss beat so even if you did commit a crime there's really no upside to resisting.
That changes nothing about the fact the police killed this man. But that argument makes no sense to me.
It is called reckless disregard. The police officer committed actions he should have known could lead to death that killed him. There is no need to prove the police officer actually wanted anyone dead.
For instance, if the police officer drove around randomly shooting out his car window, he would not want anyone dead, he just would not care if he killed anyone.
Floyd had not resisted arrest, but more importantly after he was dead he could not have resisted arrest. Police continued to choke him after he was dead.
The media always makes them an angel, and ignores the mile long rap sheets.
Ignorant protesters with signs asking, am I next? Well are you out gang banging and dealing drugs in the streets? If not, you have a very very low chance of dying by cop. Statistically insignificant chance.
You have a much higher chance of being killed by a black gang member.
Keep changing the names. It doesn't change the meaning.
Abortion
Pro-Choice
Women's rights
Women's Health
Truth Detector (05-28-2020)
Truth Detector (05-28-2020)
It's not about being an angel. It's the justice system's job to punish and lock up criminals. The police aren't supposed to kill them in the street and that's what happened here.
You're not wrong about the numbers and where one is more likely to die. The difference though is this is at the hands of the government.
Bookmarks