No, he did not drop the gun, only for it to land several feet from him, like magic.

What do you think about this old lady though?

Did you watch the video?

I did.

What did you want to pontificate on ?

A chokehold for 7 minutes is insane. Which leads us to the second point; they had 7 minutes to secure him with something other than a chokehold and there were 4 of them. Thirdly, this was a police operation apprehending a civilian, he was not instigating a riot nor was he some kind of enemy combatant.

There are of course other details: Floyd stating 16 times he had difficulties breathing, Chauvin refusing other officers' request to Floyd on his side, the chokehold continuing even though Floyd was motionless, and the chokehold continuing even after they checked Floyd's pulse and found none.

Legally speaking, Floyd was no more guilty at the time of his death than Chauvin is right now. Chauvin is actually further into the system, having been charged and prosecuted for his actions.

Nothing... I've come to the conclusion when it comes to this police brutality stuff the narratives are more important than the truth for some.

So what is the truth and what would the narrative be in that case ?

I get why you say that in the Toledo case.

But what's the narrative in two cops beating an old lady with dementia on the side of the road for accidentally taking 15 bucks worth of merch from the company ?

People don't need to make up narratives to make American cops look bad. Bodycams do that.

In case you missed it, the prosecution gave up on "chokehold" theory, and instead focused on positional asphyxiation midway through their case in chief. It was around day 7, where the prosecution showed images where chauvin's knee was on his neck "area", instead of "neck" (i.e. shoulders). It was a defense lawyer who got the prosecution witness to acknowledge that. That's precisely when the pivot occurred. The prosecution initially argued he was choked to death but in reality they argued he was suffocated to death.

The pulmonary guy said the static force of the road in combination of the pressure on the shoulders i.e neck area, is what resulted in him not being able to breathe, rather than being choked. The ME who did the autopsy also said specifically Floyd's health condition contributed. The prosecution expert cardiologist said if the video didn't exist, cause of death would have been OD or coronary disease.

Whatever you want it to be.

Oh well, that's totally fine, then.

The standard is not whether it was fine, or not. The standard is whether reasonable doubt exist. OJ getting acquitted by the jury doesn't mean they condone what he did. Nor is someone condoning it when they point out issues with the prosecution's case.

If you're so righteous, which is what you're claiming to be here, why are you so dishonest? I honestly don't know how you live with yourself being that disingenuous.

You are the one lying. The Cop did not just say Stop or Freeze. He also said "show me your f**king hands.".

And i think the cop meant both earnestly. I am not doubting him on that.

Now you have a kid interpreting what that means. Also doing so earnestly and trying to honestly comply and surrender.

Problem is he guessed wrong in this game of Simon Says and we know what the penalty is for that. Death.

BTW had he not dropped the gun and did the same thing I am sure he would have also been shot. Simon Says guess 2 you are wrong. Bang your dead.

IHIV do you think the kid was doing what he thought was asked of him to comply to those instructions?

I am not asking you if he got it right. I am also not asking you if anything he did prior was a good thing.

Just asking, as he was running and the cop said 'Stop, show me you hands' do you think the kid thought he was doing exactly that?

No, I don't. It's clear to me, from the back view, the kid wasn't listening to the police officer and was instead focused on getting rid of the gun so he wouldn't get caught with it. From the front, it looks like the kid is pulling a gun and turning toward the officer.

When the kid is told to stop and to put his hands up, he is digging in his hoodie. When the kid pulls the gun, the calculus changes, and he was given new orders, "drop it", to which the kid didn't comply, and turned toward the officer, with the gun concealed behind his head, obviously successfully.concealing him throwing the gun.


Once the kid starts turning with that gun behind his head, the thought process on whether to shoot was already made.

You are acting like this took a minute when it all happened in a split second.

I don't doubt the kid was trying to rid himself of the gun and even hope maybe it would not be found.

In that split second his thoughts were 'stop, get rid of the gun, and turn and show the cops my empty hands'.


I am saying that in his mind he thought he was complying. He was not thinking 'ok suicide by cop is what I want as I don't want to be arrested'.


I mean we have recent history telling us just informing a cop 'i am licensed to carry and there is a gun in the car' and then trying to do everything to comply gets you shot and killed, if you are POC, and someone like IHIV on the jury calling the shooting justified. I would absolutely not want the gun anywhere near me when I surrender as its proximity will be used by the cop as the reason to shoot you and by IHIV's on the jury as the reason to let the cop off and call it justified.


Simon Says you lose either way. Bang your dead!

Whatever... I think it's pretty conclusive his hands was in his hoodie when he was told to stop and show him his hands. When he pulled his hands out of his hoodie, he had a gun in it. I think it's a very dishonest articulation of the facts to say that pulling a gun out is complying with the police officer who's telling you to stop and put your hands up.

So there is no objective reality involved in the case of the old lady ?

It doesn’t. He didn’t die because of preexisting medical conditions, he died because your boi Chauvin strangled him to death on the ground for eight minutes while mugging for the camera.

LOL, the photographs you’ve posted show this can’t be true. At least make your lies consistent, plz.

[QUOTE=Cuepee;57035061


I am saying that in his mind he thought he was complying.


Simon Says you lose either way. Bang your dead![/QUOTE]

He was trying to pitch the gun. That means he had no intention of hurting the cop BUT he was also not complying with the commands.

I'm pretty sure the cop would have been justified to fire as soon as he took his hands out of his jacket with a gun. He didn't. He tried to not shoot but in the end his training kicked in and he did. I mean, that's my take. I don't like it. I wish he would have waited that split second because if he did I don't think he pulls the trigger.

I'm not sure I would use this as an example of complying and dying. I don't think he complied or even attempted to comply in the proper sense of the word here.

The guy in the hotel was honestly trying to comply, he just couldn't. This kids was trying to get rid of evidence so he was bending the rules even though he had no intention of violence. Both cases were terrible in their own ways.

Yes, but as I pointed out it really doesn't matter.

Everything's just so backwards. If you have an issue with the police, your ire should be on the civilian leadership. The police makes effective boogeymen. Examples that get listed listed only adds fuel the narratives concerning the boogeymen. There really isn't any interest in debating whether excessive force was actually used in each specific circumstance.

I can understand the arguments that too much force was used in relation to the old lady... But I also understand the lady resisted.

I think the Toledo situation just makes clear to me that arguing against these narratives is just pointless. I think it's nothing but protest and riots until the police just stop policing.

Would you admit, that if the LT, reached inside his car to undue his seat belt or towards the inside door panel to unlock the electronic doors, and the cop shot him, and his defense was 'I said "show me your hands".' that you would be arguing that is justification for the cop to get off any charges?

Be honest as we have so many of your views prior that this seems like a no brainer to me.


We have seen the fear of a 'gun I cannot see' and any type of movement considered contrary to what the cop wants, no matter how confusing ('keep your hands where I can see them', 'show me your ID') gets POC murdered. Full stop.

If I was advising someone trying to surrender I would absolutely want them to throw the gun as far away from themselves as they can. knowing a muscle spasm with gun on the body could equal death.

If I was advising the LT I would absolutely tell him to never bring his arms back into the vehicle to unlock it or undue his seat belt where a fear of a gun in the seats or door pocket then equals death.

Especially when I know there are people like IHIV waiting for a singular piece of 'devastating' evidence to acquit the cop everytime.

You think the only solution here is for the citizens to enroll in to voluntary training on how to react to cops. And you never acknowledge that, that would not matter one iota if the citizen was trying to comply and simply made a mistake. Cops too often give unclear and even contradictory instruction ('keep you hands up', 'crawl over here') and only cop training can fix that.

And we know what the rules of this Simon Says are '...Comply and sometimes still die'

I've said many times I don't blame the cop here.

I also do think the kid might have had conflicting thoughts going on his head.

he is wanting to comply and makes that decision while running. He also wants to lose the gun, hoping to hide it but also potentially hoping that helps him survive.

There can be no question a gun in the waistband and an arm muscle spasm with 'hands up' can easily end in murder. Any request by the cop following 'hands up' that begins a game of Simon Says, while the gun is still in the belt, is an excuse for death.

Like I said, i think the cop with proper training in those instances needs to say something like 'Hands up' 'Don't move... not even an inch'. And then and only then once the cop feels he has compliance then follow that with clear next instructions "reach into your belt and toss the gun', etc.

Funny TV shows and movies have figured that out as that is almost always the instruction. Some form of 'Freeze', first.

Yeah, I agree. I also agree with your point about the Simon says training which is garbage.

I just don't want to die on this particular hill. There are so many more easy cases where the cop defenders don't even have a weapon present.