George Floyd Riots: A Possible False Flag?

[samspade]

There are many theories about it. Most of them are not PC I guess. Bottom line I guess is thatt Japan is a homogenic (northern) culture without too much foreign disruption besides ww2 and the A-bomb so they could evolve more decently.

Fox example in most countries in the world chaos was ruling. Invaders came and go and then some Mongols too. If the mongols would have taken over Japan that have might disturbed their development. Korea as a powerful culture did not have that luck for example. They had a very chaotic history.

The thing is, that didn't stop the Japanese from invading China (and engaging in some depraved shyt that goes beyond simple racism), and attacking the U.S. as recently as 1941. Like a lot of nations they were violent aggressors when they felt they needed to be. The A-bomb beat Japan to within an inch of its life, and the country rebuilt itself as an economic power with a peaceful homeland. A lot of European countries did this too and are far safer than the U.S. Of course a lot of peaceful countries are protected by American military bases and ships, let's not kid ourselves. But that makes it even sadder that America can't make and keep the peace within its own borders. The rationalizations I keep seeing are that people in safer countries are just government-subjugated cucks. But if you get your head beaten in or blown off by a cop you're not? Lol.

 

[Epicenter]

The thing is, that didn't stop the Japanese from invading China (and engaging in some depraved shyt that goes beyond simple racism), and attacking the U.S. as recently as 1941. Like a lot of nations they were violent aggressors when they felt they needed to be. The A-bomb beat Japan to within an inch of its life, and the country rebuilt itself as an economic power with a peaceful homeland. A lot of European countries did this too and are far safer than the U.S. Of course a lot of peaceful countries are protected by American military bases and ships, let's not kid ourselves. But that makes it even sadder that America can't make and keep the peace within its own borders. The rationalizations I keep seeing are that people in safer countries are just government-subjugated cucks. But if you get your head beaten in or blown off by a cop you're not? Lol.

The US has fought countless wars. Maybe it has already a PTSD. The more you look into the abyss the more you become one, I guess.

 

[FairShake]

Taser is not considered deadly, at least by police procedure. So they were not neutralizing a deadly threat by their own definition. Even had he shot one of them with the Taser, which would be amazing since he was running away, there were multiple cops who were there to keep said Tased officer safe.

Personally I wish more cops were less concerned about "making the arrest" and boosting their numbers and more concerned that everyone: themselves, the perp, and the community goes home safe that night.

A couple key things they could have done to keep this man alive, the Wendy's intact, and community relations a little stronger is let the man sleep it off in the parking lot (with a citation), let the man walk home or take an Uber (with a citation), or let the man run off (with a citation and arrest warrant for fleeing). But no, they had to make the arrest and kill him and put the community at danger.

 

[Spaz]

Technically, he wasn't sleeping it off. Sleeping it off would imply he pulled over, and parked his car somewhere. According to the report, he passed out behind the wheel. Fortunately, he was in the drive-thru lane, and not on the highway, when he lost consciousness. However, the police were responding to a complaint, not simply hassling some poor soul sleeping it off in a safely parked car.

He was blocking the drive-thru lane, and someone called in a complaint. Once the police arrived, they were obligated to determine whether Brooks was alive and well, at the minimum. Not rousting him wasn't even an option. Plus, once determining he was drunk, they couldn't just leave him there. They could, conceivably, decide to take him home, if they determined he wasn't a danger to anyone, but just leaving a drunk in his car is irresponsible, and could lead to Brooks causing someone else to come to a tragic end, not merely himself; if left unattended, he could've regained consciousnesses long enough to resume driving, and to kill an innocent family.

Should Brooks have been shot? In this particular case, we could second guess the cops' split second decision, forever. Should one of the officers standing around have had a taser on the ready, once Brooks started violently resisting, and have used it the moment he broke contact with the officers with whom he was scuffling? Sure, if there'd been more officers there (I'm not aware that their were, but if there were, they were definitely negligent). However, the cops can't just leave drunks in their cars, even when they aren't passed out in drive-thru lanes. If the drunk driver wakes up and kills someone, the cops who left him there will be responsible... morally and legally. Imagine your teenage daughter is on her way home from the prom, when she's killed by a drunk driver that the police left to "sleep it off." The officer who made that call would be fired, and he and the department would be sued into bankruptcy.

Should the man who violently resisted arrest, and attempted to flee the scene with one of the officer's weapons have been shot, though? Well, it definitely wasn't the best PR decision....but, I doubt the cop was thinking like a politician, while the violent "gentle giant" drunk was attempting to disappear into the night, with one of the officer's weapons. Also, if Brooks had succeeded in disabling the pursuing officer with the taser, he could easily have disarmed the incapacitated officer, and have killed the officer, his partner, or someone else with the ceased firearm.

Still, should the officer have shot Brooks? If he hadn't, Brooks would have gotten away with the officer's taser, or given himself a stroke trying(he didn't really look like he'd ever run longer than the length of a football field...but, who knows), and could've used the officer's taser on someone else(to commandeer another escape vehicle, possibly), and the officer would, again, be responsible, for allowing Brooks to escape with one of his weapons.

Think about it, if resisting arrest and attempting to escape are rewarded with failure to pursue and escalate, the passivity of the permissive officers will only encourage more violent resistsnce and escape attempts from suspects, resulting in the eventual loss of Iife and personal tragedy, among the thus encouraged suspects, and the officers who deal with them.

If this event serves a good purpose, it would be that it might discourage future idiots from violent resistance and escape attempted that could get them or others hurt or killed.

Let me ask you this: if Brooks had been sentenced to 3 years in prison, for felony DUI, had no prior violent criminal record, but stole the remanding officer's taser, and fled the courthouse on foot, would it be permissible to stop his escape by shooting him? If not, if he later attempts to escape prison, do the guards have your permission to attempt to stop him by shooting? You see where this is going? If the police and prisons are rendered completely impotent, by stripping from them the option of the use of deadly force, they'll quickly become incapable of either arresting or holding criminals who present the gravest danger to public safety. If there's no penalty for violent resistance and escape from custody, everyone will attempt both, at every opportunity. Then, we might as well disband the police

It doesn't matter since its all what if, there's no end to what's if's.

What matters here is that, could they have done better to get a different outcome?

Right now 1 life is lost and those officers involved basically ended their career in law enforcement.

Plenty of suffering just for something that could have been simply resolved.

If those officers were trained differently the outcome would be different and everyone would end up happy.

 

[Spaz]

The thing is, according to recruitment preferences, the ideal cop is of average intelligence and above average athleticism....not including the affirmative action female patrolman hires, of course. A lot of former high school athletes, as well as washed up college athletes gravitate to the job, and tend to make some of the better cops. Recruiting actively tries to avoid hiring people who engage in this type of analysis paralysis, monday morning quarterbacking, in favor of those who can be trained to act/react according to policies and standards. The officer did what he was trained to do. We can't fault him for being what the department wanted, and acting/reacting according to department policies and procedures. Cops aren't Aristotelian philosophers, in a debating club; such deliberation can get them killed. We should cut them some slack.

Look what has happened to this country, because of one video, in which what people thought they saw was a sadistic cop viciously murdering a cuffed suspect in his care, in cold blood, and out of racial hatred.

What we now know about George Floyd's death is that we didn't see what the BLM(Bolshevik Lynch Mob) hallucinated they saw. According to the independent autopsy commissioned by Floyd's family, George's primary cause of death was asphyxiation, not strangulation. So, the officer who killed Floyd wasn't the "White Supremacist" on his shoulder, but the Black cop on his back(compressing his lungs so that he couldn't sufficiently inhale). His airway wasn't obstructed; his lungs just couldn't expand. So, someone with a hotline to the Bolshevik Lynch Mob, please ask them if they think the Black cop deliberately murdered Floyd, "for the crime of being Black."

This has gotten out of hand. Yes, the cops in the Floyd situation should have handled things differently, and did restrain Floyd for too long. They should be punished according to their role in his death, and according to their responsibility for his safety...but "murder"? A retributive injustice doesn't correct an injustice. Even manslaughter is too extreme. It's negligent homicide, at the most.

All of what you said herein is a path.

All of what you said in another of ur post is possible future paths.

Both paths has negative outcomes for ALL parties involved.

BUT those paths need not be treaded on IF a different action was taken.

Then the policemen involved would not have ruined their lives and those of their immediate family.

The men under arrest would not have died.

Unproductive riots wouldn't have happened.

AND those men would have faced a judge to plead their case.

All would be good.

I trust you understand where I'm heading with this.

 

[Bible_Belt]

What happened to Bible_Belt? Did he finally realize he was wrong about everything, and self-destruct?

They banned me for not being a right winger like everyone else here.

 

[Spaz]

They banned me for not being a right winger like everyone else here.

I'm continously perplexed by you guys freely chaining urself to either right or left philosophy.

Seems downright stupid.

It gives men like me tremendous power over all of you chained men if I wanted to be in politics.

And I could pull those chains whenever I wanted.

 

[Spaz]

I don't disagree, but you and I have the benefit of hindsight and bleacher seats. They made mistakes. There may have been no good choices. We'll never know. Charging 4 cops for murder and hate crimes is way over the top, though, in the Floyd case.

I think its a leadership problem within the police force.

What the bottom rung does is always a reflection of the top.

If the top is perceived to be corrupt, the bottom will practise corruption.

If the top is perceived to be highly professional and doesn't brook nonsense, the bottom rung will act in tandem.

It is the job of the leadership to set the rules, train their people, etc.

Can I as upper management in my own company only know how blame my frontline staff if I continue to receive complaints that they are rude and lazy ?

Similarly applies to other organisations, doesn't matter if its the police, KFC, McDonald's or the fire department.

 

[Mike41090]

Try visiting Japan, the land of sake, go ahead and do the same.

You won't be shot, I can almost guarantee that.

And yet, they have one of the lowest if not the lowest cases of homicide worldwide.

Police shootings are rare to almost non existent.

Don't forget, its also the land of the Yakuza.

There is far more violent crime in the U.S. then the majority of countries in the world. Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the Yakuza more of an organized crime group? I doubt “beat” cops or patrol cops Deal with them on a daily basis. The Yakuza are most likely dealt with by investigative units if I had to say. Could be wrong though.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

I don’t necessarily conclude it, I highly assume it. I’d be shocked if it was a light record.

Don’t listen to him, he’s from Sweden. They don’t have any of those problems over there lol

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

But no, they had to make the arrest and kill him and put the community at danger.

Yes, let’s just let drunk criminals who resist arrest and steal police officer’s weaponry go. That will DEFINITELY keep the community safe. Arresting a man who was so drunk that he fell asleep at the wheel? Totally harmless to society. Right.

Like honestly people, do you hear what your saying? Smfh...

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

I gotta be honest guys. When I saw the George Floyd video, I didn’t really feel **** lol. I was honestly wondering how he died just like that, cuz I’ve seen so many other instances where cops and/or soldiers had a person on the ground in the same exact position and they were just fine. It’s not a comfortable position, but they were perfectly fine. I’ve also seen much worse stuff too if I’m being honest, it may have numbed me. My sister said the same thing too right after we watched it lol I consider it a coup de grâce if I’m being honest. Yeah, the dude might’ve technically died from asphyxiation, but that dude had just the weakest diaphragm ever if that makes you stop breathing. Having drugs in his system like that (esp a downer like fentanyl) likely ****ed with his motor system making his diaphragm muscle weaker.

 

[zekko]

Yes, let’s just let drunk criminals who resist arrest and steal police officer’s weaponry go. That will DEFINITELY keep the community safe. Arresting a man who was so drunk that he fell asleep at the wheel? Totally harmless to society. Right.

Yeah, I'm really disturbed by the narrative that they should have let this guy go. A couple of other falsehoods I'm hearing:
The media is emphasizing that he was shot in the back, which is true. But he had turned to the side to fire the taser at the officer. For awhile I was hearing that he had only aimed it, but I saw the video again, and he clearly fired it.

The other thing is I keep hearing it described as a stun gun, when it was a taser. I'm no expert in the terminology here, but "stun gun" gives the impression that it's something you have to get up close to someone and press it into them. As opposed to a taser, which fires the electrical contacts into a person from some distance.

I saw his wife and four children on the news also. If he has a wife and four children, why is he out driving drunk at night? And what was the point of resisting arrest? I'm sure they knew who he was by that time anyway, at that point he was just piling on charges, not to mention risking his life. I'm not saying he deserved to be shot, but why are these guys held up as heroes, and why don't they carry any accountability for their actions?

I'm no lawyer, so I'm learning some things as I go on. One thing I've learned is that apparently resisting arrest is not a serious charge, fighting with the police is not a serious charge, and shooting a policeman with a taser is not a serious charge. If all this has convinced me of anything, it's that it should be.

 

[FairShake]

Yes, let’s just let drunk criminals who resist arrest and steal police officer’s weaponry go.

As opposed to killing him and fanning the flames faster in the most challenging social period in modern American history. This keeps happening over and over again, the police refuse to learn a better way and we will all end up being worse off for it the more it all falls apart.

Police have agency. They have training. They have legal protections (for now). It's on them to make the better decisions. Take the guy's keys and let him sleep it off and we all go home with our jobs and our lives tonight. Let him run and we arrest him with more manpower and planned on our own terms. These guys need to think and not just react.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

Don’t listen to him, he’s from Sweden. They don’t have any of those problems over there lol

I thought the swedes were all happy cucks?

 

[zekko]

Police have agency. They have training. They have legal protections (for now). It's on them to make the better decisions. Take the guy's keys and let him sleep it off and we all go home with our jobs and our lives tonight.

I agree the police are going to have to take up a new kinder, gentler mindset. Now if we're going to suddenly decide we're going to be okay with drunk drivers on the road, we're going to have to live with the increase in fatalities. But if that guy had driven on the highway and killed a family instead of passing out in a Wendys drivethru, no one would give a sh!t. It wouldn't be on the national news, no one would be marching through the streets, and no one would have burned down the Wendys.

 

[Spaz]

I agree the police are going to have to take up a new kinder, gentler mindset. Now if we're going to suddenly decide we're going to be okay with drunk drivers on the road, we're going to have to live with the increase in fatalities. But if that guy had driven on the highway and killed a family instead of passing out in a Wendys drivethru, no one would give a sh!t. It wouldn't be on the national news, no one would be marching through the streets, and no one would have burned down the Wendys.

You're talking abt a future that didn't happened and making urself get all rile up over nothing.

Why don't I add something like the car engine could have exploded and kill everyone in Wendy's? That too is a possible future.

How about a plane falling off the sky and hitting your home?

Deal with a specific situation so that those possible future/s doesn't occur or the likelihood of it happening greatly decreases.

 

[zekko]

You're talking abt a future that didn't happened and making urself get all rile up over nothing.

You're saying I'm riled up, but I'm not the one who burned down Wendys. As I've said, I know several people whose children were killed by drunk drivers, so no I don't think it's a stretch to think that allowing drunk drivers on the rode might result in some traffic fatalities,

When I saw the George Floyd video, I didn’t really feel **** lol.

I was disgusted by the George Floyd video, as was most of the country, maybe the world. But this new video is a completely different animal.

 

[Spaz]

You're saying I'm riled up, but I'm not the one who burned down Wendys. As I've said, I know several people whose children were killed by drunk drivers, so no I don't think it's a stretch to think that allowing drunk drivers on the rode might result in some traffic fatalities.

There's only 1 issue here, and that's shooting by police on those cases.

Drunk driving is a different issue, there are many variables and plenty of countries have tried various methods to suppress it - because only suppression is viable unless an outright ban on alcohol is initiated.

 

[zekko]

There's only 1 issue here, and that's shooting by police on those cases.

Drunk driving is a different issue

I brought up the drunk driving because I kept seeing commentators saying Brooks was no threat to the public. But he was driving drunk, which is why he passed out in the Wendys drive thru. If we are going to repeal all laws against drunk driving, so be it, but be sure we know what we are getting into.

I don't think the officer should have shot Brooks, I don't think that was good police work, I have no problem that he was fired. But if I understand the law correctly, he didn't break any laws by firing his weapon. But it looks like he will likely be prosecuted, probably as a political decision.

What he did was assault two police officers, which is a felony, with each count carrying 3-5yrs; if convicted on counts, he could've been looking at 10 yrs,

I'm no lawyer. I saw a woman on TV saying resisting arrest, and firing a taser at a police officer, were both misdemeanors. I have no idea if she was right. Perhaps stealing a weapon from an officer is a felony, and assaulting an officer is a felony, maybe that's the distinction.