Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
If he wasn't a little high on drugs, he surely could've survived a grown man in excess of 150 pounds kneeing on his neck for 8 minutes.
George Floyd - Cop did not kill him. ???
- Thread starter cordeela
- Start date
If he wasn't a little high on drugs, he surely could've survived a grown man in excess of 150 pounds kneeing on his neck for 8 minutes.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
So by the "logic" by our right wing flunkies here, if I repeatedly punch you in the face and you lose teeth, I can be exonerated for assault & battery because your dental records shows that you had those teeth fixed by your dentist months/years earlier.
That dog just won't fly.
That dog just won't fly.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Another National Front flunky from another country running his mouth as if his supposition and conjecture are fact. My fighting weight is 190 pounds.....so I'll put junior here in the same position, "compress the hell" out of his neck and see how that shakes out.
https://www.kare11.com/article/news...floyd/89-9f002e3f-972a-4410-86cb-50a1237fc496
MPD Chief Medaria Arradondo has said in interviews and press conferences following the death of George Floyd that officers are not trained to place their knee on a suspect's neck like Chauvin did to Floyd.
George Floyd did not die of a drug overdose
While an autopsy by the Hennepin County medical examiner’s office did find drugs in Floyd’s system, it concluded that the cause of his death was “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression,” and that the manner of death was “homicide.”
https://factcheck.afp.com/george-floyd-did-not-die-drug-overdose
But the topper is this little shyte tries to equate what went down on Jan. 6th at the D.C. Capitol bldg. with Floyd's deadly encounter with the cops in Minnesota.
Apples and oranges .... as the D.C. insurrectionists knowingly and willingly invaded a building, destroying property, making threats against people within the building, and then trying to force entry past security defending folk against mass rioters ..... Floyd was falsely accused of passing a counterfeit bill, was intoxicated via an unknown substance, and resisted arrest (no fist fight, just trying to run away).
white supremacists are just besides themselves with frustration as the fruit of their philosophy and mindset has come to bare in the worlds view in these two incidence...and clowns like Cordy and our snaggle tooth commentator will suspend belief and logical analysis to blame the victim. Pathetic, but not surprising.
LOL... that you are curious I find bizarre and stretching things too far. Your a typical leftie big mouth who can only resort to snides. Good luck with that.
There are two factors in objective assessment of the Floyd incident. (1) Homicide. (2) The Egg Shell Skull - Both emanate from Common Law.
The issue is - who caused what to whom and what are the salient factors involved in the actions of person (a) to person (b)?
Assailant - Victim.
Homicide (Murder) is the deliberate intent to take a life. Killing a person is not necessarily MURDER/Homicide.
Egg Shell Skull is case law set as precedent whereby "YOU TAKE THE PERSON AS YOU FIND THEM" for example... if you stab a woman, she dies, she is pregnant, the baby dies BUT YOU NEVER KNEW SHE IS PREGNANT - you are responsible for the death of the baby because you, in law, take the person as you find her.
If we look at Floyd - He committed an unlawful act. The cop was correct in arresting him - Floyd was not correct by resisting arrest. This escalated to the need for use of handcuffs and physical hands-on restraint methods. According to reports the knee on the neck is a recognised police technique - the cop did not therefore act unlawfully. His knee is not on Floyds windpipe nor suppressing his windpipe by force of the knee. The knee is on the side of the neck. Floyd can speak because he kept calling for his mother. He can therefore breathe. As a former sports participant I know of a good rule - if you can run and talk at the same time you have good lungs and respiratory system - - this is widely known.
Reports say Floyd took drugs and drugs with some risky impact, known by those who take them. Reports (post BLM bollox point scoring) say that these drugs killed him... the cause of his death. The knee on the neck therefore - not the CAUSE of his death.
But: Does the Egg Shell Skull precedent have merit in this matter? Can there be settled argument?
The cop did not know Floyd took drugs. Should the cop be aware and take into consideration - Floyd took drugs?
I say NO!!! Because Floyds taking of drugs is unlawful/illegal and his chosen path. There will be no expectation for the cop to consider the victim acting violently and not cooperating with a lawful arrest.
There can not be a finding of guilty of homicide if the drugs killed Floyd. The law us such: If the victim would die in any case no matter what the cop did then the cop is not guilty of homicide/murder.
Is the cop guilty of anything else?
Well, this is why the judge introduced 3rd degree murder - because they have to get the cop on something to quell the unrest - the BLM and not incite riots by a not guilty finding.
Was the cop wrong to have his knee on Floyds neck?
Does it matter that a known very violent felon was not cooperating with the police during a LAWFUL arrest.
In UK we do not allow proline positional restraint - except when spontaneous. A person so restrained MUST, by law, be allowed to sit up or be sat up. The cop is 100% responsible. There are exceptions.
The issue is - who caused what to whom and what are the salient factors involved in the actions of person (a) to person (b)?
Assailant - Victim.
Homicide (Murder) is the deliberate intent to take a life. Killing a person is not necessarily MURDER/Homicide.
Egg Shell Skull is case law set as precedent whereby "YOU TAKE THE PERSON AS YOU FIND THEM" for example... if you stab a woman, she dies, she is pregnant, the baby dies BUT YOU NEVER KNEW SHE IS PREGNANT - you are responsible for the death of the baby because you, in law, take the person as you find her.
If we look at Floyd - He committed an unlawful act. The cop was correct in arresting him - Floyd was not correct by resisting arrest. This escalated to the need for use of handcuffs and physical hands-on restraint methods. According to reports the knee on the neck is a recognised police technique - the cop did not therefore act unlawfully. His knee is not on Floyds windpipe nor suppressing his windpipe by force of the knee. The knee is on the side of the neck. Floyd can speak because he kept calling for his mother. He can therefore breathe. As a former sports participant I know of a good rule - if you can run and talk at the same time you have good lungs and respiratory system - - this is widely known.
Reports say Floyd took drugs and drugs with some risky impact, known by those who take them. Reports (post BLM bollox point scoring) say that these drugs killed him... the cause of his death. The knee on the neck therefore - not the CAUSE of his death.
But: Does the Egg Shell Skull precedent have merit in this matter? Can there be settled argument?
The cop did not know Floyd took drugs. Should the cop be aware and take into consideration - Floyd took drugs?
I say NO!!! Because Floyds taking of drugs is unlawful/illegal and his chosen path. There will be no expectation for the cop to consider the victim acting violently and not cooperating with a lawful arrest.
There can not be a finding of guilty of homicide if the drugs killed Floyd. The law us such: If the victim would die in any case no matter what the cop did then the cop is not guilty of homicide/murder.
Is the cop guilty of anything else?
Well, this is why the judge introduced 3rd degree murder - because they have to get the cop on something to quell the unrest - the BLM and not incite riots by a not guilty finding.
Was the cop wrong to have his knee on Floyds neck?
Does it matter that a known very violent felon was not cooperating with the police during a LAWFUL arrest.
In UK we do not allow proline positional restraint - except when spontaneous. A person so restrained MUST, by law, be allowed to sit up or be sat up. The cop is 100% responsible. There are exceptions.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
You're a moron. Murder is intentional. Homicide isn't. You have a search engine, you can look shit up anytime you want to. Why do you choose not to?
LOL... take it how you wish. You are of no significance to me.I dont care what you think or say boy. Now toddle along and wipe your nose.
So much for your knowledge of the law. Homicide and murder are not the same, you fucking idiot.
Keep demonstrating your ignorance, though, dumbfuck. It’s amusing.
Wanna bet? Homicide is the taking of a life which includes DELIBERATE INTENT - this entails Murder within it. Homicide also includes killing NOT being murder - for example; drunk driver. KILLING is the word you want - Killing a person can be done by numerous means - fighting in a war - et al. Murder is by deliberate intent and or by your actions it was inevitable the person would die - for example: Firing a gun at a person intending to hit their leg but you hit their heart - you did not intend to kill but the likelihood was they could be killed by use of the gun.
Both YOU and no brains Guillibale are wrong.
THE AUDACITY of the two leftie snowflakes on here who literally said I quote: "HOMICIDE IS NOT MURDER" ??? can anyone be so stupid?? As they dish out their usual vitriol - "you dumb fuck" etc because I said Homicide includes murder. For gods sake you people stop making absolute morons of yourselves.
Cide - means to kill and Homo means man. The killing of a MAN as in Mankind. This includes deliberate and not deliberate.
Murder is a legal concept. Manslaughter is a legal concept - both are KILLING a man (person) Homicide. .
Silly nutty boys you lefties are.
Cide - means to kill and Homo means man. The killing of a MAN as in Mankind. This includes deliberate and not deliberate.
Murder is a legal concept. Manslaughter is a legal concept - both are KILLING a man (person) Homicide. .
Silly nutty boys you lefties are.
And when the pleas for help stopped, and Floyd lay dying, it was well past time to stop choking him.
And the penalty for a crime is not decided by the police. It is decided by a court of law.
Cordeela claims to have expertise in the law, but does not realize that murder is not dependent on the character of the victim. In fact, it is normally against the rules of the court to bring up the character of the victim. Murder is murder, whether the victim is a saint, or the worst sinner.
I am going to agree with Cordeela here. Guille is the moron, here and just about everywhere else.
Homicide is whenever one person kills another. Murder is a type of homicide. Not all intents to take a life are murder. For instance, self defense is the intent to take a life, but is not murder. Even executing the death penalty is an intent to take a life, but is not legally murder. The general legal definition of murder would be the intent to take a life illegally, and then taking that life. If criminal only intended to do harm, but ended up killing the victim, that would have originally been manslaughter under English common law.
But it gets more complex. If criminal commit a prerequisite crime, in most US states, that criminal is guilty of murder even if they did not intend to kill anyone. So a bank robber who robs a bank with a fake gun, gets shot at by a police officer, the bullet misses him and hits an innocent bystander, is generally guilty of murder. The bank robber had no intention to kill anyone. He did not even have a real gun. But the law considers he should have known that robbing banks can lead to the death of someone. His intent to commit the prerequisite crime makes it murder.
Looking at the autopsy, it says it was a homicide caused by the police officer cutting off air to the victim. The footage shows the police officer continuing to cut off air to the victim after the victim had lost consciousness. Depending on the prerequisite crimes, that could be manslaughter, or could be murder.
Remember when Bush Administration tried to get "suicide bombers" renamed "homicide bombers". While an accurate description, homicide could mean legal or illegal. In fact, when the US Air Force drops bombs on our enemies, that is homicide bombing. I would almost think "murder bombers" might be better description of "suicide bombers", but I figure it is assumed that there is at least an attempt at murder in a "suicide bombing."
According to Guille, suicide bombers are legal, because it is just homicide. What an idiot Guille is.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
oh, you're one of those with a limited argument and intellect.
Althea
Althea told me...........
Cordeela pretends to understand many things.
I rarely agree with Guille, but he is correct. Homicide and murder are two different animals.
And you are a fucking moron.
Homicide is a death at the hands of another. Period. Intent or not. Murder is intentional. Different animals.
Checkmate, you fucking idiot.
Murder is a homicide. A homicide is not necessarily a murder. Or even manslaughter.
Homicide is not a criminal offense. Murder, manslaughter, etc. are.
To equate the two is to demonstrate ignorance.
Murder IS homicide, you fucking idiot. Homicide is not necessarily murder, you fucking idiot. Find “homicide” in this case, stupid fuck. You won’t. It’s not a criminal offense.
Next.