I'm not making predictions here, remember all those news stories I've shown you multiple times that stated the same things are happening in different states but you keep pretending to have not seen that and keep acting like I'm some fraud because you can't handle acknowledging something that doesn't go with your agenda. Also you are acting in complete bad faith by twisting my words and making out that I'm speaking in absolutes when I'm not. Argue against what I'm saying, not what you desperately want me to have said so you can edit it to suit your narrative.

Some opportunists will spoil things, some people will let their anger reign and considering the situation, I think that's very ****ing understandable, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of police departments are saying the same thing, that violence is often spurred on by extremist right wing and white supremacist people which is why most protests are peaceful, but they don't serve your purpose so you won't acknowledge them.

Also murder is murder, if anyone tries to argue against Breonna Taylor's murder not being murder then they're doing so for racial reasons because they don't want to admit the police murdered a black woman and it's easier for them to believe the black woman did something to deserve it.

They burst into her house unannounced, shot her up and then arrested the boyfriend for making use of his second amendment rights to defend his home and his girlfriend against unknown intruders. Then, after months of people demanding justice for her, the state charges the officers for the shots that didn't kill her.

How do you know all this dezzy?

I don't have an agenda beyond "they're all scum", when it comes to rioters. Maybe the protests get sabotaged, maybe not. But either way, the former protesters who join in with the riots are entirely culpable for their own actions, whether they're following a white supremacist without knowing it, or whether they just happen to be violent.

Your list of links included people handing out leaflets and distributing stickers, putting paper in unwelcome places doesn't belong in the same conversation as rioting and looting. Unless you think they'd have behaved like human beings until they read some words on a bit of paper?

I don't need to acknowledge peaceful protests because they were never part of the conversation :shrug: riots and protests don't need to be lumped in with each other.

So, you're basically saying sabotaged or not they're to blame? Kind of shown your hand there. :joker:

I'm saying every individual is to blame for their own actions. They don't have to join in when things turn nasty, it's their choice to do so.

That's too a 'logical way of thinking' post Oliver, irrational thoughts only please.

Looters steal clothes and guns, ruin innocent folks livelihoods = Right Wing too blame, they started it etc etc etc :laugh:

Essentially though it should not negate your right to support a movement because some people choose to break the law.

It does not detract from the the original sentiment or from your right to promote its core values.

Well I heard she was shot by accident they weren't after her,who knows the real truth ?:wavey::wavey:

I don't particularly believe the conspiracy theory that "all" or even a large number of the protests that turn into riots are because they were secretly infiltrated by white supremacists who lit the kindling. I'm sure it happens, but it will be a relatively small number of the total incidents, and we should be wary of buying into the "twitter detective work" showing sneaky shadowy figures frequently being behing civil unrest while everyone else was behaving themselves and would have continued that way. It's just overly convenient nonsense, really, and a bit too easy (when riots are widespread) to collect together a half dozen clips or examples of it happening and use those to suggest that it's happening in every case.



That's my thoughts on it really, rioting and looting are a standard symptom of civil unrest, be that people getting caught up in violence or people who have little care for the cause using it as a cover for looting, it's literally ALWAYS been a feature of large protests, you can see it in pretty much every ancient culture (Romans, Greeks et al) ... it's just what ends up happening. It doesn't change the reasons for the protest, nor lessen them, nor does it mean people shouldn't protest out of "fear" that a number of people will go too far. Lumping all protesters in with the percentage that are lighting fires and smashing windows is an easy way for those being protested against to shut the whole thing down. Essentially, if you're in power, you have to accept that if you have an angry and unhappy population they're going to start breaking **** and wailing about "personal responsibility" isn't good enough. Yes they have personal responsibility, no rioting is not a good idea, yes anyone looting should face legal consequences... but that doesn't change the fact that if you've got rioting and looting in your cities, the people in power have ****ed up.

I read the first time I didn't need a repeat.

Because I can read and have kept up with the facts of the case, instead of assuming she did something wrong and that the police are beyond blame for their own actions.

she wasnt murdered

the court has decided on this

having heard all the evidence

case closed

Here he goes again, choosing to ignore the links that detailed how white supremacists were behind violence in several protests to focus on the one link that benefits his agenda. Common sense dictates that, if you ignore several different things telling you the same thing to focus on the one thing that's more pleasing to your ears, you're probably in the wrong.

You keep going on about the evils of violence and vandalism but you are intent on scrubbing clean anything related to white supremacist violence and vandalism, of which there is a lot. Why are you so focused on minimising white supremacist incidents but you're so keen to amplify anything, whether it's true or not, that discredits and paints BLM in a bad light?

You should ask yourself if you are stood on the right side of history in this matter.

She was intentionally shot to death by police that broke into her home unannounced while she was asleep. That sounds like murder to me, might not sound like murder to someone intent on making out a paramedic to be a drug dealer just because she's black though.

Read what I said to Oliver and apply it to yourself. Ask yourself some serious questions.

That's not for you to tell people tbf

Courts have got cases wrong many many times and even wrongfully imprisoned tons of people who then get convictions overturned

So if you feel the case is closed then the thread probably isnt for you but you dont have the right to tell others what to think of it or not to discuss it etc

Exactly, I hope the family can appeal.

A grand jury is simply a legal procedure to determine if there is sufficient evidence in a criminal matter to reasonably result in a conviction at a criminal trial. No findings are made on points of fact or law. Grand Jury proceedings are secret, therefore records can not be made possible to even consider an appeal.

Doesnt mean they are always correct, human error happens at all levels

Cases are re-opened all the time, the fact that there may not have been the evidence available at the time for an indictment, doesn't mean that there can't be in the future. It was not a trial

and if the officer had been found guilty of murder would anyone be making these points?

i suspect not

(just my opinion of course)

Well no because there would have been some justice served.

Nobody should be allowed to break into a perfectly innocent persons home and shoot them in their bed, not even an on duty police officer... especially not an officer, as they are more aware than most of the rule of law.

they had a search warrant issued by a judge

Tonight it was not on her neck


She is a Trouble maker

Insufficient evidence of guilt =/= evidence of innocence. I don't know what people find so hard to understand about that, it's a pretty simple piece of the legal puzzle.

In all honesty in this case I think the evidence points to manslaughter through extreme recklessness and professional negligence but honestly, when we're talking about heavily armed and supposedly trained individuals, I actually find that much ****ing scarier than an intentional killing. "It's not out fault! We didn't MEAN to shoot an innocent woman, we just blunder around with guns blazing and sometimes random people get hit by the bullets OK??"

That kind of negligence leading to a death is EASILY justification for a sentence as harsh as murder, in my opinion.

How much of the trial evidence did you read?

Amanda had her breasts out tonight so Ofcom will be busy tomorrow

The tape on that dress to hold it where it should be looked painful

It looked really uncomfortable, don’t know why she puts herself through that

if you complain about a silly necklace, you can also validly complain about that yes

there is children watching this show

It does sound more like manslaughter, because they were returning fire after Taylor's boyfriend shot at them, as he thought they were intruders. But they fired blind, as she was standing behind a covered patio thing, which is why she was hit.

murder has to be intentional, and that wasn't. George Floyd was murder to my mind

I don’t think Alesha’s necklace shot anyone

it shot everyone with a bolt of self righteousness :laugh:

Well leaving someone to bleed out for 20 minutes without calling for medical help can be classified as murder

:laugh:

no it cant, you are making it up as you go along. The problem was with the no knock warrant, which has now been withdrawn in that state

yes i also believe George Floyd death was a murder

i mean the man shouted i can't breathe 20 times, the man was apprehended by that cop and he kept his knee on top of him

Breonna, well i am gonna be controversial here, umm i think her boyfriend can be blamed for her death, fatally endangering her by being possession of a weapon, being on record with law enforcement

the cop pulled the trigger, but his criminal past is what led the police to that house

Well, yes, technically, I’m the purest sense of the word, you’re right, it wouldn’t be ‘murder’, but the person who refuses to help a clearly dying person could be held responsible for their eventual death, especially if said person is in a position of obligation to save a persons life