George Floyd

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
I actually said this

Now would you like to put some other words in my mouth

I don't have to put words in your mouth. You said it was passing counterfeit bills. Then you added that it would be theft if he left with items. This was in response to me saying it was theft because he purchased something with the bill, so the police had jurisdiction. It was theft, I was right, you were wrong. It doesn't matter what the clerk reported. He's not a law expert, he reported a crime, the police responded.
 

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
Read the above and kiss my ass.
You are the only one lying here and it is documented above.

I have had to point out you contradicting yourself and getting basic facts wrong several times. You must be having a really rough night. You can't even keep track of what you are saying, and then claim I'm the one with a problem. I hope you recover from whatever medical emergency you must be suffering from at the moment.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
I don't have to put words in your mouth. You said it was passing counterfeit bills. Then you added that it would be theft if he left with items. This was in response to me saying it was theft because he purchased something with the bill, so the police had jurisdiction. It was theft, I was right, you were wrong. It doesn't matter what the clerk reported. He's not a law expert, he reported a crime, the police responded.
Look jackass, I don't need you to tell me what I said, I just copied it verbatim
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
But you said you didn't say the things you said. I'm afraid you might be having a stroke. Seek help.
Do I have to break down exactly what you said I sad and what I actually said.
I already posted it, you obviously couldn't follow it in that form.
I can do it in another manner if you need to be spoon fed.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
You said he didn't receive any goods for his counterfeit bill, so it wasn't theft
I actually said this
No, its passing counterfeit bills. That was what the call was for, not theft. If the salesperson suspected the bill (20) was fake you don't take it and refuse the sale
He bought cigarettes, and the cashier accepted the bill because he thought Floyd was high.
If the purchaser leaves with the item (cigarettes in this case) then you have a shoplifting or theft of goods call to make.
That is precisely what I said.
Obviously my post came before yours because you felt the need to say I said something I never did.
 

DriveInDriѵeOut

Inordinately Right
He was handcuffed and on his stomach though. I can't see the need to continue kneeling on him once he passed out.
Because it took then a long time to get him in that position. He had been fighting them for like half an hour.

Druggies often wake up from their overdoses very violent. There was expert testimony to that effect.

Handcuffed suspects are absolutely still a threat, any cop will tell you that, and a witness said exactly that on the stand.
 
Last edited:

vantexan

Well-Known Member
He was saying he couldn't breathe for half an hour, while physically fighting them trying to put him in the police car. He was lying.
And could have been suffering from the effect of the fentanyl he ingested. Do you think that police department and others reviewed their policies on restraining suspects after this incident? Seems to me that cop haters want to put everything on the cops and people who let's say "strongly dislike" minority criminals want to put everything on George Floyd. I think suspects who refuse to comply with lawful orders put themselves in harm's way. And I think short of situations where they must use lethal force cops have a responsibility to insure those in their custody are given every consideration in regards to keeping them alive. Doesn't matter what you or I think though. It matters what a jury thinks after both sides present their arguments. And it would not have come to a jury trial if Chauvin hadn't continued to press down on Floyd for so long. If he and the others had stopped and given first aid then it could have been argued that the knee on the back restraint was standard department policy to subdue uncooperative suspects.
 

newolddude

Well-Known Member
And could have been suffering from the effect of the fentanyl he ingested. Do you think that police department and others reviewed their policies on restraining suspects after this incident? Seems to me that cop haters want to put everything on the cops and people who let's say "strongly dislike" minority criminals want to put everything on George Floyd. I think suspects who refuse to comply with lawful orders put themselves in harm's way. And I think short of situations where they must use lethal force cops have a responsibility to insure those in their custody are given every consideration in regards to keeping them alive. Doesn't matter what you or I think though. It matters what a jury thinks after both sides present their arguments. And it would not have come to a jury trial if Chauvin hadn't continued to press down on Floyd for so long. If he and the others had stopped and given first aid then it could have been argued that the knee on the back restraint was standard department policy to subdue uncooperative suspects.
At what point did Chauvin go too far? At what point what was Floyd subdued enough that he could have gotten off his neck and arrrested him while alive?
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
At what point did Chauvin go too far? At what point what was Floyd subdued enough that he could have gotten off his neck and arrrested him while alive?
Good question. What's your opinion? I think he was already arrested but refused to comply with lawful orders. Thus the knee on the back. How can you put everything completely on Chauvin? I'm betting that's a technique no longer used though. It's sad that it came to that but how many suspects over the years ended up dead because they refused to comply with lawful orders? As I've already said I'm certain those cops wished they had handled that situation differently.
 

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
I actually said this



That is precisely what I said.
Obviously my post came before yours because you felt the need to say I said something I never did.

You going to keep gaslighting? Wow. You should have given up and licked your wounds.

Your claim was the cops had no jurisdiction because the crime was passing a counterfeit bill, so was federal. I demonstrated that your claim was false after you refused, twice, to correct your mistake.

Then you tell me you conceded to the fact that it's theft "if" (you said if, not because, like you still didn't know he stole cigarettes) obtaining goods with a counterfeit bill. You changed the conversation to being about that, as if you forgot that just a little while before your claim was it was a federal crime over which the cops had no jurisdiction.

You either are confused, possibly due to a medical emergency, or a liar. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are having a stroke.
 
Top