i'm not leading you into anything. i simply asked if the cop released the choke hold after the man said he couldn't breathe. the answer to that is in the video. you gave an incorrect answer, so i'm suggesting you watch the vide again
He eventually he let go but that is besides the point. There is no indication that he let go because of the protestations. There is a significant amount of time where we can see clearly he wasn't letting go despite the protestations.
It was ruled a homicide by the medical examiner.
I wish you would quit being a intellectual coward and construct an argument rather than these dissembling allusions about what I should see. If you feel scorn fine but don't be a little about it.
fantastic. good to see you went back and watched the video to correct your previous error.
i never asserted such. i merely asked if he let go of the choke after the complaints. thank you for correcting your answer.but that is besides the point. There is no indication that he let go because of the protestations.
we have known this for months. the medical examiner noted several contributing factors to his death, which you conveniently ignoreIt was ruled a homicide by the medical examiner.
i'm not telling you what you should see. i only asked you to acknowledge what was in the video. after initial protests you came around to itI wish you would quit being a intellectual coward and construct an argument rather than these dissembling allusions about what I should see.
i'm not, im only asking for honest answersIf you feel scorn fine but don't be a little about it.
Again I never saw him release the chokehold. There is an interval of time where it may have happened but it was in the interim of when the cop obstructed the view.fantastic. good to see you went back and watched the video to correct your previous error.
i never asserted such. i merely asked if he let go of the choke after the complaints. thank you for correcting your answer.
we have known this for months. the medical examiner noted several contributing factors to his death, which you conveniently ignore
i'm not telling you what you should see. i only asked you to acknowledge what was in the video. after initial protests you came around to it
i'm not, im only asking for honest answers
You need to quit being a and actually discuss what you think happened. You don't do that but try this condescending mode.
If you want to be all smarmy because of arguments I'm not considering that you are only capable of alluding to then that is weak weak . I have been calling you out regarding this for quite some time but you instead double down with it regarding the medical examiner's ruling. If you are going to keep being a I am just going to stop responding to you.
And in all of this you are still too coward to address my central point throughout all of this regarding the inherent conflict of interest and lack of equal protection that has nothing to do with race whatsoever. So have fun feeling put upon because of race or whatever else you are butthurt about but I have better things to do.
what i think happened? what i think happened is exactly what i saw in the video.
if you didn't see the chokehold release, then i suggest you watch the video yet again. it's all there
If it was my choice, that officer would be tried, for at a minimum, manslaughter. But it isn't our choice. Is it. The grand jury looked at the evidence and decided not to try the case. That's ow our system works, like it or not. You stupid OP had no merit in the jury process.
Can you say "due process?"
Can you say prosecutor with a conflict of interest?
So your argument is that at some point the cop let go. Bravo, counselor, your articulation and logic in demonstrating an argument is well on the way to making you a glorified paralegal.
And in all of this you are still too coward to address my central point throughout all of this regarding the inherent conflict of interest and lack of equal protection that has nothing to do with race whatsoever. So have fun feeling put upon because of race or whatever else you are butthurt about but I have better things to do.
that's not an argument. that is what occurred. i'm not sure why you were denying it as long as you were
Bravo, counselor, your articulation and logic in demonstrating an argument is well on the way to making you a glorified paralegal.
And in all of this you are still too coward to address my central point throughout all of this regarding the inherent conflict of interest and lack of equal protection that has nothing to do with race whatsoever. So have fun feeling put upon because of race or whatever else you are butthurt about but I have better things to do.my only mention of race in this thread (post 23) was to say "police protection isn't an issue of race." you have brought race up more than i have, so keep trying to project that if it makes you feel better
in all this people like to say "my point isn't about race" and yet thats what you keep resorting to fuzzy
You try and pin this on me earlier and I said that civil rights should have nothing to do with race.
I was talking to Blake about the department saying that the cop was not taught to do that and it was not policy. He responded by saying that the union was saying he was taught that at the academy. You then responded to that by the quip "you're just being racist." That was when I pointed out that I was very clearly not making this a race issue and if you were feeling racial guilt that some introspection was in order.
You can keep telling yourself this bull but you are doing little more than the other nihilist dimwits do around here. I feel like chump asking you to say what you think happened on that camera. the oh so witty troll technique of ST yore.
And you are still too cowardly to discuss the obvious conflict of issue regarding the prosecutor and the lack of equal protection.
that was in a different thread, and it wasn't in response to you, so why does that bear any relevance at all in our exchange here? oh because you just want a cheap copout to avoid further questions
also.... "what you think happened on that camera"
what? we all see the ing video. there isn't really much to interpret. you seem go go back and forth on acknowledging that the choke hold was released for some reason. can you just make up your mind on that so we can all move on? and if you are wrong, i will point it out again and ask you to re-watch the video until you get it right. for some reason, everybody except you has come to the same conclusion
I'm still waiting for you to make an argument about the timing of the choke hold.
And you are still too cowardly to discuss the obvious conflict of interest regarding the prosecutor and the lack of equal protection.
i'm not even making an argument. i'm looking at the video and seeing exactly what happened. apparently you aren't even at that point yet
Oh and because your quip was an interjection to a discussion he and I were having. That was explained in the beginning. If I am wrong in that perhaps you could better explain what you meant that had nothing to do with me.
I know thus me calling you a nihilist dimwit.
I looked at it and agreed with the medical examiners opinion. I'm glad your at some other point but frankly who cares, L Ron.
"funny" name calling aside, have you seen the part of the video where the choke hold is released and Garner is still alive and speaking?
rejecting everything and not constructing at all is what a nihilist does. It may also be a name but it has been apt to this point.
your almost there. . . .
I'm not going to make your argument for you, chachi.
this is boring and its obvious that you have no interest in the OP so I'm done with this.
i dont even know what i'm being accused of rejecting
all i'm saying is i've watched the video and saw what happened. you don't seem to have reached this same point. so why would you even discuss the incident if you clearly haven't seen it?
i dont even know what i'm being accused of rejecting
all i'm saying is i've watched the video and saw what happened. you don't seem to have reached this same point. so why would you even discuss the incident if you clearly haven't seen it?
Up next the hand wave, bluster, forest for the trees, critical thinking etc line
What stupid ing blowhard
It's that fuzzy logic.
You claim to not know what you are rejecting and then the very next sentence reject my multiple statements and accounts regarding having watched the video. you never say what your interpretation of events is.i dont even know what i'm being accused of rejecting
all i'm saying is i've watched the video and saw what happened. you don't seem to have reached this same point. so why would you even discuss the incident if you clearly haven't seen it?
Throw in more smilies on your part and have me mindlessly repeat "you still haven't said what you thought happened" and it will be exactly like that stupid chump/blake vs SA210/SBM spammed in the club for a year.
I am going to put you on ignore for a couple weeks to give you a chance to find someone else to do this pointless round and round with. I am getting the feeling I'm dealing with someone feeling lonely since the bannings. You should go talk to chump. He actually will sit there and ask you what you think for weeks on end despite refusal.
And you called me a blowhard.
Up next the hand wave, bluster, forest for the trees, critical thinking etc line
What stupid ing blowhard
I'm a trend setter.
I set trends.
In your own words explain what I mean regarding the conflict of interest with the cops DA handling the prosecution. Then in your own words explain how the witness statements have anything to do with that.
In your own words explain how it has anything to do with the additional rights granted cops as opposed to the rest of us. Can you in any way demonstrate that you understand what I am talking about?
I have corresponded with you for a bout a year now and I have a pretty good feel for the level of your capacity. I can tell you don't really grasp what I am saying. So you can pipe in when I am arguing with other people but you still are only at that capacity.
ANd on a final note every time I comment on your lack of critical thinking. IT is always done with a specific example of a critical thinking failure on your part. You have issues identifying key words and ideas and are largely ignorant in how to compare, contrast, qualify, quantify, or otherwise evaluate them. You tend to fixate on stupid themes and go to questionable sources to reaffirm your worldview. You do a very poor job thinking for yourself.
what is there to interpret? i watched a video which showed an officer apply a chokehold. and in the same video we see the officer remove the choke hold. that isn't up for interpretation. the fact that you are struggling to acknowledge the events of the video only tells me you haven't watched it, or are being intellectually dishonest.
i have no intentions to discuss the events with somebody that fits into either of those two categories
So anyway. Seems that WC, TSA, nor anyone else wants to argue the OP while Teysha and others have supported the notion. That is about as close to board consensus as we will see on an issue.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
