2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: macsak on November 15, 2023, 02:49:21 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48r_pzPcTNA
-
It says new footage but I recall seeing this footage before.
Can you imagine the riots if his conviction is overturned?
I don't think Chauvin should walk free as he clearly committed a civil rights violation but I am not convinced he committed murder.
-
It says new footage but I recall seeing this footage before.
Can you imagine the riots if his conviction is overturned?
I don't think Chauvin should walk free as he clearly committed a civil rights violation but I am not convinced he committed murder.
I think the other cops should be free and never charged. As they were doing crowd control due to an angry crowd, they couldn't focus on what Chauvin was doing.
For Chauvin, anytime someone is cuffed, they are now in custody and control of the officer. So that officer is responsible for anything that happens to them. Even if they slip on a banana peel and hit thier head on the ground. But since Floyd didn't die from something like this, maybe just a slap on the wrist for Chauvin. But again, add in he had to also focus on the angry crowd. So they are just as responsible for Floyds death if you want to look at it that way because they were distracting the officers.
Every cop in that department should have striked because this is setting an example of hanging them out to dry due to politics. But they're too endoctrined to do so as their union didn't allow this. Cops need to learn to stand up for their own in situations like this.
-
The cops are innocent and whomever convicted them should be penalized. I thought there'd be no way Chauvin, much less the other cops, would be convicted.
Floyd died of an overdose and the cop did the right thing by putting him in a recovery position. His knee wasnt pressing down on Floyd's neck.
-
That old hag Pelosi knelt down for what....8 minutes(?) in tribute to Floyd.
Had to be helped up after. They should have left her down there.
-
I think the other cops should be free and never charged. As they were doing crowd control due to an angry crowd, they couldn't focus on what Chauvin was doing.
For Chauvin, anytime someone is cuffed, they are now in custody and control of the officer. So that officer is responsible for anything that happens to them. Even if they slip on a banana peel and hit thier head on the ground. But since Floyd didn't die from something like this, maybe just a slap on the wrist for Chauvin. But again, add in he had to also focus on the angry crowd. So they are just as responsible for Floyds death if you want to look at it that way because they were distracting the officers.
Every cop in that department should have striked because this is setting an example of hanging them out to dry due to politics. But they're too endoctrined to do so as their union didn't allow this. Cops need to learn to stand up for their own in situations like this.
I somewhat agree with you there but I would have to review the specifics of what each officer did as some had more culpability than others. The officer holding the feet for example asked if Floyd was still breathing and he couldn't really see for himself given the angle. He relied on what Officer Chauvin told him. He is the one guy I could see actually being given his job back.
The officer controlling the crowd, the asian one was definitely distracted by the crowd yelling at him but they were yelling for him to check on Floyd. I think he should have caught on and checked on Floyd. I don't think that warrants a serious criminal charge, maybe a low level civil rights violation. Either way I would say his failure means he should not be an officer again. The other guy I cannot recall enough of what he did to offer comment there.
If Floyd were in a cell and the officer found him unconscious, the officer would be required to check on him and render aid. If the officer just called for a paramedic and waited for the 10-15 minutes for the ambulance to arrive they would certainly be guilty of a civil rights violation, even if the person's medical condition was at no fault of the officers. The yelling crowd complicates things a bit but Chauvin still had a duty to care for Floyd. The other problem for Chauvin is the decision to put Floyd on the ground and hold him like that which is hard to fully justify that level of force in that situation. I don't think it is what killed him but it may have contributed to his death.
A strike by the other officers? I have mixed feelings on that. If they truly think it was a miscarriage of justice then I am tempted to support such a strike but I also wonder whether the outcome would really help. Would it really be seen as standing up for justice or would it be seen as dirty cops sticking together? Plus some might have thought Chauvin should be charged with a crime, just not murder so do you strike based on that nuance? Tough calls.
-
The cops are innocent and whomever convicted them should be penalized. I thought there'd be no way Chauvin, much less the other cops, would be convicted.
Floyd died of an overdose and the cop did the right thing by putting him in a recovery position. His knee wasnt pressing down on Floyd's neck.
The recovery position is on someone's side, not on their stomach. Chauvin may not have caused the injuries that lead to Floyd's death but he failed to render aid to someone in his care like he should have.
-
The recovery position is on someone's side, not on their stomach. Chauvin may not have caused the injuries that lead to Floyd's death but he failed to render aid to someone in his care like he should have.
It's been a while and I thought he was on his side. It is harder to breathe lying on the stomach especially with weight on him, which may have been a factor.
Should've been fired and maybe justified some minor charges, but most of the fault was on Floyd.
-
. Would it really be seen as standing up for justice or would it be seen as dirty cops sticking together? Plus some might have thought Chauvin should be charged with a crime, just not murder so do you strike based on that nuance? Tough calls.
The people who think its dirty cops sticking together also think BLM is great, Floyd is a hero and deserved his golden casket, Al Sharp is a great guy, etc...
Interesting you think that a crowd yelling aggressively should be obeyed. While this was happening, Floyd was able to speak and wasn't unconscious. So where's the greater threat, a hostile crowd or an officer who has a suspect handcuffed on his stomach? The Asian guy did his job as crowd control and got screwed. So did everyone else.
WHat a strike would show is that the cops won't be made a political example of then and for all future incidents. But they didn't do anything, so I hope this happens again to them.
-
It's been a while and I thought he was on his side. It is harder to breathe lying on the stomach especially with weight on him, which may have been a factor.
Should've been fired and maybe justified some minor charges, but most of the fault was on Floyd.
He may have been on his side at some point but it was primarily on his stomach. Since he was handcuffed behind, there were other control methods they could have used which would have resulted in less restriction on his breathing.
I agree most the fault was on Floyd.
-
The people who think its dirty cops sticking together also think BLM is great, Floyd is a hero and deserved his golden casket, Al Sharp is a great guy, etc...
Not really. There is some overlap of course but it would be a false equivalence to thing they are the same. People on this forum think all the time cops are sticking together to take away their gun rights, are there a bunch of BLM supporters here?
Interesting you think that a crowd yelling aggressively should be obeyed. While this was happening, Floyd was able to speak and wasn't unconscious. So where's the greater threat, a hostile crowd or an officer who has a suspect handcuffed on his stomach? The Asian guy did his job as crowd control and got screwed. So did everyone else.
WHat a strike would show is that the cops won't be made a political example of then and for all future incidents. But they didn't do anything, so I hope this happens again to them.
I didn't say anything about the crowd being obeyed. The cop should have heard what the crowd was saying, he should have keyed into the fact that something was wrong. The crowd wasn't yelling threats at the cops, they were yelling that Floyd couldn't breathe. They were pointing that out after Floyd had gone still and wasn't talking anymore too. The crowd was in an excited state but they were not hostile. One lady identified herself as a nurse in and tried to point out that Floyd was suffering a medical emergency. He failed at his job, cops can't simply get overwhelmed by people yelling that they lose their ability to recognize important things. If a cop shows up to a mass shooting loads of people are yelling, he can't respond by simply telling people to stand back when they are trying to tell him there is a shooting going on. It would have been nice if the crowd were calm and quiet but that is not how dynamic situations work usually.
I am not confident that most people would see the cops striking in the same manner you would. What kind of message do you think that would send? If striking could have gotten some or all of the charges dropped, what if the officers did so to protect an officer who did do something wrong?
-
Not really. There is some overlap of course but it would be a false equivalence to thing they are the same. People on this forum think all the time cops are sticking together to take away their gun rights, are there a bunch of BLM supporters here?
We are talking about a strike due to chauvin, et al being charged the way they were. Not about othet situations.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I didn't say anything about the crowd being obeyed. The cop should have heard what the crowd was saying, he should have keyed into the fact that something was wrong. The crowd wasn't yelling threats at the cops, they were yelling that Floyd couldn't breathe. They were pointing that out after Floyd had gone still and wasn't talking anymore too. The crowd was in an excited state but they were not hostile. One lady identified herself as a nurse in and tried to point out that Floyd was suffering a medical emergency. He failed at his job, cops can't simply get overwhelmed by people yelling that they lose their ability to recognize important things. If a cop shows up to a mass shooting loads of people are yelling, he can't respond by simply telling people to stand back when they are trying to tell him there is a shooting going on. It would have been nice if the crowd were calm and quiet but that is not how dynamic situations work usually.
I am not confident that most people would see the cops striking in the same manner you would. What kind of message do you think that would send? If striking could have gotten some or all of the charges dropped, what if the officers did so to protect an officer who did do something wrong?
"Keyed into" AKA listened to the crowd. Thats what i said. Nice try, trying to create your own stuff on what i said to make urself sound right.
I stated what the message being sent states and the why in this situation. Ur using more whataboutism and going beyond what were talking about. U might as well have said what if LAPD struck so the Rodney King cops never got charged.
A hostile crowd doesnt only mean threats or violent actions are being made.
Thanks for playing.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
They charged the crowd control guy. :wtf:
That’s not Justice. That’s Blind Vengeance.
-
We are talking about a strike due to chauvin, et al being charged the way they were. Not about othet situations.
And if it works in that situation, what stops them from using it in other situations to protect a bad cop?
Problem is you are only seeing this from one angle, not considering how everyone else might look at it. You just sent a message complaining about a 50:1 ratio of cops doing unconstitutional things surrounding covid but now you aren't seeing how a strike could be viewed as an abuse of their power.
-
"Keyed into" AKA listened to the crowd. Thats what i said. Nice try, trying to create your own stuff on what i said to make urself sound right.
I stated what the message being sent states and the why in this situation. Ur using more whataboutism and going beyond what were talking about. U might as well have said what if LAPD struck so the Rodney King cops never got charged.
A hostile crowd doesnt only mean threats or violent actions are being made.
Thanks for playing.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
You said "obeyed", now you are going to tell me you didn't? It's all there in your reply, it even quoted you when I replied. Talk about creating your own stuff.
Threats and violence are exactly what determines whether a crowd is hostile. The crowd was upset and frustrated and loud but they weren't hostile. The Asian cop was conversing with individuals in the crowd in a way that they explained to him their concerns in a manner he should have been able to comprehend and take action on. The Asian cop could have calmed the crowd by checking on Floyd's condition but he didn't, he made it worse by ignoring their legitimate warnings. Imagine the fire fighter who let a house burn down with a person inside because he was to threatened by a mother screaming that her kid was inside the house. He may not have committed a crime but he doesn't have what it takes to be a cop.
-
And if it works in that situation, what stops them from using it in other situations to protect a bad cop?
Problem is you are only seeing this from one angle, not considering how everyone else might look at it. You just sent a message complaining about a 50:1 ratio of cops doing unconstitutional things surrounding covid but now you aren't seeing how a strike could be viewed as an abuse of their power.
Does it matter how others who are morons look at it? No it doesn't because it would be a strike for the right reason. So if cops want more pay/benefits and want to strike, should they not in case others view it as bad cops? Thanks for playing. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
-
You said "obeyed", now you are going to tell me you didn't? It's all there in your reply, it even quoted you when I replied. Talk about creating your own stuff.
Threats and violence are exactly what determines whether a crowd is hostile. The crowd was upset and frustrated and loud but they weren't hostile. The Asian cop was conversing with individuals in the crowd in a way that they explained to him their concerns in a manner he should have been able to comprehend and take action on. The Asian cop could have calmed the crowd by checking on Floyd's condition but he didn't, he made it worse by ignoring their legitimate warnings. Imagine the fire fighter who let a house burn down with a person inside because he was to threatened by a mother screaming that her kid was inside the house. He may not have committed a crime but he doesn't have what it takes to be a cop.
Ok buddy. I don't got time to keep going in circles. Thanks for playing. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Chance card says you owe back taxes of 20%.
-
Does it matter how others who are morons look at it? No it doesn't because it would be a strike for the right reason. So if cops want more pay/benefits and want to strike, should they not in case others view it as bad cops? Thanks for playing. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
Of course it matters how people would look at it. Your response betrays how subjectively you are looking at it, "strike for the right reason" as if the truth of what happened is so plain and obvious.
We aren't talking about a strike for pay/benefits, we are talking about a strike to sway the justice system. Swoosh!
-
Ok buddy. I don't got time to keep going in circles. Thanks for playing. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Chance card says you owe back taxes of 20%.
I caught you in your own strawman and now you want to cover your retreat with your clever new catch phrase. Okay. :shaka:
-
Of course it matters how people would look at it. Your response betrays how subjectively you are looking at it, "strike for the right reason" as if the truth of what happened is so plain and obvious.
We aren't talking about a strike for pay/benefits, we are talking about a strike to sway the justice system. Swoosh!
Nice try whataboutism and redirecting. Hahahhahahahha
Thanks for playing. A 12, U sunk ur own battleship.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I caught you in your own strawman and now you want to cover your retreat with your clever new catch phrase. Okay. :shaka:
Hahhhhahhaa seeing things that arent there in order to redirect. Thanks for playing.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I caught you in your own strawman and now you want to cover your retreat with your clever new catch phrase. Okay. :shaka:
Btw, u had so many bad opinions that i dont got the time to show how bad each one is. Dont got time for games at the moment.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Btw, u had so many bad opinions that i dont got the time to show how bad each one is. Dont got time for games at the moment.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Don't got time for games or just don't like losing?
-
Don't got time for games or just don't like losing?
Re-read the post and u will have ur amswer. Maybe urgent care would be a good decision.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Re-read the post and u will have ur amswer. Maybe urgent care would be a good decision.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Me: Doctor doctor, help me, CMO diagnosed me with bad opinions. What ever shall I do?
Dr: You'll be fine. CMO is teasing you because he doesn't have a rebuttal
-
Me: Doctor doctor, help me, CMO diagnosed me with bad opinions. What ever shall I do?
Dr: You'll be fine. CMO is teasing you because he doesn't have a rebuttal
Eef: doctor, i like to refuse logical evidence or provide logical evidence when called out. And i think so highly of myself that a non supportive/off topic reply means im right. The last guy who took the time to be somewhat nice to me stopped and is hurting my feelings.
Doc: sounds like ur an a....h.... whos bored. U should re-evaluate ur hobby.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Eef: doctor, i like to refuse logical evidence or provide logical evidence when called out. And i think so highly of myself that a non supportive/off topic reply means im right. The last guy who took the time to be somewhat nice to me stopped and is hurting my feelings.
Doc: sounds like ur an a....h.... whos bored. U should re-evaluate ur hobby.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
We appear to have the same hobby....
What logical evidence? You just claimed the crowd was hostile, I showed you how they weren't hostile but you ignored that. I am very pro-cop and even I can recognize the failure of the asian officer, I don't know why you can't, especially considering you were very critical of cops in other issues.
-
We appear to have the same hobby....
What logical evidence? You just claimed the crowd was hostile, I showed you how they weren't hostile but you ignored that. I am very pro-cop and even I can recognize the failure of the asian officer, I don't know why you can't, especially considering you were very critical of cops in other issues.
WAtCh dA vIDs.
Wow, now u brining in other issues and cops. Goal post moving again.
Thanks for playing. Right hand blue.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
WAtCh dA vIDs.
Wow, now u brining in other issues and cops. Goal post moving again.
Thanks for playing. Right hand blue.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
I watched the videos of Floyd's detention multiple times from multiple angles. Thats why I know you are wrong.
Connect four
-
FBI ALTERED George Floyd Autopsy Report
Claims Documentary
To Implicate Derek Chauvin In SHAM TRIAL
https://youtu.be/nsOwivtL9N0
-
FBI ALTERED George Floyd Autopsy Report
Claims Documentary
To Implicate Derek Chauvin In SHAM TRIAL
https://youtu.be/nsOwivtL9N0
I think he hits the nail on the head. It would be silly to ignore that there is a practical take on this that would lead some to the belief that it was necessary to find Chauvin guilty in order to avoid a greater harm of large scale riots. For some, sending Chauvin, a man not guilty of murder, but not innocent of wrongdoing either, to jail would be worth it if it meant saving dozens or even hundreds of lives and likely billions of dollars. This is a very utilitarian solution to the problem.
-
Beginning to look like Chauvin and his fellow officers were sacrificed.
If I was them I would go down swinging.
Funny thing is, they were pretty calm and collective about it. I would be livid.
-
I watched the videos of Floyd's detention multiple times from multiple angles. Thats why I know you are wrong.
Connect four
Ask anyone who's standing near you to help you understand what's going on in them. Thanks for playing. Chutes and Ladders.
-
I think he hits the nail on the head. It would be silly to ignore that there is a practical take on this that would lead some to the belief that it was necessary to find Chauvin guilty in order to avoid a greater harm of large scale riots. For some, sending Chauvin, a man not guilty of murder, but not innocent of wrongdoing either, to jail would be worth it if it meant saving dozens or even hundreds of lives and likely billions of dollars. This is a very utilitarian solution to the problem.
Good think we have "due process" to protect people against those who think that jailing 1 innocent man is worth it. Oh wait...there's that combo of words again, due process. Hmmmmm... what is that? IDK, guess it means jailing 1 innocent man of said crime to save others. pUBLiC SAfEtY meh meh meh.
Good thing there was no strike or walk off. Hope this happens again and again.
-
Good think we have "due process" to protect people against those who think that jailing 1 innocent man is worth it. Oh wait...there's that combo of words again, due process. Hmmmmm... what is that? IDK, guess it means jailing 1 innocent man of said crime to save others. pUBLiC SAfEtY meh meh meh.
Good thing there was no strike or walk off. Hope this happens again and again.
Blackstone's Ratio
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.
The reverse is not "utilitarian." It's injustice.
Maybe it's better that ten "peaceful protestors" be shot than several innocent Cops be railroaded and sent to prison?
Using unjust prosecutions to quell civil unrest is like sending your oldest child to reform school so the other children stop arguing with him.
Punish the law breakers (protestor causing damage and injuries), and stop demonizing Cops.
Most of the protests are sparked by Social Media. Maybe go after the news agencies and content providers who post misinformation and lies that incite unrest
before the facts are actually made public.
The rush to "scoop" a big story while spinning it as another race-related Police-on-Black-person incident should not override reasoning and responsible journalism.
There's no better term for a story that gets massive clicks than "viral." That's what we've devolved into.
-
Beginning to look like Chauvin and his fellow officers were sacrificed.
If I was them I would go down swinging.
Funny thing is, they were pretty calm and collective about it. I would be livid.
Probably what the lawyers advised their clients to do. Maybe more advantageous to look remorseful than to go down swinging?
I think a couple of the officers bear some responsibility and therefore deserve some punishment but at least one of them was sacrificed to the cause.
They all should appeal their convictions, they have good cause for their cases being overturned and/or given lower convictions/sentences.
-
Blackstone's Ratio
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.
The reverse is not "utilitarian." It's injustice.
Maybe it's better that ten "peaceful protestors" be shot than several innocent Cops be railroaded and sent to prison?
Using unjust prosecutions to quell civil unrest is like sending your oldest child to reform school so the other children stop arguing with him.
Punish the law breakers (protestor causing damage and injuries), and stop demonizing Cops.
Most of the protests are sparked by Social Media. Maybe go after the news agencies and content providers who post misinformation and lies that incite unrest
before the facts are actually made public.
The rush to "scoop" a big story while spinning it as another race-related Police-on-Black-person incident should not override reasoning and responsible journalism.
There's no better term for a story that gets massive clicks than "viral." That's what we've devolved into.
It is definitely injustice, in my opinion, but that doesn't make it not utilitarian. They are separate concepts that can exist independently
Utilitarianism simply looks for the best outcome, whether it be the most good done or the most bad avoided. Like the trolley experiment, they would argue better to run over the one person than to run over 4 people even if it meant turning the trolley towards the one person. They think it is better to toss out justice and put a few innocent people in jail than the consequences of the protests if they were released.
-
Ask anyone who's standing near you to help you understand what's going on in them. Thanks for playing. Chutes and Ladders.
Maybe after getting some reading glasses you can get some hearing aids, then you can watch the videos and understand.
Waiting for my care package after this kill streak. (stop me if video game references are cheating)
-
Maybe after getting some reading glasses you can get some hearing aids, then you can watch the videos and understand.
Waiting for my care package after this kill streak. (stop me if video game references are cheating)
Thanks for trying to turn it around Jean. Thanks for playing. BINGO
-
They think it is better to toss out justice and put a few innocent people in jail than the consequences of the protests if they were released.
Do you think this too?
-
Do you think this too?
I believe this was the rationale used when lynching of blacks were tolerated by the local law enforcers.
Can't lock up half the town -- the other half might show up with pitch forks and shotguns.
Lynchings are just utilitarian methods of saving lives and stopping civil unrest, not criminal acts.
I believe the actual term is 'mob rule'.
-
I believe this was the rationale used when lynching of blacks were tolerated by the local law enforcers.
Can't lock up half the town -- the other half might show up with pitch forks and shotguns.
Lynchings are just utilitarian methods of saving lives and stopping civil unrest, not criminal acts.
I believe the actual term is 'mob rule'.
Ohhh snap.
-
Do you think this too?
Nope. I subscribe to the principle that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison. Even if it started Civil War 2 and thousands died I would still adhere to this ideal.
-
Nope. I subscribe to the principle that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison. Even if it started Civil War 2 and thousands died I would still adhere to this ideal.
Wow, a definite stance. Guess seeing the doc must have worked.
-
Wow, a definite stance. Guess seeing the doc must have worked.
i've suspected for a long time he knows right from wrong but plays devil's advocate just to troll.
:sleeping:
-
i've suspected for a long time he knows right from wrong but plays devil's advocate just to troll.
:sleeping:
*points to nose.
Maybe bored too.
-
The supreme court just declined to hear Derek Chauvin's appeal on the grounds of not having a fair jury. They didn't give a reason as to why they declined to hear it.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/20/us/derek-chauvin-supreme-court-appeal/index.html
-
Wow, a definite stance. Guess seeing the doc must have worked.
I give definite stances all the time, when the evidence warrants them.
Plus my statement was about an ideology, not some position on an incident. I don't change my ideologies to fit the incident, I held this position long before the Floyd incident so whatever doc you are talking about had no bearing.
-
i've suspected for a long time he knows right from wrong but plays devil's advocate just to troll.
:sleeping:
Says the guy who starts more arguments than anyone here...
I don't troll, it's not my style.
I do however enjoy a nuanced discussion looking at all sides of an issue without rushing to judgement. I possess this amazing ability (sarcasm) to look at things seriously from outside of my own stance and recognize strengths in opposing viewpoints without having to hold them myself.
-
Says the guy who starts more arguments than anyone here...
I don't troll, it's not my style.
I do however enjoy a nuanced discussion looking at all sides of an issue without rushing to judgement. I possess this amazing ability (sarcasm) to look at things seriously from outside of my own stance and recognize strengths in opposing viewpoints without having to hold them myself.
Keep telling yourself that. Jean.
-
I give definite stances all the time, when the evidence warrants them.
Plus my statement was about an ideology, not some position on an incident. I don't change my ideologies to fit the incident, I held this position long before the Floyd incident so whatever doc you are talking about had no bearing.
So when asked to post a red flag law that is constitutional (due process), you didn't. Which means you have no evidence for your statement that there may be one out there.
Nice goal post moving.
Thanks for playing Jean.
-
So when asked to post a red flag law that is constitutional (due process), you didn't. Which means you have no evidence for your statement that there may be one out there.
I did, you just didn't agree it had due process. Don't bother debating me if you are going to be dishonest about my posts.
:stopjack:
-
I did, you just didn't agree it had due process. Don't bother debating me if you are going to be dishonest about my posts.
:stopjack:
It's not a debate if you refuse to back up what you're saying. Flapp spelled it out for you and you still refuse. What you posted is WRONG. (In agent Carter's voice) Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?. I'm not the dishonest one. I'll give you more chances to post your red flag law that's constitutional. Go ahead.
Thanks for the typical Jeanism reply. Thanks for playing. Or maybe see an eye doc too if you cannot read what the HRS says. Gotta get glasses or upgrade the RX.
-
It's not a debate if you refuse to back up what you're saying.
I posted the text for you to read, nothing else I can do if you refuse to read it. Now you are just trolling.
:stopjack:
-
I posted the text for you to read, nothing else I can do if you refuse to read it. Now you are just trolling.
:stopjack:
Posting garbage doesnt show ur right. If thats the case, i can post the instruction manual for Monopoly. Thanks for playing. Maybe i should post it, but idk if someone is near u to read it to u.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Posting garbage doesnt show ur right. If thats the case, i can post the instruction manual for Monopoly. Thanks for playing. Maybe i should post it, but idk if someone is near u to read it to u.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Okay, back to the game references are we?
:stopjack:
-
Okay, back to the game references are we?
:stopjack:
Why not?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Chauvin stabbed.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Chauvin stabbed.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/former-police-officer-derek-chauvin-stabbed-in-federal-prison-sources-say/ar-AA1kuT7j
I predict there will be cheering in the streets over this.
-
And the stabber was an FBI informant. Nothing to see here...
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlyPFIsJtqY
-
BLM is a rubbish organization.
Disgusting.
-
BLM is a rubbish organization.
Disgusting.
Low IQ people donated and supported them.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
BLM is a rubbish organization.
Disgusting.
BLM isn't actually a single organization but a concept.
There are however multiple organizations which use BLM in their official name.
But yes, absolute rubbish.
-
BLM isn't actually a single organization but a concept.
There are however multiple organizations which use BLM in their official name.
But yes, absolute rubbish.
And?
-
Tism awareness month.
The Left, especially those pushing the BLM agenda, have been spreading the LIE that BLM is not an organization, but merely a movement and ideology.
From the BLM website:
Our movement’s three entities, BLM Global Network Foundation, BLM PAC, and
BLM Grassroots, together, make up and support a multi-faceted, global movement
predicated on the belief that Black lives matter.
https://blacklivesmatter.com/2020-impact-report/
The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation has taken in about $90 million in
2020, when racial unrest exploded nationwide after the killing by police of George Floyd
and Breonna Taylor, according to the Associated Press.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/19/fact-check-misleading-claim-blm-co-founders-real-estate/7241450002/
That's $90M in ONE YEAR.
Looks like it's more organized than they want to gaslight us into believing.
Anyone with an objective, well-informed understanding of BLM would not be taken in by that lie.
-
The Left, especially those pushing the BLM agenda, have been spreading the LIE that BLM is not an organization, but merely a movement and ideology.
From the BLM website:https://blacklivesmatter.com/2020-impact-report/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/19/fact-check-misleading-claim-blm-co-founders-real-estate/7241450002/
That's $90M in ONE YEAR.
Looks like it's more organized than they want to gaslight us into believing.
Anyone with an objective, well-informed understanding of BLM would not be taken in by that lie.
so its like MLOK? but MLOK is free open sourced standard. But if I put BLM on my handguard do I get a royalty?
-
so its like MLOK? but MLOK is free open sourced standard. But if I put BLM on my handguard do I get a royalty?
MLOK is an abbreviation for MORLOCK.
I try to avoid Morlocks.
-
MLOK is an abbreviation for MORLOCK.
I try to avoid Morlocks.
Wrong! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-LOK
-
Wrong! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-LOK
I thought I was wrong once,
but I was mistaken.
-
The Left, especially those pushing the BLM agenda, have been spreading the LIE that BLM is not an organization, but merely a movement and ideology.
From the BLM website:https://blacklivesmatter.com/2020-impact-report/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/19/fact-check-misleading-claim-blm-co-founders-real-estate/7241450002/
That's $90M in ONE YEAR.
Looks like it's more organized than they want to gaslight us into believing.
Anyone with an objective, well-informed understanding of BLM would not be taken in by that lie.
You missed the nuance.
it is not a monolithic organization, BLM exists as a number of official organizations. Tied together in goals but not legally. They are however, as you point out, pretty good at swindling people out of money.
The phrase black lives matter is not owned by anyone despite many people trying to apply for the trademark. So you could put the phrase BLM on a t-shirt and make your own BLM hawaii group if you wanted. You could then do good or bad with said group. You don't have to license out the phrase or agree to follow some national standards and no one can tell you how you use the phrase.
-
You missed the nuance.
it is not a monolithic organization, BLM exists as a number of official organizations. Tied together in goals but not legally. They are however, as you point out, pretty good at swindling people out of money.
The phrase black lives matter is not owned by anyone despite many people trying to apply for the trademark. So you could put the phrase BLM on a t-shirt and make your own BLM hawaii group if you wanted. You could then do good or bad with said group. You don't have to license out the phrase or agree to follow some national standards and no one can tell you how you use the phrase.
Show me where an organization has to be monolithic to be called an organization.
-
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/legendsofthemultiuniverse/images/6/65/%C3%9CberMorlock.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140812015308)
-
Intersting opinion by former gang member:
The stabber is part of a mexican gang and would need permission to stab derek.
A mexican gang wont stab on behalf or for BLM.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Show me where an organization has to be monolithic to be called an organization.
By monolithic I meant there is no single, in charge BLM organization that controls everything BLM.
If there was a BLM Oahu and a BLM Hawaii with no legal ties to each other or a parent group then it would be inaccurate to refer to them as a single organization. BLM groups exist all over the country and though they may work together, there is no governing organization that has a say over all of them.
-
Shows that EEF feels uncontrollable need to try to find stuff to be right about. Party plan for April? WIll Spectrum Cable be there?
-
By monolithic I meant there is no single, in charge BLM organization that controls everything BLM.
If there was a BLM Oahu and a BLM Hawaii with no legal ties to each other or a parent group then it would be inaccurate to refer to them as a single organization. BLM groups exist all over the country and though they may work together, there is no governing organization that has a say over all of them.
Show me where anyone used the words "single organization" ... other than you.
-
Shows that EEF feels uncontrollable need to try to find stuff to be right about. Party plan for April? WIll Spectrum Cable be there?
I've never seen someone who professes to care about rights defend an obvious ORGANIZATION, MOVEMENT and SCAM.
BLM raised money based on a lie: "Hands up, don't shoot!" It never happened. Notice how they've tried to let that narrative die in obscurity while adopting yet another fake white cop on black victim narrative.
Race baiting has been a money maker for many in the past, often for people with "Reverend" as their title.
I see nothing positive to come from this more recent "movement." Where, exactly, have they moved anything other than increasing the racial divide?
-
By monolithic I meant there is no single, in charge BLM organization that controls everything BLM.
If there was a BLM Oahu and a BLM Hawaii with no legal ties to each other or a parent group then it would be inaccurate to refer to them as a single organization. BLM groups exist all over the country and though they may work together, there is no governing organization that has a say over all of them.
"BLM groups exist all over the country and though they may work together, there is no governing organization that has a say over all of them."
Still trying to be a "subject" as opposed to a free man? You must be Hawaiian. if not by race, but surely by compliance.
Just because there is no central authority, doesn't mean they don't operate in unison.
BLM wants to destroy non-"black" people. That is quite simple.
Democrats want to destroy hetero-sexual white and Asian men, pretty simple.
Y'all don't need central control, just a culture.
>:D
-
Y'all don't need central control, just a culture.
>:D
And an excuse like BLM. Catchy name brings in the $ and influence. Like Moms Demand Action, Everytown for Gun Safety. Their names should really be "We want to take away your 2nd amendment right".
-
Show me where anyone used the words "single organization" ... other than you.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=51775.msg467961#msg467961
He said "organization". Not the absence of an "S" at the end of the word. In this case that means it is not plural but single. :closed:
-
I've never seen someone who professes to care about rights defend an obvious ORGANIZATION, MOVEMENT and SCAM.
Show me where I defended BLM. I even agreed with quiet that it was rubbish. Stop misrepresenting what I stated, I know you aren't that dumb so you clearly aren't doing it on accident.
-
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=51775.msg467961#msg467961
He said "organization". Not the absence of an "S" at the end of the word. In this case that means it is not plural but single. :closed:
So, nobody.
Gotcha.
-
"BLM groups exist all over the country and though they may work together, there is no governing organization that has a say over all of them."
Still trying to be a "subject" as opposed to a free man? You must be Hawaiian. if not by race, but surely by compliance.
Just because there is no central authority, doesn't mean they don't operate in unison.
BLM wants to destroy non-"black" people. That is quite simple.
Democrats want to destroy hetero-sexual white and Asian men, pretty simple.
Y'all don't need central control, just a culture.
>:D
Culture would be a more accurate term than organization.
-
So, nobody.
Gotcha.
See that string of blue letters? That is called a link. Read it.
You yourself later even said "organization", again, absent the S at the end.
-
Show me where I defended BLM. I even agreed with quiet that it was rubbish. Stop misrepresenting what I stated, I know you aren't that dumb so you clearly aren't doing it on accident.
LOL!
Then why are you trying to hash out the BLM org chart for us?
If you aren't defending bLM, and lack of a monolithic structure has no bearing on the topic, why the hell are you arguing so much?
-
Show me where I defended BLM. I even agreed with quiet that it was rubbish. Stop misrepresenting what I stated, I know you aren't that dumb so you clearly aren't doing it on accident.
implied
-
See that string of blue letters? That is called a link. Read it.
You yourself later even said "organization", again, absent the S at the end.
I asked a question.
Nobody said "single".
The BLM website calls it an organization.
Just stop.
See how we, as the organization leading the Black Lives Matter (BLM) Movement, responded to the challenges of 2020.
https://blacklivesmatter.com/2020-impact-report/
"Organization" ... no "s".
-
implied
False conclusion.
If I said Hitler didn't eat babies are you going to say I am defending Hitler? I am just correcting an incorrect statement, I don't care who or what the statement is about, if it is incorrect I point it out whether it benefits my position on something or not.
I hate BLM, but if someone says something incorrect, I will still correct it.
-
I asked a question.
Nobody said "single".
The BLM website calls it an organization.
Just stop.
https://blacklivesmatter.com/2020-impact-report/
"Organization" ... no "s".
Trying to find a crack to squeeze between so you don't have to admit I was right about something. The opposite of plural is singular, this is basic English.. Are you ESL? No offense if you are but that would explain it.
Go ahead and point to whoever owns the phrase black lives matter, i'll wait.
-
False conclusion.
If I said Hitler didn't eat babies are you going to say I am defending Hitler? I am just correcting an incorrect statement, I don't care who or what the statement is about, if it is incorrect I point it out whether it benefits my position on something or not.
I hate BLM, but if someone says something incorrect, I will still correct it.
That's the most racist thing I've ever heard!
-
Trying to find a crack to squeeze between so you don't have to admit I was right about something. The opposite of plural is singular, this is basic English.. Are you ESL? No offense if you are but that would explain it.
Go ahead and point to whoever owns the phrase black lives matter, i'll wait.
According to the Thousand Currents website, the official name of this
Black Lives Matter entity is “Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc.” (hereafter referred to as BLM Global Network Foundation). This is also the name the group has used on recent press releases.
-
https://smithhopen.com/2020/06/09/black-lives-matter-trademark-public-domain/
"The “Black Lives Matter” trademark is public domain. Consequently, no single entity owns exclusive rights to the phrase."
-
https://smithhopen.com/2020/06/09/black-lives-matter-trademark-public-domain/
"The “Black Lives Matter” trademark is public domain. Consequently, no single entity owns exclusive rights to the phrase."
Liar.
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=90708570&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
-
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=51775.msg467961#msg467961
He said "organization". Not the absence of an "S" at the end of the word. In this case that means it is not plural but single. :closed:
Or I could be stating it's a trash organization as a whole. See, there's no "s" in this one too. Thanks for playing.
-
LOL!
Then why are you trying to hash out the BLM org chart for us?
If you aren't defending bLM, and lack of a monolithic structure has no bearing on the topic, why the hell are you arguing so much?
He always argues because he cannot help himself for what ever factors that are unknown to us.
-
False conclusion.
If I said Hitler didn't eat babies are you going to say I am defending Hitler? I am just correcting an incorrect statement, I don't care who or what the statement is about, if it is incorrect I point it out whether it benefits my position on something or not.
I hate BLM, but if someone says something incorrect, I will still correct it.
Here we go again, another bad example. If you state "hitler didn't eat babies", then you are saying he didn't eat them. Simple. Some peoples minds over complicate things and make them bad examples.
So you say you hate BLM, but which one since you claim there is more than 1 section and like mine, I guess you cannot assume you mean "I hate BLM..." as a whole cause you know, no plural is used. Thanks for playing.
-
Here we go again, another bad example. If you state "hitler didn't eat babies", then you are saying he didn't eat them. Simple. Some peoples minds over complicate things and make them bad examples.
So you say you hate BLM, but which one since you claim there is more than 1 section and like mine, I guess you cannot assume you mean "I hate BLM..." as a whole cause you know, no plural is used. Thanks for playing.
Since the liar won't answer me (and is 98% certain to not bother clicking the link),
I thought I'd post the most relevant parts of that REGISTERED TRADEMARK.
Short answer: "Black Lives Matter is a registered trademark of Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc."
Published on Oct. 4, 2022.
(https://i.imgur.com/5W0rOaJ.png)
-
Since the liar won't answer me (and is 98% certain to not bother clicking the link),
I thought I'd post the most relevant parts of that REGISTERED TRADEMARK.
Short answer: "Black Lives Matter is a registered trademark of Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, Inc."
Published on Oct. 4, 2022.
(https://i.imgur.com/5W0rOaJ.png)
He will find a way to move goal post.
-
He will find a way to move goal post.
Guarantee he'll blame it on the source he chose rather than admit he was lying.
-
Liar.
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=90708570&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
Penalty: Incorrect use of the word liar. Showing it was registered wouldn't make me a liar, it would make me wrong.
Penalty 2: Moving the goalpost. What you posted is a trademark for an image, it does not protect the words black live matter but the specific graphic. I'll give you a pass on this one because you might not understand the differences between a p[rotected image vs some words on the image.
Plus, stop being dishonest. You act like I am making thigs up, I gave you a link supporting what I said.
https://ipwatchdog.com/2020/07/07/trademark-lessons-black-lives-matter-name-confusion/id=123080/
"When the Black Lives Matter movement attempted to register several variations of BLACK LIVES MATTER, the USPTO refused registration on the basis that the phrase was in widespread use by several unrelated parties. "
-
Penalty: Incorrect use of the word liar. Showing it was registered wouldn't make me a liar, it would make me wrong.
Penalty 2: Moving the goalpost. What you posted is a trademark for an image, it does not protect the words black live matter but the specific graphic. I'll give you a pass on this one because you might not understand the differences between a p[rotected image vs some words on the image.
Plus, stop being dishonest. You act like I am making thigs up, I gave you a link supporting what I said.
https://ipwatchdog.com/2020/07/07/trademark-lessons-black-lives-matter-name-confusion/id=123080/
"When the Black Lives Matter movement attempted to register several variations of BLACK LIVES MATTER, the USPTO refused registration on the basis that the phrase was in widespread use by several unrelated parties. "
Read the words of the trademark again:
Mark Literal Elements: BLACK LIVES MATTER
Does it also include the circle, dividing line and colors? Yes. But the trademark literally includes the text.
-
Penalty: Incorrect use of the word liar. Showing it was registered wouldn't make me a liar, it would make me wrong.
Penalty 2: Moving the goalpost. What you posted is a trademark for an image, it does not protect the words black live matter but the specific graphic. I'll give you a pass on this one because you might not understand the differences between a p[rotected image vs some words on the image.
Plus, stop being dishonest. You act like I am making thigs up, I gave you a link supporting what I said.
https://ipwatchdog.com/2020/07/07/trademark-lessons-black-lives-matter-name-confusion/id=123080/
"When the Black Lives Matter movement attempted to register several variations of BLACK LIVES MATTER, the USPTO refused registration on the basis that the phrase was in widespread use by several unrelated parties. "
WWRRRROONNNNGGGGGG. Thanks for playing.
-
Read the words of the trademark again:
Mark Literal Elements: BLACK LIVES MATTER
Does it also include the circle, dividing line and colors? Yes. But the trademark literally includes the text.
The text is not what is copyrighted, the image as a whole is. A copyright can contain geometric shapes, words, colors, etc but none of those things are individually protected, they are only protected as a whole.
-
WWRRRROONNNNGGGGGG. Thanks for playing.
What a stunning rebuttal ::)
-
What a stunning rebuttal ::)
There is no more rebuttal as it serves no point. I'm not allowed to say what I want to.