Whodathunkit - Little Old Provo

[Kenngo1969]

51 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Exactly how I felt when I read "black people killed by other black private citizens every year dwarfs the number of black people who are killed by police"

However you feel about it, it is a true statement.

[alter idem]

On 7/4/2020 at 9:01 PM, Rajah Manchou said:

Nah, I don't want to make excuses for anybody. I 100% agree with you about the protestors being at fault here. Being an advocate for stronger gun control, I also fully fault the protestors carrying around guns where guns are not needed. I know others disagree but that's a discussion for another forum.

My only issue is that people are defending the driver when it seems to me that he was escalating an already tense situation by pushing his car into the crowd. I can understand why many feel he was in the right to do so, but I don't. The situation there was tense because the protestors, as reported to the police, felt drivers were intentionally trying to injure them and at least one had been injured and treated. We don't know who started what first and we can't make assumptions. In a situation like that, call the police and wait. For heaven's sake don't drive your car into the middle of all that.

I'm with Calm on this, we can't really say much about this until we know what happened the minute or two before the incident.

The most upsetting element to this story is that the police weren't actively mediating all this. The shooter, after firing two shots, went right back to protesting and even banged in a window of another car. Where were the police and why didn't they immediately go after the guy?

And just to be clear, (1) there was only one gunman who fired a shot, the second man with a gun was seemingly nothing more than a man with a gun reacting to a dangerous situation. (2) you say the driver was unarmed, are you assuming that?

Great, I'm so glad we can agree on some points. I'd like to be able to leave it at that, but there's some I need to address. 

I don't think gun control is an issue here, since I don't know if the two gunmen were using legally obtained guns, and I don’t know the laws of firing off a weapon in downtown Provo. But I'm pretty sure it's illegal to fire them at passing motorists, so no need for more gun control, imo. We need instead, citizens who respect and obey the law and control their impulses.

I disagree that the driver was guilty of 'escalating' the situation. There is no proof he drove down the street and into protestors in order to provoke them, because unless the roads had been legally closed by police  (not by protestors,  they can't legally close a street), then the benefit of doubt should go to the driver. Also we have video footage and I'm sure more can be found as well, that show he was not driving fast enough to injure protestors who could easily have moved out of the way(and did as we can see).  Instead, we see a driver being blocked and slowed by protestors,  which unfortunately allowed the protestor with a gun to take a shot through the car window.  I believe that if the driver had been going through faster, the gunman wouldn't have had such a clear shot. More evidence that the driver was the targeted victim in this violent altercation.

Are you trying to suggest the victim was armed? I'm sure he wasn't or the media would have reported it, so no, he wasn't armed, and why would it matter anyway since the victim never used a gun? To even bring that up is disingenuous,  imo.

I already pointed out from sad experience why you don't sit in a car with a mob of angry protestors surrounding you, while you wait for police who apparently are no where to be found. The mob will likely beat on your car, turn it over and set it on fire. If you get out, you'll probably be beaten,  possibly to death.  I believe we're still waiting for answers from the mayor as to why there was an 'inadequate ' police presence.

[JarMan]

5 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

That hold is not the way that officer was trained to bring someone down. It was banned by NYPD. The officer that used it to bring down Eric Gardner was fired. 

What part of "an unarmed man was killed with a chokehold" is untruthful? Garner was unarmed, the hold was strong enough to cause internal damage to his neck and eyes, and the hold was banned by NYPD.  

I think what you're getting at is that we should state clearly that this is a case of: "an unarmed overweight man with several medical conditions was killed after police brought him down, and subsequently failed to intervene as he went into cardiac arrest. For the record, the hold used to bring him down was banned by NYPD and did cause internal damage to the neck, potentially contributing to the cause of death."  

The internal damage was consistent with vigorous CPR that was performed in the ambulance as he underwent cardiac arrest. There was nothing from the hold that caused it. The fact that it is a banned hold does not make it dangerous.

5 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

There are a few wrestlers and MMA types that claim the hold placed on Gardner is deadly, and that it is not a permitted wrestling hold. Are they wrong? I honestly don't know, just trying to understand since there seems to be misinformation out there about "chokeholds".

In certain wrestling styles strangle holds are illegal techniques. The Olympic styles of freestyle and greco-roman and American folkstyle fall under that category. In other styles of grappling such as judo and jiu-jitsu they are permitted, actually encouraged as the most effective way to win the match. In mma they are definitely permitted. In fact the top submission techniques used in mma are strangle holds. Since 1993 I know of only two deaths related to mma. Both of these were from brain trauma, not choke holds or strangle holds. This, despite the fact that thousands of fights take place each week on sanctioned cards in addition to the countless gym hours spent training these techniques in a live sparring environment.

5 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

That I certainly understand, but the problem in this case and the case of George Floyd and many others is that the video speaks for itself. We can all watch the video and reach out own conclusions. I watch the video and I can see for myself: an unarmed man, seemingly guilty of nothing serious being taken down by a banned hold around the neck and held down even as he says 11 times that he can't breathe. The officers didn't let up even though at least one witness standing by asked them to "let up, he's already down". This is, in my opinion, unjust.

For those that haven't seen the video.

The video does speak for itself. He obviously did not die from the chokehold as evidenced by the fact that he was talking and moving immediately after it was released. Death by strangulation would look like the following. 1) The person would have to correctly apply the hold to render the person unconscious. (This didn't happen.) 2) The person would have to continue to apply the hold for a significant amount of time after the person went unconscious. Somewhere around 1 to 2 minutes would probably be required. (This didn't happen either.)

5 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

An article from way back in 1993 when NYPD clarified a 1985 order banning "choke holds":

"The New York City Police Department has issued an order banning the use of choke holds, the restraining maneuvers that cut off the flow of blood and oxygen to the brain and have been blamed in the deaths of suspects here and around the nation ...

... New York City has not trained police cadets in the use of choke holds for at least 10 years, Chief Timoney and other experts said, and their use here has been less controversial and apparently apparently less widespread than in Los Angeles. In that city between 1977 and 1982, 16 people died in cases in which the choke hold was used -- twice as many as in the 20 other largest police departments combined, said James J. Fyfe, a professor a professor at Temple University in Philadelphia and a former city police officer who has studied police brutality ...

... "Basically, stay the hell away from the neck," he said. "That's what it says."

The article actually distinguishes between a choke and a strangle.

Quote

In 1980, under the threat of several lawsuits, Los Angeles banned the use of one especially lethal choke hold -- called the bar-arm hold, which cuts off the air supply by crushing the larynx -- and many large police departments followed suit, Professor Fyfe said. In many cases, the departments also banned or restricted use of a less dangerous hold, the carotid hold, which compresses the carotid arteries in the neck and temporarily cuts off blood to the brain.

The bar-arm hold is an actual choke and should be banned. The problem is that safe methods such as carotid holds get lumped in with non-safe techniques and get banned, as well. People have definitely been killed by (actual) choke holds, and it's possible people have been killed by carotid holds that were applied long after the person was unconscious. I don't know of any instance where a carotid hold that was released immediately ever caused death. As I mentioned before, records of this happening in competitions go back to the 1800's without any known cases of death. Unconsciousness is the worst case, rarely happens, and I should point out didn't occur with the case in point. I watch kids as young as 4 and people in their 70's using strangle techniques on an almost daily basis and there has never been a serious problem. It's impossible that it caused an issue in this case.

There's a danger in falsely portraying the event as a cop maliciously using a dangerous technique to kill a guy. One, it unnecessarily inflames passions and feeds a particular narrative.  Two, it's false. And three, it stifles the opportunity for real reform efforts. Part of the reform needed with police is more training in grappling. They need to have strangle holds available to them and know how to perform them correctly and safely. As we take away safe methods of restraint the police are left with fewer options which actually makes a deadly encounter more likely. Also, the police need to be more aware of people who may have particular medical needs. There's no way going in the police could have known the suspect had asthma. In fact, the suspect was the only one involved in the altercation that knew this information. Yet he still chose to escalate the situation by resisting officers. So part of the responsibility is on him. But the officers should have recognized he had a medical condition when he indicated he was struggling to breathe, got him to a seated position, and immediately got paramedics to help him. We ask cops to do a lot already. But they need more training in these two areas and others.

[Amulek]

8 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The question we're discussing is not if it is justified to shoot someone that you might be scuffling with, but whether or not it is justified to pursue someone who is fleeing. 

If by "justified to pursue someone who is fleeing" you mean, is it legal to follow someone who you believe to be a criminal and report his whereabouts to the police, then the answer is yes - that is perfectly legal. 

 

Quote

Trayvon had committed no crime and was running away from Zimmerman who was following him based on Zimmerman's personal (and questionable) suspicions, with a gun.

Zimmerman had committed no crime either.

Again, following someone isn't a crime - even if you happen to be lawfully carrying a gun while doing so. 

And, just to be clear, there was no evidence to even suggest that Martin believed Zimmerman was armed. 

 

 

Quote

We don't know what happened next, but I'm pretty certain that if Zimmerman had done what law enforcement had asked him to do (i.e. stop following the boy and leave the policing to the police), Trayvon Martin would not have been shot.

Only, as I'm sure you know, the police never ordered him to "stop following the boy." All the dispatcher said was, "[w]e don't need you to do that;" which was a suggestion - not an order. 

Now, had Zimmerman immediately walked back to his truck and waited for police at that point, then sure, I think Martin probably would have survived the night. 

Here's the thing though: Zimmerman wasn't legally obligated to do that. He wasn't breaking any laws. He was just walking around his own neighborhood, waiting for the police to show up at that point. That's when the altercation took place. 

And when you look through all of the evidence (testimonial, forensic, etc.) it paints a picture which comports with Zimmerman's account - namely, that it was Martin who confronted Zimmerman; Martin who sucker punched and then began beating the tar out of Zimmerman; and finally Zimmerman who fired in self-defense. 

Yes, the whole thing was a tragedy. And yes, it probably could have been avoided. But not every tragedy is evidence of a crime. 

Sadly, it sounds to me as though you have only acquainted yourself with the simplistic narrative which was portrayed by the media. 

Like I said before, if you knew all of the facts, there would be absolutely no question in your mind that Zimmerman was not guilty of having committed murder. 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

The problem is that safe methods such as carotid holds get lumped in with non-safe techniques and get banned, as well. 

There is nothing safe about restricting blood flow (and thus oxygen) to the brain. 

Quote

Any activity that deprives the brain of oxygen has the potential to cause moderate to severe brain cell death leading to permanent loss of neurological function ranging from difficulty in concentration or loss of short term memory capacity through severe, lifelong mental disability to death.

https://www.headway.org.uk/about-brain-injury/individuals/types-of-brain-injury/hypoxic-and-anoxic-brain-injury/anoxic-brain-injury-effects

Quote

Feb. 14, 2008 -- The CDC today warned parents, teachers, and health care providers about the so-called choking game, which has killed at least 82 U.S. youths since 1995.

I think that any neck restraint, carotid or otherwise is extremely dangerous.  Police don't know if these people are on drugs that might already impair oxygen/breathing, or if they have other medical conditions which would contraindicate a neck restraint.  It can be difficult to perform perfectly when someone is resisting.  Things can too easily go wrong.   

 

Edited July 6, 2020 by pogi

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

However you feel about it, it is a true statement.

No, your statement is not true. The BLM protests are not about how many black people are killed by police. The protests are about intervening when violence is inflicted on blacks and black communities. As we've discussed, the movement was sparked following the acquittal of George Zimmerman, the one-man army (his words, or rather the words he retweeted along with a photo of Trayvon's body).

I find it frustrating that many in this discussion quickly understand the folly of vigilantism when discussing the armed BLM protestor who ignorantly pursued the driver of the SUV. But when it comes to the very incident that sparked these BLM protests, an armed vigilante who pursued and shot a 17 year old boy, most who have commented have come to the defense of  the armed vigilante, who went on to auction off the gun he used to shoot Trayvon.

This feels wrong to me.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[alter idem]

On 7/5/2020 at 1:08 AM, Rajah Manchou said:

The second man with a gun would have had no idea that the motorist was badly injured and fleeing the scene of a shooting. All he saw was the SUV running into, and knocking over, a person a few meters from him.

Had the second man known the driver was shot and injured, I fully agree with you that he was in the wrong. I just don't think he had enough information to be guilty of what you are accusing him of. From his perspective, without the full story, he could only see an SUV run into and knock someone over.

In short, this is why arming citizens in tense situations is a horrible idea. 

I'm sorry, but I don't see any excuse for the second person aiming a weapon at a fleeing vehicle in this situation.  The gunman is not a police officer and he should have just taken down the plate no. or taken a photo of the car and made a complaint to police).  It doesn't matter that the gunman didn't know the driver was shot and injured, he had no business bringing a weapon to a supposedly peaceful protest.  He should not have been pointing a gun, period. imo

If he saw an SUV run into and knock someone over,  he still shouldn't have been carrying a weapon and pointing it at people at the protest.  To me, it proves he was going there to cause mayhem, and he was arrested for it too.   'Arming citizens' is not what happened.  No one 'armed him', he brought a weapon to a protest. Law abiding citizens are not the problem, people like this protestor are the problem.

[Rajah Manchou]

16 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I'm sorry, but I don't see any excuse for the second person aiming a weapon at a fleeing vehicle in this situation.  The gunman is not a police officer and he should have just taken down the plate no. or taken a photo of the car and made a complaint to police).  It doesn't matter that the gunman didn't know the driver was shot and injured, he had no business bringing a weapon to a supposedly peaceful protest.  He should not have been pointing a gun, period. imo

If he saw an SUV run into and knock someone over,  he still shouldn't have been carrying a weapon and pointing it at people at the protest.  To me, it proves he was going there to cause mayhem, and he was arrested for it too.   'Arming citizens' is not what happened.  No one 'armed him', he brought a weapon to a protest. Law abiding citizens are not the problem, people like this protestor are the problem.

So everybody, leave the guns at home. Is that a fair summary?

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

And when you look through all of the evidence (testimonial, forensic, etc.) it paints a picture which comports with Zimmerman's account - namely, that it was Martin who confronted Zimmerman; Martin who sucker punched and then began beating the tar out of Zimmerman; and finally Zimmerman who fired in self-defense. 

If I'm walking home in the dark, and somebody is following me, I'm thinking of all the different ways I can defend myself in case this person attacks.

If at any point I feel threatened by this person, I'm running. If that person runs after me, please don't blame me if I turn around and do whatever I can to beat the tar out of him. I'm talking sucker punches, crowbars, rocks, anything I can find.

If that person shoots and kills me and claims self-defence, then he's obviously right, because I had no way of knowing he was going to shoot me with his gun because I can't prove that I ever saw his gun. 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[alter idem]

20 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

So everybody, leave the guns at home. Is that a fair summary?

Agreed!  I think that's a very wise idea.  It would have saved a lot of lives this last month.  Too bad we don't have any influence over the people who go to these protests.😃

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

4 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Exactly how I felt when I read "black people killed by other black private citizens every year dwarfs the number of black people who are killed by police"

However you feel about it, it is a true statement.

 

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

No, your statement is not true. The BLM protests are not about how many black people are killed by police. The protests are about intervening when violence is inflicted on blacks and black communities. As we've discussed, the movement was sparked following the acquittal of George Zimmerman, the one-man army (his words, or rather the words he retweeted along with a photo of Trayvon's body).

 

Um, @Rajah Manchou?   Kenngo's statement wasn't referring to the BLM protests.  Kenngo's statement was referring to (and you even quoted it), "black people killed by other black private citizens every year dwarfs the number of black people who are killed by police"  The statement you quote, to which Kennog refers, is a true statement.

"black people killed by other black private citizens every year dwarfs the number of black people who are killed by police"
^^^^ This is a true statement 

Last I saw, somewhere between 2-3000 african americans are murdered every year, by other african americans.  source 

Somewhere between 100 and 250 blacks shot to death by cops per year.   source

Here's another source.

[Kenngo1969]

13 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

 

Um, @Rajah Manchou?   Kenngo's statement wasn't referring to the BLM protests.  Kenngo's statement was referring to (and you even quoted it), "black people killed by other black private citizens every year dwarfs the number of black people who are killed by police"  The statement you quote, to which Kennog refers, is a true statement.

"black people killed by other black private citizens every year dwarfs the number of black people who are killed by police"
^^^^ This is a true statement 

Last I saw, somewhere between 2-3000 african americans are murdered every year, by other african americans.  source 

Somewhere between 100 and 250 blacks shot to death by cops per year.   source

Here's another source.

Loudmouth Mormon,

Thank you for reading for comprehension, and, by so doing, at least attempting to inject more rationality and reasoning into the discussion.

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

There is nothing safe about restricting blood flow (and thus oxygen) to the brain. 

I think that any neck restraint, carotid or otherwise is extremely dangerous.  Police don't know if these people are on drugs that might already impair oxygen/breathing, or if they have other medical conditions which would contraindicate a neck restraint.  It can be difficult to perform perfectly when someone is resisting.  Things can too easily go wrong.   

Ultimately there is no perfectly safe method to restrain somebody who is heavily resisting. Anybody who physically resists a police officer is taking a chance that something bad can happen. The safest thing is to comply. There are certain methods, though, that are safer than others for dealing with somebody who doesn't want to be restrained. A carotid restraint is safer than most methods because it renders the person temporarily unconscious so that handcuffs can be applied. Worse options include tasers, pepper spray, knocking them unconscious, tracheal compression holds (actual choke holds) or shooting them. The better option would be to have multiple officers involved. This is often seen as brutality when, in reality, multiple officers participating makes it safer for both the suspect and the officers involved. In the case we're discussing there were multiple officers involved. So there really was no need to apply a carotid restraint. However, I should point out that as far as a hold is concerned it was not applied properly if the goal was to induce unconsciousness. The officer was a little overzealous and under-trained for what he was attempting. But even had they done a better job of applying restraints the real issue was they did after the handcuffs were on. They left an asthmatic 350 pound person already breathing hard from an altercation face down in handcuffs for several minutes. Proper training could have prevented this death.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, alter idem said:

still shouldn't have been carrying a weapon

So you don't believe that people should be allowed to conceal carry?  Or just for something they know will have heightened emotions and potential conflict like a protest, party, parade?

What about open carry such as the camo wearing counter protestors? (Just want to be sure I understand)

[Calm]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Last I saw, somewhere between 2-3000 african americans are murdered every year, by other african americans.  source 

Somewhere between 100 and 250 blacks shot to death by cops per year.   source

 

That ignores the actual issue.  Blacks killing other blacks go to jail.  Police killing blacks do not. (Generally speaking)

It is not an either/or situation any more that promoting seat belts is ignoring efforts to increase safe driving.

Plus (very simply put) the belief is by removing the systemic racism that is the primary cause of police brutality and therefore must be addressed in order to decrease such incidents, the culture that leads to criminal violence in their communities will also be changed (a culture that leads to generations of blacks being locked into poverty where whites in poverty are much more upwardly mobile across generations).

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2020/06/stop-using-black-on-black-crime-to-deflect-away-from-police-brutality.html

Quote

White supremacists have attributed the fact that crime rates are higher among African Americans than whites to people of color being biologically more prone to violence. In reality, crime is directly linked more to poverty than race or any other factor.

According to the Bureau for Justice Statistics, People living in households with income below the federal poverty threshold are twice as likely to commit a violent crime than people in high-income households, regardless of race.

We live in a country where twhe poverty rate is more than twice as high among black Americans than white. And that has as much to do with 400 years of systematic racism than anything else....

The argument for BLM is for accountability, as in:

'When blacks kill blacks or whites kill whites, they generally end up going to jail.

When police kill, they do not.'

Edited July 6, 2020 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

On 7/5/2020 at 1:08 AM, Rajah Manchou said:

The second man with a gun would have had no idea that the motorist was badly injured and fleeing the scene of a shooting. All he saw was the SUV running into, and knocking over, a person a few meters from him.

Had the second man known the driver was shot and injured, I fully agree with you that he was in the wrong. I just don't think he had enough information to be guilty of what you are accusing him of. From his perspective, without the full story, he could only see an SUV run into and knock someone over.

In short, this is why arming citizens in tense situations is a horrible idea. 

 

5 hours ago, alter idem said:

I'm sorry, but I don't see any excuse for the second person aiming a weapon at a fleeing vehicle in this situation.  The gunman is not a police officer and he should have just taken down the plate no. or taken a photo of the car and made a complaint to police).  It doesn't matter that the gunman didn't know the driver was shot and injured, he had no business bringing a weapon to a supposedly peaceful protest.  He should not have been pointing a gun, period. imo

If he saw an SUV run into and knock someone over,  he still shouldn't have been carrying a weapon and pointing it at people at the protest.  To me, it proves he was going there to cause mayhem, and he was arrested for it too.   'Arming citizens' is not what happened.  No one 'armed him', he brought a weapon to a protest. Law abiding citizens are not the problem, people like this protestor are the problem.

I’m wondering now how Ralph can be so sure that “the second man with a gun would have had no idea that the motorist was badly injured and fleeing the scene of a shooting” and that “all he saw was the SUV running into, and knocking over, a person a few meters from him”. News stories I’ve reviewed indicate that the second man drew his gun and began chasing the SUV while the first man was in the act of following the SUV and shooting at the driver. In that case, the second guy would had to have known that the driver was the target of the first man’s gunshots, if not injured by them. 
 

The Deseret News reported on July 2:

“According to a second police affidavit, ‘At the same time Jesse [Taggart] was shooting at the victim in the vehicle, Bradley Glenn Walters was recorded in the middle of the intersection pulling a revolver handgun and pointed it at the driver of the vehicle as Jesse was chasing the vehicle through the intersection and firing at it for the second time. Bradley continued running after the vehicle while pointing his gun at the driver, until the vehicle was gone.’”

The more one looks at this, the more ludicrous the notion seems that either of the gunmen was acting in self defense. 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

So everybody, leave the guns at home. Is that a fair summary?

 

3 hours ago, alter idem said:

Agreed!  I think that's a very wise idea.  It would have saved a lot of lives this last month.  Too bad we don't have any influence over the people who go to these protests.😃

 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

If I'm walking home in the dark, and somebody is following me, I'm thinking of all the different ways I can defend myself in case this person attacks.

Sounds reasonable enough. 

 

Quote

If at any point I feel threatened by this person, I'm running.

Again, fair enough.

 

Quote

If that person runs after me, please don't blame me if I turn around and do whatever I can to beat the tar out of him. I'm talking sucker punches, crowbars, rocks, anything I can find.

And this is where you go off the rails.

If someone is following you and you decide to run away - you're well within your rights. 

But if all they do is follow you and then talk to you, you are most assuredly not justified in mercilessly attacking them just because you happened to have felt scared earlier. 

Zimmerman wasn't in 'hot pursuit' of Martin, who then turned around and decided to stand his ground.

No, all of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense agreed: Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman and then (depending on who you want to believe) said either "You got a problem?" or "Why are you following me for?"

To which Zimmerman responded (again, depending on who you want to believe) either "No" or "What are you doing around here?" 

At which point a physical fight breaks out.

Zimmerman's testimony was that Martin started the fight by sucker punching him (i.e., punching him without warning and without provocation) and then continued to beat on him relentlessly - punching him in the face repeatedly and bashing his head into the concrete multiple times, even as he screamed and yelled for help. 

Here again, the evidence supports Zimmerman's story. He had a broken nose, two black eyes, and lacerations on the back of his head. He was tooled up pretty good, and his clothing was wet on the back and covered with grass; again, consistent with his telling of the events. Same goes for the forensics associated with the actual shooting. 

And when Zimmerman was being interrogated by the police, they lied and told him that there was video surveillance of the entire event, so he had better be truthful with them. His response was a relieved, "Thank God, I was hoping somebody would videotape it."  

Want to know why you have trouble remembering any of that? Because the evidence showing the full extent of Zimmerman's injuries was withheld from the media (and the defense) until well after the media had already settled on their narrative for the events which had transpired that night. Because national news organizations like NBC admitted to having manipulated audio tapes to make Zimmerman look racist. 

Seriously, the more you look into it (though it's harder to do so now that time has passed), the more it becomes obvious that what you 'think' happened in the case of Trayvon Martin likely bares very little resemblance to what actually happened. 

 

[Rajah Manchou]

5 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Um, @Rajah Manchou?   Kenngo's statement wasn't referring to the BLM protests.  Kenngo's statement was referring to (and you even quoted it), "black people killed by other black private citizens every year dwarfs the number of black people who are killed by police"  The statement you quote, to which Kennog refers, is a true statement.

"black people killed by other black private citizens every year dwarfs the number of black people who are killed by police"
^^^^ This is a true statement 

Last I saw, somewhere between 2-3000 african americans are murdered every year, by other african americans.  source 

Somewhere between 100 and 250 blacks shot to death by cops per year.   source

Here's another source.

You need to consider Kenggo's full statements. I was referring to his full statements, his "if/then" statements, which were faulty.

True Statement: "black people killed by other black private citizens every year dwarfs the number of black people who are killed by police"
Kenggo's Statement: "the number of blacks who are killed by other black civilians each year dwarfs the number of blacks who are killed by police.  If "Black Lives Really Matter[ed]" to the people who say Black Lives Matter, perhaps they could pay more attention to that."

For example, this logic doesn't work:

True Statement: "Americans killed by other American private citizens every year dwarfs the number of Americans who are killed by police"
False Equivalence: "Americans say that they want to Make America Great Again, but yet Americans killed by other American private citizens every year dwarfs the number of Americans who are killed by police. If Americans really wanted to Make America Great Again, perhaps they could pay more attention to that."

You can see how distracting and unhelpful this conclusion is, and how false the assumptions are.

Black Lives Matters isn't protesting to bring the level of black-on-black killings to the same level as police-on-black killings. That'd be a weird and unattainable goal. They are working to make an America where every Black person has the social, economic, and political power to thrive. Big difference. 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m wondering now how Ralph can be so sure that “the second man with a gun would have had no idea that the motorist was badly injured and fleeing the scene of a shooting” and that “all he saw was the SUV running into, and knocking over, a person a few meters from him”. 

Because the video I'm watching is shot from roughly the same position as Walters, and I certainly cannot see a gun, or a gunman, or an injured driver, or a broken window for that matter. Can you?

I wonder how you can determine that Walters did know the motorist was badly injured and fleeing the scene of a shooting. Are you suggesting they had some sort of walkie-talkie setup and coordinated a double-attack?

What are you seeing in the video that indicates the driver was badly injured by a gunman? Are you seeing a gun, a barrel flash, a broken window? What are you seeing? 

[Rajah Manchou]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

And this is where you go off the rails.

If someone is following you and you decide to run away - you're well within your rights. 

But if all they do is follow you and then talk to you, you are most assuredly not justified in mercilessly attacking them just because you happened to have felt scared earlier. 

But that is not all that Zimmerman did, he told dispatch, that he was suspicious of Trayvon, that Trayvon was probably "up to no good" or "on drugs or something" that "something's wrong with him" and that "these ******** always get away" and then referred to Trayvon as a "****ing punk". 

ZImmerman then admits to following Trayvon who had committed no crime and was running AWAY from Zimmerman. 

A few minutes later there is a scuffle and Trayvon is shot. 

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

But if all they do is follow you and then talk to you, you are most assuredly not justified in mercilessly attacking them just because you happened to have felt scared earlier. 

So you agree that after Zimmerman calls Trayvon a "****ing punk" and says "these ******** always get away" he runs after Trayvon, armed with a gun. You agree that's what happened, right?

Let me just say this, if at any point Zimmerman pulled that gun out and Trayvon saw it, Zimmerman's argument is compromised. Can you be 100% certain that (1) Trayvon did not first feel threatened by Zimmerman, and (2) that Zimmerman did not pull his gun out until after he felt his life was somehow in danger? From Zimmerman's account it seems Trayvon knew there was a gun and there was continued scuffling after that.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Because the video I'm watching is shot from roughly the same position as Walters, and I certainly cannot see a gun, or a gunman, or an injured driver, or a broken window for that matter. Can you?

I wonder how you can determine that Walters did know the motorist was badly injured and fleeing the scene of a shooting. Are you suggesting they had some sort of walkie-talkie setup and coordinated a double-attack?

What are you seeing in the video that indicates the driver was badly injured by a gunman? Are you seeing a gun, a barrel flash, a broken window? What are you seeing? 

The news reports are quoting statements from police, who reviewed not just one but several videos and got witness statements. 

[Rajah Manchou]

45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The news reports are quoting statements from police, who reviewed not just one but several videos and got witness statements. 

Could you share some of these? Not urgent, but if you think to copy/paste as you find them.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

But that is not all that Zimmerman did, he told dispatch, that he was suspicious of Trayvon, that Trayvon was probably "up to no good" or "on drugs or something" that "something's wrong with him" and that "these ******** always get away" and then referred to Trayvon as a "****ing punk". 

ZImmerman then admits to following Trayvon who had committed no crime and was running AWAY from Zimmerman. 

A few minutes later there is a scuffle and Trayvon is shot. 

So you agree that after Zimmerman calls Trayvon a "****ing punk" and says "these ******** always get away" he runs after Trayvon, armed with a gun. You agree that's what happened, right?

Let me just say this, if at any point Zimmerman pulled that gun out and Trayvon saw it, Zimmerman's argument is compromised. Can you be 100% certain that (1) Trayvon did not first feel threatened by Zimmerman, and (2) that Zimmerman did not pull his gun out until after he felt his life was somehow in danger? From Zimmerman's account it seems Trayvon knew there was a gun and there was continued scuffling after that.

Did you watch the whole trial? Just curious. I did.

[bsjkki]

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

True Statement: "Americans killed by other American private citizens every year dwarfs the number of Americans who are killed by police"
False Equivalence: "Americans say that they want to Make America Great Again, but yet Americans killed by other American private citizens every year dwarfs the number of Americans who are killed by police. If Americans really wanted to Make America Great Again, perhaps they could pay more attention to that."

I actually think this does work. The bigger problem in America is Americans murdering other Americans. On average over 16,000 American's are murdered each year. Police shooting unarmed people has been dropping steadily since 2015 and last year the number of unarmed people killed by police was 113.  I do believe there are areas police training and tactics can improve. I also know, that gun sales and crime rates have jumped. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/upshot/murders-rising-crime-coronavirus.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-gun-sales-of-june-11593730985

So, most everyone agreed what happened to George Floyd was wrong. Investigations were occurring. The DOJ and FBI were investigating as well as city and state authorities. Did the protests help this cause or hurt it? What will all the unintended consequences be?