The Tale of Two Protestors... Right vs Left.

[_moksha]

What is it that you appreciate in Ted Cruz?

With that beard, Cruz can appreciate both World of Tanks and ToFu Fighting.

[_Res Ipsa]

OK, the harder question. Why does it matter?

He was saying that the incident in question wasn't a case of racism but exclusively about police brutality.

I’m not seeing how one of the officers being “black” our “light-skinned black” or any other color affects institutionalized racism in local policing.

[_ldsfaqs]

He was saying that the incident in question wasn't a case of racism but exclusively about police brutality.

I’m not seeing how one of the officers being “black” our “light-skinned black” or any other color affects institutionalized racism in local policing.

The Left has called his death a "lynching" and "racism".
Since those on the front line are the actual ones involved and the ONLY ones being charged, thus have NOTHING to do with the so-called "institutionalized racism", but are simply responding to crimes and suspected crimes, you can't legit cry about a "secondary" subject of the Leftist LYING in relation to this incident.

Now, you can try to claim the "racist institution" train the cops to do this, but, that's just more of your lying.
The ONLY reason there are disparities in race and crime is because blacks simply commit more of it, and this is known for sure in relation to reported crimes and their arrests and convictions, they match. If they didn't match, that blacks were just being arrested when not committing crime, then you would have a case, but it's NOT the case.

And as to sentencing, the reason there are differences is that simply blacks have BIGGER RECORDS in general then whites, thus the more crime you commit the more you get bigger sentences.

NONE of this is "institutionalized racism"... It is 100% a BIG FAT LEFTIST LIE...
Yes, it happened some 60+ years ago, but it just doesn't happen enough anymore to have ANY sort of relevance.
But you Leftists LOVE the race and welfare hustle... It's how you keep blacks and otherwise voting Democrat, starting with FDR's New Deal and then culminating with LBJ, like he said "I’ll Have Those N*****s Voting Democratic for 200 Years".
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-v ... emocratic/
Unlike the article however, given the facts they themselves produce, I would say there's ZERO reason to question its validity given what their agenda was especially, let alone LBJ's constant examples of racism. But, they are Leftists, so they have to question the validity even when the facts are clear as day of his racism.

[_Jersey Girl]

I didn't see that one of the officers was Black. Asian, yes. Do you have something that shows one was Black?

The initial officer who handled/cuffed George was black. It's video prior to the event in question, which by the way shows he was having some physical problems, which further gives cause that they were ignoring his complaints, even though you could see the suffering in his behavior.

Also, the same black officer was one of the 3 officers that were holding Floyd down.

I don't know if I replied to this already but I think I have watched every piece of video in the case and looked at the criminal complaint. Anyway, I tend to think (and my opinion might change on this) that this was a case of racial profiling, I cannot account for Floyd's claims that he couldn't breathe BEFORE he was yanked out of the police vehicle (why was he taken out?) and restrained. I think Chauvin was in a kind of lead position over the other officers (either by rank, procedure or his domineering personality?) and they followed his lead. When the 2 questioned whether or not they should put him on his side...Chauvin is the one who objected to that--and they still continued to restrain him on the ground. When Floyd's pulse was taken and a pulse could not be found, Chauvin never let up and neither did the other 3. Not the 2 who were restraining and not the 1 who was standing watch over the scene.

So what I am saying is that they may have racially profiled him in their minds and that's what drove the series of incidents combined with Chauvin calling the shots...and no one questioning his decisions.

I'm glad this was caught on video tape by more than one camera. I noticed that in one video version of the incident, it appeared that only Black bystanders were begging the cops to stop the restraint. In another video version, a Caucasian woman is standing within feet of the officers objecting to their actions as well.

They wouldn't listen to bystanders. Chauvin wouldn't even listen to the doubts of the 2 officers who were part of the restraint team. And they guy standing watch did positively nothing to intervene.

I don't know what police procedures are in such a case all I know is that Chauvin comes off like a sadist and the other 3 come off like total chickenshits.

[_Jersey Girl]

Note: To this day, I have seen no official determination as to whether or not the 20$ was even counterfeit. Still and all, there's no way to prove (or is there?) that Floyd was knowingly passing a counterfeit bill.

The whole damn thing escalated and well, there it is right on camera. It doesn't really matter if he was knowingly passing fake bills. He should never have been taken to the ground and restrained with a total of 4 officers available.

Why was he taken out of the police cruiser????

[_ldsfaqs]

I don't know all the facts of the situation...
I just know from the video I watched that he was clearly "uncomfortable" due to some issue with the cuffs, and possibly due to his apparently being on drugs, and that it was clear he was in distress when he was on the ground, and that using that Knee to the Neck is ONLY to be "temporary", and the Asian officer was just looking on, while everyone else could see he was in distress, and the Asian cop chose to argue with people instead of seeing the distress he was in etc.

I don't know that I would prosecute the other two cops who were on Floyd, the black and white one. Cause, it could be said that they reasonably didn't understand the distress he was in, and was just holding him down. But, the neck cop and the asian should definitely been prosecuted for depraved indifference, 2nd degree, whatever.

Then we have the "jogger" who wasn't a "jogger" at all, and that it was entirely self-defense.
I'm sure most here won't agree with me on that. I mean, when Leftists can't agree that when someone's "beating on you" like with Zimmerman, and you did nothing but "watch" them, or the "jogger" who was beating on and trying to take away their gun, when they did nothing but ask the guy to stop, and trying to stop him, that those incidents are self-defense, then this world has problems.

Me and most others on this forum aren't disagreeing with each other because I'm "stupid" or "crazy", we don't agree because we simply have different values, morality, and different standards of seeing the facts and truth. I see what's actually happening, most others on this forum apply their own "fantasy's" about race etc. into the situations, and ignore key facts.

Oh, and I like Cruz cause he's smart, he's a good conservative, pro-America, not a Communist/Socialist, he's also a fighter, and he's just presidential.
I have the same views for Allen West, who's black, who I wish had been the actual first black President. Sadly, seems he has health issues so likely never will be president. I don't really know of anyone else I'm "thrilled" about potentially being president. There might be a couple I've seen, but not really focusing on that atm. Trump needs to get reelected.

And to show you the danger Leftism is... The Supreme Court just ruled that we don't actually have freedom of Religion.
Pure evil... People can "consent" to be around each other, to "risk" getting a virus or not. Government can give guidelines, but they have ZERO business telling people what they can and can't do. There's this thing called FREEDOM.

Leftism needs to be stopped no matter what... They are destroying the West, as the recent riots show in just one aspect, as well as that Supreme Court 6-4 ruling, proving that Leftists should NEVER get control of the Supreme Court, or America is gone.

[Guest]

And to show you the danger Leftism is... The Supreme Court just ruled that we don't actually have freedom of Religion.
Pure evil... People can "consent" to be around each other, to "risk" getting a virus or not. Government can give guidelines, but they have ZERO business telling people what they can and can't do. There's this thing called FREEDOM.

Absolute BS!

Chief Justice Roberts upholds Covid-19 restrictions on churches, scolds Kavanaugh


Justice Roberts is hardly a liberal or leftist, and he not only upheld the Covid-19 restrictions on churches, but severely and justly scolded Cavanaugh's dishonest dissent from the majority decision.

Friday at midnight, the Supreme Court rejected a church’s challenge to California’s COVID-19 restrictions by a 5–4 vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberals. In a pointed opinion, Roberts indicated that he will not join conservative judges’ escalating efforts to override public health measures in the name of religious freedom. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent, by contrast, falsely accused the state of religious discrimination in an extremely misleading opinion that omits the most important facts of the case. Roberts went out of his way to scold Kavanaugh’s dishonest vilification of the state.

Supreme Court’ late-night order in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom divided the justices into two camps: those who acknowledge reality, and those who ignore it to score ideological points. The case began when a California church accused Gov. Gavin Newsom of violating its religious freedom. Newsom’s current COVID-19 policy limits attendance at houses of worship to 25 percent of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is lower. At the same time, it allows certain secular businesses, like grocery stores, to operate under looser guidelines, allowing more people to enter. The church claimed this disparate treatment between churches and commercial establishments runs afoul of the First Amendment.

As Roberts noted, however, California does not impose uniform rules on all places where people assemble. The state does strictly limit church attendance. But it applies “similar or more severe restrictions” to “lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances.” So the question for the court is less constitutional than scientific: From an epidemiological perspective, are churches more like grocery stores or concerts? And that, the chief justice concluded, is a question for lawmakers, not federal judges.

“The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should be lifted during the pandemic,” Roberts declared, “is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement.” The Constitution leaves such decisions “to the politically accountable officials of the state,” whose decisions “should not be subject to second-guessing” by judges who lack “background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.” Multiple coronavirus outbreaks in California have been traced back to religious services. California has good reason to treat churches more like concerts—where people “congregate in large groups” and “remain in close proximity for extended periods”—than grocery stores, where they can social distance. For courts, that should be the end of the matter.

Kavanaugh, in dissent, viewed the case through a different lens. Whereas Roberts began by noting that COVID-19 has “killed thousands of people in California and more than 100,000 nationwide,” Kavanaugh crafted a narrative of invidious religious discrimination. His dissent reads like a brief by the church, not a judicial opinion. Kavanaugh alleged that Newsom’s order “indisputably discriminates against religion” in violation of the free exercise clause. For support, the justice insisted that “comparable secular businesses,” like grocery stores and pharmacies, “are not subject” to the same restrictions imposed on churches. California must have a “compelling justification” for this disparate treatment, and he saw none.

But Kavanaugh’s assertion that California treats churches and “comparable secular businesses” differently raises the question: What is a comparable secular business? When it comes to the spread of infectious disease, is a church really just like a grocery store, where people spend as little time as possible, separated by aisles and shopping carts, rarely speaking to one another? Or is it more like a concert, where people congregate for lengthy periods, shoulder to shoulder, often speaking or singing and thereby spreading droplets that may contain the coronavirus?

What is genuinely shocking about Kavanaugh’s dissent is that he does not even address this question. The dispute lies at the heart of the case, and Kavanaugh ignores it. He simply takes it as a given that churches are “comparable” to grocery stores when it comes to risk of spreading COVID-19. By warping the facts, Kavanaugh paints California’s rules as irrationally discriminatory, when in fact they are based on medical advice Newsom has right now. If the justice wants to override public health measures during a pandemic, shouldn’t he at least admit that he’s substituting his own scientific judgment for that of a democratically elected lawmaker’s?

Roberts seems to think so. His opinion ends with a clear swipe at Kavanaugh: “The notion that it is ‘indisputably clear’ that the Government’s limitations are unconstitutional,” the chief justice wrote, “seems quite improbable.” Roberts went out of his way to telegraph his displeasure with the raft of lawsuits contesting COVID-19 restrictions as unconstitutional burdens on religious liberty. Even in borderline cases, he suggested, courts must defer to the people’s representatives if they decide the health crisis requires limitations on public assemblies.

While all four far-right justices dissented from Friday’s order, only Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined Kavanaugh’s dissent. Justice Samuel Alito declined to join Kavanaugh’s opinion and did not explain why. It’s possible Alito was so perturbed by his colleague’s deceptive recitation of the facts that he could not sign in good faith. Meanwhile, though the four liberals joined Roberts in turning away the church’s challenge, the chief justice wrote only for himself. His opinion reads like an official statement from the head of the judicial branch, reminding lower courts not to overstep constitutional boundaries when assessing COVID-19 orders. As long as Roberts has anything to say about it, the Supreme Court will not facilitate the spread of a deadly virus in the name of the First Amendment.[emphasis added]

I say hooray for Roberts, and the other justices he sided with! As for Kavanaugh, he has again demonstrated his utter unsuitability for any kind of court, let alone the Supreme Court. He should never have been confirmed to it as he is a corporate tool who has consistently put the demands of wealthy corporations and donors before the just needs of the general population, especially the poor and powerless. It is pretty well documented that he perjured himself almost every time he testified before any congressional or Senatorial hearing, and was allowed to get away with it due to corrupt, partisan politics. See: Judge Brett Kavanaugh Has Lied Every Time He Has Testified Under Oath. It is unfortunate that the sexual assault accusations against Kavanaugh only served to deflect attention away from the far more demonstrable and serious history of his perjury, which should have been the more damnable justification for denying his confirmation!

[_Jersey Girl]

Absolute BS!

Oh geez, Gunnar. For once in your posting career just say it outright----> BS. If you need assistance getting in the groove, channel the Jersey Girl.

[_ldsfaqs]

1. Once again, you entirely ignore the fact that people have the RIGHT to "consent" to being together, to "risk" getting a virus, or in fact risk doing ANYTHING in life.

2. You ignore the fact that near ALL of those who are wanting to gather, have been entirely following and willing to follow CDC Guidelines in relation to Masks, Sanitation of Surfaces, social distancing etc. thus the "bans" have been nothing but political and punitive.

3. You and Roberts LIE because his "examples" of virus spreading is from the INITIAL spread when people weren't following CDC guidelines cause they didn't exist yet.

4. You ignore and lie about the "inconsistency" of the law, that Grocery Stores, Fast Food, and much more including abortions have been allowed to remain open, including Subways and Public Transportation which are the WORST spreaders of the virus of anything, but others can't do the same. Let's also not forget Nursing homes, Leftists turning nursing homes into virus bombs.

5. LOL, just because Roberts votes right sometimes, doesn't make him NOT a Leftist MANY other times.
It's just like just because Romney is a Republican, that doesn't mean he's not often a RINO, thinks and does like a Leftist.

In fact, his rebuke of Kavanaugh, really just shows how much of a Leftist he is.

by the way, it's funny how you condemn Kavanaugh... Someone whom there was not only ZERO evidence of sexual assault, there was "contradictory" evidence, every single one of Fords claimed "witnesses" entirely denied her claims, had no idea what she was talking about etc. Told nobody about the assault, save years later apparently telling her husband, didn't even tell her best friend who also denied her claims. Was a big anti-Trump activist, they wiped all of that from the internet. Fortunately, InfoWars and others saved that information before it was all wiped.
In contrast, Biden's accuser told lots of people at the time it happened, is a Democrat and still a Democrat, etc.

As to Kavanaugh's hearing otherwise... Well duh, you can't just outright say how you're likely going to vote on things.
The Leftist Judges did the same exact thing... You're supposed to appear to be "impartial" when everyone knows you're not.
Further, let's be clear about something... Judges on the Right ARE the ONLY ones who judge things fairly and according to the law.

We know this for sure because, the Leftist judges 100% vote according to their politics, NOT according to the law, not according to original intent, western enlightenment values, etc. The judge almost entirely according to their Leftist ideology and agenda.
The perfect example of this is this virus vote, as well as their vote in the Heller Decision... The law of the land is clear, yet they voted against Human Rights, and they did it yet again.

Human Rights are sacrosanct...
Further, we knew it already, but it's now been PROVEN that this virus response and continuance was/is a 100% Democrat politically driven. We know this due to the Riots for the last week... Not a negative word said, save by mention.
Yet, when the Covid protestors protested for their rights, not engaging in even a single crime, in contrast to the Rioters, they were demonized all to hell.

So, spare me your evil LIE and FASCISM, that YOU and Roberts are on the moral and legal side. You're not.

[_Res Ipsa]

I didn’t ask for you insane ranting about leftists. I asked why the race of one of the officers matters.