Wednesday, June 10, 2020

Here is the question of the day...

What actual evidence do we have that the killing of George Floyd was "racially motivated"? 

  • Two of the four officers were not white.
  • Officer Lane had a history of working with underprivileged youth and Somali refugees.
  • Officer Chauvin was married to a Thai refugee himself, and helped raise her Thai children.

Chauvin was the only officer in the bunch to have faced a lot of complaints. While all but one of those are sealed because they resulted in no discipline, some of the people have come forward. So far, the complaints we know about were made by white people (for over-aggressive behavior) and there is no known record right now of any racial complaints.


While nobody defends what Chauvin did in this situation, his behavior is more logically explained by what appears to be a history of pushing the limits of his power as a police officer, rather than the assumed racial issue against black people.

I might play out my own stereotype to suggest that as a fairly small man (5'8" 154 lbs and size 7.5 shoes) that Chauvin might have had one of those "little guy syndromes" where they overcompensate for their lack of size with being in your face aggressive. I've seen this classic behavior more consistently than I have ever seen racism. It would be a better explanation as to why he has had multiple complaints of aggression, rather than to assume it must be racism (even when the complaints were intra-racial). 

The reality here is that several cities have been the subject of violent riots. The damage caused in these riots is into the billions, upwards of 20 people have been killed, hundreds have been injured, businesses have been lost, neighborhoods destroyed, rioters are taking over portions of cities.

All because of an assumption that what happened to George Floyd was a clear example of "systemic racism" that requires people to mobilize against it. But other than the fact that Chauvin was white and Floyd was black, what evidence is there (at all) that it was an act of racism, much less an act of racism worthy of this sort of social unrest?

Isn't it racism in and of itself to make an assumption that there can be no interaction (poor or otherwise) between a white cop and a black criminal suspect without race being a factor?

19 comments:

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

I'm going to comment on this eventually, but my initial reading makes me think, have you really gone off your rocker?

JAMES'S FUCKING DADDY said...

James said...
I'm going to comment on this eventually


Meaning the board's pathological liar is going to dump a bunch of Goddard spam.

He's not a thinker or on-topic contributor, or even someone who brings up something people may not have seen. He's a proud Goddard waterboy and pathological liar.

Caliphate4vr said...

Dr. Tyrone Wilson
@DrTyroneWilson1
In 8 years of residency and attending as a trauma surgeon, I've had 67 young black men end up on my operating table from gunshot wounds.

I CAN'T MAKE THIS CLEAR ENOUGH

NONE OF THEM ENDED UP THERE AT THE HANDS OF POLICE OR A WHITE PERSON.

NONE OF THEM....ZERO

#BLMisLiberalBS

C.H. Truth said...

I'm going to comment on this eventually, but my initial reading makes me think, have you really gone off your rocker?

So in other words..

The reverend will provide us with no actual evidence that this was not just a bad cop doing a bad thing... but will still "assume" it was racism because that is all the rage today.

But I suppose you will likely cut and paste a few dozen things from Political.wire?


Sorry... I am not a sheep. I WILL think for myself.

Anonymous said...



What actual evidence do we have that the killing of George Floyd was "racially motivated"?


in a word - none.

and none is required. all that was required was a confluence of circumstances: white cop, black perp, black perp dies at the hands to white cop; to give the black lies matter/anti first amendment crowd an excuse to go apeshit.

floyd's own brother said it was personal between floyd and the cop, and if that truly was the case as i believe it was, then the billions of $$$ of looting and arson and the assaults and murders were done not because of floyd's death but in spite of it.

and thanks to the current cancel culture we have police chiefs pronating themselves for 8 minutes in front of these scumbags, white liberals kneeling in the street and washing the feet of these scumbags, and these scumbags taking advantage of ALL of this, not to mourn floyd but to use him as a convenient excuse to pull their far left anarchy bullshit.

this entire fiasco has been disingenuous from the jump.

stealing a pallet of TV's and burning the store on the way out does NOTHING to honor or mourn floyd.

it's a lie and has been from the morning after the incident.


Anonymous said...

I CAN'T MAKE THIS CLEAR ENOUGH

NONE OF THEM ENDED UP THERE AT THE HANDS OF POLICE OR A WHITE PERSON.

NONE OF THEM....ZERO



it's the black LIES that matter.

not the black lives.


I'll have them ni@@ers votin' democrat for the next two hundred years."

- President Lyndon Baines Johnson

Anonymous said...


this is what happens when the left is allowed to go full-on Gestapo/SS/Stasi.:



Joyfully Dissenting
@RachelBock9

My friend is being told by higher ups at her work that her silence on her personal social media accounts is her being complicit in perpetuating injustice... how is this not harrassment?

12:58 PM · Jun 7, 2020·Twitter for Android
4.7K
Retweets
20.8K
Likes


https://twitter.com/RachelBock9/status/1269675017576611840



Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

Let's keep this simple.

A black man is lying handcuffed, pinned down, and helpless, with a policeman's knee on his neck, begging to be allowed to breathe and to live and calling for his mama, and meanwhile onlookers both black and white keep begging the policeman to let the man breathe, and this goes on for SEVERAL long minutes, and you want to say there's no racism at play?

Fortunately, the world community does not agree.

I'm sure you would use the same or similar arguments to defend the numerous instances of totally indefensible police behavior toward blacks which have been caught on video over the past several years -- without which in most instances there would not even have been a trial, not to mention a conviction.

And you deny systemic racism?

Spin on.

Anonymous said...




systemic racism?

only to a moron. or a liar. or both.

actually, this WAS personal.:


On the CBS special, Justice for All hosted by Gayle King, George Floyd’s brother Philonise said he believes Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer charged with second-degree murder in Floyd’s death, knew exactly who Floyd was as he pressed his knee into his neck. Not only that, Philonise said he believed it was personal, and he’s not the only one who sees it that way.

Both Floyd and Chauvin used to work security at El Nuevo Rodeo, a nightclub in Minneapolis that was burned to the ground in recent riots. Floyd worked security inside, while Chauvin was paid to sit in his squad car outside the club when he was off-duty. Former co-worker David Pinney said that not only did Floyd and Chauvin know each other, but they had a contentious history.

“They bumped heads,” Pinney said, adding, “It has a lot to do with Derek being extremely aggressive within the club with some of the patrons, which was an issue.” “Is there any doubt in your mind that Derek Chauvin knew George Floyd?” CBS correspondent Jeff Pegues asked. “No, he knew him,” Pinney replied. “How well did he know him?” “I’d say pretty well.”

Chauvin had a history of complaints against him, and the former owner of the club, Maya Santamaria, was not surprised by what she saw in the video, except that it went as far as it did.

“I was not surprised when I initially saw his knee on his neck, to be honest,” Santamaria said. “Because I’ve seen Chauvin do stuff along those lines. What surprised me was that he didn’t stop right away once George was obviously, ya know, saying, ‘OK, OK.’”

Santamaria also believes race was an issue for Chauvin.

“Do you think Derek had a problem with black people?” Santamaria was asked. She replied, “I think he was afraid and intimidated.”


https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/former-coworker-george-floyd-derek-chauvin-claims-they-bumped-heads-in-past-071539036.html


h/t to BWAA for posting this earlier on a different thread.

C.H. Truth said...

A black man is lying handcuffed, pinned down, and helpless, with a policeman's knee on his neck, begging to be allowed to breathe and to live and calling for his mama, and meanwhile onlookers both black and white keep begging the policeman to let the man breathe, and this goes on for SEVERAL long minutes, and you want to say there's no racism at play?

What you are describing is a bad act.

Not a racist one.


The fact that you are making an assumption about the motives of someone based ENTIRELY 100% on the color of the skin of those involved...

makes YOU the racist, Reverend.


You are literally making a racist assumption that every white person who does something bad, does it for purposes of racism.

C.H. Truth said...

Btw, Reverend... does this look familiar to your argument?

Bandwagon Fallacy:
The bandwagon fallacy assumes something is true (or right, or good) because other people agree with it. A couple different fallacies can be included under this label, since they are often indistinguishable in practice. The ad populum fallacy (Lat., “to the populous/popularity”) is when something is accepted because it’s popular. The concensus gentium (Lat., “consensus of the people”) is when something is accepted because the relevant authorities or people all agree on it. The status appeal fallacy is when something is considered true, right, or good because it has the reputation of lending status, making you look “popular,” “important,” or “successful.”

For our purposes, we’ll treat all of these fallacies together as the bandwagon fallacy. According to legend, politicians would parade through the streets of their district trying to draw a crowd and gain attention so people would vote for them. Whoever supported that candidate was invited to literally jump on board the bandwagon. Hence the nickname “bandwagon fallacy.”

This tactic is common among advertisers. “If you want to be like Mike (Jordan), you’d better eat your Wheaties.” “Drink Gatorade because that’s what all the professional athletes do to stay hydrated.” “McDonald’s has served over 99 billion, so you should let them serve you too.” The form of this argument often looks like this: “Many people do or think X, so you ought to do or think X too.”

One problem with this kind of reasoning is that the broad acceptance of some claim or action is not always a good indication that the acceptance is justified. People can be mistaken, confused, deceived, or even willfully irrational. And when people act together, sometimes they become even more foolish — i.e., “mob mentality.” People can be quite gullible, and this fact doesn’t suddenly change when applied to large groups.

C.H. Truth said...

So Reverend...

Not only are you using a logical fallacy as your entire basis of evidence that you are right...

You are quite literally using a bunch of people who burn down their own neighborhoods, and commit violence in the name of preventing violence as your inspiration as to how to think.


Sorry, Reverend.

I am not dumb enough to follow this particular crowd!

Anonymous said...




liberal logic:

if chronic black-on-black murder in chicago doesn't prove systemic racism in America then nothing does.


Anonymous said...




personally, i can't wait until the cops all abandon the black communities and white, armed, antifa asswipes take their place.

that will be hilarious.

Commonsense said...

Fortunately, the world community does not agree.

The world community is just finding out that there was personal animosity between Floyd and Chauvin.

This was not reported on Dailycaller or OANN or Infowars.

It was reported of CBS fucking News.

Bad news for Chauvin however, it makes 2nd degree murder easier to proved.

Bad news for BLM (who actually don't give a shit about black lives) and James (who really doesn't give a shit either) It makes their systematic racism argument less credible.

anonymous said...

how is this not harassment?


Hey rachel, rat.....who the fuck gives a shit??????!!!!!!!!!! Where I worked.;....if you were on social media....you would be spied on and monitored for content......the price of working in today's world!!!

Anonymous said...



Hey rachel, rat.....who the fuck gives a shit??????!!!!!!!!!! Where I worked.;....if you were on social media....you would be spied on and monitored for content......the price of working in today's world!!!


you DUMB FUCK.

she's being targeted for BEING SILENT on her social media accounts.

fucking imbecile.


anonymous said...

Shit for brains......I saw that....my comments still stands....WHO GIVES A FUCK.....As the rats in congress scramble to become relevant !!!!!!! KEEP DIGGING!!!! It still a long way to your hell!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

ne 9, 2020. (Erin Schaff/The New York Times)
WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans, caught flat-footed by an election-year groundswell of public support for overhauling policing in America to address systemic racism, are struggling to coalesce around a legislative response.

Having long fashioned themselves as the party of law and order, Republicans have been startled by the speed and extent to which public opinion has shifted under their feet in recent days after the killings of unarmed black Americans by the police and the protests that have followed. The abrupt turn has placed them on the defensive.

Adding to their challenge, President Donald Trump has offered only an incendiary response, repeatedly invoking “law and order,” calling for military and police crackdowns on protesters, promoting conspiracy theories and returning time and again to the false claim that Democrats agitating for change are simply bent on defunding police departments.

On Tuesday, Republicans on Capitol Hill rushed to distance themselves from that approach, publicly making clear that they would lay out their own legislation and refraining from attacking a sweeping Democratic bill unveiled this week aimed at combating racial bias and excessive use of force by the police. The measure, which House Democrats plan to push through this month, would make it easier to track, prosecute and punish police misconduct, ban chokeholds and restrict the use of deadly force by officers, as well as condition federal grants on anti-bias training and other practices to combat racial profiling and discrimination.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the majority leader, pressed on whether his party would embrace such steps, said on Tuesday that Republicans had yet to fashion their response

Anonymous said...



.I saw that....my comments still stands....WHO GIVES A FUCK....


well DUMB FUCK, if she's being harassed and threatened by her employer for what she's NOT SAYING OR NOT DOING on social media, that's a fucking problem...

...for the employer.