Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is USA becoming "red pilled"?

Is America becoming more conservative?

  • Yes

    Votes: 50 76.9%
  • No

    Votes: 15 23.1%

  • Total voters
    65

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer



Must be pissing himself laughing.
 
Not really, none will get enough votes to even break 15% unless a GOP or DEM party nominee

Closest we came in modern times was Perot and he got 8%
If enough people dont like the two main contenders then they are free to vote for the others.
 

Mattb

LE
If enough people dont like the two main contenders then they are free to vote for the others.
In theory - but given that in the last election the two main contenders were Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton I think it's fair to say that no one is unlikable enough to get people to vote for third-party candidates in any significant numbers.
 
 
If enough people dont like the two main contenders then they are free to vote for the others.
Of course they are, but enough will not do so and will vote straight party tickets
 
He also said he had been shot by a cop before, that he had just lost his mother and that his 'face was broken', none of which was true. I highly doubt his Covid story was true either.

Nope, that part at least was backed up by the autopsy.

 
One of the officer's bodycam footage has been leaked.


So he was resisting, was claiming to not be able to breathe whilst standing and breathing fine...

He ended up on the floor after darting out the other door when the rookie opened it.

Basically he's a whiney, lying, heap of girl flesh who cried wolf.... No wonder Chauvin didn't believe he couldn't breathe.

I can see why some are really upset about him. What a ******* cuck.

THIS is the left's new pop idol?

Jeez.....
Having reviewed this bodycam footage it shows extremely polite, courteous and patient cops dealing with an agitated, non-compliant, lying, manipulating civilian who was under the influence.

If that arrest was a normal law abiding citizen it would have been done and dusted in a third of the time.

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk
 
In theory - but given that in the last election the two main contenders were Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton I think it's fair to say that no one is unlikable enough to get people to vote for third-party candidates in any significant numbers.

Its a bit like British politics where the public think its mainly a choice of Labour or Conservatives.
The public could change the system if they wanted do, but they dont, God bless democracy.
 
Having reviewed this bodycam footage it shows extremely polite, courteous and patient cops dealing with an agitated, non-compliant, lying, manipulating civilian who was under the influence.

If that arrest was a normal law abiding citizen it would have been done and dusted in a third of the time.

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk
Still not convinced it warranted an extra-judicial death sentence though.
 

Bob65

War Hero
Still not convinced it warranted an extra-judicial death sentence though.

There's a case to be made that the police used excessive force in this instance - or maybe they felt it appropriate at the time given the suspect's past violent history and inebriated state - but "death sentence" implies a level of deliberation that is not obvious in the footage.
 
Its a bit like British politics where the public think its mainly a choice of Labour or Conservatives.
The public could change the system if they wanted do, but they dont, God bless democracy.

Good point. At least we have the Lib Dems and Greens in England.... Or the Brexit party.....

I wonder what the percentage of voters only vote for Party X to keep Party Y out of power? What would the UK look like if we actually voted for the parties we actually supported?
 
Good point. At least we have the Lib Dems and Greens in England.... Or the Brexit party.....

I wonder what the percentage of voters only vote for Party X to keep Party Y out of power? What would the UK look like if we actually voted for the parties we actually supported?

There are plenty of independents. Frank Field left the Labour party to be one, the public duly elected a labour candidate in the next election.
 

Mattb

LE
Its a bit like British politics where the public think its mainly a choice of Labour or Conservatives.
The public could change the system if they wanted do, but they dont, God bless democracy.
Well that largely is the choice, given FPTP. How many people would have voted Lib Dem, Brexit or UKIP in recent elections, but realised that they'd just be throwing their vote away and so went for their "least worst" option out of the actual contenders?

Not to mention the issue of safe seats.
 
One of the officer's bodycam footage has been leaked.


So he was resisting

You've got a very low threshold for "resistance".

He looks to be either faking it, or having a panic attack; but apart from "doesn't want to get into the car" offers no physical violence to the officers at any point. Doesn't try to run away. Doesn't resist being put in handcuffs. Does what he's told, although it takes a couple of goes (perhaps he was scared - having someone point a gun at your head does that).

He ended up on the floor after darting out the other door when the rookie opened it.

"Darting"? He fell out backwards.

Basically he's a whiney, lying, heap of girl flesh who cried wolf.... No wonder Chauvin didn't believe he couldn't breathe.

So leave him on the floor. Where's the need to choke him? When did a panic attack (or being an awkward tw*t) justify the use of lethal force? It looks more like a mental health issue than anything else - and the choke being used as punishment for awkwardness, not as restraint.

If you feel that choke holds are so harmless, would you be happy for someone to try one on you or your family? If they promise stop kneeling on your neck a couple of minutes after you go limp, what's the harm?
 
Having reviewed this bodycam footage it shows extremely polite, courteous and patient cops dealing with an agitated, non-compliant, lying, manipulating civilian who was under the influence.

"Civilian"? The police should be part of society, not apart from it - I'm uncomfortable with officers seeing themselves as "more special than the rest of us", how about you?

If that arrest was a normal law abiding citizen it would have been done and dusted in a third of the time.

But the police don't typically have to deal with "normal law abiding" - they have to deal with agitated, scared, lying, and occasionally violent people. It's what they train to do, it's what they get paid to do. They're expected to be good at it, they're expected to know how and when to escalate, and when to de-escalate. When a police officer chooses to use potentially lethal force, they'd better be able to justify it.

We trust them to use force only when appropriate - and have to accept that occasionally, they will get it wrong, but that they acted in good faith. They also have to realise that occasionally, they will get it wrong, and that their behaviour shouldn't make them look like a tw*t (or as here, a killer) when they do.

We also have to hold Officers to account when they are negligent in that use of force, or to notice when individual officers start to use force too early / too often. When their tempers rise, and how quickly.
  • "Known armed criminal, hard stop"? (Mark Duggan) - no problem with that at all. Lethal force fully justified. So he'd chucked the gun out of the taxi? Tough luck, he should have been moving really f***ing slowly.
  • "Suspected terrorist carrying a bomb"? (Jean-Charles de Menezes) - I don't blame the officers who pulled the trigger, I blame incompetent ops room training / surveillance team leader.
  • "He was pissed and a twat, but we had him in cuffs, he wasn't trying to escape, and there was plenty of time"? Sorry, no. Let's see how the jury reacts when they see all the footage from all the body cameras, including the part where he dies.
If the police demand the highest standards of others (you appear to believe that this involves instant and total compliance, under any circumstances whatsoever, even if the Officers' commands are ambiguous) then why should they be surprised that those highest standards are applied to them?
 
Last edited:
Trumps wall was a great idea - keep the migrants and drug runners from easily getting in to the USA - but the democrats tried everything to stop that...same thing with scrapping Obamacare. The Democrat Mayors would rather see their own cities burned to the ground than admit Trump is correct - but the people that vote won't be so forgiving come 3rd November.
No it didn't, people climb it or dig under it. Remind me how well the Isrealis did without keeping explosives out of Gaza?
 
"Civilian"? The police should be part of society, not apart from it - I'm uncomfortable with officers seeing themselves as "more special than the rest of us", how about you?



But the police don't typically have to deal with "normal law abiding" - they have to deal with agitated, scared, lying, and occasionally violent people. It's what they train to do, it's what they get paid to do. They're expected to be good at it, they're expected to know how and when to escalate, and when to de-escalate. When a police officer chooses to use potentially lethal force, they'd better be able to justify it.

We trust them to use force only when appropriate - and have to accept that occasionally, they will get it wrong, but that they acted in good faith. They also have to realise that occasionally, they will get it wrong, and that their behaviour shouldn't make them look like a tw*t (or as here, a killer) when they do.

We also have to hold Officers to account when they are negligent in that use of force, or to notice when individual officers start to use force too early / too often. When their tempers rise, and how quickly.
  • "Known armed criminal, hard stop"? (Mark Duggan) - no problem with that at all. Lethal force fully justified. So he'd chucked the gun out of the taxi? Tough luck, he should have been moving really f***ing slowly.
  • "Suspected terrorist carrying a bomb"? (Jean-Charles de Menezes) - I don't blame the officers who pulled the trigger, I blame incompetent ops room training / surveillance team leader.
  • "He was pissed and a twat, but we had him in cuffs, he wasn't trying to escape, and there was plenty of time"? Sorry, no. Let's see how the jury reacts when they see all the footage from all the body cameras, including the part where he dies.
If the police demand the highest standards of others (you appear to believe that this involves instant and total compliance, under any circumstances whatsoever, even if the Officers' commands are ambiguous) then why should they be surprised that those highest standards are applied to them?
I wrote about this elsewhere else but it's a classic leftist trait to remove all blame from the perpetrator. I believe that the largest person to blame, certainly in this circumstance is George. There were 2 other suspects in that vehicle who walked away alive.

Correct in the the UK what the cop did would be unacceptable, however this restraint is apparently legal in some states in the US. But the reality is if George was at minimum compliant but even better law abiding then he would still be walking today.

Have you seen the footage before they even approached the car and from the other officers perspective yet?

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk
 
I wrote about this somewhere else but you've done the classic leftist thing of removing all blame from the perpetrator.
Isn’t that also what you are doing, just with the perpetrator of the more serious crime?

But the reality is if George was at minimum compliant but even better law abiding then he would still be walking today.
The same would be true if the cop hadn’t killed him.
You make it sound like being killed is an appropriate, or at least acceptable, punishment for his behaviour.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top