Autonomous Zone Mineappolis (1 Viewer)

[Roofgardener]

It appears that there is now a "no-police zone" in George Floyd Square ? Similar in concept to the Seattle Autonomous Zone ?

I gather that this has been going on for some time, but it has now toughened up. White journalists are threatened if they try and enter.

(approx 4 minutes in).

One person has already been shot and killed, with the Police prevented from entering ?

Inside the Now ‘Cop-Free’ Zone Where George Floyd Was Killed

If you want to visit George Floyd Square in Minneapolis these days, you have to walk through barricaded streets and one of four makeshift checkpoints first.

www.vice.com

The insurectionists have posted a list of demands;


Most strange.

 

[Farb]

For what? We have not one, but two, medical autopsies ruling homicide and, y'know, the video that shows him being killed by a police officer kneeling on his neck.

Suggesting that someone who died due to a police office kneeling on his neck, with a video of him being killed by a police officer kneeling on his neck, and with subsequent autopsies finding he died due to a police officer kneeling on his neck, maybe really just happened to die from an 'excited delirium' which the video doesn't show and the medical autopsies didn't find is akin to suggesting that someone shot maybe really just happened to have an unrelated fatal heart attack at that exact moment so maybe it wasn't the bullet that actually killed them. No.

It was homicide, and he died from a police officer kneeling on his neck. There is no credible position otherwise. There is no subsequent event that can change the video of him being killed and the findings of the medical autopsies.

The only thing we could be waiting for is for you to catch up with reality. Well, whenever, you're ready.

Sorry, I will wait until the facts come out. I am a stickler for the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' no matter how bad the alleged crime appears. You guys have your court of public opinion. I am not stopping you.

 

[RobF]

Sorry, I will wait until the facts come out. I am a stickler for the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' no matter how bad the alleged crime appears. You guys have your court of public opinion. I am not stopping you.

They have come out. That the autopsies found he was killed due to a police officer kneeling on his neck is a fact. And the video showing him being killed by a police officer kneeling on his neck is a doozy of a fact.

And you already claimed, contrary to the facts, that you "think Floyd died due to excited delirium brought on by high level of fentanyl" which is not only clearly not waiting for the facts by your supposed standard, it's a false narrative that's already been shown to be false from the facts that have come out, namely that Floyd was killed by a police officer kneeling on his neck.

If what you're implying is, as it appears to be, that you won't believe something until a jury says they believe it, I'm skeptical. Unless you think all Al Capone did was evade some taxes, and you're a big defender of OJ's innocence?

But at this point there is literally zero possibility of a court finding what you think to be the case anyway. The evidence for that would be in the video and the autopsies. Which it isn't. Those found that Floyd's death was homicide, caused by a police officer kneeling on his neck.

What you really appear to be telling us here is that you really don't want to believe that to the point you'll ignore the evidence and fact and instead choose to believe an alternative version of events already shown to be false by said evidence and facts. To an extent that's understandable; there's a lot of us who have respect for the police and want to believe they're the good guys. But when they're on video killing someone, we have to deal with that. Deal. Not denial.

 

[samiam5211]

Sorry, I will wait until the facts come out. I am a stickler for the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' no matter how bad the alleged crime appears. You guys have your court of public opinion. I am not stopping you.

Do you believe that OJ Simpson killed Nicole Brown?

 

[Farb]

Do you believe that OJ Simpson killed Nicole Brown?

They have come out. That the autopsies found he was killed due to a police officer kneeling on his neck is a fact. And the video showing him being killed by a police officer kneeling on his neck is a doozy of a fact.

And you already claimed, contrary to the facts, that you "think Floyd died due to excited delirium brought on by high level of fentanyl" which is not only clearly not waiting for the facts by your supposed standard, it's a false narrative that's already been shown to be false from the facts that have come out, namely that Floyd was killed by a police officer kneeling on his neck.

If what you're implying is, as it appears to be, that you won't believe something until a jury says they believe it, I'm skeptical. Unless you think all Al Capone did was evade some taxes, and you're a big defender of OJ's innocence?

But at this point there is literally zero possibility of a court finding what you think to be the case anyway. The evidence for that would be in the video and the autopsies. Which it isn't. Those found that Floyd's death was homicide, caused by a police officer kneeling on his neck.

What you really appear to be telling us here is that you really don't want to believe that to the point you'll ignore the evidence and fact and instead choose to believe an alternative version of events already shown to be false by said evidence and facts. To an extent that's understandable; there's a lot of us who have respect for the police and want to believe they're the good guys. But when they're on video killing someone, we have to deal with that. Deal. Not denial.

Dude, if you really want to discuss this issue, then make a separate thread and then we can discuss without you telling me what I think what I really don't believe.

 

[Farb]

Do you believe that OJ Simpson killed Nicole Brown?

A very poorly thought of race bait. Yeah, no thanks.

 

[brandon]

A very poorly thought of race bait. Yeah, no thanks.

Bait, or cognitive dissonance?

 

[samiam5211]

A very poorly thought of race bait. Yeah, no thanks.

Nothing to do with race. You said innocent until proven guilty. So I assume that means you believe that OJ didn’t kill anyone.

I know he killed them. I don’t need the legal system to make my judgements for me.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Same with Casey Anthony.. She is innocent..

 

[MT15]

Bait, or cognitive dissonance?

Yes.

 

[Saintman2884]

Same with Casey Anthony.. She is innocent..

Ahh, but you see there's a big difference in the interpretation and philosophy of how we determine and evaluate the complex terminologies, nuances, and "technicalities" of the American legal justice system. "Innocent" and "Not guilty" don't have same equivalent legal meaning, their two very different distinctions. "Not guilty" just means the prosecution, through incompetence, lack of evidence or failure to properly articulate its arguments, failed to convince enough jurors uninamously their arguments merited conviction. O.J. Simpson nor Casey Anthony aren't and shouldn't be viewed as "Innocent" from a purely legal perspective. Frankly in Anthony's case, it had a lot more to do with local police ineptness and incompetence, and the fact that Anthony's lawyer, Jose Baez, basically kicked the prosecutor's arse in Anthony's criminal trial.

Johnny Cochran ran circles around the L.A. deputy assistant prosecutors in O.J.'s criminal trial. He knew how to galvanize and manipulate public opinion, still-extremely tense racial situation in L.A. nearly 2 years after Rodney King race riots and the LAPD's well-publicized, well-documented history of systemic racism, discrimination against minorities, particularly against African-American community in Watts and Compton in south-central L.A. 27 years before the Rodney King riots, one of the worst, bloodiest, and deadliest race riots occured after a routine DUI traffic stop turned brutal and set off 5 days of rioting, burned-out businesses and homes in Watts.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Some people will same the same thing about Trump's impeachment. By him not being impeached by the Senate does not mean he is innocent, correct? So Trump is not guilty, but that does not mean he is innocent?

 

[SFIDC3]

Some people will same the same thing about Trump's impeachment. By him not being impeached by the Senate does not mean he is innocent, correct? So Trump is not guilty, but that does not mean he is innocent?

No by no means is he innocent. The whole civil trial thing never made good sense to me, but he may still be held liable and be sued, which is all you can hope for now regarding this....

 

[bdb13]

Same with Casey Anthony.. She is innocent..

It's pretty obvious the main officer in the Floyd case is responsible for Floyd's death (what in particular he should be convicted of I'm not sure, haven't followed the case to know the state's nuances of murder two, murder three, etc..but speaking in a general sense).. definitely on a pretty sturdy limb there in saying that and there's not an argument that can be constructed to counter the publicly available evidence I've seen which makes it rather clear that the officer is responsible for Floyd's death.

And yeah, in that way for me it's akin to the Casey Anthony case where it was also clear beyond a reasonable doubt in my eyes prior to trial (based upon the publicly available evidence) that she was responsible for the death of her child.. a mixture of an arrogant prosecutorial team and dumbassed jurists that produced not guilty verdicts in that one hold no sway over my personal opinion of the evidence, and why should it?

 

[DaveXA]

It's pretty obvious the main officer in the Floyd case is responsible for Floyd's death (what in particular he should be convicted of I'm not sure, haven't followed the case to know the state's nuances of murder two, murder three, etc..but speaking in a general sense).. definitely on a pretty sturdy limb there in saying that and there's not an argument that can be constructed to counter the publicly available evidence I've seen which makes it rather clear that the officer is responsible for Floyd's death.

And yeah, in that way for me it's akin to the Casey Anthony case where it was also clear beyond a reasonable doubt in my eyes prior to trial (based upon the publicly available evidence) that she was responsible for the death of her child.. a mixture of an arrogant prosecutorial team and dumbassed jurists that produced not guilty verdicts in that one hold no sway over my personal opinion of the evidence, and why should it?

To be fair, we don't see what jurors see, not only in the courtroom, but also in jury deliberations. Jurors not only have to deal with the evidence, they also have to deal with other jurors. All it takes is one, or a few, depending on jurisdiction, to invalidate a potential guilty verdict.

And, that's as it should be imo. If there's any doubt, guilty verdicts shouldn't be handed down. I'd rather a few guilty go free to protect those who are actually innocent, than to end up putting more innocent people in jail than should be there.

 

[bdb13]

To be fair, we don't see what jurors see, not only in the courtroom, but also in jury deliberations. Jurors not only have to deal with the evidence, they also have to deal with other jurors. All it takes is one, or a few, depending on jurisdiction, to invalidate a potential guilty verdict.

And, that's as it should be imo. If there's any doubt, guilty verdicts shouldn't be handed down. I'd rather a few guilty go free to protect those who are actually innocent, than to end up putting more innocent people in jail than should be there.

Yeah wasn't meant as an argument against the system.. people are involved at every level so it's going to be inherently flawed, but theoretically it's done about as fairly as it can be done.