George Floyd (2 Viewers)

[David O'Day]

I see there's still folk trying to explain away racism

 

---

[Nick]

He’s explaining it, not excusing it. Huge difference.

How many people tried to explain that bloke in broadgate? It very much is trying to divert the blame away.

Again, people need to take responsibility for their own actions.

 

[skybluetony176]

Can you not see at how those people "filming" the police is an issue? You have already said the guy in the other incident was stopped because he was black ffs.

Isn't that why they wear bodycams? Do you think people will care if the police are doing anything wrong or not.

Why are you excusing this behaviour? It's very weird. Almost giving people a free pass to act like cunts.

Look at your city fan example, imagine if that racist c**t in broadgate had people defending him. He didn't, he was a c**t regardless of his skin colour. Nobody thought "he is white, best blindly defend that" or "he is a city fan, best defend him".

That's not how it works. This whole "looking out for other black people regardless of if they have done anything wrong" is kind of racist in itself. Very dangerous too.

No I can’t see how it’s an issue. If people hadn’t filmed George Floyd being murdered his killers probably would have gotten away with it. The flip side is someone shouting police brutality when the officers are just doing their jobs correctly has no where to go and officers aren’t wrongfully prosecuted or reprimanded by their employer.

The guy in the other incident was stopped because he was black. That isn’t even my opinion, that just happens to be a fact.

How does a body cam confirm the circumstances if all it shows is the officers fighting with person they’re arresting? They could without context back up a claim of police brutality as the only thing they confirm is an altercation. Besides not all forces use them or have rolled them out 100%, what if the officers aren’t wearing them?

You were quick to accuse people of looking for racism. I think you’re just trying to counter that by looking for things to be angry about. People filming the police isn’t a bad thing. It gets officers who commit murder charged and it will get good officers falsely accused of police brutality cleared. What’s your problem?

 

[skybluetony176]

How many people tried to explain that bloke in broadgate? It very much is trying to divert the blame away.

Again, people need to take responsibility for their own actions.

Were the people who filmed George Floyd being murdered cunts also?

 

[skybluetony176]

He’s explaining it, not excusing it. Huge difference.

Nick’s just looking for reasons to be angry.

 

[Nick]

No I can’t see how it’s an issue. If people hadn’t filmed George Floyd being murdered his killers probably would have gotten away with it. The flip side is someone shouting police brutality when the officers are just doing their jobs correctly has no where to go and officers aren’t wrongfully prosecuted or reprimanded by their employer.

The guy in the other incident was stopped because he was black. That isn’t even my opinion, that just happens to be a fact.

How does a body cam confirm the circumstances if all it shows is the officers fighting with person they’re arresting? They could without context back up a claim of police brutality as the only thing they confirm is an altercation. Besides not all forces use them or have rolled them out 100%, what if the officers aren’t wearing them?

You were quick to accuse people of looking for racism. I think you’re just trying to counter that by looking for things to be angry about. People filming the police isn’t a bad thing. It gets officers who commit murder charged and it will get good officers falsely accused of police brutality cleared. What’s your problem?

It isn't a fact, that's the thing. You want everything to be racist, every time.

You are condoning cunts getting in the way of the police.

Like I said, turn it round to Tommy Robinson and some of his chumps.

The problem is people making the job ten times harder for the police in situations like that as they can't pay full attention on restraining. They have one eye on if they are going to get booted in the head.

There's always somebody else to blame for people acting like cunts. No, people should just be called cunts. Same goes for the Leeds fan, same for the one with the knife.

 

[Nick]

Nick’s just looking for reasons to be angry.

Not really.

Just pointing out as it is.

Not wanting to just call people out for wrong doing based on the colour of their skin. That's part of the problem. They couldn't possibly just be absolute bellends of people regardless of what colour they are.

Thats why things won't ever get sorted. People can do no wrong.

 

[Nick]

Were the people who filmed George Floyd being murdered cunts also?

It isn't just the filming is it? If they were draining the life out of the bloke then fair enough go mad. Of course.

They were shouting about his neck when they were no where near it. He was shouting he couldn't breath when nobody was on him.

Bit different?

Is it ok for a woman to walk about shouting rape towards any man near her? Of course.

 

[skybluetony176]

It isn't just the filming is it? If they were draining the life out of the bloke then fair enough go mad. Of course.

They were shouting about his neck when they were no where near it. He was shouting he couldn't breath when nobody was on him.

Bit different?

Is it ok for a woman to walk about shouting rape towards any man near her? Of course.

So they should have waited until the guy was in trouble until they started filming. Great idea. In another breath you’re getting angry at people not intervening. Filming is intervention.

 

[Nick]

So they should have waited until the guy was in trouble until they started filming. Great idea. In another breath you’re getting angry at people not intervening. Filming is intervention.

I'm not just on about filming am I? It's the obstructing the police, its getting right In stirring the situation up. It's shouting get off his neck

It's pretty simple

 

[skybluetony176]

I'm not just on about filming am I? It's the obstructing the police, its getting right In stirring the situation up. It's shouting get off his neck

It's pretty simple

Who obstructed the police in that video exactly? Weren’t they saying don’t put your knee on his neck? Sound advice, especially in the current climate.

 

[skybluetony176]

I'm not just on about filming am I? It's the obstructing the police, its getting right In stirring the situation up. It's shouting get off his neck

It's pretty simple

Just watched it again. No one shouts get of his neck. Stop inventing things to be angry about.

 

[RegTheDonk]

It’s not about absolving anyone of blame, the guy acted like a dick, the officers clearly did nothing wrong. What it does demonstrate though is that what people do effects others, even on the other side of the world. How many of them people would have behaved like that around that situation had George Floyd not been killed so publicly?

Have you ever thought that the people filming actually see it as some sort of protection for other black people? They’re circling the wagons so to speak.

Filming to protect him, you're having a laugh Tony. Do they go down to the police station and hand their footage in and make a complaint? No, they splash it all on SM to cause the most outrage possible.

If they want to protect suspects, rather than film it and chip in with all the comments, perhaps they should say stop struggling mate, if you've done nothing wrong then let them arrest you. Or, do you need help to restrain him without the risk of injury officer?

Most people are well aware by now that cops use body cameras ... they can't tamper with them other than turning them off which would immediately raise suspicion anyway. Ambulance crews, bailifs, lots of security companies are using them too these days, they are robust and footage is automatically stored on a secure server when docked.

And yes, the killing of George Floyd has everything to do with it, because while rightly highlighting he was unlawfully killed which will hopefully bring some reform in the US, it now seems more people are deciding to try and fight their way out of being arrested and say they can't breathe, particularly if they have an audience armed with mobile phones.

 

[Nick]

Filming to protect him, you're having a laugh Tony. Do they go down to the police station and hand their footage in and make a complaint? No, they splash it all on SM to cause the most outrage possible.

If they want to protect suspects, rather than film it and chip in with all the comments, perhaps they should say stop struggling mate, if you've done nothing wrong then let them arrest you. Or, do you need help to restrain him without the risk of injury officer?

Most people are well aware by now that cops use body cameras ... they can't tamper with them other than turning them off which would immediately raise suspicion anyway. Ambulance crews, bailifs, lots of security companies are using them too these days, they are robust and footage is automatically stored on a secure server when docked.

And yes, the killing of George Floyd has everything to do with it, because while rightly highlighting he was unlawfully killed which will hopefully bring some reform in the US, it now seems more people are deciding to try and fight their way out of being arrested and say they can't breathe, particularly if they have an audience armed with mobile phones.

Exactly.

Then they use that as their defence to try and get away with the crime. See the wanted man with a knife lawyer demanding an apology.

It's nothing to do with protecting him, it's that people need to face up to their own actions.

Nobody on here was defending that racist prick in broadgate yet somebody can be carrying a knife, wanted on recall to prison for smashing a woman's face and there's outrage for a knee on his head to restrain him. (Not his neck).

Meanwhile there's an angry crowd filming for social media and saying he's done nothing wrong and shouting.

Anybody thought that if police have to deal with a prick trying to fight them and are surrounded by other pricks pouring petrol on the situation then it may end up worse than if the person didn't try to fight them?

Still, there's always an excuse or a reason to fight the police or drive away.

 

[skybluetony176]

Exactly.

Then they use that as their defence to try and get away with the crime. See the wanted man with a knife lawyer demanding an apology.

It's nothing to do with protecting him, it's that people need to face up to their own actions.

Nobody on here was defending that racist prick in broadgate yet somebody can be carrying a knife, wanted on recall to prison for smashing a woman's face and there's outrage for a knee on his head to restrain him. (Not his neck).

Meanwhile there's an angry crowd filming for social media and saying he's done nothing wrong and shouting.

Anybody thought that if police have to deal with a prick trying to fight them and are surrounded by other pricks pouring petrol on the situation then it may end up worse than if the person didn't try to fight them?

Still, there's always an excuse or a reason to fight the police or drive away.

You keep inventing context Nick. That will learned them.

 

[Nick]

You keep inventing context Nick. That will learned them.

It isn't inventing any context though is it? The invented context is the "they were trying to defend him because he was black". That is part of the issue.

Again, who defending the white racist prick in broadgate because of his skin colour or the team he supported? Is it OK if I was to say I wanted to defend him because he was white? Would it fuck.

Things won't get sorted until people can be a c**t regardless of their skin colour and start calling it out. While you also want every single thing to be racially motivated then nothing will get sorted either.

 

[skybluetony176]

Filming to protect him, you're having a laugh Tony. Do they go down to the police station and hand their footage in and make a complaint? No, they splash it all on SM to cause the most outrage possible.

If they want to protect suspects, rather than film it and chip in with all the comments, perhaps they should say stop struggling mate, if you've done nothing wrong then let them arrest you. Or, do you need help to restrain him without the risk of injury officer?

Most people are well aware by now that cops use body cameras ... they can't tamper with them other than turning them off which would immediately raise suspicion anyway. Ambulance crews, bailifs, lots of security companies are using them too these days, they are robust and footage is automatically stored on a secure server when docked.

And yes, the killing of George Floyd has everything to do with it, because while rightly highlighting he was unlawfully killed which will hopefully bring some reform in the US, it now seems more people are deciding to try and fight their way out of being arrested and say they can't breathe, particularly if they have an audience armed with mobile phones.

The only person outraged on here about it is Nick and he’s had to invent his own context to the video to be outraged. Everyone you/Nick etc seem to think would/should be outraged about it on here have all said he’s clearly resisting arrest and the police are doing nothing wrong. Couldn’t have done that without the video.

 

[skybluetony176]

It isn't inventing any context though is it? The invented context is the "they were trying to defend him because he was black". That is part of the issue.

Again, who defending the white racist prick in broadgate because of his skin colour or the team he supported? Is it OK if I was to say I wanted to defend him because he was white? Would it fuck.

You said people were shouting get of his neck, they didn’t and very clearly didn’t. That’s inventing context.

 

[Nick]

The only person outraged on here about it is Nick and he’s had to invent his own context to the video to be outraged. Everyone you/Nick etc seem to think would/should be outraged about it on here have all said he’s clearly resisting arrest and the police are doing nothing wrong. Couldn’t have done that without the video.

What context has been invented? The only one I can see is you saying the pricks were just trying to help him by acting like that.

 

[skybluetony176]

What context has been invented? The only one I can see is you saying the pricks were just trying to help him by acting like that.

You said people were shouting get of his neck, they didn’t and very clearly didn’t. That’s inventing context.

 

[Nick]

You said people were shouting get of his neck, they didn’t and very clearly didn’t. That’s inventing context.

Can you not hear the things they are shouting?

Pretty sure they are blaming the police for trying to arrest somebody for a crime as well.

"Just trying to look after him though". Fucking hell.

Again, what happens if I just wanted to look after that prick in broadgate because he had the same colour skin as me? That OK?

It's as if people want a free pass given to people to behave like that.

So yes, the pricks standing around should have been arrested as well. They would soon stop doing it after a charge or two. They won't though because you will be crying it is because it is the colour of their skin rather than their behaviour.

 

[skybluetony176]

Can you not hear the things they are shouting?

Pretty sure they are blaming the police for trying to arrest somebody for a crime as well.

"Just trying to look after him though". Fucking hell.

Again, what happens if I just wanted to look after that prick in broadgate because he had the same colour skin as me?

Yes I can hear. Hence I know they weren’t shouting get of his neck, hence I know you’re inventing context.

 

[Nick]

Yes I can hear. Hence I know they weren’t shouting get of his neck, hence I know you’re inventing context.

What context is being invented by the way?

I haven't got sound now to re-listen so are you picking up on a different word being used of essentially the same thing?

I can remember them shouting "Do not put your neck on his neck" as well, getting a bit confused.

Still, they were just looking out for him because of his skin colour and shouting abuse at police and blaming them. Some might see that was racial too because the police were white.

Perfectly fine though. Same as Gammon and Snowflake. There needs to be consistency.

 

[skybluetony176]

What context is being invented by the way?

I haven't got sound now to re-listen so are you picking up on a different word being used of essentially the same thing?

I can remember them shouting "Do not put your neck on his neck" as well, getting a bit confused.

Still, they were just looking out for him because of his skin colour and shouting abuse at police and blaming them. Some might see that was racial too because the police were white.

Perfectly fine though. Same as Gammon and Snowflake. There needs to be consistency.

Fucking hell. For the third time. You said people were shouting get of his neck, they didn’t and very clearly didn’t. That’s inventing context.

 

[Nick]

Fucking hell. For the third time. You said people were shouting get of his neck, they didn’t and very clearly didn’t. That’s inventing context.

OK, so they were saying "don't put your knee on his neck" when they were nowhere near his neck. Semantics.

Can you really not see the only context invented was that they were just looking after him? I am not sure if people are just blinded to things.

It's worrying.

 

[skybluetony176]

OK, so they were saying "don't put your knee on his neck" when they were nowhere near his neck. Semantics.

Can you really not see the only context invented was that they were just looking after him? I am not sure if people are just blinded to things.

It's worrying.

Don’t put your knee on his neck is good advice don’t you think? Especially in the current climate.
You’re the one rewriting what they said. I don’t think you’re in any position to accuse others of being blindsided when you have to be challenged several times about what you claim was said before you finally admit that it wasn’t said.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Fucking hell. For the third time. You said people were shouting get of his neck, they didn’t and very clearly didn’t. That’s inventing context.

To be fair Nick has mentioned about the neck three times. The first two he says they said "don't put your knee on his neck" then the last time he put "get off his neck". Whether this was deliberately misleading on Nick's part of just an oversight in the heat of writing replies quickly, but he should've acknowledged the error and rectified it.

But it does seem you're looking to use that one slip to invalidate all other points he makes. It's clear the person recording is looking to find the police at fault. He talks about 2 on 1 as if it's some streetfight, not an arrest that's being resisted. He repeats that he can't breathe even thouogh at best light pressure was applied for a second or two by a forearm on the neck and that could be argued is due to the man resisting. When the third police officer arrives he says don't push that man standing in the way. Was he supposed to just cough politely and ask if he wouldn't mind moving? The filmer is looking for a situation to highlight and fit the narrative he wants of police brutality and racial inequality.

So you have to ask if that situation was repeated with a bunch of EDL skinheads would you be so quick to back up them filming it and trying to make the officers guilty on the potential pretense that they're 'protecting their own'? Would the person filming have been so vociferous had it been a white person they were arresting? Surely if we're to move forward it has to be everyone protecting everyone else regardless of skin colour? I've not got a problem with people filming this as it provides more evidence as long as they're not obstructing the police or getting in the way of them doing their jobs. IMO this guy wasn't getting in the way, but what he was saying was clear he was looking for it to fit a narrative.

 

[Nick]

Don’t put your knee on his neck is good advice don’t you think? Especially in the current climate.
You’re the one rewriting what they said. I don’t think you’re in any position to accuse others of being blindsided when you have to be challenged several times about what you claim was said before you finally admit that it wasn’t said.

But they had their legs nowhere near his neck? Much like when he was shouting he couldn't breath.

You are desperate to defend that sort of behaviour. Can you really not see that the likeliness of knees on heads is going to not happen if:

1. The bloke wasn't trying to fight them.
2. There wasn't a group of people stood around shouting at them and being dicks to them, causing them to have to keep one eye on what they were doing?

It's common sense, regardless of your semantics to again try and defend them "just looking after him".

You still haven't answered if I just wanted to look out for that racist prick in broadgate based on the colour of his skin and because he was apparently a city fan? Is that OK? Would you have been so desperate to defend it if it was turned around?

 

[Nick]

To be fair Nick has mentioned about the neck three times. The first two he says they said "don't put your knee on his neck" then the last time he put "get off his neck". Whether this was deliberately misleading on Nick's part of just an oversight in the heat of writing replies quickly, but he should've acknowledged the error and rectified it.

But it does seem you're looking to use that one slip to invalidate all other points he makes. It's clear the person recording is looking to find the police at fault. He talks about 2 on 1 as if it's some streetfight, not an arrest that's being resisted. He repeats that he can't breathe even thouogh at best light pressure was applied for a second or two by a forearm on the neck and that could be argued is due to the man resisting. When the third police officer arrives he says don't push that man standing in the way. Was he supposed to just cough politely and ask if he wouldn't mind moving? The filmer is looking for a situation to highlight and fit the narrative he wants of police brutality and racial inequality.

So you have to ask if that situation was repeated with a bunch of EDL skinheads would you be so quick to back up them filming it and trying to make the officers guilty on the potential pretense that they're 'protecting their own'? Would the person filming have been so vociferous had it been a white person they were arresting? Surely if we're to move forward it has to be everyone protecting everyone else regardless of skin colour? I've not got a problem with people filming this as it provides more evidence as long as they're not obstructing the police or getting in the way of them doing their jobs. IMO this guy wasn't getting in the way, but what he was saying was clear he was looking for it to fit a narrative.

Wasnt deliberate at all. No need to be deliberate when the video is there.

People stood around shouting and egging the guy on, causing a massive scene is obstructive and will be distracting for the police. It isn't as if they were just stood filming from a distance quietly.

The man being detained spat in the eye of a police officer FFS. Still, "just looking after him".

As I have been trying to get across, people need to call this shit out regardless of skin colour. Not defend them based on it regardless of what they have done.

 

[skybluetony176]

But they had their legs nowhere near his neck? Much like when he was shouting he couldn't breath.

You are desperate to defend that sort of behaviour. Can you really not see that the likeliness of knees on heads is going to not happen if:

1. The bloke wasn't trying to fight them.
2. There wasn't a group of people stood around shouting at them and being dicks to them, causing them to have to keep one eye on what they were doing?

It's common sense, regardless of your semantics to again try and defend them "just looking after him".

You still haven't answered if I just wanted to look out for that racist prick in broadgate based on the colour of his skin and because he was apparently a city fan? Is that OK? Would you have been so desperate to defend it if it was turned around?

So you’re confirming that they followed that advice from the public then. Not sure what your problem is.

 

[skybluetony176]

To be fair Nick has mentioned about the neck three times. The first two he says they said "don't put your knee on his neck" then the last time he put "get off his neck". Whether this was deliberately misleading on Nick's part of just an oversight in the heat of writing replies quickly, but he should've acknowledged the error and rectified it.

But it does seem you're looking to use that one slip to invalidate all other points he makes. It's clear the person recording is looking to find the police at fault. He talks about 2 on 1 as if it's some streetfight, not an arrest that's being resisted. He repeats that he can't breathe even thouogh at best light pressure was applied for a second or two by a forearm on the neck and that could be argued is due to the man resisting. When the third police officer arrives he says don't push that man standing in the way. Was he supposed to just cough politely and ask if he wouldn't mind moving? The filmer is looking for a situation to highlight and fit the narrative he wants of police brutality and racial inequality.

So you have to ask if that situation was repeated with a bunch of EDL skinheads would you be so quick to back up them filming it and trying to make the officers guilty on the potential pretense that they're 'protecting their own'? Would the person filming have been so vociferous had it been a white person they were arresting? Surely if we're to move forward it has to be everyone protecting everyone else regardless of skin colour? I've not got a problem with people filming this as it provides more evidence as long as they're not obstructing the police or getting in the way of them doing their jobs. IMO this guy wasn't getting in the way, but what he was saying was clear he was looking for it to fit a narrative.

I gave him three opportunities to say you’re quite right they didn’t say get your knee of his neck before he took that opportunity. Not sure how that’s my fault.

 

[skybluetony176]

Just to be clear if you read the statement from the Met they also point out that the footage clears the officers of any wrongdoing. Good job them pricks filmed it.

 

[Nick]

So you’re confirming that they followed that advice from the public then. Not sure what your problem is.

Because there is absolutely nothing to say they were going to put a knee near his neck. Just like in other instances when it's clearly on the side of their head.

The problem is the behaviour of them, pretty obvious really. Much like it would be if I was defending Tommy Robinson if he had assaulted a police offer.

 

[Nick]

I gave him three opportunities to say you’re quite right they didn’t say get your knee of his neck before he took that opportunity. Not sure how that’s my fault.

So why do you seem unwilling to discuss the actual things said? Same in his posts and same in mine.

I said I had no sound so couldn't re-listen.

It is all about the semantics. It's a bit strange.

 

[Nick]

Just to be clear if you read the statement from the Met they also point out that the footage clears the officers of any wrongdoing. Good job them pricks filmed it.

So 30 seconds of a 15 minute incident clears it and not the bodycam footage from start to finish?

You seem as desperate as Shmeee on a council thread.