George Floyd death

Status
Not open for further replies.
Craig said:
Just like the criminal scum that stabbed that doctor in Tulbagh only contributed to his death? And I have never said the cops motive was racial, it might have been, or he might just have been a scummy dirty cop, only he will know. But you for some reason are insistent on your defense of what is a criminal, a murderer.
Click to expand...
No , laws take into account other things like intent , stabbing someone intentionally or hacking them to death as in your example is different to a cop who may have unintentionally "contributed to" a criminal's death while said criminal was having a heart attack either due to the fentanyl and meth he took , pre-existing conditions , or both in the course of his(the cop) duties.
I'd like to see where you think I'm defending the cop too because I don't believe I have.
 
buka001 said:
What legal right did the South have to succeed?

Yes they invaded and those losers got beat back.
Click to expand...
The civil war was not fought over slavery.
Slavery has nothing to do with Floyd dying , weren't some of the first slave owners black , American Indian , white and Jewish in the USA ?
This is not about race it's about police brutality , training and not taking drugs .
 
Jabulani22 said:
I'd like to see where you think I'm defending the cop too because I don't believe I have.
Click to expand...

Literally in the very same post:

Jabulani22 said:
unintentionally "contributed to" a criminal's death while said criminal was having a heart attack either due to the fentanyl and meth he took , pre-existing conditions , or both in the course of his(the cop) duties.
Click to expand...

At the time of arrest, he was a suspect, not a criminal
 
rambo919 said:
You fail to bring up anything actually forcing the North to keep the South integrated, by violence no less. The one time the South actually invaded the North it was to attempt to force Lincoln to negotiate.

You keep attempting to ignore the legalities by overriding them with moralities.... The North had no actual right to force the South to stay other than feels. This set up murican imperial thinking for the next century, murica feels it's right so it is.
Click to expand...
You fail to acknowledge that the war was started by the South,with their attack on Fort Sumter. It was started by the South choosing slavery over liberty.

The North were well within their rights to defend the constitution after that attack.

Legally, as you wish to posit, any request for succession from the Union would require the matter to go to Congress. That is how the laws in the USA work. There was no legal basis in the constitution that allowed a state to succeed.

Two court cases after the war debated and reviewed the legality of the succession and found that no state had the right to succeed and as such the Confederate States was not a legitimate government.

As a consequence of that, anyone fighting for the Confederates were committing treason against the USA.
 
rambo919 said:
They always technically had the legal right to secede, willingly in willingly out.
EDIT: they are the states of america not the provinces of america


Are you 10?
Click to expand...
No, sorry there was no legal basis for them to succeed.

Care to point out the law or constitutional amendment that allows a state to succeed?
 
Jabulani22 said:
The civil war was not fought over slavery.
Slavery has nothing to do with Floyd dying , weren't some of the first slave owners black , American Indian , white and Jewish in the USA ?
This is not about race it's about police brutality , training and not taking drugs .
Click to expand...
Go read a history book.

The main reason the states succeeded which started the civil war, as written in their declarations of succession was their will to keep slavery alive.
 
scudsucker said:
Literally in the very same post:



At the time of arrest, he was a suspect, not a criminal
Click to expand...
After his first conviction he was a criminal .
Suspects are detained , sometimes by force , it's why cops have batons,pepper spray and guns.
Stating facts is not a defense of the cop.
2/10 see me after class.
 
buka001 said:
Go read a history book.

The main reason the states succeeded which started the civil war, as written in their declarations of succession was their will to keep slavery alive.
Click to expand...
Your avoiding the racial make up of slave owners is noted.
If you believe the civil war was about slavery , I'm gonna say you are probably thinking Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded because of links to terror and wmds ......

Edit - didn't Lincoln do slavery too ?
 
buka001 said:
You fail to acknowledge that the war was started by the South,with their attack on Fort Sumter.
Click to expand...
Instigated by the North and their failure to evacuate from Southern territory signalling impending hostilities from the North.

It was started by the South choosing slavery over liberty.
Click to expand...
A statement of religion not fact

The North were well within their rights to defend the constitution after that attack.
Click to expand...
Strawman, they could have kept their constitution the South did not want it anymore and drew up a new one for themselves, if that is the reason the North conquered the South it was a religious war.

Legally, as you wish to posit, any request for succession from the Union would require the matter to go to Congress. That is how the laws in the USA work. There was no legal basis in the constitution that allowed a state to succeed.

Two court cases after the war debated and reviewed the legality of the succession and found that no state had the right to succeed and as such the Confederate States was not a legitimate government.
Click to expand...
So two court cases run by the victor concluded the victor was in the rights.... I'm shocked.

As a consequence of that, anyone fighting for the Confederates were committing treason against the USA.
Click to expand...
Yes, they made a grave strategic mistake accepting the label of rebel. They were actually independence fighters by modern standards.
 
buka001 said:
No, sorry there was no legal basis for them to succeed.

Care to point out the law or constitutional amendment that allows a state to succeed?
Click to expand...
And yet agian he gloriously misses the inconvenient point of what legal in this context means.....
 
buka001 said:
Go read a history book.

The main reason the states succeeded which started the civil war, as written in their declarations of succession was their will to keep slavery alive.
Click to expand...
If it was about only slavery half the North would have also seceded.......
 
rambo919 said:
And yet agian he gloriously misses the inconvenient point of what legal in this context means.....
Click to expand...
Gloriously you fail to provide legal justification in the constitution to which the Southern States were apart of that allowed them to succeed.
 
buka001 said:
Gloriously you fail to provide legal justification in the constitution to which the Southern States were apart of that allowed them to succeed.
Click to expand...
Fair point, I suppose I do to a degree hold more natural law and such more than legislation made in favour of imperialism....

And yes SA too technically became a empire in it's forced multi-national unification.

EDIT: btw I actually did find justification for it now https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/201710/was-secession-legal
 
rambo919 said:
True enough, I just question the way you kneejerk respond to corrupt cops. It's how something gets said more than what gets said that matters more sometimes.
Click to expand...

Yes, just as is the case in Sa with corrupt cops, I dislike them even more than the common criminal type. They are supposed to serve and protect, not do whatever the hell they want.

Jabulani22 said:
No , laws take into account other things like intent , stabbing someone intentionally or hacking them to death as in your example is different to a cop who may have unintentionally "contributed to" a criminal's death while said criminal was having a heart attack either due to the fentanyl and meth he took , pre-existing conditions , or both in the course of his(the cop) duties.
I'd like to see where you think I'm defending the cop too because I don't believe I have.
Click to expand...

As per @scudsucker 's post you can't even see it. Non are as blind as those who don't want to see.

scudsucker said:
Literally in the very same post:



At the time of arrest, he was a suspect, not a criminal
Click to expand...

Precisely.

Jabulani22 said:
After his first conviction he was a criminal .
Suspects are detained , sometimes by force , it's why cops have batons,pepper spray and guns.
Stating facts is not a defense of the cop.
2/10 see me after class.
Click to expand...


Once again, that can be seen as defense of the cop. He didn't know the guys history, and the oke was relatively peaceful, yet he pulled him out of the car to rough him up. He should've treated the guy as innocent until proven guilty.
 
Craig said:
Yes, just as is the case in Sa with corrupt cops, I dislike them even more than the common criminal type. They are supposed to serve and protect, not do whatever the hell they want.
Click to expand...
The difference is current SA many cops are more like murican cops in the prohibition era.... basically gangsters with badges.

Murica is moving towards a more stazi system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X