Black Lives Matter

Originally Posted by figgyburn

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...erate-flag-ban

The real story...........


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/...arage-n1231951

Oh that must have hurt the bampots, the real truth.

Here is a picture of that Garage Door pull rope, as released by NASCAR - for comparison, here is one from a previous NASCAR race...

https://www.foxsports.com/nascar/sto...lladega-062520

The one in his allocated garage had been there since October 2019, apparently...

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Why mention guns if you're not expecting them to use them in some way? A deterrent is only a deterrent, if you're prepared to use it? Are you really saying they should've been prepared to shoot him?

You Are very good at putting words into people’s mouths, and making conclusions on that, based actually on what you have said.

They’ve got guns, they’ve got batons and they’ve got pepper spray and there’s 4 of them, In short they were well enough equipped to deal with one man - without killing him.

Thrashing around in a confined space is not a good idea. If only for that person's own safety.

he was outside the vehicle.

Difficult to be expected to come up with examples.
In the REAL WORLD.

. I didn’t say put him in the car, nor did I say unrestrained.

What should they have whilst waiting for any fictional van? Let him run away?

Why is the van fictional?

No, like I said, 4 guys, cuff him, put him on his arse, next to the car, wait until he calms down. Hold him down if necessary - just not on his neck.

Even in a van he would've needed restraining.

I’ve never said he shouldn’t be restrained. But cuffed and put in the back of a van (A proper caged van] by himself. He would’ve calmed down.

Plenty of examples of where UK Police have had to use force.

I’ve never said they shouldn’t use force.

Bottom line is, they are a professional police force, he was one guy, unarmed, they should have the skill and ability to restrain him, detain him and immobilise him if necessary, without killing him. It is really that simple and straightforward.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Should really be black lettering.

But then all you'd see was a black square!

---------- Post added at 21:08 ---------- Previous post was at 21:03 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Interesting video showing why Black lives are so special

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews...ndishes-sword/

A certain element of black youths now obviously think that they have carte blanche to do whatever they like. The older members of the black community that I know are ashamed of them.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Pierre

You Are very good at putting words into people’s mouths, and making conclusions on that, based actually on what you have said.

They’ve got guns, they’ve got batons and they’ve got pepper spray and there’s 4 of them, In short they were well enough equipped to deal with one man - without killing him.

he was outside the vehicle.

. I didn’t say put him in the car, nor did I say unrestrained.


Why is the van fictional?

No, like I said, 4 guys, cuff him, put him on his arse, next to the car, wait until he calms down. Hold him down if necessary - just not on his neck.


I’ve never said he shouldn’t be restrained. But cuffed and put in the back of a van (A proper caged van] by himself. He would’ve calmed down.


I’ve never said they shouldn’t use force.

Bottom line is, they are a professional police force, he was one guy, unarmed, they should have the skill and ability to restrain him, detain him and immobilise him if necessary, without killing him. It is really that simple and straightforward.

This is what your words were.
"I didn’t say they should use them. The fact they have them is a deterrent. Is the point I was making.". As I pointed out, a deterrent is only a deterrent if you're prepared and expected to use it. By using the word "deterrent", you implied they should've been prepared to use that deterrent. If in your imagination, simply carrying a gun should subdue somebody else, how come he was kicking off anyway? In what way do you expect them to have used any batons? Pepper spray doesn't immobilise you, it just disorientates you even more.

At one point he was in the patrol car. He was handcuffed and in a caged vehicle. Why would it being a van make it any different? He had to be removed from the patrol car because of whatever he was doing in there.

How were they expected to restrain and immobilise him until this hypothetical van turned up? How long would that have taken?

When exactly did he show signs of calming down? He was under the influence of 2 drugs. He had to be forcibly dragged out of his car, dropped to the ground to try and avoid being put in the patrol car. Got up to whatever in the car. He never said or indicated "I give up, I'll come quietly".

He will have been needed to be restrained, because of the risk of injuring HIMSELF. They wouldn't have removed him from the patrol car just for fun.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

But then all you'd see was a black square!

---------- Post added at 21:08 ---------- Previous post was at 21:03 ----------



A certain element of black youths now obviously think that they have carte blanche to do whatever they like. The older members of the black community that I know are ashamed of them.

"Carte blanche", eh? Almost as bad as the White Cliffs of Dover! Good job it was "Blue Bells"!

Originally Posted by Carth

I wonder how they're going to find 12 impartial people for the jury?

You wont, nor can I see how they will get a fair trial, its already been decided by the media & BLM that they are guilty.

That said, the evidence (I know of) suggests one or more of them is probably guilty of negligent manslaughter, but not murder.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

"Carte blanche", eh? Almost as bad as the White Cliffs of Dover! Good job it was "Blue Bells"!

Which was written by an American, and there are no bluebells anywhere near...

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nomadking

This is what your words were.
"I didn’t say they should use them. The fact they have them is a deterrent. Is the point I was making.". As I pointed out, a deterrent is only a deterrent if you're prepared and expected to use it. By using the word "deterrent", you implied they should've been prepared to use that deterrent. If in your imagination, simply carrying a gun should subdue somebody else, how come he was kicking off anyway? In what way do you expect them to have used any batons? Pepper spray doesn't immobilise you, it just disorientates you even more.

At one point he was in the patrol car. He was handcuffed and in a caged vehicle. Why would it being a van make it any different? He had to be removed from the patrol car because of whatever he was doing in there.

How were they expected to restrain and immobilise him until this hypothetical van turned up? How long would that have taken?

When exactly did he show signs of calming down? He was under the influence of 2 drugs. He had to be forcibly dragged out of his car, dropped to the ground to try and avoid being put in the patrol car. Got up to whatever in the car. He never said or indicated "I give up, I'll come quietly".

He will have been needed to be restrained, because of the risk of injuring HIMSELF. They wouldn't have removed him from the patrol car just for fun.

You have not, and indeed cannot explain why 4no. Well equipped, well trained, professional policemen, failed to contain and control 1no. Unarmed man without killing him.

You can go on all you want about whatever you want, but you can’t explain that one very important point.

You can’t defend it, and you can’t mitigate it. The truth is simple.

I’ll tell you this, I guarantee if it was in the UK, he wouldn’t have died.

[1andrew1]

Resisting arrest - it happens all the time and across the world, which is why police vans have cages in them to protect the officers transporting them.
It's just highly unusual for suspects - particularly unarmed ones - to die when resisting arrest.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Pierre

You have not, and indeed cannot explain why 4no. Well equipped, well trained, professional policemen, failed to contain and control 1no. Unarmed man without killing him.

You can go on all you want about whatever you want, but you can’t explain that one very important point.

You can’t defend it, and you can’t mitigate it. The truth is simple.

I’ll tell you this, I guarantee if it was in the UK, he wouldn’t have died.

Well equipped? The only thing even slightly useful was the handcuffs. What use would guns, batons, and torches be? Just a ludicrous suggestion. They DID manage to contain and control him, but he was determined it wasn't going to stay that way. People ALL AROUND THE WORLD, including the UK, have died in similar circumstances. I've given enough examples in this thread. Unless the vehicle was the equivalent of a "padded cell", the possibility of him harming HIMSELF was always there. Again examples have been given.

They didn't restrain him just for the sake of it, it NEEDED doing.

---------- Post added at 00:10 ---------- Previous post was at 00:04 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Resisting arrest - it happens all the time and across the world, which is why police vans have cages in them to protect the officers transporting them.
It's just highly unusual for suspects - particularly unarmed ones - to die when resisting arrest.

1) Not that unusual, I've provided examples in this thread.
2) It's not just about the possibility of harming other officers, which at the moment could include spitting at them. It is about the person injuring themselves, eg bashing their head against the window or cage. At one stage he in was INSIDE the patrol car, and the others weren't in it, so no danger to them. Then because of HIS behaviour, and for HIS own safety, he had to be removed.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Which was written by an American, and there are no bluebells anywhere near...

Blue birds, then.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Unless the vehicle was the equivalent of a "padded cell", the possibility of him harming HIMSELF was always there.
.

Brilliant isn't it. They were so concerned he could harm himself they killed him?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Blue birds, then.

Do you mean the bluebirds of North and Central America, none of which migrate to Britain?

I know, I know, it was poetic licence, but I always found it amusing that the song that epitomised the British wartime spirit was written by a Septic who had no idea of the bird species of the UK - ymmv.

---------- Post added at 09:27 ---------- Previous post was at 09:23 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Brilliant isn't it. They were so concerned he could harm himself they killed him?

tbf, they have form - it was stated during the Vietnam War*

“It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”

*or, as they call it in Vietnam, the American War

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Do you mean the bluebirds of North and Central America, none of which migrate to Britain?

I know, I know, it was poetic licence, but I always found it amusing that the song that epitomised the British wartime spirit was written by a Septic who had no idea of the bird species of the UK - ymmv.
<SNIP>

I meant the debate at https://www.theguardian.com/notesand...,-1789,00.html

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I meant the debate at https://www.theguardian.com/notesand...,-1789,00.html

Reading the Grauniad!!!

Doesn't that mean compulsory de-bagging at the Wokingham Con Club?