Pastor choked and sexually assaulted by CHAZ thugs.

[XponentialChaos]

Um, no. The operative term here being "depraved mind". You have no evidence of that. Neither do you have evidence that he had no regard for human life.

So, at this time, regardless of the scope of the law, you still have no basis on which to use the word "murder".

Funny how "intent" is no longer the operative word. Be careful when you backpedal. Don't want you to get hurt.

He's being charged with 3rd degree murder among other things. That charge is going to stick.

Do you disagree?

 

[XponentialChaos]

That's it?

I watched the videos. This is nothing and he's fine.

That he's fine is irrelevant. The right or wrong or legality of this stunt does not hinge on whether the guy was hurt or not.

You're over-reacting. He's fine and this is a non-story.

Again, that he is fine is irrelevant. It infuriates me that these arrogant, self-righteous twits have the audacity to accost someone in the street and grope, manhandle and restrict his movement because they didn't like what he was saying. It doesn't matter that the guy wasn't hurt, what they did was wrong.

If it had been me, believe me, I would not have been as forgiving. As soon as anyone laid a hand on me, I'd be swinging.

If this had been a BLMer that had been mobbed in this manner by Trump supporters, Democrats would be calling for the noose. You know it and I know it.

You're pissy about nothing.

There are riots all over the country with much worse things happening than this.

He can press charges if he wants. Has he? Don't care either way.

I'm sure you don't. But then, are you aware of the fact that other videos with the same guy (the pastor) have been put up? Are you aware that these videos show that these people tried to stop him from entering the zone in the first place, telling him he would "die out here" and later holding him down on the ground and putting him in a chokehold?

Do you care now?

Yea I saw that video. Nothing looked too bad. He's fine.

There are much worse situations happening out there. Not sure why you pick this non-story to whine about. Let it all out though if it makes you feel better.

You saw the video where they're holding him down against his will and you see no problem with this?

And say what you will about worse shit happening in other cities, the worse shit has been going on for days and was expected. This, however, was supposed to be a more "peaceful" occupying protest and was supposedly different. It is not.

What happened in this incident is just a taste of what will be unleashed if these people are seriously challenged. If that happens it will be as bad as Minneapolis. Mark my words.

He wasn't hurt. It's not a big deal. At least not compared to everything else happening at protests.

If I am mugged and my money is stolen and someone gets his head bashed with a baseball bat in Minnesota, does that make my mugging okay?

You've got a fucked up barometer for gauging right and wrong. To you, a lesser crime is not as wrong if a murder happened at the same time somewhere else.

Why do you think Fox News hasn't picked this up?

Fox News' non-coverage is irrelevant to the ethics of this incident. It doesn't suddenly become a more serious crime if they decide to cover it.

Would you like a tissue? You seem upset.

Are you mistaking me for one of the snowflakes in the video who couldn't bear to hear a dissenting opinion? My feelings are not hurt, I'm just fucking pissed.

I encourage him to press charges if he feels as strongly as you do about it.

You just don't get it. As I said, everyone has been touting this occupation as more peaceful. The residents supposedly support them; merchants and restaurants are bringing food and supplies and everybody's singing Kumbaya and We Are the World. Yet, all it took was one guy entering their midst preaching and they told him he would die and then swarmed him like rats.

If you had your money stolen and someone got seriously physically hurt, that would be much worse than what happened to this guy.

Doesn't make it right or even okay.

Fox News hasn't picked it up because this isn't a big deal.

I don't need Fox News to tell me if something is a big deal or not. I happen to think for myself. By the way, I seldom watch Fox news or any news anyway.

I know you're pissed. You have to be to whine this much about a non-story. Tissue?

Oh knock it off already with the bullshit tissue ploy.

Yes, I am pissed. Why? Because it won't there. A precedent has been set and now anytime a group of snowflakes gets their feelings hurt, they will barricade a section of the city off and disrupt traffic, commerce and the free movement of all other citizens.

This is only the first of many such protests to come in the future.

If he wants to press charges, then he should do it. Not sure why you insist on me caring about something so meaningless.

Let me explain the inherent hypocrisy of your position. You keep saying it's a non-issue because the guy wasn't hurt. Thing is, the protesters weren't hurt either. His being there preaching was a non-issue and he neither touched, harmed or grabbed anyone yet they felt it necessary to mob him.

Have you even bothered to ask yourself why they reacted to his presence the way they did?
Have you bothered to ask yourself why one of them told him he would "die out here"? Would you have told him something like this?
Have you bothered to ask why they tried at first to prevent him from entering the (still public) area in the first place?

Any way you look at this the protesters were in the wrong. They are unlawfully occupying a public area that is supposed to be open to everyone and unlawfully tried to prevent a person from entering that area. They then unlawfully groped and manhandled him and then held him on the ground against his will.

You feel better now?

No answers?

You're just whining about a non-story and I still don't think it's a big deal.

Obviously you don't think it's a big deal. But you're too myopic to understand the implications and ramifications of this incident. By itself, it is no big deal. However, as I said, this will end up being just the first of many such protests and similar incidents in the future will not end so quietly.

I don't expect you to understand but I have a deep-seated sense of ethics and everything about this incident just grinds my gears. I myself would never presume to bar someone from entering a public area that is meant for everyone just because I don't agree with what they have to say. I would never lay my hands on another citizen unless it was in self defense or to give CPR or to help or whatever. And I would most certainly never, ever threaten someone with "You're going to die out here", again, just because I don't agree with what they have to say.

The obvious question for me and which apparently never occurred to you is: Why didn't they just leave him alone? What would it have hurt to let him stroll around and babble?

They threatened him for a reason. They tried to stop him for a reason and they mobbed him for a reason. What was that reason? Never mind that the guy wasn't hurt; there was a reason for their actions and it was not benevolent. That is my concern.

Do any of your questions change that or are you just venting to make yourself feel better?

Are you just ignoring the questions to make yourself feel better?

Then we agree it's no big deal. Excellent.

By itself, no. But it does not bode well for the future of this country that our young people will feel free to bar other citizens from entering public places and threatening them and putting their hands on them to do so.

Do you even understand that they had no right to do what they did?

The implications are also non-existent. This is a non-story.

Nope. But don't take my word for it. Stay tuned, other shit like this is coming down the pike. There will be more incidents where mobs will take over sections of cities any time there's a cop shooting - justified or not - or anything they don't like and sooner or later, someone will be seriously hurt or killed. It may not happen tomorrow or a year or five years from now. But it will happen.

You sure do whine a lot about something that even you admit is no big deal.

You sure do whine about me whining a lot.

Other incidents will happen and they will have absolutely nothing to do with this.

They will if it happens during another one of these punk occupations.

There will be more occupations like this in the future because this one set a precedent. In that sense, any future incident in a similar situation can be attributed to this one. In which case, more incidents like this one with the pastor will occur and the law of averages multiplied by increasing tensions on both sides means someone is getting hurt or killed.

This is the first protest of its kind in this country (on this scale anyway) and was supposed to be different. Yet, on the very first time out, they already have someone getting threatened and manhandled.

I do not have high hopes that future protests of this sort will go any better.

I could be completely wrong about everything I've said and I truly hope I am. But knowing what I know about human nature, I doubt it.

He's fine. You're just being dramatic.

Didn't you hear me the first time when I said his being fine is irrelevant?

I know he's fine for Christ's sake. That's not what this is about. Jesus.

Didn't you hear me when I told you this was a non-story and I don't care?

Because I still don't care.

Then why do you keep responding and why do you keep telling me he's okay when I never said he was hurt?

Because I like responding.

Him not being hurt is what makes this a non-story.

No, it doesn't. It may be why it was not considered newsworthy but it is not a non-story. Not to me.

Probably the reason it hasn't become news is that they are controlling who can enter the zone, including journalists and TV crews. They are somewhat distrustful of any news crew but they especially do not like Fox News. Fox News was there at one point but ended up having to leave because they kept harassing the cameraman.

What's more, the mainstream media keeps reporting this as a peaceful protest, or as one lackey quipped: a giant block party. While not as violent as the riots in other parts of the country, it is anything but peaceful.

USMB member ColonelAngus posted a string of Tweets from Andy Ngô on page #5 of this thread that tells a little more of the story. He has been in the zone (moving around incognito because he is viewed as an enemy. He was spotted at one point and was almost mobbed before he escaped). He reports that there have been assaults, arson, businesses looted, journalists assaulted, graffiti that calls for the death of police officers, rights being restricted such as photography in certain areas, etc.

If it hasn't become clear by now, I am totally against this occupation and this incident - as un-newsworthy as it may have been to mainstream media - is one of the reasons why. At any other time on any other day this pastor would have been left alone. People may have shouted at him and maybe tried to block his progress but chances are that no one would have put hands on him and held him down.

And, as we both agree, this story is not a big deal. Why you're so upset about this is bizarre. Not sure what you want from me at this point. I still don't care about this.

Why you're not upset about their threatening his life is bizarre to me.

That's neat.

Yeah, I can see how one would think threatening violence, arson and assault are neat.

I still don't give a shit though.

And I don't suppose you ever will, even if someone gets killed.

Tissue is on sale at Costco. You could buy some in bulk.

Why don't you just give me half of the batch you already looted?

I don't loot.

And I don't cry.

I think I finally understand where you're coming from. It's not so much that you think it's a non-story. You do, but that's not the root of it. The root of it is that, not only do you see it as a non-story, you actually condone their actions. You support the occupation to the point that you are willing to overlook their unconstitutional and criminal behavior. You probably support the looting and burning, the assaults, the threats, the defacing of personal property, restricting the movements and actions of journalists, all of it.

Tell me I'm wrong.

You're wrong. And yes, you do cry.

So if I'm wrong, can I assume that you do not condone their actions against the pastor?

I don't condone it. I don't think it's a big deal either.

So you don't condone it on principle but you won't condemn it either because the guy wasn't hurt. Is that it?

You were wrong.

Yeah, you said that already.

That's pretty close. Go with that.

Okay, I'll go with that. However, it does raise more questions.

If you do not condone their actions then does that mean you think they were wrong to do so? If so, why? If you don't think they were wrong to do so, why exactly do you not condone it?

"I think I finally understand where you're coming from. It's not so much that you think it's a non-story. You do, but that's not the root of it. The root of it is that, not only do you see it as a non-story, you actually condone their actions. You support the occupation to the point that you are willing to overlook their unconstitutional and criminal behavior. You probably support the looting and burning, the assaults, the threats, the defacing of personal property, restricting the movements and actions of journalists, all of it."

See how wrong you were? Pretty terrible. Maybe you shouldn't assume things.

I didn't assume anything. I said "I THINK..I understand..." and then invited you to tell me I was wrong, which you did. If I had assumed and took my assumption to be fact, I wouldn't have qualified the first sentence with "I think...". Nor would I have asked you to tell me if I was wrong and even if I had, I would have assumed you were lying. I do not.

See how that works? Maybe you shouldn't misread things.

If there's any confusion on my part it's because all I've gotten from you (in spite of the fact you do not condone their actions) is: It's a non-story because Fox didn't report it and he wasn't hurt. You have said not one word up to this point about the right or wrong of it or about their motives.

Neat.

Don't care.

You keep saying you don't care but you keep coming back and responding. Methinks you're somewhat conflicted on this issue.

Ok. I'll give you one more post. Ask me whatever you want to ask me. I'll answer truthfully and to the best of my ability. Then I'm done with you.

Answer the questions I've already asked. If you don't then I guess you're done with me. As you keep telling me, you don't care anyway.

You're getting too annoying for me to go any further than that. Your posts just come across as incessant whining about something that you're obviously very passionate about and I'm not.

You're obviously passionate about the Floyd case. Your posts just come across as incessant whining about something that you're obviously very passionate about and I'm not. Not for the same reasons anyway.

You attribute malice and intent to kill on the part of Chauvin and willful and knowing negligence and complicity on the part of the other officers when you have no evidence or proof of this. But you give me shit for criticizing the actions of some punks that you yourself do not condone.

The difference here is that I did not make shit up about their intentions. All I said was that it was wrong to restrain him and you apparently agree. However, the one aspect of this you are not willing to explore is why you don't condone it or why you think it was wrong.

That would take you down a path where you will actually have to condemn their actions. But you can't do that because they are there doing what they're doing precisely because of Floyd's death which you are passionate about. For whatever reason, you are unwilling or incapable of condemning wrong behavior on both sides.

"Answer the questions I've already asked. If you don't then I guess you're done with me. As you keep telling me, you don't care anyway."

Sorry, but I'm not going to go back and look for any questions that you don't think I've answered. I'm being nice in giving you this last post and I'm not willing to give you any additional time. Anything that's here, however, will be answered.

"You're obviously passionate about the Floyd case. Your posts just come across as incessant whining about something that you're obviously very passionate about and I'm not. Not for the same reasons anyway."

You're right - I do feel strongly about the Floyd case.

"You attribute malice and intent to kill on the part of Chauvin"

Malice, yes. But not intent. That's a very important word - intent. Chauvin is charged with both 2nd degree murder and 3rd degree murder. You obviously made the mistake of thinking that murder requires intent, but there are different levels of murder. The definition of 3rd degree murder specifically states without intent. I believe that 3rd degree murder is definitely going to stick. I'm not so sure of 2nd degree murder. At the moment, I would predict that the 2nd degree murder charge does not hold and they hold him to the lesser charge of 3rd degree murder.

You made a mistake and you should own it. Here's the link:

Sec. 609.195 MN Statutes

"and willful and knowing negligence and complicity on the part of the other officers when you have no evidence or proof of this."

I think there is sufficient proof of this for the other officers. The people watching the incident were screaming at them to let him go. Floyd was pleading for his life. Were they deaf, blind, and retarded to not notice? There's no way they didn't notice the situation happening right in front of them. That's my opinion, and I would love to see them charged appropriately for it.

"But you give me shit for criticizing the actions of some punks that you yourself do not condone."

I don't care if you criticize them. It just doesn't even register on my give-a-shit-o-meter. You brought your concerns to me, not the other way around.

"The difference here is that I did not make shit up about their intentions."

There's that mistake of yours again. I'll elaborate. I don't think it was Chauvin's intent to kill Floyd.

"All I said was that it was wrong to restrain him and you apparently agree. However, the one aspect of this you are not willing to explore is why you don't condone it or why you think it was wrong."

Sure, it was wrong to restrain him. They also shouldn't have threatened him. I don't condone that behavior. In one of the videos, he was on the ground yelling that he was being choked. I'm not sure what happened there, but I don't condone that either. I don't condone those behaviors because they're illegal and infringing upon another person.

"That would take you down a path where you will actually have to condemn their actions."

I don't condemn their actions either. I watched the videos and while there were some infractions that I would consider minor, I also saw a lot of restraint against the pastor. It's not hard to find examples of protestors acting completely out of line committing things that I most certainly would condemn. To me, this wasn't that bad at all.

In other protests, they beat up counter-protestors mercilessly. Instead, this pastor was greeted with unwanted hugs and a kiss on the cheek.

In other protests, people get threatened and killed. In this protest, he was only threatened and left mostly alone.

In other protests, people swarm over someone and beat/rob them. In this protest, there appeared to be one guy with him in a headlock (which I condemn), but the others in the crowd defended him and he appeared to be fine.

Truth be told, I wish all of the protests and counter-protests in this country could end up as peacefully as this one did. What happened to the pastor wasn't bad at all in my opinion and it would be a yuge improvement for us, as divided as we are and as bad as the other things are that are happening. No long-term damage, no life-changing consequences. Just a few minor issues.

"But you can't do that because they are there doing what they're doing precisely because of Floyd's death which you are passionate about. For whatever reason, you are unwilling or incapable of condemning wrong behavior on both sides."

I condemn the violent actions that have taken place in the riots. There are numerous instances of vandalism, looting, and assault. There's no need for any of that. I do, however, support the peaceful protests.

Looks like that's it I've answered you to the best of my ability. At this point, I'm basically done. I might answer a few quick things with you, but I'm not interested in drawing this out any further than this has already gone. You have your opinion and I have mine. This is what I think and I've done my best to explain it.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Um, no. The operative term here being "depraved mind". You have no evidence of that. Neither do you have evidence that he had no regard for human life.

So, at this time, regardless of the scope of the law, you still have no basis on which to use the word "murder".

Funny how "intent" is no longer the operative word. Be careful when you backpedal. Don't want you to get hurt.

Backpedal? Hardly. I still think you're putting way more into this than is actually there.

He's being charged with 3rd degree murder among other things. That charge is going to stick.

Do you disagree?

Do I disagree with what, that he is charged with 3rd degree or that it will stick?

I'll answer both because, that's what I do. I disagree that it was 3rd degree murder. I don't think he had any earthly idea the guy was going to die, despite using an illegal restraining procedure. I think cops hear this sort of thing all the time and in fact, Floyd was complaining that he couldn't breathe before they had him on the ground and even before they had put him in the cruiser and pulled him out again.

He also said he was claustrophobic when they tried to put him in the SUV cruiser. This was after they had just pulled him out of his own compact Mercedes SUV. So that was horseshit.

I think a combination of drugs, his heart condition and the stress of the situation caused him to have a heart attack. He very clearly did not want to get in the cruiser and getting arrested got him torqued up. I don't know why but whatever his reason was, he was willing to try to bullshit his way out of it.

I've no doubt he had trouble breathing but it wasn't because of anything Chauvin was doing.

Will it stick? Only time will tell. I will say this: they overreacted. I think they charged him with murder to head off another riot. Fat lot of good that did. They would have rioted in any case just so they could get free shit. They didn't give a rat's ass for Floyd.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That's it?

I watched the videos. This is nothing and he's fine.

That he's fine is irrelevant. The right or wrong or legality of this stunt does not hinge on whether the guy was hurt or not.

You're over-reacting. He's fine and this is a non-story.

Again, that he is fine is irrelevant. It infuriates me that these arrogant, self-righteous twits have the audacity to accost someone in the street and grope, manhandle and restrict his movement because they didn't like what he was saying. It doesn't matter that the guy wasn't hurt, what they did was wrong.

If it had been me, believe me, I would not have been as forgiving. As soon as anyone laid a hand on me, I'd be swinging.

If this had been a BLMer that had been mobbed in this manner by Trump supporters, Democrats would be calling for the noose. You know it and I know it.

You're pissy about nothing.

There are riots all over the country with much worse things happening than this.

He can press charges if he wants. Has he? Don't care either way.

I'm sure you don't. But then, are you aware of the fact that other videos with the same guy (the pastor) have been put up? Are you aware that these videos show that these people tried to stop him from entering the zone in the first place, telling him he would "die out here" and later holding him down on the ground and putting him in a chokehold?

Do you care now?

Yea I saw that video. Nothing looked too bad. He's fine.

There are much worse situations happening out there. Not sure why you pick this non-story to whine about. Let it all out though if it makes you feel better.

You saw the video where they're holding him down against his will and you see no problem with this?

And say what you will about worse shit happening in other cities, the worse shit has been going on for days and was expected. This, however, was supposed to be a more "peaceful" occupying protest and was supposedly different. It is not.

What happened in this incident is just a taste of what will be unleashed if these people are seriously challenged. If that happens it will be as bad as Minneapolis. Mark my words.

He wasn't hurt. It's not a big deal. At least not compared to everything else happening at protests.

If I am mugged and my money is stolen and someone gets his head bashed with a baseball bat in Minnesota, does that make my mugging okay?

You've got a fucked up barometer for gauging right and wrong. To you, a lesser crime is not as wrong if a murder happened at the same time somewhere else.

Why do you think Fox News hasn't picked this up?

Fox News' non-coverage is irrelevant to the ethics of this incident. It doesn't suddenly become a more serious crime if they decide to cover it.

Would you like a tissue? You seem upset.

Are you mistaking me for one of the snowflakes in the video who couldn't bear to hear a dissenting opinion? My feelings are not hurt, I'm just fucking pissed.

I encourage him to press charges if he feels as strongly as you do about it.

You just don't get it. As I said, everyone has been touting this occupation as more peaceful. The residents supposedly support them; merchants and restaurants are bringing food and supplies and everybody's singing Kumbaya and We Are the World. Yet, all it took was one guy entering their midst preaching and they told him he would die and then swarmed him like rats.

If you had your money stolen and someone got seriously physically hurt, that would be much worse than what happened to this guy.

Doesn't make it right or even okay.

Fox News hasn't picked it up because this isn't a big deal.

I don't need Fox News to tell me if something is a big deal or not. I happen to think for myself. By the way, I seldom watch Fox news or any news anyway.

I know you're pissed. You have to be to whine this much about a non-story. Tissue?

Oh knock it off already with the bullshit tissue ploy.

Yes, I am pissed. Why? Because it won't there. A precedent has been set and now anytime a group of snowflakes gets their feelings hurt, they will barricade a section of the city off and disrupt traffic, commerce and the free movement of all other citizens.

This is only the first of many such protests to come in the future.

If he wants to press charges, then he should do it. Not sure why you insist on me caring about something so meaningless.

Let me explain the inherent hypocrisy of your position. You keep saying it's a non-issue because the guy wasn't hurt. Thing is, the protesters weren't hurt either. His being there preaching was a non-issue and he neither touched, harmed or grabbed anyone yet they felt it necessary to mob him.

Have you even bothered to ask yourself why they reacted to his presence the way they did?
Have you bothered to ask yourself why one of them told him he would "die out here"? Would you have told him something like this?
Have you bothered to ask why they tried at first to prevent him from entering the (still public) area in the first place?

Any way you look at this the protesters were in the wrong. They are unlawfully occupying a public area that is supposed to be open to everyone and unlawfully tried to prevent a person from entering that area. They then unlawfully groped and manhandled him and then held him on the ground against his will.

You feel better now?

No answers?

You're just whining about a non-story and I still don't think it's a big deal.

Obviously you don't think it's a big deal. But you're too myopic to understand the implications and ramifications of this incident. By itself, it is no big deal. However, as I said, this will end up being just the first of many such protests and similar incidents in the future will not end so quietly.

I don't expect you to understand but I have a deep-seated sense of ethics and everything about this incident just grinds my gears. I myself would never presume to bar someone from entering a public area that is meant for everyone just because I don't agree with what they have to say. I would never lay my hands on another citizen unless it was in self defense or to give CPR or to help or whatever. And I would most certainly never, ever threaten someone with "You're going to die out here", again, just because I don't agree with what they have to say.

The obvious question for me and which apparently never occurred to you is: Why didn't they just leave him alone? What would it have hurt to let him stroll around and babble?

They threatened him for a reason. They tried to stop him for a reason and they mobbed him for a reason. What was that reason? Never mind that the guy wasn't hurt; there was a reason for their actions and it was not benevolent. That is my concern.

Do any of your questions change that or are you just venting to make yourself feel better?

Are you just ignoring the questions to make yourself feel better?

Then we agree it's no big deal. Excellent.

By itself, no. But it does not bode well for the future of this country that our young people will feel free to bar other citizens from entering public places and threatening them and putting their hands on them to do so.

Do you even understand that they had no right to do what they did?

The implications are also non-existent. This is a non-story.

Nope. But don't take my word for it. Stay tuned, other shit like this is coming down the pike. There will be more incidents where mobs will take over sections of cities any time there's a cop shooting - justified or not - or anything they don't like and sooner or later, someone will be seriously hurt or killed. It may not happen tomorrow or a year or five years from now. But it will happen.

You sure do whine a lot about something that even you admit is no big deal.

You sure do whine about me whining a lot.

Other incidents will happen and they will have absolutely nothing to do with this.

They will if it happens during another one of these punk occupations.

There will be more occupations like this in the future because this one set a precedent. In that sense, any future incident in a similar situation can be attributed to this one. In which case, more incidents like this one with the pastor will occur and the law of averages multiplied by increasing tensions on both sides means someone is getting hurt or killed.

This is the first protest of its kind in this country (on this scale anyway) and was supposed to be different. Yet, on the very first time out, they already have someone getting threatened and manhandled.

I do not have high hopes that future protests of this sort will go any better.

I could be completely wrong about everything I've said and I truly hope I am. But knowing what I know about human nature, I doubt it.

He's fine. You're just being dramatic.

Didn't you hear me the first time when I said his being fine is irrelevant?

I know he's fine for Christ's sake. That's not what this is about. Jesus.

Didn't you hear me when I told you this was a non-story and I don't care?

Because I still don't care.

Then why do you keep responding and why do you keep telling me he's okay when I never said he was hurt?

Because I like responding.

Him not being hurt is what makes this a non-story.

No, it doesn't. It may be why it was not considered newsworthy but it is not a non-story. Not to me.

Probably the reason it hasn't become news is that they are controlling who can enter the zone, including journalists and TV crews. They are somewhat distrustful of any news crew but they especially do not like Fox News. Fox News was there at one point but ended up having to leave because they kept harassing the cameraman.

What's more, the mainstream media keeps reporting this as a peaceful protest, or as one lackey quipped: a giant block party. While not as violent as the riots in other parts of the country, it is anything but peaceful.

USMB member ColonelAngus posted a string of Tweets from Andy Ngô on page #5 of this thread that tells a little more of the story. He has been in the zone (moving around incognito because he is viewed as an enemy. He was spotted at one point and was almost mobbed before he escaped). He reports that there have been assaults, arson, businesses looted, journalists assaulted, graffiti that calls for the death of police officers, rights being restricted such as photography in certain areas, etc.

If it hasn't become clear by now, I am totally against this occupation and this incident - as un-newsworthy as it may have been to mainstream media - is one of the reasons why. At any other time on any other day this pastor would have been left alone. People may have shouted at him and maybe tried to block his progress but chances are that no one would have put hands on him and held him down.

And, as we both agree, this story is not a big deal. Why you're so upset about this is bizarre. Not sure what you want from me at this point. I still don't care about this.

Why you're not upset about their threatening his life is bizarre to me.

That's neat.

Yeah, I can see how one would think threatening violence, arson and assault are neat.

I still don't give a shit though.

And I don't suppose you ever will, even if someone gets killed.

Tissue is on sale at Costco. You could buy some in bulk.

Why don't you just give me half of the batch you already looted?

I don't loot.

And I don't cry.

I think I finally understand where you're coming from. It's not so much that you think it's a non-story. You do, but that's not the root of it. The root of it is that, not only do you see it as a non-story, you actually condone their actions. You support the occupation to the point that you are willing to overlook their unconstitutional and criminal behavior. You probably support the looting and burning, the assaults, the threats, the defacing of personal property, restricting the movements and actions of journalists, all of it.

Tell me I'm wrong.

You're wrong. And yes, you do cry.

So if I'm wrong, can I assume that you do not condone their actions against the pastor?

I don't condone it. I don't think it's a big deal either.

So you don't condone it on principle but you won't condemn it either because the guy wasn't hurt. Is that it?

You were wrong.

Yeah, you said that already.

That's pretty close. Go with that.

Okay, I'll go with that. However, it does raise more questions.

If you do not condone their actions then does that mean you think they were wrong to do so? If so, why? If you don't think they were wrong to do so, why exactly do you not condone it?

"I think I finally understand where you're coming from. It's not so much that you think it's a non-story. You do, but that's not the root of it. The root of it is that, not only do you see it as a non-story, you actually condone their actions. You support the occupation to the point that you are willing to overlook their unconstitutional and criminal behavior. You probably support the looting and burning, the assaults, the threats, the defacing of personal property, restricting the movements and actions of journalists, all of it."

See how wrong you were? Pretty terrible. Maybe you shouldn't assume things.

I didn't assume anything. I said "I THINK..I understand..." and then invited you to tell me I was wrong, which you did. If I had assumed and took my assumption to be fact, I wouldn't have qualified the first sentence with "I think...". Nor would I have asked you to tell me if I was wrong and even if I had, I would have assumed you were lying. I do not.

See how that works? Maybe you shouldn't misread things.

If there's any confusion on my part it's because all I've gotten from you (in spite of the fact you do not condone their actions) is: It's a non-story because Fox didn't report it and he wasn't hurt. You have said not one word up to this point about the right or wrong of it or about their motives.

Neat.

Don't care.

You keep saying you don't care but you keep coming back and responding. Methinks you're somewhat conflicted on this issue.

Ok. I'll give you one more post. Ask me whatever you want to ask me. I'll answer truthfully and to the best of my ability. Then I'm done with you.

Answer the questions I've already asked. If you don't then I guess you're done with me. As you keep telling me, you don't care anyway.

You're getting too annoying for me to go any further than that. Your posts just come across as incessant whining about something that you're obviously very passionate about and I'm not.

You're obviously passionate about the Floyd case. Your posts just come across as incessant whining about something that you're obviously very passionate about and I'm not. Not for the same reasons anyway.

You attribute malice and intent to kill on the part of Chauvin and willful and knowing negligence and complicity on the part of the other officers when you have no evidence or proof of this. But you give me shit for criticizing the actions of some punks that you yourself do not condone.

The difference here is that I did not make shit up about their intentions. All I said was that it was wrong to restrain him and you apparently agree. However, the one aspect of this you are not willing to explore is why you don't condone it or why you think it was wrong.

That would take you down a path where you will actually have to condemn their actions. But you can't do that because they are there doing what they're doing precisely because of Floyd's death which you are passionate about. For whatever reason, you are unwilling or incapable of condemning wrong behavior on both sides.

"Answer the questions I've already asked. If you don't then I guess you're done with me. As you keep telling me, you don't care anyway."

Sorry, but I'm not going to go back and look for any questions that you don't think I've answered. I'm being nice in giving you this last post and I'm not willing to give you any additional time. Anything that's here, however, will be answered.

There are at least two posts with questions you didn't answer. Your only response to these was "Neat".

"You're obviously passionate about the Floyd case. Your posts just come across as incessant whining about something that you're obviously very passionate about and I'm not. Not for the same reasons anyway."

You're right - I do feel strongly about the Floyd case.

And I feel strongly about the incident with the pastor. Yet you ridicule me for it.

"You attribute malice and intent to kill on the part of Chauvin"

Malice, yes. But not intent. That's a very important word - intent. Chauvin is charged with both 2nd degree murder and 3rd degree murder. You obviously made the mistake of thinking that murder requires intent, but there are different levels of murder. The definition of 3rd degree murder specifically states without intent. I believe that 3rd degree murder is definitely going to stick. I'm not so sure of 2nd degree murder. At the moment, I would predict that the 2nd degree murder charge does not hold and they hold him to the lesser charge of 3rd degree murder.

First of all, you didn't say "2nd or 3rd degree murder", all you said was "murdering someone". I was already aware that the charges against Chauvin are 2nd and 3rd degree murder, but that's not the way you worded it. I brought up intent because the way you worded it, it looked like you were talking about 1st degree murder.

Also, if it was 2nd or 3rd degree murder - which means there was no intent - how would his fellow officers know he was about to commit murder?

You made a mistake and you should own it. Here's the link:

Sec. 609.195 MN Statutes

Own yours.

"and willful and knowing negligence and complicity on the part of the other officers when you have no evidence or proof of this."

I think there is sufficient proof of this for the other officers. The people watching the incident were screaming at them to let him go. Floyd was pleading for his life. Were they deaf, blind, and retarded to not notice? There's no way they didn't notice the situation happening right in front of them. That's my opinion, and I would love to see them charged appropriately for it.

That doesn't mean shit. These days, every time an officer is arresting someone, there's a bunch of snowflakes standing around heckling the officer. In some cases, assaulting him. There have been cases recently where exactly this sort of thing happened.

Sorry, but if I was one of those officers, I wouldn't have paid these people any attention either. Not when I know that probably all of them despise me simply because I'm a cop.

"But you give me shit for criticizing the actions of some punks that you yourself do not condone."

I don't care if you criticize them.

Then why all the snide remarks about tissue?

It just doesn't even register on my give-a-shit-o-meter. You brought your concerns to me, not the other way around.

I didn't "bring" my "concerns" to you, I disagreed with something you said and responded to it. That's how it works here. We're both in the same discussion. It's not like I PM'd you or tracked you down in another thread.

"The difference here is that I did not make shit up about their intentions."

There's that mistake of yours again. I'll elaborate. I don't think it was Chauvin's intent to kill Floyd.

Then why are you so passionate about it?

"All I said was that it was wrong to restrain him and you apparently agree. However, the one aspect of this you are not willing to explore is why you don't condone it or why you think it was wrong."

Sure, it was wrong to restrain him. They also shouldn't have threatened him. I don't condone that behavior. In one of the videos, he was on the ground yelling that he was being choked. I'm not sure what happened there, but I don't condone that either. I don't condone those behaviors because they're illegal and infringing upon another person.

Now we're finally getting somewhere. Thing is, he wasn't hurt so you left it at that. I cannot.

What infuriates me about it is their colossal self righteous arrogance. The arrogance to think that because they feel strongly about a social injustice, it gives them the right to move in and occupy public streets that are available to everyone; disrupt and impede public services like the police and fire departments, putting lives in danger; impede the free movement of free citizens; disrupt commerce, thus disrupting other free citizens' livelihoods; disrupt and impede thoroughfares that are available to all free citizens, etc., etc.

Everything about this just screams WRONG WRONG WRONG, a thousand times WRONG.

If they do it once, they'll do it again. And if they do it again, next time the guy may not be so forgiving and will fight back. If he fights back, they'll mob him even worse than the pastor and will beat the shit out of him. He'll be lucky to survive.
And to add insult to injury, the police and fire departments are not entering the area even when someone calls 911. This happened to a business owner who stopped a guy from burning his business down. He held the guy and called the cops but they never came. Instead, a mob showed up, threatened to take the guy back by force and destroyed the fence in front of his business. He ended up having to let the guy go so the mob wouldn't get violent.

Also, you criticize the officers for ignoring bystanders when they told them that Floyd couldn't breathe. Yet you dismiss out of hand that the pastor said he was being choked and the protesters ignored him. You mentioned it but clearly you do not see this as significant. Why? Because he didn't die. But what if he had?

Thank goodness he came out of this okay. But given their arrogance and the audacity of threatening him and assaulting him in the first place, this very well could have ended up with tragic results. It's only luck of circumstance that it didn't.

"That would take you down a path where you will actually have to condemn their actions."

I don't condemn their actions either. I watched the videos and while there were some infractions that I would consider minor, I also saw a lot of restraint against the pastor. It's not hard to find examples of protestors acting completely out of line committing things that I most certainly would condemn.

You don't condone their actions but you don't condemn them? That makes no sense. That's like saying you don't condone robbery but you won't condemn a particular robbery because the victim wasn't hurt.

To me, this wasn't that bad at all.

And what about next time when it IS that bad?

In other protests, they beat up counter-protestors mercilessly. Instead, this pastor was greeted with unwanted hugs and a kiss on the cheek.

In other protests, people get threatened and killed. In this protest, he was only threatened and left mostly alone.

Mostly.

In other protests, people swarm over someone and beat/rob them. In this protest, there appeared to be one guy with him in a headlock (which I condemn), but the others in the crowd defended him and he appeared to be fine.

Appeared to be fine. This incident may have traumatized the guy. Some people don't react well to others assaulting them. At the very least, I'll bet he was shaken up pretty good.

Truth be told, I wish all of the protests and counter-protests in this country could end up as peacefully as this one did. What happened to the pastor wasn't bad at all in my opinion and it would be a yuge improvement for us, as divided as we are and as bad as the other things are that are happening. No long-term damage, no life-changing consequences. Just a few minor issues.

Irrelevant. They should not have put their hands on him AT ALL. They had no right and no business restraining him and holding him down. And the asshole twink who was hugging and kissing him was not doing so out of love. He knew full fucking well that it would make the guy extremely uncomfortable and is exactly why he did it.

They are not kind, they are not peaceful, they do not have good intentions. It was petty and malicious with no regard for the pastor's rights.

"But you can't do that because they are there doing what they're doing precisely because of Floyd's death which you are passionate about. For whatever reason, you are unwilling or incapable of condemning wrong behavior on both sides."

I condemn the violent actions that have taken place in the riots. There are numerous instances of vandalism, looting, and assault. There's no need for any of that. I do, however, support the peaceful protests.

Property has been destroyed, defaced and stolen. People have been assaulted and chased out of the area. Threats are being made against local business owners who speak out against the occupation. The list is endless.

No, this is not a peaceful protest. It is anything but.

Looks like that's it I've answered you to the best of my ability. At this point, I'm basically done. I might answer a few quick things with you, but I'm not interested in drawing this out any further than this has already gone. You have your opinion and I have mine. This is what I think and I've done my best to explain it.

You responded to my statements in my last post but you didn't answer the questions in my earlier posts. But that's okay, I don't expect you to at this point. I thank you for this much anyway.