Black man dies after video shows officer kneeling on neck

I'm not sure how that's true when the medical examiner found no damage to his neck.

At least according to the article.

He probably started having a heart attack, which is why he collapsed before they could put him in the vehicle.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-expression-1529533065

 

Exactly.

If you can't breathe....you can't talk. Period T.

 

You need to read this:

https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amend...96045&sprefix=tje+second+amend,aps,156&sr=8-1

You won't, but kids, it ain't that simple.

Beyond the obvious, the reality is that the 2nd is obsolete.

 

If someone pinned you down, and you don't exactly trust or believe in these people do you think the odds of having a heart attack increase or decrease? I mean, I'm okay with manslaughter given the information that's come out, the main point(regardless of all circumstances) is that this man should've been alive.

 

Not really, I just thought it would be fitting and fair to include their statement here for interested observers to consider. I'm not at all certain that Twitter / ex-wife / whoever has correctly identified "umbrella man", but I I'm suppose open to the possibility that the PD was using agent provocateurs, which is a troubling enough realization in its own right. The possibility also exists that he was just a rogue cop who wanted to smash stuff up, and wasn't doing it under any sort of direction from his department.

 

No, based on the number of people who are arrested while resisting arrest every year and don't die from getting a knee on their necks.

 

That's called an "opinion", not "reality".

 

https://www.healthline.com/health/breathing-difficulties

As an asthmatic, I beg to differ. I can talk through some of my worst asthma attacks, it would hurt like hell(and help deteriorate my breathing faster) but I could talk lol. The main thing is the chest tightness, that's almost universal in any difficulty breathing situation(and given his heart condition, bam thats a double whammy.)

 

Before that doofus Murdoch bought it, I used to read it. Now I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

No problem, I've seen that argument before.

Speech can be limited when harm can be shown. There is harm.

 

I'm curious how you know this if you won't read it. Could you summarize the salient points of the argument here, to validate that you are indeed familiar with it?

 

Oh that's what it is.

BS.

 

We have the National Guard, with the rest of the armed forces backing them up. "A well regulated militia" no longer exists.

Frankly, militia always sucked. Even George Washington gave up on them. They were there simply to slow down an invader long enough to throw together an army.

So you have the right to bear arms, in the branch of the armed services of your choice.

 

One hour 'til curfew.

 

Sure, you can still take air into your lungs to be able to talk. Your lungs just can't absorb the oxygen because they're blocked up.

Not really the same thing as an airway obstruction that prevents you from taking air into your lungs at the source. Try talking with a piece of hotdog lodged in your wind pipe.

If police arrested someone who had health problems and the fright of being arrested, without being touched, caused a heart attack, would that be murder?

Police don't stop and get medical histories when you initially get arrested.

 

It's what they are paid to do, don't want to do the work don't join the force. Murdering a man is not a honest mistake.

 

Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but that's not how the Supreme Court views "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". Obviously their take on it is infinitely more significant than yours.

 

They showed a paragraph, it was more than enough.

 

BLM hasn't murdered anyone.

 

That's why I wanted you to read the book. Because Heller was a dramatic break from the previous 2 centuries of jurisprudence.

 

You don't know why he placed it there, it's amazing how you just know out the thin air what these cats are thinking.

 

I like to understand all viewpoints but this book is a bit expensive, i.e., for reading something I know I will disagree with. If the 2nd Amendment is obsolete then liberals should amend the Constitution. Otherwise it is what it is.

I guess you know what the legal definition of militia is, but for those who don't:

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b)The classes of the militia are— (1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Liberals need to be consistent. Back in the day, left wing groups were telling "the people" to buy guns. Liberals use to hand out bomb making instructions in Washington DC on the corner of M St. and Wisconsin Ave. Black Panthers were telling black people to get guns. Now liberals want to disarm the people.

What happened to the concept of power to the people? The reality is when the left gets political control, power to the people becomes an obsolete slogan. Eh comrade?

 

.........and yet he ends up being murdered.

 

That's not true:

Lorne Ahrens
Michael Krol
Michael Smith
Brent Thompson
Patricio Zamarripa

They're all murdered victims of the BLM movement.

 

I called manslaughter from the beginning...

Too bad they charged him with murder 2. Dude may walk, honestly.