U.S. Riots of May 2020 over George Floyd and others - ITT: a bunch of faggots butthurt about worthless internet stickers

[Kiwi Lime Pie]

"Appears to be the white house" I.e. looks nothing like the white house.

NGL. That looks more like the outside shot of the Banks' residence from Fresh Prince of Bel Air.

 

[Nihil Jung]

It hasn't been until recently that I've finally seen black protestors finally starting to wear masks -- something they werne't doing back in May which was about the same time they were complaining about ow they were disproportiantely being impacted by both COVID cases and COVID deaths. It's not just talking about a healthy lifestyle that's racists, it's having any sort of standards or expectations that's seen as problematic, racist, or both.

It wasnt just a reluctance to wear masks, look at Oregon: literally POC exempt from mandate. There is something called the "soft bigotry of lowered expectations" well this is that made law.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/24/us/oregon-county-people-of-color-mask-trnd/index.html

That said, another highlight from early protests is Garcetti in a sea of melanin, of which about half are wearing masks... His dumbass is not. This is white saviour shit to the highest degree, khaleesi mother fucker.

 

[Extremist Frank]

"Appears to be the white house" I.e. looks nothing like the white house.
View attachment 1626578
Looks way more like it's based off the Nottoway Plantation. 7th image result I get for plantation house.

View attachment 1626580

It does look more like the Nottoway plantation than the White House, but do you not know what the WH's South Lawn looks like?

The stitcher probably based her work off Nottoway given they are identical. The retard sperging about blacks reclaiming muh power probably doesn't know what that is. Ironic.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

 

[Gehenna]

( @Gehenna )

Ok I've finished the video. It's interesting that he argues for the justifiability of the no-knock warrant based on urgency, then in the next section acknowledges that they knocked. In fact, we have photos of the police whiteboard from that night where her address was listed separate from the others as knock & announce.

The very fact that they knocked and planned to knock (in addition to the considerations I mentioned before) undermines the claim for urgency that was used to justify needing a no-knock warrant. They did not need to enter as they did and their own behavior that night demonstrates the lack of necessity.

There is some critical information left out of his description of events:
• that the postal inspector had informed an agency investigating the case that Taylor was not receiving suspicious packages for Glover. This is important because it reduces the necessity of the warrant, or at least the immediacy of serving it. If there's likely no evidence to destroy, then there's no urgency

• that there were no drugs or suspicious packages or illegal weapons found at Taylor's residence. His summary of events would lead you to believe that her house was indeed a stash house and she was involved in illegal activity. She wasn't. This is incredibly important because, not only does it undermine the justification for the warrant, it also indicates that Walker and Taylor had literally no reason to attack the cops. There was nothing present at the residence that could get them put in jail. That lends credence to Walker's side of the events, which brings us to...

• MOST IMPORTANTLY: Walker's perspective. According to him, he and Taylor did not hear police announce themselves. He was not knowingly shooting at police. This is critical because the video's summary of events would lead you to believe that her house was in fact a stash house and Walker was knowingly and intentionally attacking cops. If that were the case, self-defense would seem clearcut. However, if someone is not aware you are police and they have a legal right to defend themselves, it seems clear that there is another option: take cover and announce yourself. Would Taylor have died if police had taken this measure? Would it have reduced risk to the public?

• Another consideration: police reported that they could hear movement inside the house. Yet they didn't hear and didn't respond to Taylor and Walker yelling asking "who is it?" If they could hear movement, they would definitely have been able to hear the yelling. And yet they did not respond to the yelling by announcing themselves (either the first time, or 'again'). They simply busted in. This is important because: (1) is this justifiable and reasonable and not behavior that is likely to precipitate a tragic situation? Especially considering they were advised a child might be on the premises? (2) it undermines the credibility of the police's account (3) not mentioning this critical info leads the viewer to think Walker made no effort to reduce risk before shooting. It paints him as a thug to leave this out.

• And lastly, the fact that the police adulterated evidence in the case. They changed the time recorded that the warrant was served on multiple pieces of evidence (incl. the evidence logs) and lied that the warrants were served simultaneously. This is important because it further undermines the necessity of serving the warrant when you know that a productive one was served prior, but it also undermines credibility of the police's side of the story and raises suspicion that they might be engaging in other CYA maneuvers.

EDIT: Adding another -
• If they were behaving in a reasonable fashion, why was Taylor shot 6 times and the actual shooter not once? Do you think it is reasonable for the police to shoot hostages instead of the terrorist in a hostage situation? Shouldn't police exercise caution not to shoot people beside a shooter that are not holding guns or shooting at them?

To respond to each:
Whether they were receiving packages or not is... mostly irrelevant. There are a LOT of other ways than sending drugs in the mail for a stash house to be filled. If there is reason to think the house is the stash house, evidence can be destroyed. This is not a make or break point for a warrant.

To whether items were found at the house... again, irrelevant. You are applying post hoc knowledge. The question is not "Was the house a stash house" but instead "Did the police have probable cause to believe it was when obtaining the warrant".

Do you really, REALLY, expect someone to say "Yah, I totally shot at the police"? Or do you expect him to go "I didn't hear them say police!" Using the man who shot as the sole evidence of either side is a bad idea, but we have an independent witness saying the police DID. So your most importantly point is... frankly bad, and contradicted by someone other than the police.

Your point right after also relies entirely on the statement of one of the actors in play... again, neither Walker NOR the police account can be trusted to be correct sans corroboration. The third party witness did not hear any question. This corroborates the police account, not Walkers.

Yes, that is sketchy but can be largely accounted to confusion. And... its strange you put so much emphasis on not trusting the police account but trust Walker's account wholesale without any form of doubt. Doubt both, unless corroborated.

As to Taylor being shot 6 times. Positioning most likely. Only the police officer who was shot was inside, the other two (And the fourth who was an idiot) were outside. If Taylor were ahead of Walker then... well, unlucky positioning means she becomes an inadvertent meat shield. If the police are fired upon, or anyone, the goal is to neutralize the threat. While tragic, people are killed in crossfire all the time. Its not a matter of caution, there is not enough time for that in a life or death situation, but simply a matter of really shit circumstances and really shit luck. There is no 'good' choice in that situation.

 

[bippu_as_fuck_ls400]

communist memes:
View attachment 1626288View attachment 1626300

Let's compare those to a couple of Panther Den memes from the last 24 hours:

https://twitter.com/PantherFren/status/1310348964257034240 (https://archive.vn/OTQda)

https://youtu.be/Grh4pNdPpjU (https://archive.vn/Gd3Aa)

One side is preaching to the choir with stale content and the other side is going to make the average person laugh or get curious and dig deeper. I wonder which one is going to appeal to the youth more? After all, recruiting the youth should be paramount to both of those groups.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

 

[Jarolleon]

Let's compare those to a couple of Panther Den memes from the last 24 hours:
View attachment 1626589
https://twitter.com/PantherFren/status/1310348964257034240 (https://archive.vn/OTQda)

View attachment 1626593
https://youtu.be/Grh4pNdPpjU (https://archive.vn/Gd3Aa)

One side is preaching to the choir with stale content and the other side is going to make the average person laugh or get curious and dig deeper. I wonder which one is going to appeal to the youth more? After all, recruiting the youth should be paramount to both of those groups.

The making of that second video probably involved more drugs than Hitler himself took in a lifetime.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

 

[Ctrl+Alt+Rt]

To respond to each:
Whether they were receiving packages or not is... mostly irrelevant. There are a LOT of other ways than sending drugs in the mail for a stash house to be filled. If there is reason to think the house is the stash house, evidence can be destroyed. This is not a make or break point for a warrant.

To whether items were found at the house... again, irrelevant. You are applying post hoc knowledge. The question is not "Was the house a stash house" but instead "Did the police have probable cause to believe it was when obtaining the warrant".

It isn't irrelevant. It was the justification for the search warrant, as mentioned in the video. They believed he was getting drug packages through the mail via her. It was their reason to believe it was a stash house.

I didn't mean it in a post hoc way - I meant it to indicate that their intel was faulty, as evidenced not only by her complete lack of involvement but also that the postal service had told them prior that there was no suspicious mail.

Do you really, REALLY, expect someone to say "Yah, I totally shot at the police"? Or do you expect him to go "I didn't hear them say police!" Using the man who shot as the sole evidence of either side is a bad idea, but we have an independent witness saying the police DID. So your most importantly point is... frankly bad, and contradicted by someone other than the police.

Yes, that is sketchy but can be largely accounted to confusion. And... its strange you put so much emphasis on not trusting the police account but trust Walker's account wholesale without any form of doubt. Doubt both, unless corroborated.

This witness emerged out of nowhere and it was never mentioned before that there was a witness to the police announcing themselves. The only prior information was that a witness had heard and responded to them knocking, with no mention of them announcing themselves (which, according to police, happened after the witness left). See the CYA suspicions raised by police having altered evidence in the case.

This is a reasonable person test. If someone is not involved with crime and has nothing that would incriminate him in crime and no reason to believe he will be arrested, which is more likely:
(1) he wants to face off single-handedly against an large group of armed officers who announced themselves as such and shoot at the police with his unarmed girlfriend right next to him. (EDIT: And then decides to only fire ONE SHOT and stop at that in this intentional shootoff with police!)
(2) he does not want to face off against police and would not do so if he knew they had a warrant, and believes the person breaking down the door to instead be an intruder that he shoots at once and stops when he realizes he's wrong

It beggars belief that a reasonable non-criminal person with no criminal record and no incriminating evidence around him would intentionally shoot at police in such a situation. That's why so much false info was circulating that he was a drug dealer - to make it seem believable. If he had been a drug dealer, it would be easy to believe he would shoot on sight of police. That he wasn't makes his side far more believable. The notion that he heard police and decided to shoot at them intentionally is irrational and unlikely.

It's not just the believability of Walker's account based on his situation and behavior, but the fact that police adulterated evidence that detracts believability from their side. Together, it makes Walker's account of things seem to be closer to the truth.

(EDIT: just to add, it's more believable and logical for the police to lie in this situation than Walker. It's also more believable that the police didn't announce themselves because they didn't have to, making that action not irrational. Whereas if Walker didn't perceive things as he described, his behavior wouldn't make sense.)

As to Taylor being shot 6 times. Positioning most likely. Only the police officer who was shot was inside, the other two (And the fourth who was an idiot) were outside. If Taylor were ahead of Walker then... well, unlucky positioning means she becomes an inadvertent meat shield. If the police are fired upon, or anyone, the goal is to neutralize the threat. While tragic, people are killed in crossfire all the time. Its not a matter of caution, there is not enough time for that in a life or death situation, but simply a matter of really shit circumstances and really shit luck. There is no 'good' choice in that situation.

It's not a life-or-death situation if you can take cover at the door, which they could. They had the opportunity to exercise more caution and not kill an unarmed person near the shooter. You don't just fire willy-nilly into a building with a hostage-taker, for example, and hope for the best.

 

[Shield Breaker]

This shit is everywhere and you cannot get rid of it.

I can't see how society just accepts this propaganda without even trying debunk it or counter it. You are supposed to have this in your face 24/7 and never disagree. Who is Robin DiAngelo and why does she get to dictate to society how we are supposed to view race?

And people think I'm old fashioned for preferring physical books.

It was never about optics.

I've had conversations where I've said that "the point of the protest is to get people on your side", and they flat out said that "no it wasn't."

I mean if someone SWATS a church, the media would use it to turn the narrative until the election to 'evil alt-right sends cops to murder innocent people at a church.' It's retarded.

 

[Superman93's Bitch]

View attachment 1626617

Does the stadium have wooden doors?

 

[bippu_as_fuck_ls400]

https://twitter.com/HarmlessYardDog/status/1310238365850243072 (https://archive.vn/rv45V)

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

This is several months old, but it's relevant and I don't think it's been posted yet:

lol

 

[Green Man]

This is several months old, but it's relevant and I don't think it's been posted yet:
View attachment 1626651
lol

More than likely those "smart, ideological and organized" leftists will get the shit beaten out of them for annoying their fellow inmates in various ways. Especially considering most of the "men" in Antifa's ranks look like they got their lunch money taken from them in school on a regular basis. Maybe they'll get "culturally enriched" by their dealings with black inmates, by the time they get out they might say: "Huh, maybe black lives don't matter as much as I thought."

Generally in prison or jail the rule of thumb is, if you're not bothering anybody, the majority of other guys in there will leave you alone. Everybody wants to keep their head down and do their time. But if you make a nuisance out of yourself, they'll let you know how they feel about your bothersome behavior. And we all know tankies can't keep their fucking mouths shut. Wonder how it will go the first time some Antifag tells a CO or a big burly black inmate that his conduct is "problematic"?

 

[Gehenna]

It isn't irrelevant. It was the justification for the search warrant, as mentioned in the video. They believed he was getting drug packages through the mail via her. It was their reason to believe it was a stash house.

I didn't mean it in a post hoc way - I meant it to indicate that their intel was faulty, as evidenced not only by her complete lack of involvement but also that the postal service had told them prior that there was no suspicious mail.


This witness emerged out of nowhere and it was never mentioned before that there was a witness to the police announcing themselves. The only prior information was that a witness had heard and responded to them knocking, with no mention of them announcing themselves (which, according to police, happened after the witness left). See the CYA suspicions raised by police having altered evidence in the case.

This is a reasonable person test. If someone is not involved with crime and has nothing that would incriminate him in crime and no reason to believe he will be arrested, which is more likely:
(1) he wants to face off single-handedly against an large group of armed officers who announced themselves as such and shoot at the police with his unarmed girlfriend right next to him
(2) he does not want to face off against police and would not do so if he knew they had a warrant, and believes the people busting down the door to instead be an intruder

It beggars belief that a reasonable non-criminal person with no criminal record and no incriminating evidence around him would intentionally shoot at police in such a situation. That's why so much false info was circulating that he was a drug dealer - to make it seem believable. If he had been a drug dealer, it would be easy to believe he would shoot on sight of police. That he wasn't makes his side far more believable. The notion that he heard police and decided to shoot at them intentionally is irrational and unlikely.

It's not just the believability of Walker's account based on his situation, but the fact that police adulterated evidence that detracts believability from their side. Together, it makes Walker's account of things seem to be closer to the truth.



It's not a life-or-death situation if you can take cover at the door, which they could. They had the opportunity to exercise more caution and not kill an unarmed person near the shooter. You don't just fire willy-nilly into a building with a hostage-taker, for example, and hope for the best.

It was A reason. Alongside seeing both his and her car near confirmed and previously searched drug houses. There were multiple reasons for that warrant, claiming it hinges only on the mail thing is simply factually incorrect.

Connected, the evidence being faulty again doesn't matter. What only matters was if they had sufficient evidence at the time of obtaining the warrant to have probable cause. Intel is -irrelevent- here, the probable cause is not "They totally have drugs on the premise" it is "We have seen both a known suspect and the resident's cars ferrying between this residence and a known drug house". Even if you reject entirely the packages, that alone is sufficient for a warrant of arrest.

I'll skip over your third paragraph, its mostly a continuation of your second and lead in to your fourth. I'll only say, Special Prosector Danial Cameron says that the police knocked AND announced themselves according tot he corroborator. So... you are factually wrong about the corroborator not saying that. He LITERALLY says it https://nypost.com/2020/09/23/kentucky-ag-breonna-taylor-cops-knocked-and-announced-themselves/

Reasonable Person test.... Walker fails off the bat. His car was seen ferrying back and forth between Taylor's Residence and the drug house. His car was spotted repeatedly at said house. So at the VERY least he is heavily implicated in a crime. So... yah. Don't even know why you brought this up since its literally "We should just accept his side wholesale" which is a complete non starter.

So that just shoves the last two paragraphs in the bin. He has incriminating evidence against him. Full stop.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

not sure if this is antifa related, but Cascasianphotog is antifa and she's on the scene.

 

[Ctrl+Alt+Rt]

It was A reason. Alongside seeing both his and her car near confirmed and previously searched drug houses. There were multiple reasons for that warrant, claiming it hinges only on the mail thing is simply factually incorrect.

Connected, the evidence being faulty again doesn't matter. What only matters was if they had sufficient evidence at the time of obtaining the warrant to have probable cause. Intel is -irrelevent- here, the probable cause is not "They totally have drugs on the premise" it is "We have seen both a known suspect and the resident's cars ferrying between this residence and a known drug house". Even if you reject entirely the packages, that alone is sufficient for a warrant of arrest.

I'll skip over your third paragraph, its mostly a continuation of your second and lead in to your fourth. I'll only say, Special Prosector Danial Cameron says that the police knocked AND announced themselves according tot he corroborator. So... you are factually wrong about the corroborator not saying that. He LITERALLY says it https://nypost.com/2020/09/23/kentucky-ag-breonna-taylor-cops-knocked-and-announced-themselves/

Reasonable Person test.... Walker fails off the bat. His car was seen ferrying back and forth between Taylor's Residence and the drug house. His car was spotted repeatedly at said house. So at the VERY least he is heavily implicated in a crime. So... yah. Don't even know why you brought this up since its literally "We should just accept his side wholesale" which is a complete non starter.

So that just shoves the last two paragraphs in the bin. He has incriminating evidence against him. Full stop.

You've got a very critical fact wrong. There were no cars registered to Walker involved in this. The red 2017 Dodge Charger was Glover's. The black Dodge Charger was Taylor's. Walker was not at all involved and not observed involved at all in any of the drug surveillances. That entirely changes the evaluation, doesn't it? It must, or you wouldn't think it's important to state.

As for the witness, you'll see that I said this information came out of nowhere, as in, no mention before the AG's announcement after the grand jury. Prior information that had come out until that date about a witness was only that they had heard the knocking.

 

[Gehenna]

You've got a very critical fact wrong. There were no cars registered to Walker involved in this. The red 2017 Dodge Charger was Glover's. The black Dodge Charger was Taylor's. Walker was not at all involved and not observed involved at all in any of the drug surveillances. That entirely changes the evaluation, doesn't it? It must, or you wouldn't think it's important to state.

As for the witness, you'll see that I said this information came out of nowhere, as in, before the AG's announcement after the grand jury. Prior information that had come out until that date about a witness was only that they had heard the knocking.

It does change some things, yes! The warrant would still be applied, but it'd be focused more on Taylor than walker given that the cars were still ferrying between them. I'll cop to misremembering this element, and you are right it is a flaw and does make Walker a bit more reliable.

My end conclusions do remain the same, there was still enough for it to be a lawful warrant, but I will retract the end segment there.

 

[Bad Luck]

This is several months old, but it's relevant and I don't think it's been posted yet:
View attachment 1626651
lol

I hear prisoners don't like sharing air with kiddy diddlers.