National Protest and 'disband the cops' discussion (please review page 1)

Florida173 said:
Obviously the former over the latter since it's a pretty diverse group of guys.
Click to expand...
I'm not well-versed enough in the group itself to sort the rhetoric and media slant from the group's beliefs in practice (racial inclusion alone in no way precludes white supremacist ideology from being a central tenet of a group), which is why I introduced both possibilities.

I see either result as a positive development.
 
Locksteady said:
I'm not well-versed enough in the group itself to sort the rhetoric and media slant from the group's beliefs in practice (racial inclusion alone in no way precludes white supremacist ideology from being a central tenet of a group), which is why I introduced both possibilities.

I see either result as a positive development.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I have some good friends that are in it. Like any group with a bunch of younger and overly eager individuals, they will get in trouble, but it always generally directly against ANTIFA. The entire organization is a by-product of black bloc groups like ANTIFA and is currently "led" by a Cuban-American.

That being said.. Having spent a lot of time in Miami, there is plenty of racial animosity between hispanics/latinos and blacks, but this isn't really a thing for Proud Boys from what I've seen.


ETA: The POTUS did clarify today that he condemns all white supremacists, and also the Proud Boys, but I don't see this amounting to much and more likely to be placating. The national protests can't get much more violent.
 
Florida173 said:
Fair enough. I have some good friends that are in it. Like any group with a bunch of younger and overly eager individuals, they will get in trouble, but it always generally directly against ANTIFA. The entire organization is a by-product of black bloc groups like ANTIFA and is currently "led" by a Cuban-American.

That being said.. Having spent a lot of time in Miami, there is plenty of racial animosity between hispanics/latinos and blacks, but this isn't really a thing for Proud Boys from what I've seen.


ETA: The POTUS did clarify today that he condemns all white supremacists, and also the Proud Boys, but I don't see this amounting to much and more likely to be placating. The national protests can't get much more violent.
Click to expand...
I will say when the group started under Gavin, it flirted much more with those who held supremacists beliefs than it does now. I think it was right around the Unit the Right really that the Proud Boys started pushing away from that and Gavin gave control of the group to Tarrio.
 
Cookie_ said:
I will say when the group started under Gavin, it flirted much more with those who held supremacists beliefs than it does now. I think it was right around the Unit the Right really that the Proud Boys started pushing away from that and Gavin gave control of the group to Tarrio.
Click to expand...

And Gavin was pretty adamant in none of the Proud Boys going to Charlottesville..

 
I don't know where the George Floyd thread went, so I'll post this here:
Newly released video shows officer charged in George Floyd’s death helping man in wheelchair

This is interesting to me, in that, as someone here said previously, to paraphrase, "I don't care what happened before, I only care what took place during the incident". Early evidence showing Floyd putting drugs in his mouth during a 2019 traffic stop was not allowed under a similar premise, but this will be allowed?! For all practical purposes, this is the same type of situation. Interesting one was allowed and another wasn't.
 
Ooh-Rah said:
Did you happen to read the title of this thread, and then look at page 1 as it directs?
Click to expand...
Yep...doesn't mention anything about George Floyd or his trial specifically. Do you see them the same topic as national protests and disband the cops? I don't. While his case may've been a catalyst for those things, the trial details certainly is a separate topic.
 
Blizzard said:
Yep...doesn't mention anything about George Floyd or his trial specifically. Do you see them the same topic as national protests and disband the cops? I don't. While his case may've been a catalyst for those things, the trial details certainly is a separate topic.
Click to expand...
Read the first page again.

And don’t get into a debate about semantics with me or any of the staff for that matter on this topic.

Patience level = zero
 
So typically in states that require a grand jury to indict felonies, an empaneled grand jury will be given evidence for multiple cases throughout the day for indictments. Usually between 15-20 and upwards of 40 sometimes in a day. The rates for indictments in this system is very high. The standard to indict with a grand jury is much lower than for a jury to convict. The standard for indictments is Probable Cause, which is the lowest standard in judicial practice for criminal cases.

In Civil cases you have four different standards.

My first point is that getting an indictment is the lowest for criminal standards of proof. Now to my second point, the grand jury recordings for the Breonna Taylor case are over 20 hours long. Usually Grand Juries have left and right limits, but unlike juries they are not bound by them. A jury cannot ask questions. Grand juries can and in effect can expand the scope for which charges can be place and indictments granted.

Breonna Taylor grand jury audio: Officers testified they knocked before entering

This is all important because the Commonwealth's Attorney and now the AG of Kentucky doesn't have the ability to indict someone on his own, Kentucky is a grand jury state, so the legal team on this case had intentions to take this to trial, otherwise there would be no grand jury. Which is different from Arizona (my location), we're not a grand jury state, therefore you don't need to use a grand jury to indict. Effectively if a Grand Jury chose not to indict in Arizona that could be considered a political shield tactic by the prosecution.
 
Last edited:
In Texas, all police shootings go through a county grand jury after an investigation is completed, either for murder or aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The GJ gets a brief of the case/investigation...the Grand Jury members can ask questions of the testifying witnesses or prosecutor presenting the case. The GJ then decides to true bill (indict) or no-bill (not indict).

The case cannot go back to the GJ indictment process , unless new evidence is found and presented.
 
BlackSmokeRisinG said:
Shame in my opinion. How do you handle a raging group in front of your house? Brownies???
Click to expand...
Yes.

To a point.

Was there any precedent to believe that the group (raging?) was going to attempt to enter their home on camera and in the middle of the afternoon to cause them harm?

No.

Those two with their buffoonish posing did nothing but cause undue tension; especially the way she kept sweeping the crowd.
 

Similar threads

Board and Seize
Rationality and Erisology
2
Replies
29
Views
5K
Gunz
Gunz
Marauder06
Full Spectrum Ops in the Homeland- a "Vision for the Future?"
Replies
2
Views
2K
Red-Dot
Red-Dot
Ravage
SOF LEADER: A Salute to Special Operators, with Concern for Fraying of the Forces
Replies
0
Views
4K
Ravage
Ravage
Ravage
NIGHT STALKER LEAD: From the Air, Delivering, Protecting and Extracting SOF Warriors
Replies
0
Views
8K
Ravage
Ravage
B
Counterinsurgency Redux
Replies
4
Views
4K
CQB
CQB
Back
Top