"They’re trying to George Floyd me" before dead

No. There is no discourse without it, on racism, because the mandated conclusion is predefined. I don’t understand what you think the alternative to that is.

 

How about you quote this predefined, mandated conclusion you imagine.

House Bill 7, Individual Freedom, School District Responsibilities (fldoe.org)

 

I did give 2 sources

I was a judge and jury on the actual court case I referred to? lol

 

So here is the key part you didn't quote in your earlier post: "Discussion of these concepts is not prohibited as part of a course of training or instruction, provided such training or instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the concepts." The other key part was bolded earlier, "An individual's moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national origin."

The thing that cannot be asserted is that racism causes oppression today.

So the law's intent appears to be that the teacher can talk about these things so long as that teacher does not take a position (at least, not a position that asserts racism causes oppression today). But given that the way material is presented could be misconstrued to imply intent to indoctrinate, the net effect is still to discourage discussion of the topic. Braver teachers may test the limits by presenting both sides of the issue, but most would fear being accused of bias for bringing it up at all.

 

Well, that was a lot of writing, but you never got around to quoting the "predefined, mandated conclusion" you speak of. I guess youve abandoned that challenged claim to move onto another.

 

I'll make it easier this time:

Again, the mandated conclusion is: The thing that cannot be asserted is that racism causes oppression today.

Based upon that they shall not teach: "status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national origin."

 

Not interested in what opinions you cited

Cookoo for Cocoa puffs

 

So what that you're not interested in the opinion of a jury and judge what they got to say about the constitution! lol
My source stands, and your opinion is not backed up with any source.
Hence my source stands, and you lost the argument.

 

I wasn't aware of these police were even charged. When did that happen what court tried what was the charge?

Those are the things you'll have to present to prove your claim since that hasn't happened yet you can't prove your claim.

You don't have a source you can't have those I'm not sure these police officers have even been charged with anything. So whatever unassisted verdict you went and found doesn't really have any bearing on this.

No two cases are exactly the same that's why we have courts.

 

Point stands that excess force is unconstitutional. I sourced that with a link to a court of law.
Point stands that the cop wasn't allowed to use it's taser, and at best only for 5 seconds.
I sourced that too. He breached what he may not do on 2 accounts, and so it's obvious it's excess force.

And you're response is not putting a dent in that. No source is debunking that.

 

yeah again please haven't been charged with anything we don't know if they will be.

So your point may not have anything to do with this.

It doesn't matter. You're putting the cart before the horse and we haven't gotten to that point yet first the police need to be charged with something we don't even know if that's going to happen.

So all your banter and all your brother about whatever source for whatever nonsensical point you made means nothing.

 

Your argument is not relevant, since excess force is still unconstitutional. I sourced that.

Court cases about the 2nd amendment matter just as much as the 4th amendment.

 

you're judging this to be excessive force.

This is likely emotional.

So what were these police officers charged with? When were they sentenced what court heard their case?

 

I said QUOTE from the statute this "predefined, mandated conclusion" you speak of. We know you can make one up yourself as youve done here. You are not providing a quote because their isnt one to be quoted. You are just too dishonest to admit it. I would expect nothing else from you

Youre high. Or unable to comprehend the written word. That isnt a "predefined, mandated conclusion" that there is no racism. You cant teach some poor, impoverished kid that he is privileged because of his white skin while the son of the wealthy NFL star is oppressed because his skin is black. BECAUSE IT IS A LIE in an attempt to indoctrinate the kids.

 

My first statement was the consequence of what I quoted in the second statement. I think you've just never been in a sociology class, and don't know what the word oppression means, and that's why you don't get it.

Oppression is: prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.

Unjust treatment? Such as being subjected to extra scrutiny and suspicion due to the type of skin you're born with, right?

Oppression is relative. A poor, gay, blind, black woman is more oppressed, on average, than the same type of person who isn't one of those things. It's a matrix of oppression.

If you cannot argue that somebody experiences oppression due to their race, that is exactly the same as saying there is no systemic racism acting upon them. The only way to avoid running afoul of this law is to assert that racism doesn't continue to affect people, or make no assertion.

 

I know I'm butting in but if you guys are still talking about the OP, the question of whether the force was excessive comes down to whether the amount of tasing used was necessary to gain control of the subject. I don't think so, but that's what it hinges on, not emotions. The point of a taser isn't to punish somebody for resisting. It's to subdue them enough that the officer/s can gain control of them without killing them.

 

I see that you're no longer contesting that excess force is unconstitutional.

And it remains so that you're unable claim the cop is anywhere close to what he was allowed to do. So that's where the discussion ends.

 

I sourced the cop wasn't even allowed to use a taser in this instance. And even if he was, it had to be at max for just 5 seconds. He went over 40 seconds. So there is no actual room for debate on this if this is excessive force.

 

No you did not. That's another pointless fabrication. Have you even studied how the taser class for LEO's works? I'll bet any thing you have not.

 

x

 

To Liveuninhibited

I see your on your next dive for refuge in irrelevancy. Nothing in your post supports the assertion that the statute includes "the conclusion that racism doesn't exist"

 

If you don't think so what do you base your thoughts on.

 

I never did

We'll have to wait and see.

 

Do you ever stop and consider that you might not know what you are talking about? Did you notice how Dixon linked to the actual law which didn't say any of the wildly incorrect claims you wrongly made?

 

Watching the video. It was a whole group of cops on this guy. And the guy was noticeably weaker after the first tasing. He kept resisting, but he was on the ground and the cops were in control. Subsequent tasings did not seem necessary to get control of the guy. The first one may have helped get control of him. Just my impression from the video, but if excessive force is alleged, that's the crux of it. The cops needed to bring him in, not punish him with a taser. The taser is a tool to help bring him in that's better for the cops than having a wrestling match and better for the subject than being shot. Using it for more than that is excessive.