#1 ·
So, this is the post for which BlackRock slapped me with a massive 700-point penalty.
The reasoning provided was "frequent hate speech and justifying murder." Neither of those things is remotely true. Just because my interpretation of the events differs from his doesn't give him the right to label my views as hate speech and hand out a ban. This marks the third time I've faced draconian penalties for violations that simply don't exist.
Everything I stated in my post is factual. George Floyd was under the influence. He was driving in that state. The police were called regarding counterfeit bills. He resisted arrest for ten minutes. The first autopsy performed by the official pathologist found no evidence of asphyxiation, whereas the second autopsy conducted by a private pathologist did find evidence of suffocation. These are the official facts. I cited all of this to suggest that this wasn't necessarily a systemic issue. In what way, exactly, am I justifying a murder?
The very same George Floyd—whose case triggered such an intense emotional reaction in BlackRock that he handed me this ban—had broken into a woman's home while she was alone with her young child, robbing her at gunpoint. In my view, that crime sits in a similar category to sexual assault when you consider the trauma inflicted on the victim. None of this changes the legality of the incident or the guilt of the officer, but it does matter when it comes to one's personal sense of sympathy and compassion.
Look, I’m not approaching this debate by viewing the incident as a meeting between an innocent, upright citizen and brutal police officers; I see it as a confrontation involving a convicted armed robber, a dealer, a drug user, a reckless driver, and a fraudster facing an indifferent cop. THAT IS MY PERSPECTIVE AND MY RATIONALIZATION. IT IS NEITHER HATE SPEECH NOR A JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY MURDER.
Can another moderator—Nica, Saba, anyone else—please tell me if this ban is actually justified? If it isn't, I ask that it be rescinded. Thanks.
The reasoning provided was "frequent hate speech and justifying murder." Neither of those things is remotely true. Just because my interpretation of the events differs from his doesn't give him the right to label my views as hate speech and hand out a ban. This marks the third time I've faced draconian penalties for violations that simply don't exist.
Everything I stated in my post is factual. George Floyd was under the influence. He was driving in that state. The police were called regarding counterfeit bills. He resisted arrest for ten minutes. The first autopsy performed by the official pathologist found no evidence of asphyxiation, whereas the second autopsy conducted by a private pathologist did find evidence of suffocation. These are the official facts. I cited all of this to suggest that this wasn't necessarily a systemic issue. In what way, exactly, am I justifying a murder?
The very same George Floyd—whose case triggered such an intense emotional reaction in BlackRock that he handed me this ban—had broken into a woman's home while she was alone with her young child, robbing her at gunpoint. In my view, that crime sits in a similar category to sexual assault when you consider the trauma inflicted on the victim. None of this changes the legality of the incident or the guilt of the officer, but it does matter when it comes to one's personal sense of sympathy and compassion.
Look, I’m not approaching this debate by viewing the incident as a meeting between an innocent, upright citizen and brutal police officers; I see it as a confrontation involving a convicted armed robber, a dealer, a drug user, a reckless driver, and a fraudster facing an indifferent cop. THAT IS MY PERSPECTIVE AND MY RATIONALIZATION. IT IS NEITHER HATE SPEECH NOR A JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY MURDER.
Can another moderator—Nica, Saba, anyone else—please tell me if this ban is actually justified? If it isn't, I ask that it be rescinded. Thanks.