United Nations set to debate human right violations of the US

[Magenta]

A person hasn't violated the law by uttering or possessing counterfeit money unless the person has reason to know the bill is counterfeit. If the store clerk didn't observe anything suspicious about the bill before completing the transaction and the Police officers couldn't visually detect that it was a counterfeit bill then there is no reason to believe anyone using the bill could have known it was counterfeit.

Minnesota Criminal Code, Chapter 609
609.632 COUNTERFEITING OF CURRENCY.
§Subd. 3.Uttering or possessing.
Whoever, with intent to defraud, utters or possesses with intent to utter any counterfeit United States postal money order, United States currency, Federal Reserve note, or other obligation or security of the United States, having reason to know that the money order, currency, note, or obligation or security is forged, counterfeited, falsely made, altered, or printed, is guilty of offering counterfeited currency and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 4.

The Police would have to had seen Mr. Floyd actually passed the counterfeit bill before seizing his person at gun point, unless the $ 20 bill was such a reasonable person should have known it was fake but that is not what the facts suggest.

"A seizure of a person, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, occurs when the police's conduct would communicate to a reasonable person, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the encounter, that the person is not free to ignore the police presence and leave at his will. " SOURCE

At this point it doesn't appear they can even prove that Mr. Floyd ever departed his vehicle once it stopped across the street from the store. If he never went into the store then there obviously is probable cause to believe he passed a counterfeit bill in the store.

The store clerk is the one who phoned the police. Whether George Floyd knew it was a bogus bill would be pretty hard to prove either way at this point. That still deflects from your assertion: without cause other than simply because of the color of his skin.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

Racism is a global problem. It’s no more prevalent in the US than anywhere else. The police officers were charged. What do you suppose a debate about racism will accomplish? I will say both the US and Canada (my home) have welcomed millions of immigrants and refugees over the years. I have seen our culture greatly accept people of all races and creeds. You never hear the stories about how the people at my work got together and threw a baby shower for a newly landed Sri Lankan co worker, supplying all of his needs. He had no family here and we all stepped up. This is not an isolated occurrence. We are a very tolerant and accepting people.You only hear about a police officer, who used excessive force on a black man. If people want truth, this is truth: Everybody has preconceptions. Whether they are merited or not, they are real. It’s part of our survival make up. Black men and women have just as much prejudice towards white people. Look at how this story has got attention. Because a white officer killed a black man, he has to be a racist? Is it possible that during this officer’s career he has seen some horrible and violent things? Is it possible that he lives in fear every time he goes to work? Fear is what causes racism. I’m a white dude and I can tell you when a big black man looks at me it’s different then when a big white man looks at me. It’s not my imagination. He’s trying to stare me down. I understand he’s not trying to scare me. He’s establishing he’s not afraid of me. I don’t look away and show intimidation. I smile and nod. Every time his gaze becomes less intense and he usually smiles back. His prejudice (fear) caused him to initiate a warning. How many black men do you suppose give this “antagonistic” look to white police officers? How many white police officers feel genuinely threatened, and afraid? The only way to combat racism is to replace fear with love. The world doesn’t need a debate, it needs JESUS.

While you make some interesting talking points. However, it is no coincidence that the only video footage begins when the store clerk exits the store to confront Mr. Floyd in a vehicle parked across the street when the time and distances from the available data indicate that we should have seen Mr. Floyd in the video.

And one minute of footage prior to the store clerk exiting the store would have definitely shown Mr. Floyd crossing the street to return to his vehicle parked across the street. So either the surveillance video was clipped at that point because there wasn't any footage of Mr. Floyd crossing the street or it wasn't needed for people to 'know' that Mr. Floyd didn't knowingly pass the counterfeit bill. But everyone is willing to assume that he did it that they can't even consider the possibility that there is no footage of Mr. Floyd crossing the street because Mr. Floyd didn't cross the street.

 

[Magenta]

While you make some interesting talking points. However, it is no coincidence that the only video footage begins when the store clerk exits the store to confront Mr. Floyd in a vehicle parked across the street when the time and distances from the available data indicate that we should have seen Mr. Floyd in the video.

And one minute of footage prior to the store clerk exiting the store would have definitely shown Mr. Floyd crossing the street to return to his vehicle parked across the street. So either the surveillance video was clipped at that point because there wasn't any footage of Mr. Floyd crossing the street or it wasn't needed for people to 'know' that Mr. Floyd didn't knowingly pass the counterfeit bill. But everyone is willing to assume that he did it that they can't even consider the possibility that there is no footage of Mr. Floyd crossing the street because Mr. Floyd didn't cross the street.

Why do you assume George Floyd would necessarily immediately return to his vehicle upon exiting the store? You present this assumption as if there were no other possibility. The Hennepin County Medical Examiner released its toxicology findings: George Floyd had fentanyl in his system, and they also found signs of recent methamphetamine use.

 

[Hungry]

While you make some interesting talking points. However, it is no coincidence that the only video footage begins when the store clerk exits the store to confront Mr. Floyd in a vehicle parked across the street when the time and distances from the available data indicate that we should have seen Mr. Floyd in the video.

And one minute of footage prior to the store clerk exiting the store would have definitely shown Mr. Floyd crossing the street to return to his vehicle parked across the street. So either the surveillance video was clipped at that point because there wasn't any footage of Mr. Floyd crossing the street or it wasn't needed for people to 'know' that Mr. Floyd didn't knowingly pass the counterfeit bill. But everyone is willing to assume that he did it that they can't even consider the possibility that there is no footage of Mr. Floyd crossing the street because Mr. Floyd didn't cross the street.

Is Mr. Floyd’s case a tragedy? Absolutely! So, what is the response to this? The UN has been petitioned to uncover racism in police departments. This will cause racism to escalate, not subside. If the black community thinks they must fear for their lives every time an officer approaches them what do you think will happen? I will tell you. More violence. The media will run with this. They will interview all kinds of people who have been dealt harshly with. This will create sympathizers and soon it will be chaos. I get that there’s statistics making it look like black men are sent to prisons in greater portions than white men. That may seem racist. Here’s a statistic: black men outrank white men in professional sports. The same aptitude that causes black men to be athleticly superior is the same reason many of them aren’t afraid to break the law. Raw aggression and confidence makes people to behave riskier. That is my prejudice. It’s not racist, just my observation. When physically superior black men fear white police officers because the media gives them a right to, then the white police officers will have reason to be afraid of them and it will fuel more violence and racism. What needs to happen is white men making an effort to reach out to young black males. Whether it’s coaching or teaching, maybe hiring or just smiling...especially the white police men. Then maybe some prejudices can be eliminated before they start.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

The store clerk is the one who phoned the police. Whether George Floyd knew it was a bogus bill would be pretty hard to prove either way at this point. That still deflects from your assertion: without cause other than simply because of the color of his skin.

That isn't my assertion, that is the State's closing argument. Since you assume that George Floyd had patronized the Cups Food store then there is no reason not to believe the 911 call that reported Floyd, however you might be jumping to conclusions if you think used a counterfeit $ 20 bill to purchase cigarettes, right? See the TMZ clip below.

Why do you assume George Floyd would necessarily immediately return to his vehicle upon exiting the store?

Because the 911 store clerk's statement in the 911 call. "Um someone comes our store and give us fake bills and we realize it before he left the store, and we ran back outside, they was sitting on their car."

Would you watch the video and verify that there was no vehicle parked behind Mr. Floyds vehicle at the start of the video, but before the cops even begin walking from the store to Floyd's vehicle, a vehicle pulls behind Mr. Floyd and begins recording from his phone.
https://www.fox9.com/video/688458

While the video I saw shows the SUV pulling in slowing behind Mr. Floyd, as you will see the video now appears that the SUV was somehow photoshoped into or out of the video and good luck trying to find another video that starts at this point. But if you would like to see the video posted of the person videoing what was happening in front of his vehicle.

However here is video from the dark color SUV that part behind flood and began videoing the incident before the police ever walk across the street.
https://youtu.be/vksEJR9EPQ8?t=140

Here is TMZ claiming that it was counterfeit $10 bill and that Floyd didn't purchase any merchandise because the underage store clerks wouldn't sell him anything so Floyd departed the store with the $10 bill. They then walked out after Floyd to get the $10 from George. You can listen to them yourself. This is the show that the Floyd's family lawyer thanks for his accurate reporting.

 

[1christian1]

Okay, when you say 'under suspicion' for passing a counterfeit bill then are you saying that you believe that it is a criminal act if a person uses a counterfeit bill as legal tender?

No, But I do believe that resisting arrest is. What that cop did was wrong. but he is also human. Floyd. was a big man.

 

[JeremiahsCup]

Could you explain your comment since the topic regards the UN Human Rights Counsel holding debates regarding the death of George Floyd, an innocent black man that was removed from his vehicle at gun point, without cause other than simply because of the color of his skin, by Police who then proceeded to brutally murdered in the street by Officers of the Minneapolis Police Department, or at least that is what most people in the United States believe occurred. You do believe that Mr. Floyd was murdered by the police don't you?

Have you even read the Grand Jury indictment of these officers?

I believe China whom bribes the disgusting and pointless institution of the UN has instigated this investigation as a way to draw attention off themselves and their mishandling of the coronavirus. One might even begin to wonder if this artificially altered viruses' escape was not so accidental.

 

[Magenta]

That isn't my assertion, that is the State's closing argument. Since you assume that George Floyd had patronized the Cups Food store then there is no reason not to believe the 911 call that reported Floyd, however you might be jumping to conclusions if you think used a counterfeit $ 20 bill to purchase cigarettes, right? See the TMZ clip below.

I do not make that assumption. I am telling you what the media has said.

If he never went into the store then there obviously is probable cause to believe he passed a counterfeit bill in the store.

This makes zero sense.

But everyone is willing to assume that he did it that they can't even consider the possibility that there is no footage of Mr. Floyd crossing the street because Mr. Floyd didn't cross the street.

Proving nothing.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

Is Mr. Floyd’s case a tragedy?

Of course, however the real tragedy is that US people have outsmarted ourselves with ignorance.

No, But I do believe that resisting arrest is. What that cop did was wrong. but he is also human. Floyd. was a big man.

Well, the trial of the Police Officer has been scheduled for August 17, 2057, then we will find out whether or not the Police Officer was negligent for non-compliance with the Mayor's directive on Neck Restraints and Choke Holds which Minneapolis Police have used some 430 times since 2015.

Spoiler: [/URL]Policy Authorized by Mayor for Neck Restraints and Choke Holds[URL='http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/police/policy/index.htm']

“5-311 USE OF NECK RESTRAINTS AND CHOKE HOLDS (10/16/02) (08/17/07) (10/01/10) (04/16/12)

DEFINITIONS I.

Choke Hold: Deadly force option. Defined as applying direct pressure on a person’s trachea or airway (front of the neck), blocking or obstructing the airway (04/16/12)

Neck Restraint: Non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person’s neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck). Only sworn employees who have received training from the MPD Training Unit are authorized to use neck restraints. The MPD authorizes two types of neck restraints: Conscious Neck Restraint and Unconscious Neck Restraint. (04/16/12)

Conscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with intent to control, and not to render the subject unconscious, by only applying light to moderate pressure. (04/16/12)

Unconscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure. (04/16/12)

PROCEDURES/REGULATIONS II.

A. The Conscious Neck Restraint may be used against a subject who is actively resisting. (04/16/12)
B. The Unconscious Neck Restraint shall only be applied in the following circumstances: (04/16/12)
1. On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or;
2. For life saving purposes, or;
3. On a subject who is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject; and if lesser attempts at control have been or would likely be ineffective.
C. Neck restraints shall not be used against subjects who are passively resisting as defined by policy. (04/16/12)
D. After Care Guidelines (04/16/12)
1. After a neck restraint or choke hold has been used on a subject, sworn MPD employees shall keep them under close observation until they are released to medical or other law enforcement personnel.
2. An officer who has used a neck restraint or choke hold shall inform individuals accepting custody of the subject, that the technique was used on the subject.”

But of course the Mayor wasted no time accusing the Officer's action as murder, yet the Mayor's policy allowed for asphyxiation but compression on both sides of the neck yet the compression on one side by the knee as used by the Officer does not result in asphyxiation.

This makes zero sense.

It doesn't does it. I left out the 'no' after 'is' yet before "probable cause".

If he never went into the store then there obviously is no probable cause to believe he passed a counterfeit bill in the store.

Hopefully that will take away zero from your comment

Proving nothing.

That's tragic......

 

[UnoiAmarah]

***I should have noted that the Policy cited above was revised on 6/09/2020, the one cited above reflected the policy in effect at the time of the George Floyd incident.

 

[Magenta]

That isn't my assertion, that is the State's closing argument. Since you assume that George Floyd had patronized the Cups Food store then there is no reason not to believe the 911 call that reported Floyd, however you might be jumping to conclusions if you think used a counterfeit $ 20 bill to purchase cigarettes, right? See the TMZ clip below.

Because the 911 store clerk's statement in the 911 call. "Um someone comes our store and give us fake bills and we realize it before he left the store, and we ran back outside, they was sitting on their car."

Here is TMZ claiming that it was counterfeit $10 bill and that Floyd didn't purchase any merchandise because the underage store clerks wouldn't sell him anything so Floyd departed the store with the $10 bill. They then walked out after Floyd to get the $10 from George. You can listen to them yourself. This is the show that the Floyd's family lawyer thanks for his accurate reporting.

It is immaterial whether anything was or was not purchased. Federal law is against being in possession of counterfeit currency.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

It is immaterial whether anything was or was not purchased

That is true if the person knows it is a counterfeit bill and intends to use it as real money since if the person is knowingly in possession of a counterfeit obligation or security of the United States with the intent that the same be passed, published, or used as true and genuine, would be committing an offense under Title 18 of the U.S. Code whether or not the transaction was completed.

So if you are saying that you verify that every bill in your possession is not counterfeit, then would you return the merchandise you paid for if the store clerk came out to your car and told you that the bill you used was counterfeit?

 

[Magenta]

That is true if the person knows it is a counterfeit bill and intends to use it as real money since if the person is knowingly in possession of a counterfeit obligation or security of the United States with the intent that the same be passed, published, or used as true and genuine, would be committing an offense under Title 18 of the U.S. Code whether or not the transaction was completed.

So if you are saying that you verify that every bill in your possession is not counterfeit, then would you return the merchandise you paid for if the store clerk came out to your car and told you that the bill you used was counterfeit?

It is against the law to be in possession of counterfeit money. It is against the law to be in possession of counterfeit money whether one knows it is counterfeit or not. It is against the law to be in possession of counterfeit money even if you do not try to use it as legal tender. It is against the law to be in possession of counterfeit money and use it as legal tender. It is against the law to be in possession of counterfeit money, period. Being found in the possession of counterfeit money, you can be charged, and then you, already being guilty of being in possession of counterfeit money, which is against the law, if you are formally charged with the offense of being in the possession of counterfeit money, need to prove you did not know it was counterfeit. If it is proven you did not know it was counterfeit money, no conviction will result. I have said it at least six ways to Sunday, now. It is against the law to be in possession of counterfeit money. Get it?

 

[Bede]

Racism is a global problem. It’s no more prevalent in the US than anywhere else.

There is an interesting article in the Telegraph (UK newspaper) by Janet Daley on this topic in which she argues that it is very different in the USA to the UK.
I am beginning to fear that America will never solve its racism problem

She was brought up in the USA "Having grown up in America and lived through the great age of civil rights reform with all its supposedly miraculous “turning points”: the march on Washington where Martin Luther King made his legendary “I have a dream” speech, the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the end of segregation in the schools of the southern states.. " So she is not just some ignorant Brit!

I think it's a very interesting article. I would like to know what others think.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

It is against the law to be in possession of counterfeit money. It is against the law to be in possession of counterfeit money whether one knows it is counterfeit or not. It is against the law to be in possession of counterfeit money even if you do not try to use it as legal tender. It is against the law to be in possession of counterfeit money and use it as legal tender. It is against the law to be in possession of counterfeit money, period.

You know that we are a land of written laws, so can you one statute or law, Federal or State that remotely supports your argument that a person can not own a counterfeit bill? Much less affirms your claim the U.S. Constitution requires that a person has to prove their innocence in criminal proceedings.

Being found in the possession of counterfeit money, you can be charged, and then you, already being guilty of being in possession of counterfeit money, which is against the law,

You can buy fake money on Amazon, here's a link so you can check it out yourself.
https://www.amazon.com/Lefree-Dollar-Realistic-Double-Dollars/dp/B07ZFCK8WM

So why don't they bust Amazon or the vendor if it is against against the law to sell counterfeit money, and the reason is because they tell you it is funny money so they have not attempted to deceive, induce or defraud anyone who purchases it and tells them it is unlawful to attempt to use it as real money. So in a way they are educating the public regarding the uttering of fake money.

Unless you attempt to pass a fake bill off as real then you have committed no crime because you have not attempted to defraud anymore or deceive them.

So is Jesus telling you that anyone in possession of a counterfeit bill is breaking the law? Well I know one thing, it is not illegal to know the law nor to express one's opinion regarding the law, it is against the law to advice people on the law for a fee unless you have licensed to practice law.

One of us is killing the truth with our opinion, yet if you believe that you would be doing something wrong by possessing what you know to be funny money then I applause your position. However if you would believe that I was guilty of a crime simply because someone said I gave them a counterfeit bill while attempting to buy merchandise it is easy to understand why Mr. Floyd would have resisted arrest, it would have been his only realistic hope option for justice. But let me guess, you are Canandian right?

 

[Magenta]

You know that we are a land of written laws, so can you one statute or law, Federal or State that remotely supports your argument that a person can not own a counterfeit bill? Much less affirms your claim the U.S. Constitution requires that a person has to prove their innocence in criminal proceedings.



You can buy fake money on Amazon, here's a link so you can check it out yourself.
https://www.amazon.com/Lefree-Dollar-Realistic-Double-Dollars/dp/B07ZFCK8WM

So why don't they bust Amazon or the vendor if it is against against the law to sell counterfeit money, and the reason is because they tell you it is funny money so they have not attempted to deceive, induce or defraud anyone who purchases it and tells them it is unlawful to attempt to use it as real money. So in a way they are educating the public regarding the uttering of fake money.

Unless you attempt to pass a fake bill off as real then you have committed no crime because you have not attempted to defraud anymore or deceive them.

So is Jesus telling you that anyone in possession of a counterfeit bill is breaking the law? Well I know one thing, it is not illegal to know the law nor to express one's opinion regarding the law, it is against the law to advice people on the law for a fee unless you have licensed to practice law.

One of us is killing the truth with our opinion, yet if you believe that you would be doing something wrong by possessing what you know to be funny money then I applause your position. However if you would believe that I was guilty of a crime simply because someone said I gave them a counterfeit bill while attempting to buy merchandise it is easy to understand why Mr. Floyd would have resisted arrest, it would have been his only realistic hope option for justice. But let me guess, you are Canandian right?

The law is against being in possession of counterfeit money. It is no different than being in possession of stolen goods, whether you know they are stolen or not. Being charged with the offense and being found guilty are two different things. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

 

[UnoiAmarah]

Spoiler: It is only a crime if you don't have a lawful reason or excuse

Marginal noteossession, etc., of counterfeit money

450 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years who, without lawful justification or excuse,

• (a) buys, receives or offers to buy or receive counterfeit money;
• (b) has in their custody or possession counterfeit money; or
• (c) introduces counterfeit money into Canada.

• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 450
• 2018, c. 29, s. 55

Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)

You don't even know the laws of your own Country, do you even have a clue how you could explain you didn't know it was counterfeit. Yeah likely story.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

So she is not just some ignorant Brit!

So she's Canadian, what's your point?

If black Americans don't consider it a capital, or infamous crime to murder a black man then nothing is going to change until they do.

 

[Hungry]

There is an interesting article in the Telegraph (UK newspaper) by Janet Daley on this topic in which she argues that it is very different in the USA to the UK.
I am beginning to fear that America will never solve its racism problem

She was brought up in the USA "Having grown up in America and lived through the great age of civil rights reform with all its supposedly miraculous “turning points”: the march on Washington where Martin Luther King made his legendary “I have a dream” speech, the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the end of segregation in the schools of the southern states.. " So she is not just some ignorant Brit!

I think it's a very interesting article. I would like to know what others think.

Both the US and Canada are vast. There are some pockets with extreme racism and others completely opposite. I’ve seen both. Most people have stereotypical preconceptions and often they aren’t unfounded. I wouldn’t say that it makes them racist. People have stereotypical beliefs about Christians being hate mongers and intolerant to homosexuals. In honesty, some groups who profess to be Christian fit this profile. For us Christians who want to share the love of Christ with all sinners, it makes our mission harder. If we want to dispel these allegations then we just have to prove them false, not by forming a mob, but by being kind.

 

[Bede]

So she's Canadian, what's your point?

.

Janet Daley is not Canadian. Where did you get that idea?
Her profile in the Telegraph says: "Janet Daley was born in America, and taught philosophy before beginning her political life on the Left (before moving to Britain, and the Right, in 1965)"