Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

George Floyd Bodycam Video Leaked, AG Keith Ellison Wanted it to Remain Hidden.


Recommended Posts

The full video is available here.

If you want to be propagandized watch this video. The propagandists in this video act like the gun shouldn't have been drawn, and they don't show all the clips of G F pretending that he can't breathe. 

What do we learn from this video:

1) Clearly the incident got off on the wrong foot with George Floyd refusing to show the arresting officer his hands: George kept his right hand hidden from the officer's view, down by the passenger seat. The officer asked George to show his hands multiple times, then drew his gun for his own safety. 

2) The officers determined early on that Floyd was "on something". His bloodwork says that he had covid, plus he had Fentanyl in his system. He also had marijuana and methamphetamine in him.

3) He was carrying on saying "I can't breathe" and acting like he was dying from the time he was arrested, even when there was nothing at all restricting his breathing. It's not surprising that officers didn't believe him when he was on the ground.

4) Floyd was resisting arrest the whole time.

 

Takeaways:

1) It's 100% clear that AG Keith Ellison (in true, divisive Dem fashion) only allowed incendiary footage to be released, and he kept somewhat exculpatory video under lock and key. All this while his city and state were experiencing violent riots, arson and looting. The property damage was in the billions of dollars. 

I don't say it's completely exculpatory because Floyd died when he should't have, but this video clearly illustrates a situation where the police couldn't get Floyd into the car, they had to restrain him on the ground, and they had every reason not believe him when he said he couldn't breathe. 

 

2) If Floyd had just been reasonable and allowed the officers to do their job he would have eventually arrived home safely. The officers were calm and just trying to do their job. They didn't say or do anything racist. 

 

3) With the new video in, the rioting looks even more ridiculous.

An investigation into the incident is still necessary, but AG Ellison might have ruined any chance of getting a guilty verdict when intentionally selected the worst video possible to release while hiding the mitigating circumstances from the public. The entire juror pool in the USA has been prejudiced against the police now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It doesn't fit the narrative of an unresisting, gentle giant being cruelly abused by the evil white police.

From previous reports the cop knew Floyd, which means he almost certainly knew he was a convicted felon with a record of using firearms, and a junkie. All of which is plenty of reason to be very wary.

The purposeful buriers are the same people who tried to act like Rayshard Brooks was just a cool, fun-lovin', family-man that took a nap in his car and then got shot by racist white pigs for no good r

Posted Images

The videos released to the public were captured on a cell phone and a surveillance camera, hence they cannot be subject to a publication ban. 

The bodycams worn by police are not public until the court proceedings deems that it is ok to do so.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cannucklehead said:

The videos released to the public were captured on a cell phone and a surveillance camera, hence they cannot be subject to a publication ban. 

The bodycams worn by police are not public until the court proceedings deems that it is ok to do so.  

Ellison said that it was his decision to keep the videos under wraps because his job as an attorney general was to get a conviction. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Ellison said that it was his decision to keep the videos under wraps because his job as an attorney general was to get a conviction. 

But it's not his decision.  He can request a publication ban, but at the end of the day it's up to the judge.  

Typically, publication bans are meant to ensure privacy, to protect victims and to preserve the right to a fair trial.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Why didn't I see this story reported by CBC News or CTV?  This is the first i've heard of it and the story is 2 days old.

It's like Advil -  anti-inflammatory. CBC and CTV both push all the incendiary nature of these stories and this video doesn't serve any purpose for them.  

 

CNN, a "News Network", only shows a small portion of the new footage because apparently their recounting of the incident, for thousands of hours now, is more important than showing people an 8-minute video of what actually happened. https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/03/us/george-floyd-police-body-camera-video-leak/index.html

Check out screenshot of the blurb of info they placed in the middle of their video.They thought that bit of [mis]information was more important than showing actual footage: 

 

Granted, CNN is admitting that those are just the words of a Floyd Family attorney, but the words are clearly a lie and CNN doesn't bother to point that out. Instead they edit the video to make it look bad. Most noticeably, they omitted the parts where Floyd was using the famous "I can't breathe" line, when there was absolutely no one doing anything remotely close to obstructing his breathing.

Anyways, here how CNN was vicariously lying through the Floyd family attorney:

1) they didn't "approach him with their guns out", they approached him with their guns holstered. 

2) The guns came out because he kept hiding his right hand down in front of the passenger seat. It looked highly suspicious, the officers plainly asked him several times to show his other hand but he kept it hidden, and Floyd has a criminal history involving pointing guns at people.

Cops who don't pull their guns in that exact scenario end up on training videos called 'what can go horribly wrong in an instant'. 

Screen Shot 2020-08-05 at 5.29.43 PM.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cannucklehead said:

But it's not his decision.  He can request a publication ban, but at the end of the day it's up to the judge.  

Typically, publication bans are meant to ensure privacy, to protect victims and to preserve the right to a fair trial.

What judge? The AG can release the footage before he even appoints a judge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@ canucklehead:

Quote

When asked if body camera footage would be released before the trial, Minnesota AG Keith Ellison said, “I’m a firm believer in transparency, and the public’s right to know, but a higher priority for me is a successful prosecution. Therefore, I’ll consult with our lead investigators and I’ll say to them ‘when can we release this information to the public and still safeguard the prosecution.’ If we can do it before [trial] I would have no problem with doing that.” - AG Keith Ellison

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/washington-post-live/keith-ellison-on-releasing-body-camera-footage-in-upcoming-trial/2020/06/04/607546a6-7a3e-454a-b010-7557f54e57bd_video.html

1) Ellison is stating in plain English that this is his decision, and not that of the prosecutors or any judge. 

2) He's putting his desire for 'a successful prosecution' ahead of everything else, including truth, transparency, and the safety of his community. 

 

Clearly the new body-cam video, if seen in it's entirety, puts a serious damper on the 'evil cops/hero Floyd' narrative which set America on fire. If this came out before or during the riots it would have cooled things down considerably. For starters, no one would be carrying an "I can't breathe" sign, or they'd just look idiotic. 

Edited by WestCanMan
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

What judge? The AG can release the footage before he even appoints a judge.

Why would he release it if he wants a publication ban on it?   And I'm pretty sure that would result in a mistrial if he did release it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main reason that the BLMers want to get rid of body-cam footage is because the police are too busy doing their job to videotape what's happening. Little Antifa/BLM dirtbags have nothing better to do than videotape police interactions with dangerous criminals and then edit them to make the police look bad.

This is a perfect example.

A lot of people would wonder why the police disregarded Floyd's cries of "I can't breathe". Well now we know. Because he cried the whole time, and he said "I can't breathe" when he was clearly lying. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Why would he release it if he wants a publication ban on it?   And I'm pretty sure that would result in a mistrial if he did release it.  

My post above yours clearly shows that, as per Ellison's own words, he was the one with the final say in whether or not to release the video.

Ellison never got the chance to release this video because it was leaked to reporters in Britain, and they let the cat out of the bag.

I guess that reporters in the US would get into serious trouble if they leaked it, but once it hit the www there's really no case for saying that it can't be shown in the US anymore. 

Edited by WestCanMan
Link to post
Share on other sites

publication ban is an order the Court makes that prevents anyone from publishing, broadcasting, or sending any information that could identify a victim, witness, or other person who participates in the criminal justice system. The publication ban is intended to allow victims, witnesses, and others to participate in the justice system without suffering negative consequences.

 

Once there is a publication ban made the court decides when to remove it.  The ag can request the ban lifted but the court can say yes or no.  

Edited by Cannucklehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

publication ban is an order the Court makes that prevents anyone from publishing, broadcasting, or sending any information that could identify a victim, witness, or other person who participates in the criminal justice system. The publication ban is intended to allow victims, witnesses, and others to participate in the justice system without suffering negative consequences.

 

Once there is a publication ban made the court decides when to remove it.  The ag can request the ban lifted but the court can say yes or no.  

So there isn't a court-ordered publication ban in effect then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

There is, but someone violated it.  May end up in charges, who knows.  

Nope.

Read Ellison's own words Canucklehead. He spoke in plain English. 

Quote

"Therefore, I’ll consult with our lead investigators and I’ll say to them ‘when can we release this information to the public and still safeguard the prosecution.’ If we can do it before [trial] I would have no problem with doing that.” - AG Keith Ellison

If you don't understand what those words mean then it's really weird that you'd spend time in an online forum that has almost no pictures or video. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Nope.

Read Ellison's own words Canucklehead. He spoke in plain English. 

If you don't understand what those words mean then it's really weird that you'd spend time in an online forum that has almost no pictures or video. 

The victim, witness, or justice system participant may later decide that he or she no longer wants to continue the publication ban. He or she must then ask the Court for an order to end it and to state how the circumstances that made the order necessary have changed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

The victim, witness, or justice system participant may later decide that he or she no longer wants to continue the publication ban. He or she must then ask the Court for an order to end it and to state how the circumstances that made the order necessary have changed.

Ellison unilaterally decided the fate of that video. 

That video had the power to shed a lot of much-needed light on a situation that was deadly, mainly because of the badly-skewed and misleading video that was already out in public.

The BLMers who want to put an end to police video, just because it exposes their racist deception, all saluted the fact that Ellison kept the truth from America. 

Ellison is scum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Why didn't I see this story reported by CBC News or CTV?  This is the first i've heard of it and the story is 2 days old.

I watched Global today :barf and they didn't mention it either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

I watched Global today :barf and they didn't mention it either.

This thread is the 1st i've heard of this new video.  This story is buried purposefully.

Also, CNN isn't to be taken seriously anymore.  They are clearly biased garbage as bad or worse than FOX News.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

This thread is the 1st i've heard of this new video.  This story is buried purposefully.

It's on plenty of news media outlets, just not in Canada apparently.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

This thread is the 1st i've heard of this new video.  This story is buried purposefully.

Excuse me but could you identify who the purposeful buriers are?  Can you name any names and how they ordered everyone to obey them, was it thru memos, emails, recorded meetings, intercepted 5G signals...how exactly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, eyeball said:

Excuse me but could you identify who the purposeful buriers are?  Can you name any names and how they ordered everyone to obey them, was it thru memos, emails, recorded meetings, intercepted 5G signals...how exactly?

Well, I never say this story on CBC News online and can't find a link.  Can you find me a link of it?

I'm not saying anyone ordered anything in a grand MSM-wide conspiracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2020 at 8:01 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

Why didn't I see this story reported by CBC News or CTV?  This is the first i've heard of it and the story is 2 days old.

It doesn't fit the narrative of an unresisting, gentle giant being cruelly abused by the evil white police.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2020 at 8:50 PM, WestCanMan said:

1) they didn't "approach him with their guns out", they approached him with their guns holstered. 

2) The guns came out because he kept hiding his right hand down in front of the passenger seat. It looked highly suspicious, the officers plainly asked him several times to show his other hand but he kept it hidden, and Floyd has a criminal history involving pointing guns at people.

From previous reports the cop knew Floyd, which means he almost certainly knew he was a convicted felon with a record of using firearms, and a junkie. All of which is plenty of reason to be very wary. The video shows that Floyd was treated properly  until he started to go bananas in the back of the police car. The police decided he was in the throes of 'excited delirium' and took him out again and called for an ambulance (which will throw a wrench into the prosecution's assertions they treated him with 'depraved indifference'. He was also six feet nine, which no doubt played a part in their decision to pin him down.

Incidentally, there are a lot of Americans who, if they're just going from the mainstream media, don't even know Floyd had a record, or that he was on fentanyl and meth. These things weren't generally reported.

Edited by Argus
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Well, I never say this story on CBC News online and can't find a link.  Can you find me a link of it?

I did see it on the news but it could have been BBC or Euronews. I watch them a lot more than I do US media...I know that must rankle some around here but...shrugs...

Quote

I'm not saying anyone ordered anything in a grand MSM-wide conspiracy.

Maybe it's the neutral tone of your conversation with people who do say shit like this.  Maybe you're just a little more hesitant than outright anti?

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...