The trial has started and it never ceases to amaze me how eager people are to pretend that everything that happened before Chauvin pulled Floyd back out of the police car, had absolutely nothing to do with his death.
Let's start with the fact that Floyd himself set this chain of events in motion completely of his own volition.
He tried to buy cigarettes with a counterfeit $20 and got busted by the black (or brown) clerks at Cup Foods. They literally gave him the opportunity to pay some other way, or leave the cigarettes and walk out the door. No harm, no foul. He could have tried to see if the clerks at the SA across the street were less vigilant, but he didn't. One wonders if he chose Cup Foods to pass the counterfeit bill because he knew it was owned and staffed primarily by immigrants, and he thought they wouldn't know of check his $20.
He could have chosen to spend the money he budgeted for meth and Fentanyl, on cigarettes instead. Of he could have passed the fake $20 to his drug dealer instead. Obviously the drug dealer would have simly accepted the fake $20 with no consequences whatsoever.
He could have chosen to simply ditch his meth and Fentanyl, or accept the consequences of a(nother) arrest for possession, instead of injesting a potentially lethal dose.
He could have cooperated with the officers instead of fighting back and resisting arrest. Let's not forget that arresting someone for passing counterfeit money and drug possession is something that is completely reasonable for the police to do.
Absolutely none of this is intended to diminish the establishment of the proper level of responsibility to apply to Chauvin. Nor is it to suggest that he did everything correctly. It's simply pointing out that our actions have consequences, and that we don't always control the consequences and that we possibly underestimate the consequences (or don't think about them) in the moment.
68 comments:
Indeed. The rush to accuse cops doing their duty is irresponsible and puts society at risk. The focus must be on the person arrested. If one thinks the cops acted out if line, and especially if they did, there's still the need to trace events back to review the chronology in order to determine justification for their actions, rather than simply assuming none existed solely because of the suspects race, which is all too common these days.
I was just reading some of the testimony from those who stood by and watched the incident. What's interesting is one guy, allegedly a martial arts expert, did nothing but verbally abuse and physically threaten the cops during he entire time of the filming.
Personalty, I'd hope that I would be willing to take a risk in order to save someone I believed was dying right before my eyes. You know, that whole "greater love...lay down his life...". You know, from Jungle Book.
I will say that the testimony that a firefighter was on the scene and offered to monitor Floyd's vitals and was denied isn't a good look. It'll be interesting to see if it actually was a firefighter and if they were EMT trained.
I would think a trained firefighter might have some way to identify himself as such, without which the cops' refusal would be warranted. I would add that unless the dude could actually treat Floyd, his monitoring would be somewhat worthless, especially with an ambulance...requested twice...was on the way.
There's a trial going on, that's for sure. And it isn't just Chauvin whose actions are being examined.
It WOULD be nice to think, Craig, that you would step up and take action to try to stop systemic police violence against racial minorities.
However, this post seems to suggest you might be throwing your support towards the killer, not the killed.
Based on what I've seen the firefighter ID'd herself and was trained as an EMT. I think this bears on the outcome in a couple of ways.
1. It reinforces the image of Chauvin as being heartless and cruel.
2. It seems to indicate a disregard for the health and well being of Floyd.
To me it seems like a mistake to have ignored the offer of help from someone qualified to provide it when Floyd was clearly in distress.
Unfortunately, this might be enough to tip the scales in favor the prosecution. Although, the fact that the firefighter has been reprimanded by the judge for what sounds like trying to slant her answers in favor of the prosecution might undermine her testimony.
"There's a trial going on, that's for sure."
Damn you are sharp. Not much gets past you and your steel trap mind. Impressive powers of observation.
"And it isn't just Chauvin whose actions are being examined."
Nor should it be limited to Chauvin's actions. For example, how can one accurately asses Chauvin's reactions by taking them out of the context that prompted them? Of course what won't be examined is the DFL controlled city government that is responsible for any "systemic racism" that exists in MPLS, those folks will get off without any repercussions and likely get reelected to continue thair "systemically racist" policies.
"It WOULD be nice to think, Craig, that you would step up and take action to try to stop systemic police violence against racial minorities."
That's quite as assumption there, Skippy? Any chance you'd do something crazy like provide proof that it's actually True? How do you know that I haven't done so? If given the opportunity, I'd certainly vote against the people who've been perpetrating these racist policies for decades. I guess police violence against non majorities isn't worth protesting, is it? I'm sure you meant to qualify that you only object to unjustified violence against minorities, amIright?
"However, this post seems to suggest you might be throwing your support towards the killer, not the killed."
If that's what you got from this post, then you're an idiot blinded by your prejudices and preconceptions.
The only thing I am throwing my support behind is the notion of the accused getting a fair trial, untainted by threats of violence, and to look at the entirety of the incident in context?
Can you show me the "hard data" that conclusively demonstrates any racial element to this specific incident?
Wow. This trial is to determine whether or not Chauvin was the reason Floyd died. Dan's convicted the guy by referring to him as a killer. To be clear, I constantly hear similar pronouncements by almost every news report on the case broadcasted. This is reprehensible for any news source, though typical if frauds like Dan.
As to the firefighter, who turns out is female (I had referred to the firefighter as "he", though I have no idea how the firefighter self-identifies), pics of her on the stand show her in uniform. I've heard nothing to say she was in uniform when she offered her services or that she confirmed in some way (ID, for example) to affirm she was who she said she was.
Then there's the issue of whether or not the cops have any obligation to adjust their control of the situation to accommodate any offer of help from a random passerby regardless of that passerby credentials. Floyd had been non-compliant. The risk to the firefighter had to be weighed under the stress of the situation...and with an ambulance on the way.
Finally, the only subject of this or any trial is the accused...not some institution. It would be a travesty if the trial became some "test case" on institutional problems when it's the lives of the officers involved which are impacted.
I've spent enough time in court to know that a witness speculating about what someone else was thinking in not beyond the bounds of what is normally admissible testimony. But what's awesome about this trial is that the media (social and legacy) will be able to take the witnesses comment out of context, divorce it from anything that the judge might have ruled after an objection, and present it as if it was a fact. But there's no way that seeing this out of context comment played or reported will affect the jury right?
We can hope that the jurors take their job seriously and that they will be offended if there are attempts to spin the case to convey a narrative that conflicts with what actually happened.
Hopefully they aren't to afraid to notice.
To be fair Dan's not the only one who's acting like the trial is just a formality so they can find him guilty. She was not in uniform when she offered to help, no idea if there was ID shown. My only point is that it reinforces the narrative being painted that Chauvin was indifferent to his sufferings.
I agree, but the problem is that if "the system" is on trial here, it won't be the racist people who've run the cities and state for decades, it'll be some made up boogyman. The folks responsible for these "racist systems" don't get punished or held accountable they get re elected, elected to a better job, or peddle influence.
Again: NEARLY EVERY TIME you say, "Dan is thinking..." or "Dan said..." you're just factually mistaken. At some point, a wise man would say, "maybe I should be a bit more humble in my reading comprehension capabilities."
Craig incorrectly stated... "To be fair Dan's not the only one who's acting like the trial is just a formality so they can find him guilty"
To be fair, Dan's not the only one who recognizes the breakdown in the policing system as evidenced yet again in this daylight execution of a black man who should be alive today if he hadn't encountered our "justice" system. All rational, moral people who are familiar with the history of racism in our policing system. Just ask black folk.
If I tried harder, I might be able to be as consistently wrong about those things as you are.
"To be fair, Dan's not the only one who recognizes the breakdown in the policing system as evidenced yet again in this daylight execution of a black man who should be alive today if he hadn't encountered our "justice" system."All rational, moral people who are familiar with the history of racism in our policing system. Just ask black folk."
To be fair, I think that this makes my point quite nicely. With his use of the loaded term "execution" and his stressing of the alleged racial aspect of this incident it seems reasonable to conclude that he has already predetermined that Chauvin is guilty.
This phenomenon we're seeing of people who are quick to pass judgement on others, and the preparedness to simply ignore what might be proven at trial, is a little concerning. I really thought that we as a country had left behind the days of sending the posse out to string up the rustlers or lynchings. But I guess I was wrong. The number of high profile people who are willing to ignore due process for those accused of crimes, as well as for those who enter our country illegally is distressing. Of course many of these folks cheered when OJ got off, and based their cheers on his skin color not the evidence.
It's strange that there is this hue and cry to convict Chauvin of crimes he likely didn't commit, while two girls execute a delivery driver in broad daylight, on video, and we see people arguing that they shouldn't be charged. Two young people assaulted, raped, and killed an Asian woman and the story gets virtually no national coverage. There's video recordings of both of these crimes, so I guess we can skip those trials as well. Those are just a couple of examples of "cross racial" crimes that somehow don't fit the narrative.
It's a strange world we live in where the justice system is trying to operate under threats of violence, and where jurors are scared for their lives if the follow their charge to base their decision on the evidence presented.
"All rational, moral people who are familiar with the history of racism in our policing system. Just ask black folk."
In the Chauvin case, any "history of racism" in the MPD, as well as any current racism in the MPD, can be laid 100% on those DFL officeholders who've allowed, nurtured, and facilitated the "system" for the past 50+ years. To ascribe blame to anyone other than the politicians who operate the "system" is simply partisan blindness. To reelect that some people who've allowed this "systemic racism" to live on in the MPD, is foolish. But, that's what'll happen.
So how come I've read a ka-zillion places where Floyd died from the drug he was flying on? Ergo, the police holding him down had nothing to do with his death but must be held as a scapegoat to protect a druggie they left is praising as a martyr!?!?
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877
I talked earlier about Dan's referring to anything he doesn't like as a "conspiracy theory" (Warning: Hyperbole and sarcasm present, respond with care). But his comments above, and the study in the above link make this somewhat relevant.
If a "conspiracy theory" is defined (even partly) by a belief in something that runs counter to the best available evidence. Or counter to a prevailing narrative. Then it doesn't seem out of line to call the belief that white cops are engaged in "genocide" against blacks, or even that white cops shooting blacks is prevalent, a "conspiracy theory". Now, I suspect that the above study, based on the most current data available won't make a dent in the narrative. I'm guessing that it won't stop Biden's legislative agenda. But it's nice to get a look at the reality of the situation without all the voices pushing their narratives downing out the data.
FYI, Floyd's girlfriend IDing the man with him at the time as Floyd's "drug dealer" probably won't help the prosecution.
Related, if Chuvin was bent on killing blacks, how is it that the guy in the car got away unscathed? Why'd Chauvin let him live? Is it possible that he's alive today because he simply complied with the legal orders of the cops? Is it possible that Floyd's actions had some impact on the outcome of the interaction?
Glenn,
Probably a similar reason to why you haven't heard much about the Asian woman who was the victim of hate beating, hate rape, and hate murder, in WI>
Because there's a narrative that must be maintained. If the narrative isn't maintained, then they can't justify more rioting.
Indeed, Dan has judged this guy based on what he thinks occurred because of the footage, primarily the first clip anyone ever saw. Additional body cam footage from the other cops shed more light on just what led to Floyd being on the ground. There was no execution by any stretch of the imagination. But then, we're dealing with Dan, who thinks BLM is a social justice organization.
Craig... "This phenomenon we're seeing of people who are quick to pass judgement on others..."
What you are failing to understand is that we are judging against this system which has failed black Americans for hundreds of years. That is NOT a quick judgement. It is based upon decades and centuries of oppression, abuse, murder.
This is the great failure of white conservatism. Youre looking at one incident and mistakenly seeing a rush to judgement. We're looking at CENTURIES of injustice and seeing centuries of inaction on behalf of Justice.
Again, ask black folk. Listen to black people.
Glenn lied, saying... "Ergo, the police holding him down had nothing to do with his death"
How stupid do you think the world is? Do you not recognize that we all see this for the blatant police apologetics in spite of what we saw with our own eyes? The man died because a police officer choked him with his leg on Floyd's neck.
That is not a defense of Floyd using drugs or not cooperating as much as he maybe should have. It's the recognition that time after time, police and police SYSTEMS have systemically harassed black men for what white men would not be bothered by.
We aren't that stupid to not see this racist, candy-ass bagpipe boy just siding with police because he's FINE WITH THE SYSTEM that has harassed and killed black people for well over 100 years.
Black people are NOT fine with that system. Just ask them. And good white allies will side with our black neighbors and friends.
Look, support racist oppressive systems if you want to, just acknowledge that you're going to side with the police even if they bust into a woman's home in the middle of the night and shoot her dead in her bedroom. Oh wait, you've no doubt already defended THAT, as well.
We see.
It's not just Chauvin who's on trial. White America is on trial. Our justice system is on trial. Glenn and Craig are on trial.
We see and we see your words and we recognize them for what they are.
Craig... "It's a strange world we live in where the justice system is trying to operate under threats of violence, and where jurors are scared for their lives if the follow their charge to base their decision on the evidence presented. "
Are you completely blind to the irony of speaking about the POOR OPPRESSED WHITE COPS who live in fear... while IGNORING the decades/centuries that black mothers have had to live with, for their sons and daughters going out while merely being black?
Do you not understand the tone-deafness of such whining?
Glenn's "police kneeling on his neck until he died had nothing to do with why he died..."
...Is a stupidly false claim. Craig, will you call him on it, or is your mind made up to side with the police and their allies over the victims of systemic police oppression?
https://www.khou.com/article/news/verify/chauvin-trial-drugs-heart-george-floyd-death/507-79911bcd-3cbe-44ee-8e44-30e00baf8010
Craig... "If a "conspiracy theory" is defined (even partly) by a belief in something that runs counter to the best available evidence."
Just fyi:
Conspiracy Theory is defined as something that is promoted and believed in SPITE of any credible data. It's an irrational theory, not an alternative theory that could possibly be factual. It also involves powerful actors (THE MEDIA! The DEMOCRATS! The election officials!! ALL ACTING TOGETHER!!!)
From Britannica... "Conspiracy theory, an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy...
The content of conspiracy theories is emotionally laden and its alleged discovery can be gratifying. The evidentiary standards for corroborating conspiracy theories are typically weak, and they are usually resistant to falsification. The survivability of conspiracy theories may be aided by psychological biases and by distrust of official sources."
As to your racist attempt (ie, an attempt that racists love and would promote, themselves) to call protests against police abuse of black citizens a "conspiracy theory..." your attempt fails.
Craig... "If a "conspiracy theory" is defined (even partly) by a belief in something that runs counter to the best available evidence. Or counter to a prevailing narrative. Then it doesn't seem out of line to call the belief that white cops are engaged in "genocide" against blacks"
First of all, a conspiracy theory is advocating non-factual claims. There HAS been systemic oppression of black folk by our justice and police system throughout much (all?) of our history in the US as it relates to policing. Policing in the south was largely an effort to keep slaves enslaved. Throughout the Jim Crow era, policing was used to oppress black citizens. Throughout our "war on drugs" policing has been used to imprison and oppress black citizens. Right into our lifetime, policing has had systemic remnants of the oppression of black citizens.
We have to begin this discussion by recognizing this reality. (And which undermines your half attempt to call work for justice in our policing a "conspiracy theory...")
Unfortunately, too many white conservatives (and sadly, too many white moderates and even liberals) are coming from a place of ignorance and privilege where it's been easier for us to always assume the best of our police systems.
Even when they strangle a man in the middle of the street. Even when they bust into an innocent woman's house and shoot her in her bedroom in the middle of the night.
Open your eyes and ears. Listen and read what black people are telling you.
I'm not going to parse Dan's 3:54 comment, as it completely misses the point I was making, and keeps repeating the narrative.
Dan's 2:26 comment bears a couple of responses.
1. This is a thread about the trial, and up to this point there has been no proof as to what factors caused Floyd's death.
2. Given that, I agree that it's incorrect to say categorically that Chauvin's actions "had nothing" to do with Floyd's death.
3. Therefore Glenn, is icorrect in his assertion as stated.
4. Dan, if only you were this concerned about Truth and precision in yourself and at your blog.
You are correct, Craig, if you meant to say that Glenn is INcorrect, which I think was your point (you have a typo on your "icorrect...")
But then, Craig, you also said that "up to this point there has been no proof as to what factors caused Floyd's death.
In fact, the experts involved (I know - groan! Experts! Who can trust them!?) have said that they DO know what factors caused Floyd's death - a knee on his neck, blocking the air, according to the experts involved in the investigation... Now, if we're just going to dismiss expert opinion for no reason, then I don't know what you should do. But reasonable people don't reject expert opinion with no cause.
But just to clear it up:
Glenn stated, falsely...
"Ergo, the police holding him down had nothing to do with his death"
The facts are...
"While George Floyd did have heart issues and drugs in his system,
it’s unknown whether those factors contributed to his death.
What we can verify is that autopsies,
including the official one conducted by Hennepin County,
showed Floyd was killed because Chauvin kept pressure on Floyd’s neck
that prevented him from breathing,
and the death was ruled a homicide.
Now the jury will decide whether Chauvin is guilty of murder or manslaughter"
https://www.king5.com/article/news/verify/chauvin-trial-drugs-heart-george-floyd-death/507-79911bcd-3cbe-44ee-8e44-30e00baf8010
Since Dan has, all of a sudden become obseseesd with nitpicking statemets for strict factuality, I feel like it's appropriate to hold him to the same standards he holds others to.
"The man died because a police officer choked him with his leg on Floyd's neck."
Actually, per the autopsy, Floyd did not die from being choked. He died from "Cardiopulmonary arrest". The fact that he had 11 mg/l of Fentanyl in his blood (more than 3x the lethal limit) can't be ignored as a contributing factor either.
"It's the recognition that time after time, police and police SYSTEMS have systemically harassed black men for what white men would not be bothered by."
That's all well and good. But in the US we don't prosecute people for acts that were committed by others. If you want to defend the DFL controlled city/county/state governments that have allowed and protected this allegedly "racist" system then go ahead and make that case. Hold those actually responsible accountable. But to suggest that Chauvin be prosecuted for the acts of others, is antithetical to the US justice system.
"We aren't that stupid to not see this racist, candy-ass bagpipe boy"
Oh look, Dan pulls out some particularly vile ad hominem attacks, and does so proudly.
"It's not just Chauvin who's on trial. White America is on trial. Our justice system is on trial. Glenn and Craig are on trial."
No, this is factually, legally, and theoretically incorrect and false. There is no provision on US law to try someone for the acts of thoughts/attitudes of others.
"Are you completely blind to the irony of speaking about the POOR OPPRESSED WHITE COPS who live in fear..."
Actually I wasn't referring to the cops at all. I was referring to the jurors, and those who live, work or own businesses in MPLS. But now that you mention it, no one (even cops) should live in fear of violent retribution for doing their job. (By doing their job, I am referring to enforcing the law, not going beyond the law)
"...while IGNORING the decades/centuries that black mothers have had to live with, for their sons and daughters going out while merely being black?"
Are you suggesting that supporting those who have inflicted this system on the people of MPLS for decades is ignoring the issue? I'd love to see those responsible for the system be held responsible.
"Do you not understand the tone-deafness of such whining?"
No, expressing concern for the jurors who've expressed concern for their safety after the trial doesn't seem tone deaf at all. Expressing concern for those whose livelihoods, homes, and neighborhoods will likely be destroyed again doesn't seem tone deaf. Expressing concern for the business owners and employees of the boarded up businesses, doesn't seem tone deaf at all. Jumping to false conclusions, that's cool, right?
Floyd was already dying from his overdose. THAT is what actually killed him. That is what the autopsy showed -- at least that is what I read about the autopsy.
That police hold has been used for a very long time and no one has before died during said hold. Floyd was high, and that was why he died.
Trabue:
We aren't that stupid to not see this racist, candy-ass bagpipe boy"
Not a racist bone in my body. I have forever declared one race -- the Human race. So you are a liar.
"candy-ass" -- what a cowardly name to call someone who you will never see in person and so don't have to worry about having your face bashed in.
And just what has the instrument I play have to do with anything?!?!?
These discussions Craig deals with, the abject stupidity and ignorance Dan continually displays, is why he has been banished from my blogs.
"What you are failing to understand is that we are judging against this system which has failed black Americans for hundreds of years."
No, I completely understand that you would like to see one person be punished for the "crimes" of others that occurred years ago. I understand that you (and others) have already determined Chauvin to be guilty of "murder" before the even presented the first bit of evidence at trial. I understand all of that very clearly.
I just find the concept of denying someone the due process they are guaranteed under the constitution, and trying to convict one person for the crimes of others, to be vile and disgusting.
Dan,
"(you have a typo on your "icorrect...")"
If you are going to play this petty, bullshit, game of pointing out typos, then just beware, I will gladly point out your frequent (and often incoherent) typos. I've tried to let them slide, but I'll gladly hold you to the same standard you try to hold me to.
"In fact, the experts involved (I know - groan! Experts! Who can trust them!?) have said that they DO know what factors caused Floyd's death - a knee on his neck, blocking the air, according to the experts involved in the investigation... Now, if we're just going to dismiss expert opinion for no reason, then I don't know what you should do. But reasonable people don't reject expert opinion with no cause."
Well, this is interesting. You've chosen to believe the "expert" hired by the family over the actual coroner. Well done. You do realize that this "expert" falsely claimed that there were "there is no other health issue that could cause or contribute to the death.". Yet we know that there were, an artery that was "75% blocked" and a lethal amount of fentanyl (and meth) in his bloodstream. But hey, that "expert" managed to get the family a 27 million dollar payday, so they got their money's worth from him, didn't they.
Here's what I've learned from this post.
1. Dan is wiling to see Chauvin convicted of crimes he didn't commit, and has already decided that he's guilty.
2. Art and Glenn to varying degrees have concluded that Chauvin is not guilty of any crime.
3. That Dan is prepared to engage in ad hominem attacks.
4. That Dan isn't as concerned about holding accountable those actually responsible for the decades of "systemic racism" as he is about convicting Chauvin, regardless of his actual responsibility.
5. It's likely that taking the course I'm trying to take (following the trial and commenting on both sides as equally as possible) has managed to piss of both sides.
6. Expressing concern for the jurors (and others) who are in fear for their safety is apparently "tone deaf".
7. Double standards are standard for some people.
Glenn,
1. Whether on not Floyd was dying from his OD is not as established as you might think it is. It's possible that he had built up a tolerance to levels of Fentanyl that would be lethal in others.
2. Having said that, it is impossible to completely disassociate the reactions of officer Chauvin, from the actions of Floyd. I think it's clear that Floyds actions (likely stemming from the fact that he was high) influenced Chauvin's reactions.
3. Yes that technique has a long and wide history. Unfortunately it's use has been a factor in other deaths involving the MPD. I'd argue that it's rational to conclude that the restraint was appropriate until the point when Floyd stopped resisting/moving.
You're so far wrong on your interpretation of almost everything I say, Craig. Pointing out the typo wasn't a criticism. I was trying to be helpful. I wasn't clear on what you were saying and I was trying to be clear that I wasn't clear. The reason I wasn't clear was because of the typo. Was the typo because you accidentally put the i there was the type of because you didn't put the "in" in? As I said it appeared you were saying incorrect, I just being cautious - NOT critical.
Same for, well, everything you say I'm saying. I give up..
Of course it wasn't. I completely understand how my use of the term incorrect in the bullet point prior to the misspelling would have added to your confusion.
Thank you so much for your concern, I'll be showing you the same concern going forward.
I'm glad I've given you the excuse you need to justify "giving up". It's just too bad that we all can't reach your level of near perfection. It must be nice to always be able to blame someone else.
Craig... "It's likely that taking the course I'm trying to take (following the trial and commenting on both sides as equally as possible) has managed to piss of both sides..."
Self proclaimed martyrs who are wishy-washy and feel attacked by both sides when they won't take a stand for actual facts (and who think that makes them impartial) are the worst.
Craig... "I think it's clear that Floyds actions (likely stemming from the fact that he was high) influenced Chauvin's reactions..."
And yet you fail to recognise hhow over a 100 years of racism and systemic oppression might also have influenced Floyd's actions. This white blindness is what you're failing to recognise and own up to.
OK, so I just talked to an "expert" with whom I've had a friendship for about 40 years or more. He just retired after 30 years in law enforcement, during which time he trained other cops in both the use of weapons and self-defense techniques, including various methods of restraining suspects. While he allows for the possibility that Chauvin's application of the legal, non-lethal neck restraint was less than perfect, from what he could see from the video, he saw no problem with Chauvin's technique and doesn't believe it likely to have played a role in Floyd's death. My own experience with self-defense also informs me as to how someone sounds when trying to speak while dealing with a properly applied choke hold or restraint. To block the air-flow severely inhibits one's ability to speak. What we heard on the video while Floyd was so restrained does not indicate he was being choked. The respiratory concerns are most likely (and I'm being cautious with such language, though not accurate with regards the reality of the situation) were the result of the amount of drugs in his system...a known direct physiological reaction, in fact.
Just to deal with a few of Craig's comments, I don't think either Glenn is pissed with regard to your efforts to remain objective, and I know I'm not at all upset by it, even if I believe corrections are in order (just sayin', not that they are). With regard to point 3 from April 2, 2021 at 10:18 AM, I would disagree given Floyd's behavior...as well as it's duration...that to release him from the restraint upon him ceasing his resistance may be premature. That is, how long must such a suspect behave in order to override concerns that he's just taking a breather hoping to get the cop to lighten up? This is to point out we're still just casual observers from afar, speculating from a video that is limited in presenting detail.
With regard to Floyd's experience with drug use, I'm not sure building up tolerance is consistent across all narcotics. I would caution that it's just as likely that a build up of damage that makes subsequent use more dangerous is just as likely, but I know no toxicologists in order to make inquiries with regard to such things. I believe on of the other cops on the scene referenced his behavior consistent with overdosing of Fentanyl, which led to two calls for an ambulance, with greater urgency for the second call.
Overall, based on what I know of neck restraints, as well as the info from a 30 year law enforcement veteran, as well as the totality of footage released to the public I have seen, I don't think it's a stretch to say the charges against Chauvin are at all warranted. Dan, being the racist, white-guilt chucklehead he insists on being, wants to believe this incident is typical of how black suspects are treated as opposed to white suspects. Until Dan can provide evidence comparing white suspects who resist arrest in a manner similar to the examples cited to justify rioting and accusations of racism in the police departments, his lamentations are crap. All we are justified in concluding MUST be limited to the facts of each individual case, and the facts to the extent that we, the general public, have been permitted to see do not justify the conclusion Dan insists is true. In short, Dan's a moron. History means nothing with regard to this specific case.
Dan,
If that assumption is true, then so what? Are you suggesting that things that happened to others in the past justify Floyd resisting lawful arrest? Are you suggesting that after ingesting a potentially lethal combination of meth and Fentanyl that Floyd was thinking clearly? If this hunch of yours is true, then why wasn’t Floyd’s companion also resisting arrest? Why was he not overcome with this fear of past actions? Why didn’t Chauvin kill him too?
The problem is that you’re projecting your hunches about things you’ve never experienced, onto people you’ve never met, and trying to pretend that your hunches are facts.
Speculate all you want, but to suggest that Chsuvin be convinced on this sort of amateur psychological guesswork is absurd.
Strangely enough, the fact that I’m trying to limit myself to the facts from the trial, somehow strikes Dan as wrong. I should drink from the well of his hunches and projections instead.
Art,
While the opinions of your friend are interesting, ultimately that’s an issue that will be decided at trial. I’m choosing to wait for that before going any further.
Craig,
By all means, I'm quite content with awaiting the facts and hope they actually get out and are considered objectively when all arguments are concluded. I'm only responding to what has been released to the public, as well as to the laughably moronic attempt to hang a guy before those facts are lawfully weighed at trial.
Personally, I'm truly angered by the release of any videos to the public, especially those taken by members of the public who hadn't begun filming early enough to provide context for what is seen by morons who will exploit what little is shown in order to riot, loot and destroy. Other morons will pretend it's an example of some unsupported position on the state of law enforcement where minority suspects are concerned.
Even with police body cams or dash cams, I don't know if they must be activated purposely and if so, they need to be far sooner in order to capture the entire context for their own sake as well as the sake of the suspect.
Craig,
Just to clarify: Nope, I'm not P.O.ed at all. Just sitting "listening and learning."
"Self proclaimed martyrs who are wishy-washy and feel attacked by both sides when they won't take a stand for actual facts (and who think that makes them impartial) are the worst."
This is funny coming from a guy who constantly whines about not being understood and who fails to provide any facts of his own. He's certainly produced none here.
"And yet you fail to recognise hhow over a 100 years of racism and systemic oppression might also have influenced Floyd's actions. This white blindness is what you're failing to recognise and own up to."
More comedy from the clown prince. Or maybe it's the typos and he needs to clarify.
How dismissive of this champion of the black race that he would suggest that black people are so obsessed with history as to have their judgement so distracted and their behavioral choices so impacted in such negative ways. With "friends" like Dan, who needs white supremacists? As James L. Riley would tell him, Stop Helping!
Craig... "somehow strikes Dan as wrong..."
Yes, because that is PRECISELY WHAT I SAID. I think it is WRONG to wait for facts from trials. I think people should be hung as soon as they're accused. You can tell that because that is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.
What a moron.
Craig...
"If that assumption is true, then so what? Are you suggesting that things that happened to others in the past justify Floyd resisting lawful arrest? Are you suggesting that after ingesting a potentially lethal combination of meth and Fentanyl that Floyd was thinking clearly? If this hunch of yours is true, then why wasn’t Floyd’s companion also resisting arrest? Why was he not overcome with this fear of past actions? Why didn’t Chauvin kill him too?"
ASK. BLACK. PEOPLE.
READ. BLACK. PEOPLE.
LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY.
Good God in heaven, have mercy on white fools, defenders of racists and the ignorant.
I'm trying to get you to understand two rules you should embrace, Craig.
1. USE YOUR HEAD. If you THINK that I have said something like, "I don't support fair trials..." USE YOUR HEAD. No, of course I don't think that. I didn't say it because I don't think it. IF you are reading something I've said that makes you think that... STOP. Use your head and don't say foolish shit.
2. Given your record for consistently misreading my words, you should probably assume that, if you're not going to use Rule 1 (Use your head), then embrace Rule 2: If I think Dan said something, it's almost certain I'm mistaken.
If you're mistaken something like 75-90% of the time (and I haven't tried to measure, but you almost certainly are), then reason and humility would counsel to just quit guessing what I'm thinking and decency would counsel you to stop making statements that are almost certainly wrong, statistically speaking.
"ASK. BLACK. PEOPLE. READ. BLACK. PEOPLE. LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY. Good God in heaven, have mercy on white fools, defenders of racists and the ignorant."
I'm asking you also. You're so confident that your hunch is correct, then why not answer?
1. I guess that fact that you've continually use language to indicate that you believe that Chuavin "executed" Floyd in furtherance of some "systemic racist" agenda, and that he's guilty of "murder or manslaughter" are confusing to those of us who realize that those are judgements for the jury after hearing all the evidence. Not some bozo on the internet. Also, I've pointed out that people on your ideological side of the fence are literally advocating for not having a trial.
2. Whatever you say. Given your extensive paraphrasing my words and twisting them to suit your purposes, I don't think you really have much room to complain when I quote you.
Please provide actual proof of your 75-90% claim.
Craig... "that he's guilty of "murder or manslaughter" are confusing to those of us who realize that those are judgements for the jury after hearing all the evidence."
No. You are conflating all of US who think jury should listen to the evidence and make a judgement, a group I am apart of as are all rational people, with those like you who can't understand simple words. OF course. Of course! Of course I think juries should listen to the evidence and make decisions based upon the evidence.
Read that again. Did you ever really doubte it? If you really doubted it, there's something wrong with your head.
Of course, of course! Of course I believe in a fair trial. Don't be a damned idiot. Don't be a goon.
Use the brain the God gave you to reason. Your conclusion is irrational. It's foolish. It's moronic. Don't make moronic decisions. Use your head. Come on. It's not that hard.
Really. Sounds like a "stupidly false claim" to me, especially given how your assessment of Dan's position aligns so closely to mine. I mean, good gosh...if saying Floyd was "executed" by Chauvin doesn't mean Chauvin isn't guilty in what in Dan's case passes for his own mind, what else could it mean? This is a typical case of Dan having an alternative interpretation...in this case of his own words...with no explanation for how our conclusions of his comments can't be drawn from his own words. He convicted Chauvin of a crime without the trial and the facts it might bring out.
If ever there was an ignorant, white racist fool on whom one might prevail upon God in Heaven for mercy, it's Dan.
Glenn... ""candy-ass" -- what a cowardly name to call someone who you will never see in person and so don't have to worry about having your face bashed in."
Hm. It's telling that we're talking about concerns about racism and Dan expressing contempt for those who are not willing to listen to black people or engage In the struggle for Justice, and all Glenn can do is fantasize about assaulting someone. Instead of humility and repentance, Glenn's mind turns to violence.
Candy ass - a term expressing contempt for a cowardly and delicate person living in a world of privilege.
Here's the thing - Glenn, you could say your disturbing words and privileged, emotional opinions about George Floyd or about black lives matter at a KKK rally and you'd get great waves of cheers.
BUT you couldn't say such words at a BLM rally and if you did, they would not be celebrated. Moreover, you wouldn't even try to say such words at a BLM rally. Even though BLM is dedicated to fighting injustice and started about concerns for black lives, you almost certainly have never attended BLM rally or reached out to BLM groups to try to understand. Am I right?
That is the world of privilege you live in, candy ass boy. One detached from the real struggles for Justice and real concerns about oppression.
And on that day, Jesus will say to those on his left, depart for me cursed ones. For I was a stranger, I was hungry, I was imprisoned... And you did nothing.
If that’s the case then why claim that Chaivin “executed” Floyd and announce that all the jury has to do is choose which charge to find him guilty of?
Oh look, Dan’s misusing Matt 25 again.
Hm. It's telling that we're talking about concerns about racism and Dan expressing contempt for those who are not willing to listen to black people or engage In the struggle for Justice, and all Glenn can do is fantasize about assaulting someone. Instead of humility and repentance, Glenn's mind turns to violence.
You name-calling had nothing to do with concerns about racism, etc. It was all about insulting a person of whom you know absolutely nothing about his ideology in regards to race. Your attack on me was okay, but my stating your being a coward because your attack would normally be returned with an attack was "violence." You sit there at your computer immune to any retribution from people you slander/libel with impunity. You put your hypocritical self up on a throne unjustly judging everyone around you while you, like every other LEFTIST, do your best to foment division. You are the one with absolutely NO humility. And in the context of this string, just what is it I’m supposed to repent of?
“Candy ass” is a derisive term suggesting one is a weak and whiny wormy person and has nothing to do with “living in a world of privilege.” And I’m still looking for my “white privilege.”
You and your ilk keep using that word, “privilege,” by assigning a definition to it that was never there. To your racists group of LEFTISTS every white person is privileged. Speaking/writing factual information is not “privilege,” and your continuous libel by designating me a racist is typical of your ilk where everything is racist. It’s another word for which you have no understanding of reality.
I would never go to a BLM rally because BLM is a racist and Marxist organization bent on the destruction of America, and anyone objecting to their ideology/agenda is a target for destruction. They are NOT fighting for justice and if they really cared about black lives then they would quit making fatherless families and quit murdering black children in the womb, and they’d stop murdering each other in the big cities.
You have no idea who Jesus is, you fraud.
"Dan expressing contempt for those who are not willing to listen to black people or engage In the struggle for Justice,..."
This is quite a claim, care to provide proof?
" evidenced yet again in this daylight execution of a black man who should be alive today if he hadn't encountered our "justice" system."
Execution- 1. the carrying out or putting into effect of a plan, order, or course of action.
2. the carrying out of a sentence of death on a condemned person.
Let"s start with Dan's use of the term execution. As anyone can see the actions of Chauvin fit neither definition of the word "execution". Given that, one wonders what Dan intended to convey by his use of the term.
Let's also look at "encountered the justice system". It's not like Floyd was innocently wandering down the street here. He literally brought the justice system into the picture by his actions, and he affected the trajectory of that interaction by his actions. To pretend otherwise is simply to intentionally avoid reality.
"First of all, a conspiracy theory is advocating non-factual claims."
A non factual claim like the claim that the police are engaged in "genocide" against black people, or a non factual claim like "hands up, don't shoot"?
https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/is-derek-chauvin-a-racist-murderer?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxNjMxOTg4LCJwb3N0X2lkIjozNDcwNTU3NSwiXyI6ImhhR3ZIIiwiaWF0IjoxNjE3NDAyOTkxLCJleHAiOjE2MTc0MDY1OTEsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0yNzIyMzQiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.tyTgp7kabtvQgT5phegcjm-I2RjvewKqvrDZi7s_ruk
"These facts lead to a conclusion that makes many very uncomfortable: that George Floyd did not die because he was black."
"Say Chauvin gets what he deserves, and it is part of a gradual reform of the cops’ getting away with the murder of just people, as opposed to black people. If it took a misperception of cop murders as racist to make that happen, then maybe that’s how making an omelette requires cracking some eggs."
So, when I listen to John McWhorter (a black person), I find an interesting contradiction of Dan. McWhorter admits that the data tells us that the "white cops engaging in genocide narrative is false). Then he admits that he doesn't care if Chauvin get's convicted because of a false narrative. Essentially that the ends justify the means, and if Chauvin gets screwed in the process then he's not that concerned.
You know it's bad when liberal blacks disagree with Dan.
Dan continues to insist that we don't listen to black people. What he's really saying is that we don't buy in to what certain black people are saying, so therefore we're not listening. He'll whine about me daring to insist I can state "what he's really saying" better than he can, but his words again provoke this obvious conclusion. It's how he rolls. Both Craig and I have listed many black people who are staunchly in opposition to the black people Dan insists are more worthy of our attention, support and alignment. But those black people are greatly lacking in evidence for their positions, whereas those we present are wholly compelled by evidence they freely and eagerly cite. Thus, so are we.
BLM is unworthy of anyone's support, as they are absolutely NOT working towards justice of any kind, social or otherwise. They are becoming fabulously wealthy due to the support of cowardly sheep like Dan, who are easily persuaded by accusations of racism were they to reject BLM demands. They can lie about me being a racist all they like...Dan and his troll certainly do...but I don't care. Liars don't matter. BLM is the last thing the black community needs. Any organization that exploits the deaths or injuries of thugs in order to promote their lies will never do any good for those they seek to lure with those lies.
"First of all, a conspiracy theory is advocating non-factual claims."
That's Dan in a nutshell.
I am well aware that you are comfortable listening to black people (a tiny minority) who agree with you. I'm suggesting you step beyond that. Listen to BLM.
How often have you read what those advocates for justice have to say? Have you read their books, listened to them? Have you, God forbid, engaged with them to say you DO support black lives and want to learn from them?
Craig... "Dan’s misusing Matt 25 again."
Matthew 25, Jesus affirming that those who look after the poor, the marginalized, the strangers, the oppressed, the sick... that people who align with the poor and marginalized (along with Jesus) ARE following in Jesus' steps and the realm of God.
Black folk and poor black folk ARE part of the poor and marginalized in our nation, as a matter of historical policy.
HOW precisely is that "misusing Matt 25..."? Oh, wait. It's not.
Oh, look, Craig's abusing the Bible again, trying to make it a conservative document and cage his god in a little conservative cage.
Art,
My problem is that I do listen to black people and I hear them say things that lead me to conclude that they aren't as monolithic as Dan might like to think. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to count much in Dan's world. Hell, I've been posting all sorts of black voices for around a year, but Dan still insists that I don't listen to black voices.
Of course, I usually read black writings, but still...
"I am well aware that you are comfortable listening to black people (a tiny minority) who agree with you."
Then by all means, prove this claim. I'll wait.
"I'm suggesting you step beyond that. Listen to BLM."
I listened to BLM all last summer you idiot. It was impossible not to.
My problem is that I have listened to BLM. I've listened to them build their empire on a false narrative, and I've listened to them raise tens of millions of dollars, for which they have given no accounting, and certainly haven't spent on helping the families of the victims. My problem isn't that I don't listen to BLM, it's that I've heard too much from BLM. Of course the fact that I regularly post things from black voices that I don't agree with gets ignored.
"How often have you read what those advocates for justice have to say?"
I don't keep score of things like this, but much more than you think I do.
"Have you read their books, listened to them?"
More articles, blogs, and podcasts than books, but the answer is yes. Unless you're going to try some "only books count" bullshit. Of course, I could ask you the same questions, and I have, you just proudly refuse to read books from those who don't agree with you. I'm guessing that you haven't actually read a single book or article by Meyers, in it's entirety. So, how about you live up to the standards you try to put on others?
"Have you, God forbid, engaged with them to say you DO support black lives and want to learn from them?"
Yes. But you'll keep lying about it anyway.
Craig... "Yes. But you'll keep lying about it anyway."
Do tell. I'd love to hear how it went. What DID you learn? Did you learn from them that they built their "Empire on a false narrative..."? They TOLD you that?
OR, As with me, did you listen to their words and did NOT say they built their empire on a false narrative and you re interpreting that to mean that this is what they did?
How much must one read to ignore the marxist, racist ramblings of a marxist, racist organization?
Dan's gripe is bullshit and projection. Rather than take this tack, he might want to actually argue something specific about the organization, rather than some incredible generality that might fit absolutely anyone in how superficial it is. BLM doesn't do jack for those who are truly in need. They focus on their racist narrative and are everything Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson only dreamed of being...none of it good.
No they didn’t tell me that, they told me about their founding impetus, and I was able to research of the black voices who told me their founding narrative was false. Unfortunately they won’t tell anyone where the vast amounts of money they raised go.
So, you literally did NOT listen to BLM, beyond hearing enough to decide they were liars, is that what you are saying?
Yeah, it makes perfect sense that the hoodwinked would admit they were hoodwinked. If one believes a false narrative, they will speak of it as truth...much like what Dan does on almost every issue. We know it's a false narrative because all actual evidence indicates that to be the truth. I'm speaking of the stats related to police shootings, how most blacks are murdered by other blacks at a far higher rate than by cops of any color, and a host of other measurable claims that don't align with the false narrative bolstered by anecdotal stories containing only the version told by one person involved in a situation with no response by those accused in the story. The "hands up, don't shoot" lie is one example of this phenomenon. It never happened, but was believed by so many who wanted it to be true, even after learning of the facts. And these are the people Dan wants us to give not only an ear, but all our belief. Not gonna happen. I'll withhold judgement until actual evidence is presented.
"So, you literally did NOT listen to BLM, beyond hearing enough to decide they were liars..."
Dan literally did NOT listen to Trump beyond hearing enough to decide he was lying.
The main motivating factor behind the forming of BLM was the false narratives surrounding the deaths of various thugs resulting from their own choice to resist arrest or ignore lawful commands from cops doing their duty. Beginning with the Ferguson MO incident...or possibly Trayvon Martin...they intentionally framed these events as innocent blacks targeted by racist cops in order to push the false narrative of a systemically racist system. If that were the only lies they told, that would be quite enough to regard them as beneath contempt and wholly unworthy of support. It doesn't matter how many buy into the narrative. All that matters us what is true and can be proven true. BLM exploits tragedy to enflame passions for profit and power. They have great appeal among white guilt morons.
"So, you literally did NOT listen to BLM, beyond hearing enough to decide they were liars, is that what you are saying?"
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. That's some more bullshit you just made up.
No, I’m saying that by reading every (now hidden) word from their website, multiple articles by their founders, and multiple other sources, I concluded that they founded their organization on a false narrative and that they are incredibly secretive about the tens of millions of dollars they’ve raised. Please, keep up the lies. It’s amusing to see you wallow in your prejudices and preconceptions.
Post a Comment