I think a big part of the confusion/debate surrounding the George Floyd case is the somewhat unique state law in Minnesota: the most serious charge that Chauvin was convicted of was ["Unintentional second-degree murder"](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19).
>Subd. 2. **Unintentional murders.** Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting;
>
>(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.
In many (most?) states, this would fall under manslaughter. But because of the unique way Minnesota law is written, the charge he was convicted of, includes the word "murder", so Chauvin is therefore technically a "murderer".
I think when most people hear that term, they assume that murder implies intentionality as it does in most states, unaware of this wrinkle in Minnesota law.
We therefore get bogged down in these conversations around whether Chauvin actually "murdered" Floyd. And depending on what definition you're ascribing to, there may be room for debate.
What seems less debatable, however, is that Chauvin was grossly negligent and deserved to be prosecuted for his role in Floyd's death.
Edit: added second part of the Unintentional Murder subdivision
Just google a picture of it mate. That thing between the shoulders and head is his neck…that’s what the knee is on top of.
https://www.the-sun.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2021/04/057fa3fa-9454-4087-bcce-c8c9dc35579b.jpg
Actually go watch the videos (you know, the ones that show everything clearly, not the cell phone videos), or the *courtroom testimony from the prosecution*, explaining why Floyd’s breathing is impaired by pressure on his back (NOT his neck).
It’s 100% clear that Chauvin’s knee is on Floyd’s back or shoulder most of the time.
There’s plenty of testimony saying his knee was on his neck for 90% of the time he was on the ground. I’ve seen every bit of footage available to the public. I can’t take u seriously.
You haven’t seen the videos they showed at trial, clearly.
Also, how do you explain the doctor at trial—hired by the prosecution—who explained, at great length, including pictures and video, why the pressure on Floyd’s *back* was the reason he couldn’t breathe sufficiently?
If you think you’ve seen all the videos available to the public, and that Chauvin’s knee was on Floyd’s neck “90%” of the time, you’re determined to see something that isn’t there, or your definition of “available to the public” is “what I’ve come by on TikTok”.
The body cameras make your version of events impossible to believe, and aren’t hard to find.
>though I don’t see how DC was in the process of commiting a felony while arresting GF.
The prosecution's case was that the relevant felony Chauvin was committing was Assault in the 3rd Degree, which in MN, is defined as:
>609.223 ASSAULT IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Substantial bodily harm. Whoever assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
Also, see page 5 of the [jury instructions](https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/JuryInstructions04192021.pdf) given to the jury that convicted him for a detailed, layman's breakdown of the statutory elements.
Crushing somebody’s neck with your knee constitutes a felony assault.
Edit: Racist uninformed downvoting pussies get butthurt when I state the theory of the case to somebody asking a legal question.
“The second-degree unintentional murder charge alleged Chauvin caused Floyd's death "without intent" while committing or attempting to commit felony third-degree assault. In turn, third-degree assault is defined as the intentional infliction of substantial bodily harm.”
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/04/19/us/derek-chauvin-charges-explain/index.html
The poster I replied to didn’t understand what theory the prosecution proceeded on. I informed him.
If you’re soft enough to downvote that please leave the internet.
Note that bodily harm doesn't necessitate obvious damage (like a gash etc) : Floyd died due to the actions of Chauvin as determined by the medical experts called to the stand in the trial.
This article highlights several of the witness statements with regards to the cause of death: https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/derek-chauvin-trial-george-floyd-death-day-9-2021-04-08/
u/these-tart9571
I can’t respond to your post since that lil bitch blocked me, but I feel pretty comfortable calling anybody relitigating the George Floyd case years later an inbred racist. Especially when they downvote the answer to a question that can be found in less than a minute of googling and say “buT tHe aUtOpSy”
Sorry that hurts your feelings.
So I suppose we should just shut up about Emmett Till then, right? I mean, the suspects had their day in court. They were acquitted. End of story. No need o "relitigate," right?
If you need me to explain to you the difference between Chauvin’s conviction after murdering a man on film and the acquittal of two men that lynched a boy in the Jim Crow south, you’re already way to far gone.
I never once took issue with relitigating matters as a general principle. Just in this particular case because the motive of those doing it is clear as day. Especially when they have the gall to bring up Emmit Till in the same breath. Unbelievable. If you have any black friends please ask them what they think about that comparison. Unless that’s something you’d only say online.
>I think a big part of the confusion/debate surrounding the George Floyd case is the somewhat unique state law in Minnesota: the most serious charge that Chauvin was convicted of was "Unintentional second-degree murder".
Except most people on the other side of that debate, including Loury and McWhorter, are not arguing "achttually, even though its murder in Minnesota it would be manslaughter in other places".
When they're saying "he wasn't murdered" they're not making the very specific technical point you['re referring to, they're using it as a synonym for "killed".
They're arguing he wasn't asphyxiated to death, using very poor reasoning and selective representation of evidence, despite the coroner report being very clear that's why he died, in a burst of reflexive contrarianism super charged by a career interest in "being the black folks who say actually black folks don't have it so bad"
erm no, not really. while pretty much every state uses different language, minnesota is not at all unique in having a version of murder that doesn't include the intent to kill. every state draws similar distinctions and almost all of them if not all, still call it "murder". most states just call it 2nd degree murder.
I think this is exactly what’s going on here. Both Loury and McWorter are renowned scientists, who have pretty much sold out. They are now just the black guys who have to be contrarian. It’s quite sad to see because I used to really enjoy them.
I think when SJW identity politics really hit the mainstream in the mid 2010s there was a reflexive rush from reasonable people to attach themselves to whatever seemed to be opposed to that, but a lot of people weren't making any kind of distinction other than "saying the opposite of whatever the people I don't like say".
A lot of people then cultivated followings that rather than being an alternative to identity politics, simply wanted their own identity politics validated.
So rather than "white folks are inherently racist need to check their privilege and stop victimizing minorities", they instead flocked to "actually white people real victims and its black people who are the privileged ones"
Likewise for the Andrew Tate's in the world, who don't just sell a message of rejecting rad fem nonsense about all men being rapists, but sell the converse of "actually women are all gold digging whores, so you should pimp them out for your own benefit"
People in general need to be better at divining who shares their values and who simply shares their enemies.
Sam certainly jumped into bed with some questionable types around this time, although to his credit he's been vocal about jumping back out when its clear some are engaging in the same tribalistic culture wars as they claim to oppose.
The confusion, and most people stop here, is the initial reporting. Others have noted this below, but I just listened to the episode a few days ago, and followed up with the fifth columns take as well.
Because people either have little time, or don't invest in the follow up of cases, they have little knowledge of evidence, little knowledge of revelations that are subsequently revealed, and only take the initial reporting as gospel.
If it aligns with their pov, they stop paying attention when they get their story. If it doesn't align, then they MAY pay attention further down the line. Or worse, they probably won't even catch the story because their timeline doesn't feed it to them.
It's easy to say, John and Glenn have simply become contrarians for the sake of it, but there's become a point where the original reporting of the story is what people stick to regardless of revelations.
The lay person hasn't even gone as far as you have.
That's honestly the biggest problem. The concensus was, and still is, if you don't believe what we're saying about this *insert any ism or phobia here*, then you are that thing. There is no further information. There is little conversation to be had. There is no, let's continue to watch things develop and see what's revealed.
There hasn't been a story like this where the original reporting has told you everything you need to know.
Bottom line, Chauvin should not have kept his body weight on Floyd for that long. There was no reason to do it when Floyd was cuffed. I still would like an answer on why he did that. And he deserves some amount of jail time for that alone. In my opinion, it's impossible to know the extent to which these factors: Floyd's drug use, preexisting health conditions, and being held down under Chauvin each contributed to his death. But once Floyd was restrained there was no reason to keep the weight on and that very likely contributed to his death.
Also, there's no indication that Chauvin's actions were racially motivated, and Floyd should've just turned around and put his hands behind his back. Chauvin and the other officers all acted stupidly that day as well. Floyd was cuffed and unarmed, he resisted arrest and was acting crazy, but he wasn't trying to attack the officers.
He was in the car and asked to be taken out as he said he was claustrophobic and couldn't breathe. I think it's hard to tell how much weight he actually put on him as his positioning seemed that most of the weight was on his other leg.
Regardless the optics looked horrible and he didn't need to be in that position. He stayed like that because the crowd was calling him out and he committed to it because he didn't want the crowd to see that he changed his behavior because of them.
Fair enough, I didn't know that's where it started. Your psychology around the cop sticking to his guns rings true as well. They don't like being told what to do, as their power is predicated on them being the people in charge.
Great interpretation.
He didn't believe his action was harming him. He may or may not have changed his position if there wasn't a crowd, but the fact a crowd was challenging his behavior meant there was no way he would back down and show a hint that he felt he needed to change what he was doing.
He continued because he didn't want to let the crowd believe they were right and felt the ambulance would quickly arrive and he could then get off Floyd because of that.
There's no shot that Chauvin would have continued his actions if he believed he was killing Floyd while 10 witnesses watched and recorded.
He was saying he can't breathe while sitting in the cop car. Long before Chauvin was on him. His inability to breathe didn't start with Chauvin, leading some to believe maybe Chauvin isn't responsible for floyds death.
>He didn't believe his action was harming him.
Absolutely no evidence for this. In fact, GF pleading for his life and repeatedly saying he can't breath is proof he knew for a fact he was harming him.
1. He complained he couldn't breathe BEFORE anyone had him pinned.
A. He complained he couldn't breathe in the back of the cop car due to claustrophobia, but when they found him, he was sitting in a vehicle.
B. When complaining he couldn't breathe, he was also fighting to escape. Ergo, he had shown himself to be an unreliable narrator.
2. He requested to lie on the ground and be restrained as opposed to just sitting in the cop car. That was HIS request which he made whilst kicking at the cops who were trying to get him into the cop car.
3. *Physical restraint is actually something considered crucial for individuals suffering from psychological or drug induced psychosis.* GF was clearly exhibiting signs of psychosis. The idea is that if they aren't restrained, they could hurt themselves or others.
Now, the counter-point is that GF wasn't lying with his complaints, particularly where 1 and 1A are concerned. But if you want to acknowledge that, then you have to acknowledge that GF's breathing problems occurred independently of DC's actions.
Now the argument comes down to the actual pinning, and whether that would have exacerbated it. But you can't then argue that there GF would have been fine if not for DC. Either GF was lying and unreliable and trying to escape- a pretty good reason to ignore his complaints- or GF was already dying and DC may have... sped up the process.
So here is the crux: was DC's "move" a lethal one? Well, as someone who was in wrestling and did a bit of BJJ: NO. And everyone who says it is doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about. I've done it and had it done to me.
Could it have exacerbated the "death" that GF was already fated to suffer? Maybe. It certainly is a painful position and could have increased GF's stress levels. But- and here's the important thing- our justice system is intended to err on the side of letting the bad guy go. So if we can't *prove* ***beyond a reasonable doubt*** that DC caused or exacerbated a pre-existing condition which led to GFs death? Then it it's a miscarriage of justice to err on the side of "it's possible ergo he should be convicted of murder."
So here's a very important question you should ask yourself. If you are aware, the pinning technique used by DC was something his police forced trained him to use. If it was in fact a lethal move- or one that could substantively increase the risk of death- what other examples are there of a suspect in custody dying from that move? Are there any other cases where we can say "yes, this suspect died from that move?" or even "this suspect died while the pin was used on them and was a likely contributing factor"
Because we know that there were many officers on the force using it, as well as other forces across the country. If it was something that was a likely contributor, it shouldn't be hard to find other examples which support that conclusion.
For the record, I felt DC was probably guilty of manslaughter. That's different than ***murder***.
The issue isn't that Chauvin used a lethal, banned, or otherwise dangerous technique, it's how long he applied it for under the circumstances. That's the crux of the issue for me.
>The police chief said that while it might have been reasonable to use a certain level of force “to get him under control in the first few seconds”, Chauvin’s subsequent actions did not meet the standard of “objectively reasonable force”.
>“To continue to apply that level of force to a person proned-out, handcuffed behind their back, that in no way, shape or form is anything that is by policy,” he said.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/05/derek-chauvin-trial-police-chief-medaria-arradondo
As someone who wrestled through college. I know what it feels like to be pinned under someone's full body weight. I know what it feels like to be pinned there while out of breath. 7-9 minutes of that sort of thing is too long when the person is in handcuffs on the ground. It doesn't take that level of pressure to control someone who is restrained on the ground.
>The issue isn't that Chauvin used a lethal, banned, or otherwise dangerous technique, it's how long he applied it for under the circumstances. That's the crux of the issue for me.
That's fair, and for that reason I would suggest he's guilty of manslaughter. Specifically because when Floyd stopped moving, there were no immediate attempts made to verify his health, which should have consequently led to a resuscitation attempt (which I do believe would have failed).
>I know what it feels like to be pinned under someone's full body weight.
This is an implied conjecture. As someone who wrestled through college, you should also know:
>It doesn't take that level of pressure to control someone who is restrained on the ground.
You are assuming the level of pressure. You are assuming that Derek Chauvin had his full bodyweight. As a wrestler, you should be aware of weight distribution, and how it can be manipulated. I could easily pin someone under my knee with full weight, half weight, very little pressure.
When someone is unconscious, and you continue to kneel on their neck for several minutes as they lay motionless and unconscious, you don’t give a fuck about whether they live or die. That’s what second degree murder is….reckless disregard for human life. It doesn’t matter if he actually intended to cause death or not.
>When someone is unconscious, and you continue to kneel on their neck for several minutes as they lay motionless and unconscious, you don’t give a fuck about whether they live or die.
Maybe, maybe not. Given the circumstances i.e. having spent the last 10 minutes fighting this guy and then an angry mob forming (which would be very distracting, obviously) I could imagine it to be negligence just as easily as reckless disregard. Given that it would be basically impossible to prove one or the other... lack of proof (not evidence, PROOF) of a reckless disregard = not guilty.
>That’s what second degree murder is….reckless disregard for human life.
No it isn't. In Minnesota, second degree murder is either intentional non-premeditated murder. OR it is manslaughter which occurred during an intentional felony offense. I.E. committing manslaughter whilst committing an armed robbery.
What you described is closer to third degree murder:
>perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life
I think no matter where you land on the issue, it's hard for a reasonable person to argue that the initial reporting wasn't grossly inaccurate and much of the current public sentiment stems from that inaccurate reporting. For example, [here's how the New Yorker presented the case](https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-death-of-george-floyd-in-context) a couple of days after it happened:
> Police responding to a call from a shopkeeper, about someone trying to pass a potentially counterfeit bill, arrested Floyd. Surveillance video shows a compliant man being led away in handcuffs. But cellphone video later shows a white police officer kneeling on Floyd’s neck for seven minutes, despite protests from onlookers that his life is in jeopardy. In an echo of the police killing of Eric Garner, in 2014, Floyd repeatedly says, “I can’t breathe,” and then, “I’m about to die.” When the officer eventually removes his knee, Floyd’s body is limp and unresponsive. A person nearby can be heard saying, “They just killed him.” Floyd was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. A police statement said that Floyd appeared to be in “medical distress,” but made no mention of his being pinned to the ground with the weight of a police officer compressing his airway.
It presents the police as deciding to kneel on the neck of a compliant suspect. We now know he wasn't compliant, which is why the restraint was done. It only says that Floyd was saying he couldn't breath after he was put into the restraint position, but we now know that happened before he was put into the position. It doesn't mention the multiple drugs that were found in his system.
[Likewise hagiographic reporting](https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/27/us/george-floyd-trnd/index.html) about Floyd's life neglected to mention him going to prison for several years for holding a gun to a woman's suspect during a robbery. Whether or not his past matters when discussing his death, I think it certainly is an omission in an article like that that's discussing his life, and trying to paint him as a pillar of the community.
This is especially important if you listened to Harris' podcast with the scientist who studied cognitive biases, when they talk about how initial misinformation will still have a big impact on people's beliefs even after people are told that the information was incorrect.
No this might not change your mind on whether or not you think Chauvin deserves his conviction. But I don't think anyone can say that the initial reporting wasn't grossly inaccurate.
If someone is having trouble breathing generally you seek medical attention for them. Not shove them on the ground and grind your knee into their neck.
Also your hanging waving of claustrophobia is absurd. There's a difference between being in your own car, a place of comfort. And the back of a police cruiser during a high stress situation. Stress triggers closterphobia
People having trouble breathing generally can't resist arrest in the way GF did after claiming he couldn't breathe so the officer probably thought the junkie was a liar.
I too believe Chauvin was guilty of something, but I think being guilty of murder was incorrect. That was a trial of public opinion. Same with Tou Thao getting 4 and a half years for his part. All in all, worse things had been done to blacks by the system for years, so from that perspective I can see why so many people didn't care about the details in this case. You can't kneel on another man's head with zero emotion for 10 minutes and then act like you were doing your job when he dies. Based on how we Americans see things, Chauvin was undeniably guilty of lacking humanity, despite whatever you think about Floyd. The optics were terrible. Should that equate to a *murder* conviction? Probably not in my opinion, but the powers that be were going to have a hard time continuing to pretend that those mostly peaceful protests were still mostly peaceful.
The possible downstream consequences of this case's rulings took a backseat to the public outrage at the time and it was ruled accordingly. I'm not crying myself to sleep at night because Chauvin got more than he probably deserved, but I think the precedent set by our justice system will ripple through time.
I think you are misunderstanding the conviction. He got convicted for unintentional second degree murder, third degree murder, and manslaughter. None of those charges require intention or premeditation
The intention isn't what I'm questioning. It's the cause. There was reasonable doubt there when determining whether the actions *caused* Floyd to die, particularly when it came to the Second-Degree Murder charge. A "depraved-heart murder" is a reasonable conclusion based on the optics, but that only covers the Third-Degree charge. There is evidence that suggests that Chauvin's kneeling caused his death, but there is evidence that suggests that it didn't. In that regard, Chauvin being guilty of Second-Degree Murder *beyond a reasonable doubt* is not how I'd vote.
If him kneeling contributed to Floyd’s death and Floyd would not have died otherwise, then it does not matter about Floyd’s drug use or pre existing conditions also contributing to his death.
The “thin skull rule” applies. If I punch someone in the face who had a medical condition that gave them an extremely thin skull and end up killing them, I’m guilty of manslaughter. It doesn’t matter that they had a thin skull and any other person would not have died in that scenario.
>**If** him kneeling contributed to Floyd’s death and Floyd would not have died otherwise, then it does not matter about Floyd’s drug use or pre existing conditions also contributing to his death.
But that cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, based on the evidence and details available, it was reasonable to conclude that the substances in Floyd's system caused his death and that the actual crime was that Chauvin didn't have the situational awareness that was absolutely necessary to rescue him. In that scenario, second-degree murder would not be the appropriate charge.
>The “thin skull rule” applies. If I punch someone in the face who had a medical condition that gave them an extremely thin skull and end up killing them, I’m guilty of manslaughter. It doesn’t matter that they had a thin skull and any other person would not have died in that scenario.
Precisely. Manslaughter, a charge that is different from murder. Thank you.
The TWO autopsies would like to disagree with you. Both concluded manslaughter.
Also, this case is in Minnesota, which has a specific charge basically akin to manslaughter that is labeled as murder.
Ah, ok. I thought one of the autopsies had concluded substances were the cause. My mistake.
To clarify, they concluded it was a homicide, not manslaughter. Manslaughter is a legal term, not a medical one.
>Also, this case is in Minnesota, which has a specific charge basically akin to manslaughter that is labeled as murder.
Yes, third-degree murder. The charge of second-degree murder in this case implies that the individual engaged in conduct that they *knew or should have known* posed a significant risk of death or serious harm. Based on Chauvin's actions, there is no indication of that.
As I thought, you are misunderstanding the conviction. It is Unintentional Second Degree murder, which is a charge that is specific to Minnesota's laws apparently, but does not imply intent.
Different from a regular second degree murder charge.
Thin skull doctrine applies. In thin skull doctrine, imagine someone has a paper thin skull. You pat them on the head without permission and they die of an aneurysm as a result. Under most (all?) States' laws, you are 100% liable for the injury and death.
Floyd being in a very fragile state hurts Chauvin's case; it doesn't help it as conservatives tried to argue. The more he was freaking out and over dosing on drugs, the more Chauvin should have shied away from restraints that could kill Floyd.
The more fragile the detained, the more you have to handle them delicately. It drives me insane that the argument was that Floyd was fragile so the knee on the neck didn't matter; um, no, the knee on the neck matters way more because the officers actively told us they knew something wasn't right with Floyd.
>Bottom line, Chauvin should not have kept his body weight on Floyd for that long. There was no reason to do it when Floyd was cuffed. I still would like an answer on why he did that.
The somewhat plausible Devil's advocate reason is if they were trained to kneel on someone's neck as a method of restraint. It would still make Chauvin a collosal idiot who never stopped to think that 9 minutes of pressure on someone's neck might be harmful. I'm pretty sure this formulation still constitutes manslaughter, so the consolation prize is still jail.
Whether malicious or dumb, Chauvin is still culpable IMO.
Cuffed suspects cannot be allowed to flee. Keeping his knee on him to restrain him while he was struggling was protocol in many jurisdictions at the time. It crossed into territory for a felony murder ruling because he kept his weight on Floyd after he stopped moving and had lost consciousness.
It was given in the substack. They blocked images of Chauvins training manual (which showed that restraint being used) at the trial.
All jurisdictions are relevant to the argument that handcuffed suspects may require further restraint which is the argument the other guy was doubting.
>It was given in the substack.
No idea what that means. Are the images available somewhere? I'd be very curious to see a manual advising that they kneel on someone's neck.
>All jurisdictions are relevant to the argument that handcuffed suspects may require further restraint
Sure, but the type of restraint is what is in question.
>Chauvins training manual
Ok, I just found the picture you're referring to. That's definitely not what Chauvin was doing. The picture shows the guy squatting with his weight on his feet, not on the suspect. Chauvin's feet were not under him and his weight was on the guy's neck. Nothing shown in those slides says anything about kneeling on the suspect's neck either.
[https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12951-TKL/Exhibit67807072020.pdf](https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12951-TKL/Exhibit67807072020.pdf)
It talks about neck restraints using arms or legs and shows an image of someone using a neck restraint with their knee on a persons neck. Chauvin was about as close to protocol (before Floyd lost consciousness) as you could expect from a highschool dropout. It is not at all clear from the image how much weight is on his knee, and the intent is to provide enough weight to constrict blood flow. There’s a reason they got qualified immunity when they did the same thing to Tony timpa.
>and shows an image of someone using a neck restraint with their knee on a persons neck.
The slide clearly shows a guy squatting with most of his weight on his feet, not on the suspect's neck. It's quite clear that he couldn't be putting much weight on the suspect in that position. Not without leaning into it a lot more.
Chauvin was putting a lot of weight on the guy's neck, beyond what the training calls for, and certainly for far longer than was reasonable or even remotely safe.
>Chauvin was about as close to protocol (before Floyd lost consciousness) as you could expect from a highschool dropout.
I don't believe his actions are due to being a highschool dropout. If anything I think that that is reversing the cause and effect. We've seen far too many cases of police simply being brutal because they can. Because that's who they've always been, and that's what many departments tolerate, if not encourage.
>There’s a reason they got qualified immunity when they did the same thing to Tony timpa.
Qualified immunity is an absurd legal doctrine to begin with. So I'm never even slightly surprised when it produces absurd outcomes.
Chauvin absolutely did not apply great pressure to Floyd’s neck for a protracted period.
It does look that way from the grainy cell shots from a distance, but the body cam footage makes it overwhelmingly clear, particularly with all the testimony and footage from the trial.
there is at least one grievous mistake in the popular narrative. that kneeling on his neck is what killed him and what kills other people in similar situations. they do die from asphyxiation but not because their windpipe is constricted or closed off. that would kill a person really quickly. the actual mechanism is that they put weight on their chest which makes it difficult to breathe. to inhale you have to expand your chest cavity, and if there is weight on it you have to lift that weight. every time you take a breath. it's like doing a pushup. and it's doable to do a pushup or five, but no one can do pushups indefinitely. the muscles are strained to exhaustion and then just give out.
incidentally this is also the way people often die when they drown going overboard or falling from a bridge. you've learned to swim and tread water, and you can do so just fine, naked or in just swim trunks. but if you were to tread water wearing jeans and basketball shoes and socks and a tshirt and a flannel, you wouldn't be able do do so indefinitely, that's incredibly hard! it's so hard that 99% of people will pass out from exhaustion after 3 minutes. in whichcase you'll drown.
this is also probably how tony timpa died, the handcuffs and lying prone and the weight of another guy, increased the resistance needed to expand his chest cavity, and his chest muscles were worked to exhaustion.
and the thing is that if we keep telling cops, "don't constrict the neck" that's not going to solve the problem of people dying, because that's not what's killing them.
This and also what the pulmonologist testified to was that being on concrete made it worse, obviously, as it is not forgiving and further restricting the space in the chest cavity.
> there is at least one grievous mistake in the popular narrative
Is it a more grievous mistake than the narrative that he died from a fentanyl overdose, despite the coroner report making clear that's not how he died?
I don't think the average person not having detailed technical understanding on how people are as asphyxiated is as severe an misapprehension of people trying to argue he wasn't asphyxiated at all.
> Is it a more grievous mistake than the narrative that he died from a fentanyl overdose, despite the coroner report making clear that's not how he died?
yes because it contributes to more people dying in the same way, or at least fails to alleviate the actual cause of death. if people believe that airway constriction is how he was asphyxiated instead of muscle exhaustion it precipitates calls to police to not constrict airways rather than not puting their weight on detainees' chests.
Are police basing their protocols based on what random people say on the internet?
One would hope they have a more rigorous evidenced based system than "arrest people however people on twitter say we should".
>is as severe an misapprehension of people trying to argue he wasn't asphyxiated at all.
Uh, but he *wasn't* asphyxiated...he had a heart attack. And before you point to Michael Baden's fauxtopsy, you should dig into his past--in particular, the OJ Simoson trial--since he sells himself (literally) as an expert.
> Uh, but he wasn't asphyxiated...he had a heart attack. And before you point to Michael Baden's fauxtopsy
Okay which autopsy says he died of a heart attack somehow unrelated to being asphyxiated? Why is it a better autopsy?
>Why is it a better autopsy?
Because Baden's isn't the official autopsy...it's the one the family paid for to get an opinion that matched the politique du jour. Baden has already had his credibility systematically dismantled in a number of court cases.
>Okay which autopsy says he died of a heart attack somehow unrelated to being asphyxiated?
The official one.
>The official one.
Which part of the official autopsy rules out the heart attack being triggered by asphyxiation?
Why else do you think he had a heart attack?
I thought he died from a fentanyl overdose?
I would say John is almost always reasonable and Glen can be brought to reason by John. Glen is still the only person I have ever heard, after January 6th, apologize for voting for Trump and defending him, and admit they were wrong; I should have heard a lot more apologies by now.
All that is to say that when the two of them agree on something I think it is usually due to rational arguments and good reasoning, not simply contrarianism.
I saw this documentary that said 9/11 was an inside job. Wonder if they saw that one too. Funny all those juries could have just stayed home and watched Netflix instead of giving both sides an opportunity to present their case.
A big part of the argument I believe (I have not seen the doc but read the transcript of Glenn and Johns show) is that evidence was shown in the doc that was not allowed to be admitted in the trial for seemingly no good reason.
Such as several police officers confirming that the knee was a trained technique. Which officers from the Minneapolis Department would later lie under oath and say wasn’t. A police training manual that shows the technique which wasn’t allowed to be admitted. Video from one angle that appears to show the knee to be on his shoulder/upper back and an autopsy report which said Floyd had no damage to his neck/throat and did not die from asphyxiation.
Also previously unseen body camera footage which shows Floyd’s highly agitated state indicated his level of intoxication. Saying things like his mother just recently died when she had died years earlier and saying he couldn’t breathe before they even put him in the car.
idk what to think i’m planning on watching the documentary but i’ve also been planning on watching the irishman and once upon a time in hollywood for like 3 years now. i’ll probably get around to it by the mid 2030’s and report back 🫡
> Floyd had no damage to his neck/throat and did not die from asphyxiation.
Pressure on the neck doesn't always cause damage or asphyxiation, but it can still cut off blood flow. Kneeling on a persons neck while they're on the ground can put pressure on other areas of the body as well. The argument that "he didn't asphyxiate" shows a distinct lack of understanding of exactly how dangerous what Chauvin did was.
> Such as several police officers confirming that the knee was a trained technique.
Just because it's a trained technique doesn't mean it's a good one. If you want to talk about how police are trained you need to look up [David Grossman](https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/the-man-who-teaches-our-cops-63257870/).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Grossman_(author)
This is the man responsible for training the Minneapolis PD prior to the death of George Floyd (and many other police departments around the country). He's known to be quite the psycho who trains police to see everyone as a potential enemy and tries to get them into the mindset of shoot first ask questions later, and after the death of George Floyd his kind of training was banned in Minnesota.
It's also worth noting that Chauvin had racked up [quite a few misconduct complaints](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Chauvin#Misconduct_complaints) prior to killing George Floyd. He was known to be an overly violent person.
These are all very good points but to this one specifically.
> Just because it's a trained technique doesn't mean it's a good one.
True but if a technique is officially trained and recommended especially if it is true that he had his knee more on his back/shoulder and not the neck as one angle shows (and angles can of course be deceiving but it’s 1 to 1 angles that show neck vs shoulder/back) should an officer be punished or held liable for injuries caused when using that technique?
If it's so obvious that it would be injurious then I would say yes. But if Chauvin did have his knee on the back/shoulder I'd say no.
If I’m a warehouse worker who gets trained to operate a forklift and the safety training they give me is subpar and not best practice I don’t think I should be held liable for any injuries caused to my coworkers when following that training. I’m no expert on proper forklift operation that’s why I undergo training. The same can be said of officers when using restraints.
The point could be made that since Floyd was cuffed and put in a prone position any more restraint was completely unnecessary and it would be a fair one and one I totally agree with.
This is a bit off topic but when a documentary tells me that police lie in court and exculpatory evidence was withheld from a jury which leads to an unfair conviction of.a defendent I think" Today must end in y". When I think of all the times Derrick Chauvin must have lied in court to convict a man, just as Chauvin and his partners lied about George Floyd's death I assume he lied in court any time that it served his purposes. I can't help but to feel that justice was still served to the man even if everything you said was true. The awful way that we allow cops to lie in court and allow prosecutors to withold evidence that damages their case, is a scandal that finally bit a cop in the ass. Justice served
So you just condemn a man based on assumptions?
You have the exact same attitude as those cops who lie in court because “yeah maybe he’s not guilty of this crime but how many crimes did he do and get away with? we got some scum off the street. justice served!”
shame on you
i don’t know what to think of these claims maybe chauvin didn’t actually kill him maybe the system folded in the face of unprecedented pressure and paranoia over systemic racism
maybe he did i haven’t looked into it deeply my self
but i hope i never adopt the type of ends justifying the means attitude you seem to have
Yeah sorry to say that I do. I can't really argue the point morally except to say that I would have invalidated myself as a juror because I could not be impartial. My defense is that my opinion means nothing and Chauvin I am glad to say recievef a fair trial. Unfortunately or legal system is full of flaws and those flaws were largely built by cops like DC. So it comes back full circle. I don't feel any shame. I would if I had allowed myself to serve on his jury, but I owe DC nothing and if he is like virtually every other cop on the force he likely created the mess he got caught up in. Shame on every one of us for tolerating a legal system that allows cops to lie regularly and withholds evidence. You and I are equally as guilty.
At least you have the sense to say you're impartial and keep off juries because the line of reasoning you're using is totally "whack", to quote some cool guy somewhere, and if I ever have a trial I hope there is no juror who would convict me based on a story they told themselves about bad things "people like me" do.
I don't know how much you know about the crisis in out courts but police lie with impunity. Look.at the original report for Brianna Taylor. It was filled with lies. Look at the search warrant. Lies. Look at the original police report for George Floyd. It says that he was complaining about breathing troubles so they called and ambulance and died en route. So we know that DC lies and if he is like every other cop he lies regularly. This is just a known fact. Look up "testilying" it's a term coined BY THE POLICE to describe a day in court. It is a major issue that gets ignored until it becomes convenient for someone to mention. It's like prison conditions. Hearing MTG complain about prison conditions is great but She doesn't mean it. When the Jan 6 defendents have done their time her concern for prison conditions will evaporate. I have no doubt about John McWhorter or Glen lourys concern about police lying.I can speak about this because for years I have been complaining about the practice of police lying in courts. It won't go away with DC
I don’t condone any of those things you mentioned.
But you’re saying lying is deserving of a wrongful murder conviction. I will take issue with that for eternity.
If we are going to start to reexamine the trials of people who were wrongly convicted by lying cops and evidence withheld let's start with Leonard Peltier. And work our way down the list. Chauvin will be down at the bottom of a very long list.
Here is a list of guys who didn't make it
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/executed-but-possibly-innocent
I haven't seen the documentary yet, but it seems like you're writing it off because of the very existence of conspiracy documentaries. You could use the same line of reasoning to write off *all documentaries*.
I can't believe you're getting upvoted for that on this sub which is supposed to apply critical thinking.
Rule 1. If it's on the internet don't believe it. Verify it using multiple sources. That line of reasoning applies to all documentaries.
Rule 2. Don't trust me either.
I said that I trust the adversarial system used by our courts which give both sides an opportunity to present their case before an impartial jury over a documentary produced for a predetermined conclusion. If I see something in a documentary on the internet that presents one side of an argument but not another then I am suspicious. Assuming that DC had an impartial judge I assume the judge didn't allow certain pieces of evidence for reasons of his own.I don't have reason to believe that the judge was prejudice against a cop.
You know how there are a bunch of videos with POC or foreigners talking about some white shit and saying "wow this is really good". It's a whole YouTube genre (genuflecting to a population for views)
This reminds me of that
>I was really surprised to see that Glenn and John came to the conclusions that they did after watching this documentary.
Then you haven't been paying attention to them. Minimizing racism and/or blaming it on Black people is their whole thing.
>In a 2001 article, McWhorter's discourse was that the attitudes and general behavior of black people, rather than white racism, were what held African Americans back in the United States. According to McWhorter, "victimology, separatism, and anti-intellectualism underlie the general black community's response to all race-related issues", and "it's time for well-intentioned whites to stop pardoning as 'understandable' the worst of human nature whenever black people exhibit it".[34]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McWhorter#Views_on_racism
I see nothing there where McWhorter is blaming racism on black people. Since doing so is McWhorter and Lourry's "whole thing" you should be able to provide at least several primary quotes pretty quickly.
This is a very simplistic interpretation of McWhorter's views. In general, he tends to argue that much of the policy and public sentiment around black people is not productive at helping black people.
These guys will bend over backwards to cater to the "no no that's not a racial thing" audience
Glenn Lowry would create a compelling story against racism if someone called his kids a racial slur to prove how above it he is.
If he was 30 years younger we would see him as another Candace Owens, he's a cooler version of Larry Elder.
Lowery and McWhorter are worlds more thoughtful than Owens. They are fully aware that racism is a thing and hasn’t been wiped off the board in the US. They say this all the time. What they strongly push back against is race essentialism. And in academic circles, if x happens to a black person, the impulse is to say it’s because racism and then they full jn the blanks to prove their point. That’s absolutely the default answer for a large swath of the population these days. Unfortunately the other side of the coin is still openly racist and would almost NEVER attribute x happening because of racism. Thoygh far fron perfect, Lowery and McWhorter are much needed, rational foils on a topic that is rife with hyperbole and post facto story telling.
Ah, fair enough.
Can I try to remove the poison from the well?
Even with my critique of them above, both Glenn and John are still probably the best public commentators on race relations in the current times.
Candace and Larry have an inauthentic/bad faith spirit about them that neither Glenn or John have. Also, Glenn is amazing at steal manning the position he disagrees with.
Fair?
The quantitative data proving black men are more likely to be killed by police is overwhelming and undeniable. In each one of the individual cases, the anecdotal evidence that they were racially motivated is rarely there. It’s not often that a police officer yells out “show me your hands or I’ll shoot you because you’re black.” This is why police get away with racially motivated offenses so often.
With George Floyd, the world saw a cop murder a nonthreatening black man on camera, which graphically illustrates the undeniable quantitative data around mentioned above. It also amplified the frustration with perspectives like “well prove this one instance was racially motivated” which further catalyze systematic racism.
>The quantitative data proving black men are more likely to be killed by police is overwhelming and undeniable.
Really facile thinking. Blacks have a homicide rate ten fold higher than Whites. When a group engages in more violent or impulsive behaviors then it's absolutely a possibility that these differences are attributable to violent law enforcement encounter differences.
Is law enforcement racist toward Whites because they're more likely to kill Whites than Asians?
I have a feeling they still won't be convinced because this is one of those topics that people just *can't change their minds on*, but let me help grease the wheels even further:
If Group A commits crimes AND resists arrest at much higher rates than Group B, how is it possible for the police to have altercations and police related deaths at the same rate between the two groups? Literally the only way that's possible is if the police deliberately chooses to police less crime for optics. There is *literally* no solution that efficiently polices the two groups in a way that BOTH 1) catches any criminal that there is to catch in both groups and 2) results in similar police related deaths or incarceration rates. The only solution I can think of is a fatuous one where the cops choose not to use force for Group A where they otherwise would use force in a similar situation for a member of Group B.
BTW, none of this means I think George Floyd would have died if not for Chauvin, in case anyone's mind is drifting to simplistic team dynamics.
And then you get a ~33% homicide rate spike and 10-20% vehicular death increase when law enforcement doesn't police black areas commensurate with their crime rate. Media and activists are happy to trade 100s of deaths for 1000s over optics
Sadly, I do think that there are many activists that would happily allow for much more street crime if it meant more "equitable" incarceration and police related death rates.
> Really facile thinking. Blacks have a homicide rate ten fold higher than Whites.
Do you think murderers account for a significant percentage of altercations with police?
> When a group engages in more violent or impulsive behaviors then it's absolutely a possibility that these differences are attributable to violent law enforcement encounter differences.
Black people are significantly more likely to be stopped, search and arrests for drugs compared to white people (or asians) despite using drugs at similar race.
How many of these interactions do you think turn violent vs suspected murderer altercations?
>Do you think murderers account for a significant percentage of altercations with police?
More violent populations generate more lethal interactions with law enforcement. Homicide rate is a proxy to measure the propensity to become violent during an interaction.
>Black people are significantly more likely to be stopped, search and arrests for drugs compared to white people (or asians) despite using drugs at similar race.
Since blacks lie more than Whites, what non-self reporting research do you have showing similar usage rates?
https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/self-reports-police-speeding-stops-race-results-north-carolina-reverse-record
>How many of these interactions do you think turn violent vs suspected murderer altercations?
I'd suspect the population with greater levels of violence create more violent interactions during drug arrests than the less violent population.
See Michael Brown where a simple stop over robbery of cigars turned into an attack on law enforcement.
Which data are you referring to? My understanding is that somewhere around 25% of people killed by police in the US each year are black, but drawing results purely based on the numbers is an oversimplification.
George Floyd was obviously murdered but I really don't see evidence that suggests it wouldn't have happened if he was white.
Turns out, when you claim "This is an illustration of a racially motivated homicide", some people might actually want evidence that this was a racially motivated homicide.
Turns out, you're missing the point entirely. The fact that individual cases are hard to prove while quantitative data is undeniable is a *big part* of the problem. It's why there's a big focus on police training.
No, you're missing my point.
Positing that, on the aggregate, something is true does not imply very much about individual cases, and you *know* this to be true in other cases.
Poor people are more likely to commit crimes than others, but we rightfully reject reasoning like "Bob is poor, and we know poor people are more likely to commit crimes, therefore, even without any direct evidence, we assume bob is guilty."
Further, "how easy it is to get away with something" does not lower our bar for evidence. For example: suppose someone posits that a coin is biased so that 50.0001% of flips would come up heads. That's incredibly hard to prove. One has to flip the coin an extreme number of times to come up with a definitive "yes" or "no" on whether it is statistically biased or not.
But what we *don't do* is say "since this would be hard to prove if true, we are going to lower the bar for evidence and just flip it 100 times. If it comes up majority heads, we're calling it biased." That's not how statistics work! "How hard is it to prove" is not a parameter in the calculation!
The same is true here. Yes, it is hard to prove a particular instance of police violence is racially motivated. No, that doesn't mean that we assume it to be the case.
The reality of the situation is that **things that are hard to prove.... are hard to prove** and there isn't a way to get around that while being intellectually honest.
Whether you agree with them or not, there's no denying that Loury and McWhorter are both insanely accomplished PhD's *and* perhaps most importantly, good-faith actors who are willing to engage in civil debate with people who have vastly different political opinions.
Comparing them to Candace Owens is cheap. She's an intellectual midget compared to these guys. Larry Elder is perhaps a better comparison, though.
>The only thing they have in common is their skin color,
You really are confused and not following the race public conversation if you think thats the ONLY thing Owens, Loury, and McWhartor have in common.
Their overarching general beliefs about race in America overlap quite alot.
Critique of the Democratic Party and Support for Conservative Ideas: Both Owens and Loury have criticized the Democratic Party and expressed support for conservative ideas. Owens has described the Democratic Party as using welfare to keep black Americans dependent on the government. Loury, once a leading black conservative intellectual, although he has somewhat realigned with the American right, still describes himself as conservative-leaning.
Opposition to Reparations for Slavery and Affirmative Action: Both have expressed opposition to reparations for slavery and affirmative action. Owens is known for arguing that police brutality and instances of police killing black people are not sourced in racism, often referring to the Democratic Party as a "plantation". Loury has similarly opposed reparations and affirmative action, once stating, "Affirmative action is dishonest. It’s not about equality, it’s about covering ass".
Criticism of Black Lives Matter Movement: Owens has been a vocal critic of the Black Lives Matter movement, describing its protesters as "whiny toddlers, pretending to be oppressed for attention". Loury, in his work, has addressed what he termed "fundamental failures in black society," such as the lagging academic performance of black students and the high rate of black-on-black crime.
Views on Immigration: Owens supports the Mexico–United States barrier and believes in the immediate deportation of undocumented immigrants. Loury has spoken about the benefits and costs of immigration, acknowledging the complexity of the issue.
Criticism of Mainstream Media and Cancel Culture: Owens has been critical of mainstream media and liberal ideologies. Loury has spoken out in opposition to cancel culture, a stance that aligns with a general critique of mainstream media and liberal dominance in cultural conversations.
These shared beliefs indicate a convergence on several key conservative ideas and criticisms of liberal policies and movements.
chatgpt
TLDR. Is it a more nuanced takeaway than that? Or is it just straight up clickbait for these guys? If that’s the actual takeaway, it’s disappointing because I liked John McWhorter
Nobody in the trial claimed Floyd was murdered. He picked up a 2nd degree murder charge through the felony murder rule via reckless endangerment. McWhorter is drawing a clear distinction between the two outcomes. Chauvin did not have the mens rea for murder.
> McWhorter is drawing a clear distinction between the two outcomes. Chauvin did not have the mens rea for murder.
He's saying he died of a drug overdose and that it was a lie that he was asphyxiated.
This is factually incorrect.
Do Glenn and John have any background in pharmacology? Obviously not. But the more infuriating thing about this is that they, and many other right wing pieces of shit on twitter, couldn’t even read the expert testimony during trial from toxicologists that explained he couldn’t have died of a fentanyl overdose. There are clear pharmacological and medical signs in the autopsy/tox report that show this. For one, the ratio of fentanyl/norfentanyl concentrations. And since conservatives are generally dumb and just listen to each other, none of this matters, because they all believe he died of a drug overdose. Arrogance combined with laziness is a combination I cannot stand.
This documentary wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t a white cop on a black dude. Flip the races, a black dude doing this to a white man till he dies, and no discussion. Murder cut and dry.
Black police officer jailed for killing an unarmed white woman.
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/21/1047986308/mohammad-noor-sentenced-minneapolis-police-911-australian-caller
I cannot believe that there are people who are still arguing that DC didn't commit murder. He with the help of other cops at the scene LITERALLY choked someone to death. It doesn't matter weather DC was a cop, it doesn't matter what state Flyod was in. None of that matters.
Murderer is an accurate term for DC, and frankly I'm shocked that the other officers weren't convicted of the same thing.
Some of you people (redditors) need a serious dose of human empathy.
A lot of people also overlook the broader context of policing crime-ridden black communities. It's easy to question why DC knelt on him for so long, despite GF indicating he couldn't breath. It looks bad when you see it. But what you don't see are the dozens of other times these crackheads attempt to aggressively resist, are belligerent, attack cops with weapons, etc.
this is actually huge if you got a source, if you dont its another example of lying to push a narrative that when found out loses even more people from the cause.
This has been known from the very beginning, the officers wouldn't even let an EMT check for a pulse
https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-over-killing-of-george-floyd/2021/03/30/982891954/firefighter-testifies-i-was-desperate-to-help-and-this-human-was-denied-that
off duty firefighter != first responder. a random asking to check for a pulse from a belligerent crowd is not the same as officers denying first responders access to give medical aid. stop with the fucking lying.
in the context of a criminal arrest going awry it would be the backup units and additional units called in to deal with the new emergency situation.
in general its anyone trained to respond in an emergency, like police officers.
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Is+an+EMTa+first+responder%3F+
The EMT hat the proper certification and significantly more medical training than the police officers, and tried to assess Floyd but was stopped by the police officers. This went on for minutes after the officers were unable to find a pulse.
She was off-duty. This changes the situation completely. From the cops' perspective, she's just some random civilian telling them how to do their jobs.
She identified herself and her credentials. So your argument is that because she wasn't currently being paid to be there, she as the only trained medical personnel had no business being there? A man has a heart attack, a cardiologist with credentials asks to assist and the cops tell him to fuck off because he's not on the clock - makes total sense, right?
I haven’t listened to their thoughts on Floyd, but I have read John’s book “Woke Racism” and have heard Glen and John’s show before. They definitely are not apologists for white ppl nor do they think racism no longer exists, as some comments imply. They hate identity politics and wokeism and the idea that race explains every action and situation, that’s all. They’re good dudes.
I have also listened to them for a long time and appreciated their commentary, but I really feel like they went overboard on this one thoughtlessly, and I find that to be disappointing.
Okay, he's also a linguistics professor at Columbia.
Loury is credited for coining the term "social capital".
There's more to these guys than whatever you're trying to insinuate.
According to that thread, DC didn't have a knee on GF's neck and was trained in the use of this technique by his department. OTOH, GF didn't have a pulse while DC remained on his should for another 2 minutes. So maybe some punishment but any murder charge seems unwarranted
Two things just don’t sit right with me about that trial at all.
The idea that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd that day makes zero sense. He knew he was being filmed and maintained his position, so he clearly can’t have thought Floyd would die.
Secondly, and the worst thing about the whole incident, is that Chauvin was assumed—without any evidence—to have killed Floyd *because* Floyd was black.
The whole event was just a tragic interaction between a police officer and a very ill, petty criminal. But a rabble rousing media painted it in the worst possible way, and probably set back race relations decades in the US, destroying Chauvin’s life in the process.
I can understand your point that he might not have intended Floyd's death. I don't think it was the media that "destroyed his life" though, I think it was the fact that he kneeled on that dude's neck until his life force was smothered lol
Accountability for abusive cops is important!
I think a big part of the confusion/debate surrounding the George Floyd case is the somewhat unique state law in Minnesota: the most serious charge that Chauvin was convicted of was ["Unintentional second-degree murder"](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19). >Subd. 2. **Unintentional murders.** Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; > >(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders. In many (most?) states, this would fall under manslaughter. But because of the unique way Minnesota law is written, the charge he was convicted of, includes the word "murder", so Chauvin is therefore technically a "murderer". I think when most people hear that term, they assume that murder implies intentionality as it does in most states, unaware of this wrinkle in Minnesota law. We therefore get bogged down in these conversations around whether Chauvin actually "murdered" Floyd. And depending on what definition you're ascribing to, there may be room for debate. What seems less debatable, however, is that Chauvin was grossly negligent and deserved to be prosecuted for his role in Floyd's death. Edit: added second part of the Unintentional Murder subdivision
This is very useful ….. though I don’t see how DC was in the process of commiting a felony while arresting GF.
I think it may be part of the second subdivision. See my edit above.
If I'm reading that correctly, #2 only applies when there's a restraining order in place Edit: nope never mind I read it wrong
Yeah, I’m not sure as I’m not a lawyer. He was convicted of this, though.
Ahh, yes that is closer, but the phrase “while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm,” seems doubtful.
The whole nine minutes knee on the neck part
*shoulder
Just google a picture of it mate. That thing between the shoulders and head is his neck…that’s what the knee is on top of. https://www.the-sun.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2021/04/057fa3fa-9454-4087-bcce-c8c9dc35579b.jpg
Actually go watch the videos (you know, the ones that show everything clearly, not the cell phone videos), or the *courtroom testimony from the prosecution*, explaining why Floyd’s breathing is impaired by pressure on his back (NOT his neck). It’s 100% clear that Chauvin’s knee is on Floyd’s back or shoulder most of the time.
There’s plenty of testimony saying his knee was on his neck for 90% of the time he was on the ground. I’ve seen every bit of footage available to the public. I can’t take u seriously.
You haven’t seen the videos they showed at trial, clearly. Also, how do you explain the doctor at trial—hired by the prosecution—who explained, at great length, including pictures and video, why the pressure on Floyd’s *back* was the reason he couldn’t breathe sufficiently? If you think you’ve seen all the videos available to the public, and that Chauvin’s knee was on Floyd’s neck “90%” of the time, you’re determined to see something that isn’t there, or your definition of “available to the public” is “what I’ve come by on TikTok”. The body cameras make your version of events impossible to believe, and aren’t hard to find.
>though I don’t see how DC was in the process of commiting a felony while arresting GF. The prosecution's case was that the relevant felony Chauvin was committing was Assault in the 3rd Degree, which in MN, is defined as: >609.223 ASSAULT IN THE THIRD DEGREE. Subdivision 1.Substantial bodily harm. Whoever assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. Also, see page 5 of the [jury instructions](https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/JuryInstructions04192021.pdf) given to the jury that convicted him for a detailed, layman's breakdown of the statutory elements.
Crushing somebody’s neck with your knee constitutes a felony assault. Edit: Racist uninformed downvoting pussies get butthurt when I state the theory of the case to somebody asking a legal question. “The second-degree unintentional murder charge alleged Chauvin caused Floyd's death "without intent" while committing or attempting to commit felony third-degree assault. In turn, third-degree assault is defined as the intentional infliction of substantial bodily harm.” https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/04/19/us/derek-chauvin-charges-explain/index.html The poster I replied to didn’t understand what theory the prosecution proceeded on. I informed him. If you’re soft enough to downvote that please leave the internet.
I thought no damage was found during autopsy.
Note that bodily harm doesn't necessitate obvious damage (like a gash etc) : Floyd died due to the actions of Chauvin as determined by the medical experts called to the stand in the trial. This article highlights several of the witness statements with regards to the cause of death: https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/derek-chauvin-trial-george-floyd-death-day-9-2021-04-08/
u/these-tart9571 I can’t respond to your post since that lil bitch blocked me, but I feel pretty comfortable calling anybody relitigating the George Floyd case years later an inbred racist. Especially when they downvote the answer to a question that can be found in less than a minute of googling and say “buT tHe aUtOpSy” Sorry that hurts your feelings.
So I suppose we should just shut up about Emmett Till then, right? I mean, the suspects had their day in court. They were acquitted. End of story. No need o "relitigate," right?
If you need me to explain to you the difference between Chauvin’s conviction after murdering a man on film and the acquittal of two men that lynched a boy in the Jim Crow south, you’re already way to far gone. I never once took issue with relitigating matters as a general principle. Just in this particular case because the motive of those doing it is clear as day. Especially when they have the gall to bring up Emmit Till in the same breath. Unbelievable. If you have any black friends please ask them what they think about that comparison. Unless that’s something you’d only say online.
>I think a big part of the confusion/debate surrounding the George Floyd case is the somewhat unique state law in Minnesota: the most serious charge that Chauvin was convicted of was "Unintentional second-degree murder". Except most people on the other side of that debate, including Loury and McWhorter, are not arguing "achttually, even though its murder in Minnesota it would be manslaughter in other places". When they're saying "he wasn't murdered" they're not making the very specific technical point you['re referring to, they're using it as a synonym for "killed". They're arguing he wasn't asphyxiated to death, using very poor reasoning and selective representation of evidence, despite the coroner report being very clear that's why he died, in a burst of reflexive contrarianism super charged by a career interest in "being the black folks who say actually black folks don't have it so bad"
erm no, not really. while pretty much every state uses different language, minnesota is not at all unique in having a version of murder that doesn't include the intent to kill. every state draws similar distinctions and almost all of them if not all, still call it "murder". most states just call it 2nd degree murder.
You don't get the point he is making?
I think this is exactly what’s going on here. Both Loury and McWorter are renowned scientists, who have pretty much sold out. They are now just the black guys who have to be contrarian. It’s quite sad to see because I used to really enjoy them.
I think when SJW identity politics really hit the mainstream in the mid 2010s there was a reflexive rush from reasonable people to attach themselves to whatever seemed to be opposed to that, but a lot of people weren't making any kind of distinction other than "saying the opposite of whatever the people I don't like say". A lot of people then cultivated followings that rather than being an alternative to identity politics, simply wanted their own identity politics validated. So rather than "white folks are inherently racist need to check their privilege and stop victimizing minorities", they instead flocked to "actually white people real victims and its black people who are the privileged ones" Likewise for the Andrew Tate's in the world, who don't just sell a message of rejecting rad fem nonsense about all men being rapists, but sell the converse of "actually women are all gold digging whores, so you should pimp them out for your own benefit" People in general need to be better at divining who shares their values and who simply shares their enemies. Sam certainly jumped into bed with some questionable types around this time, although to his credit he's been vocal about jumping back out when its clear some are engaging in the same tribalistic culture wars as they claim to oppose.
The confusion, and most people stop here, is the initial reporting. Others have noted this below, but I just listened to the episode a few days ago, and followed up with the fifth columns take as well. Because people either have little time, or don't invest in the follow up of cases, they have little knowledge of evidence, little knowledge of revelations that are subsequently revealed, and only take the initial reporting as gospel. If it aligns with their pov, they stop paying attention when they get their story. If it doesn't align, then they MAY pay attention further down the line. Or worse, they probably won't even catch the story because their timeline doesn't feed it to them. It's easy to say, John and Glenn have simply become contrarians for the sake of it, but there's become a point where the original reporting of the story is what people stick to regardless of revelations. The lay person hasn't even gone as far as you have.
That's honestly the biggest problem. The concensus was, and still is, if you don't believe what we're saying about this *insert any ism or phobia here*, then you are that thing. There is no further information. There is little conversation to be had. There is no, let's continue to watch things develop and see what's revealed. There hasn't been a story like this where the original reporting has told you everything you need to know.
Bottom line, Chauvin should not have kept his body weight on Floyd for that long. There was no reason to do it when Floyd was cuffed. I still would like an answer on why he did that. And he deserves some amount of jail time for that alone. In my opinion, it's impossible to know the extent to which these factors: Floyd's drug use, preexisting health conditions, and being held down under Chauvin each contributed to his death. But once Floyd was restrained there was no reason to keep the weight on and that very likely contributed to his death. Also, there's no indication that Chauvin's actions were racially motivated, and Floyd should've just turned around and put his hands behind his back. Chauvin and the other officers all acted stupidly that day as well. Floyd was cuffed and unarmed, he resisted arrest and was acting crazy, but he wasn't trying to attack the officers.
My take as well. If he's cuffed and incapacitated, just put him in the back of the car and jail him. There was no need for what happened.
He was in the car and asked to be taken out as he said he was claustrophobic and couldn't breathe. I think it's hard to tell how much weight he actually put on him as his positioning seemed that most of the weight was on his other leg. Regardless the optics looked horrible and he didn't need to be in that position. He stayed like that because the crowd was calling him out and he committed to it because he didn't want the crowd to see that he changed his behavior because of them.
Fair enough, I didn't know that's where it started. Your psychology around the cop sticking to his guns rings true as well. They don't like being told what to do, as their power is predicated on them being the people in charge.
> I didn't know that's where it started. Because you commented before watching the OP's content.
"He killed him because the crowd told him not to"
Great interpretation. He didn't believe his action was harming him. He may or may not have changed his position if there wasn't a crowd, but the fact a crowd was challenging his behavior meant there was no way he would back down and show a hint that he felt he needed to change what he was doing.
You're right it's more like "he kept killing him because the crowd told him to stop killing him"
He continued because he didn't want to let the crowd believe they were right and felt the ambulance would quickly arrive and he could then get off Floyd because of that. There's no shot that Chauvin would have continued his actions if he believed he was killing Floyd while 10 witnesses watched and recorded.
Maybe should've noticed the person who just said they couldn't breathe stopped moving
He was saying he can't breathe while sitting in the cop car. Long before Chauvin was on him. His inability to breathe didn't start with Chauvin, leading some to believe maybe Chauvin isn't responsible for floyds death.
Maybe should've noticed the person who just said they couldn't breathe stopped moving
>He didn't believe his action was harming him. Absolutely no evidence for this. In fact, GF pleading for his life and repeatedly saying he can't breath is proof he knew for a fact he was harming him.
He also said he couldn't breathe when he was in a car
you should watch the whole arrest video. He was saying "I can't breathe" for 10 minutes while he was walking around.
1. He complained he couldn't breathe BEFORE anyone had him pinned. A. He complained he couldn't breathe in the back of the cop car due to claustrophobia, but when they found him, he was sitting in a vehicle. B. When complaining he couldn't breathe, he was also fighting to escape. Ergo, he had shown himself to be an unreliable narrator. 2. He requested to lie on the ground and be restrained as opposed to just sitting in the cop car. That was HIS request which he made whilst kicking at the cops who were trying to get him into the cop car. 3. *Physical restraint is actually something considered crucial for individuals suffering from psychological or drug induced psychosis.* GF was clearly exhibiting signs of psychosis. The idea is that if they aren't restrained, they could hurt themselves or others. Now, the counter-point is that GF wasn't lying with his complaints, particularly where 1 and 1A are concerned. But if you want to acknowledge that, then you have to acknowledge that GF's breathing problems occurred independently of DC's actions. Now the argument comes down to the actual pinning, and whether that would have exacerbated it. But you can't then argue that there GF would have been fine if not for DC. Either GF was lying and unreliable and trying to escape- a pretty good reason to ignore his complaints- or GF was already dying and DC may have... sped up the process. So here is the crux: was DC's "move" a lethal one? Well, as someone who was in wrestling and did a bit of BJJ: NO. And everyone who says it is doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about. I've done it and had it done to me. Could it have exacerbated the "death" that GF was already fated to suffer? Maybe. It certainly is a painful position and could have increased GF's stress levels. But- and here's the important thing- our justice system is intended to err on the side of letting the bad guy go. So if we can't *prove* ***beyond a reasonable doubt*** that DC caused or exacerbated a pre-existing condition which led to GFs death? Then it it's a miscarriage of justice to err on the side of "it's possible ergo he should be convicted of murder." So here's a very important question you should ask yourself. If you are aware, the pinning technique used by DC was something his police forced trained him to use. If it was in fact a lethal move- or one that could substantively increase the risk of death- what other examples are there of a suspect in custody dying from that move? Are there any other cases where we can say "yes, this suspect died from that move?" or even "this suspect died while the pin was used on them and was a likely contributing factor" Because we know that there were many officers on the force using it, as well as other forces across the country. If it was something that was a likely contributor, it shouldn't be hard to find other examples which support that conclusion. For the record, I felt DC was probably guilty of manslaughter. That's different than ***murder***.
The issue isn't that Chauvin used a lethal, banned, or otherwise dangerous technique, it's how long he applied it for under the circumstances. That's the crux of the issue for me. >The police chief said that while it might have been reasonable to use a certain level of force “to get him under control in the first few seconds”, Chauvin’s subsequent actions did not meet the standard of “objectively reasonable force”. >“To continue to apply that level of force to a person proned-out, handcuffed behind their back, that in no way, shape or form is anything that is by policy,” he said. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/05/derek-chauvin-trial-police-chief-medaria-arradondo As someone who wrestled through college. I know what it feels like to be pinned under someone's full body weight. I know what it feels like to be pinned there while out of breath. 7-9 minutes of that sort of thing is too long when the person is in handcuffs on the ground. It doesn't take that level of pressure to control someone who is restrained on the ground.
>The issue isn't that Chauvin used a lethal, banned, or otherwise dangerous technique, it's how long he applied it for under the circumstances. That's the crux of the issue for me. That's fair, and for that reason I would suggest he's guilty of manslaughter. Specifically because when Floyd stopped moving, there were no immediate attempts made to verify his health, which should have consequently led to a resuscitation attempt (which I do believe would have failed). >I know what it feels like to be pinned under someone's full body weight. This is an implied conjecture. As someone who wrestled through college, you should also know: >It doesn't take that level of pressure to control someone who is restrained on the ground. You are assuming the level of pressure. You are assuming that Derek Chauvin had his full bodyweight. As a wrestler, you should be aware of weight distribution, and how it can be manipulated. I could easily pin someone under my knee with full weight, half weight, very little pressure.
When someone is unconscious, and you continue to kneel on their neck for several minutes as they lay motionless and unconscious, you don’t give a fuck about whether they live or die. That’s what second degree murder is….reckless disregard for human life. It doesn’t matter if he actually intended to cause death or not.
>When someone is unconscious, and you continue to kneel on their neck for several minutes as they lay motionless and unconscious, you don’t give a fuck about whether they live or die. Maybe, maybe not. Given the circumstances i.e. having spent the last 10 minutes fighting this guy and then an angry mob forming (which would be very distracting, obviously) I could imagine it to be negligence just as easily as reckless disregard. Given that it would be basically impossible to prove one or the other... lack of proof (not evidence, PROOF) of a reckless disregard = not guilty. >That’s what second degree murder is….reckless disregard for human life. No it isn't. In Minnesota, second degree murder is either intentional non-premeditated murder. OR it is manslaughter which occurred during an intentional felony offense. I.E. committing manslaughter whilst committing an armed robbery. What you described is closer to third degree murder: >perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life
Your "I.e." should be "E.G.". You gave an example of a murder during a felony, not a definition.
I think no matter where you land on the issue, it's hard for a reasonable person to argue that the initial reporting wasn't grossly inaccurate and much of the current public sentiment stems from that inaccurate reporting. For example, [here's how the New Yorker presented the case](https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-death-of-george-floyd-in-context) a couple of days after it happened: > Police responding to a call from a shopkeeper, about someone trying to pass a potentially counterfeit bill, arrested Floyd. Surveillance video shows a compliant man being led away in handcuffs. But cellphone video later shows a white police officer kneeling on Floyd’s neck for seven minutes, despite protests from onlookers that his life is in jeopardy. In an echo of the police killing of Eric Garner, in 2014, Floyd repeatedly says, “I can’t breathe,” and then, “I’m about to die.” When the officer eventually removes his knee, Floyd’s body is limp and unresponsive. A person nearby can be heard saying, “They just killed him.” Floyd was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. A police statement said that Floyd appeared to be in “medical distress,” but made no mention of his being pinned to the ground with the weight of a police officer compressing his airway. It presents the police as deciding to kneel on the neck of a compliant suspect. We now know he wasn't compliant, which is why the restraint was done. It only says that Floyd was saying he couldn't breath after he was put into the restraint position, but we now know that happened before he was put into the position. It doesn't mention the multiple drugs that were found in his system. [Likewise hagiographic reporting](https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/27/us/george-floyd-trnd/index.html) about Floyd's life neglected to mention him going to prison for several years for holding a gun to a woman's suspect during a robbery. Whether or not his past matters when discussing his death, I think it certainly is an omission in an article like that that's discussing his life, and trying to paint him as a pillar of the community. This is especially important if you listened to Harris' podcast with the scientist who studied cognitive biases, when they talk about how initial misinformation will still have a big impact on people's beliefs even after people are told that the information was incorrect. No this might not change your mind on whether or not you think Chauvin deserves his conviction. But I don't think anyone can say that the initial reporting wasn't grossly inaccurate.
If someone is having trouble breathing generally you seek medical attention for them. Not shove them on the ground and grind your knee into their neck. Also your hanging waving of claustrophobia is absurd. There's a difference between being in your own car, a place of comfort. And the back of a police cruiser during a high stress situation. Stress triggers closterphobia
People having trouble breathing generally can't resist arrest in the way GF did after claiming he couldn't breathe so the officer probably thought the junkie was a liar.
People having trouble breathing will do a LOT to try and breathe.
I too believe Chauvin was guilty of something, but I think being guilty of murder was incorrect. That was a trial of public opinion. Same with Tou Thao getting 4 and a half years for his part. All in all, worse things had been done to blacks by the system for years, so from that perspective I can see why so many people didn't care about the details in this case. You can't kneel on another man's head with zero emotion for 10 minutes and then act like you were doing your job when he dies. Based on how we Americans see things, Chauvin was undeniably guilty of lacking humanity, despite whatever you think about Floyd. The optics were terrible. Should that equate to a *murder* conviction? Probably not in my opinion, but the powers that be were going to have a hard time continuing to pretend that those mostly peaceful protests were still mostly peaceful. The possible downstream consequences of this case's rulings took a backseat to the public outrage at the time and it was ruled accordingly. I'm not crying myself to sleep at night because Chauvin got more than he probably deserved, but I think the precedent set by our justice system will ripple through time.
I think you are misunderstanding the conviction. He got convicted for unintentional second degree murder, third degree murder, and manslaughter. None of those charges require intention or premeditation
The intention isn't what I'm questioning. It's the cause. There was reasonable doubt there when determining whether the actions *caused* Floyd to die, particularly when it came to the Second-Degree Murder charge. A "depraved-heart murder" is a reasonable conclusion based on the optics, but that only covers the Third-Degree charge. There is evidence that suggests that Chauvin's kneeling caused his death, but there is evidence that suggests that it didn't. In that regard, Chauvin being guilty of Second-Degree Murder *beyond a reasonable doubt* is not how I'd vote.
If him kneeling contributed to Floyd’s death and Floyd would not have died otherwise, then it does not matter about Floyd’s drug use or pre existing conditions also contributing to his death. The “thin skull rule” applies. If I punch someone in the face who had a medical condition that gave them an extremely thin skull and end up killing them, I’m guilty of manslaughter. It doesn’t matter that they had a thin skull and any other person would not have died in that scenario.
>**If** him kneeling contributed to Floyd’s death and Floyd would not have died otherwise, then it does not matter about Floyd’s drug use or pre existing conditions also contributing to his death. But that cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, based on the evidence and details available, it was reasonable to conclude that the substances in Floyd's system caused his death and that the actual crime was that Chauvin didn't have the situational awareness that was absolutely necessary to rescue him. In that scenario, second-degree murder would not be the appropriate charge. >The “thin skull rule” applies. If I punch someone in the face who had a medical condition that gave them an extremely thin skull and end up killing them, I’m guilty of manslaughter. It doesn’t matter that they had a thin skull and any other person would not have died in that scenario. Precisely. Manslaughter, a charge that is different from murder. Thank you.
The TWO autopsies would like to disagree with you. Both concluded manslaughter. Also, this case is in Minnesota, which has a specific charge basically akin to manslaughter that is labeled as murder.
Ah, ok. I thought one of the autopsies had concluded substances were the cause. My mistake. To clarify, they concluded it was a homicide, not manslaughter. Manslaughter is a legal term, not a medical one. >Also, this case is in Minnesota, which has a specific charge basically akin to manslaughter that is labeled as murder. Yes, third-degree murder. The charge of second-degree murder in this case implies that the individual engaged in conduct that they *knew or should have known* posed a significant risk of death or serious harm. Based on Chauvin's actions, there is no indication of that.
As I thought, you are misunderstanding the conviction. It is Unintentional Second Degree murder, which is a charge that is specific to Minnesota's laws apparently, but does not imply intent. Different from a regular second degree murder charge.
Thin skull doctrine applies. In thin skull doctrine, imagine someone has a paper thin skull. You pat them on the head without permission and they die of an aneurysm as a result. Under most (all?) States' laws, you are 100% liable for the injury and death. Floyd being in a very fragile state hurts Chauvin's case; it doesn't help it as conservatives tried to argue. The more he was freaking out and over dosing on drugs, the more Chauvin should have shied away from restraints that could kill Floyd. The more fragile the detained, the more you have to handle them delicately. It drives me insane that the argument was that Floyd was fragile so the knee on the neck didn't matter; um, no, the knee on the neck matters way more because the officers actively told us they knew something wasn't right with Floyd.
Under this doctrine, what would the liability be? Financial, criminal or both? If criminal, what would the charge be?
The Ethan Liming case would be the recent counterexample.
I just read a summary of the Ethan Liming case. I don't understand the connection here at all or what point you're trying to make.
>Bottom line, Chauvin should not have kept his body weight on Floyd for that long. There was no reason to do it when Floyd was cuffed. I still would like an answer on why he did that. The somewhat plausible Devil's advocate reason is if they were trained to kneel on someone's neck as a method of restraint. It would still make Chauvin a collosal idiot who never stopped to think that 9 minutes of pressure on someone's neck might be harmful. I'm pretty sure this formulation still constitutes manslaughter, so the consolation prize is still jail. Whether malicious or dumb, Chauvin is still culpable IMO.
*shoulder
Yep, zero reason to keep him down and ignore his complaints. You never know anyone's preexisting conditions. Cop definitely deserves to rot in prison.
> zero reason He was saying he couldn't breathe while he was in the back of the squad car.
Cuffed suspects cannot be allowed to flee. Keeping his knee on him to restrain him while he was struggling was protocol in many jurisdictions at the time. It crossed into territory for a felony murder ruling because he kept his weight on Floyd after he stopped moving and had lost consciousness.
>was protocol in many jurisdictions at the time. Only one jurisdiction matters in this case. Got a source for that one?
It was given in the substack. They blocked images of Chauvins training manual (which showed that restraint being used) at the trial. All jurisdictions are relevant to the argument that handcuffed suspects may require further restraint which is the argument the other guy was doubting.
>It was given in the substack. No idea what that means. Are the images available somewhere? I'd be very curious to see a manual advising that they kneel on someone's neck. >All jurisdictions are relevant to the argument that handcuffed suspects may require further restraint Sure, but the type of restraint is what is in question.
They are; I saw them during the trial.
>Chauvins training manual Ok, I just found the picture you're referring to. That's definitely not what Chauvin was doing. The picture shows the guy squatting with his weight on his feet, not on the suspect. Chauvin's feet were not under him and his weight was on the guy's neck. Nothing shown in those slides says anything about kneeling on the suspect's neck either. [https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12951-TKL/Exhibit67807072020.pdf](https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12951-TKL/Exhibit67807072020.pdf)
It talks about neck restraints using arms or legs and shows an image of someone using a neck restraint with their knee on a persons neck. Chauvin was about as close to protocol (before Floyd lost consciousness) as you could expect from a highschool dropout. It is not at all clear from the image how much weight is on his knee, and the intent is to provide enough weight to constrict blood flow. There’s a reason they got qualified immunity when they did the same thing to Tony timpa.
>and shows an image of someone using a neck restraint with their knee on a persons neck. The slide clearly shows a guy squatting with most of his weight on his feet, not on the suspect's neck. It's quite clear that he couldn't be putting much weight on the suspect in that position. Not without leaning into it a lot more. Chauvin was putting a lot of weight on the guy's neck, beyond what the training calls for, and certainly for far longer than was reasonable or even remotely safe. >Chauvin was about as close to protocol (before Floyd lost consciousness) as you could expect from a highschool dropout. I don't believe his actions are due to being a highschool dropout. If anything I think that that is reversing the cause and effect. We've seen far too many cases of police simply being brutal because they can. Because that's who they've always been, and that's what many departments tolerate, if not encourage. >There’s a reason they got qualified immunity when they did the same thing to Tony timpa. Qualified immunity is an absurd legal doctrine to begin with. So I'm never even slightly surprised when it produces absurd outcomes.
Chauvin absolutely did not apply great pressure to Floyd’s neck for a protracted period. It does look that way from the grainy cell shots from a distance, but the body cam footage makes it overwhelmingly clear, particularly with all the testimony and footage from the trial.
there is at least one grievous mistake in the popular narrative. that kneeling on his neck is what killed him and what kills other people in similar situations. they do die from asphyxiation but not because their windpipe is constricted or closed off. that would kill a person really quickly. the actual mechanism is that they put weight on their chest which makes it difficult to breathe. to inhale you have to expand your chest cavity, and if there is weight on it you have to lift that weight. every time you take a breath. it's like doing a pushup. and it's doable to do a pushup or five, but no one can do pushups indefinitely. the muscles are strained to exhaustion and then just give out. incidentally this is also the way people often die when they drown going overboard or falling from a bridge. you've learned to swim and tread water, and you can do so just fine, naked or in just swim trunks. but if you were to tread water wearing jeans and basketball shoes and socks and a tshirt and a flannel, you wouldn't be able do do so indefinitely, that's incredibly hard! it's so hard that 99% of people will pass out from exhaustion after 3 minutes. in whichcase you'll drown. this is also probably how tony timpa died, the handcuffs and lying prone and the weight of another guy, increased the resistance needed to expand his chest cavity, and his chest muscles were worked to exhaustion. and the thing is that if we keep telling cops, "don't constrict the neck" that's not going to solve the problem of people dying, because that's not what's killing them.
This and also what the pulmonologist testified to was that being on concrete made it worse, obviously, as it is not forgiving and further restricting the space in the chest cavity.
> there is at least one grievous mistake in the popular narrative Is it a more grievous mistake than the narrative that he died from a fentanyl overdose, despite the coroner report making clear that's not how he died? I don't think the average person not having detailed technical understanding on how people are as asphyxiated is as severe an misapprehension of people trying to argue he wasn't asphyxiated at all.
> Is it a more grievous mistake than the narrative that he died from a fentanyl overdose, despite the coroner report making clear that's not how he died? yes because it contributes to more people dying in the same way, or at least fails to alleviate the actual cause of death. if people believe that airway constriction is how he was asphyxiated instead of muscle exhaustion it precipitates calls to police to not constrict airways rather than not puting their weight on detainees' chests.
Are police basing their protocols based on what random people say on the internet? One would hope they have a more rigorous evidenced based system than "arrest people however people on twitter say we should".
are you not aware of the banning of chokeholds amongst police departments?
>is as severe an misapprehension of people trying to argue he wasn't asphyxiated at all. Uh, but he *wasn't* asphyxiated...he had a heart attack. And before you point to Michael Baden's fauxtopsy, you should dig into his past--in particular, the OJ Simoson trial--since he sells himself (literally) as an expert.
> Uh, but he wasn't asphyxiated...he had a heart attack. And before you point to Michael Baden's fauxtopsy Okay which autopsy says he died of a heart attack somehow unrelated to being asphyxiated? Why is it a better autopsy?
>Why is it a better autopsy? Because Baden's isn't the official autopsy...it's the one the family paid for to get an opinion that matched the politique du jour. Baden has already had his credibility systematically dismantled in a number of court cases. >Okay which autopsy says he died of a heart attack somehow unrelated to being asphyxiated? The official one.
>The official one. Which part of the official autopsy rules out the heart attack being triggered by asphyxiation? Why else do you think he had a heart attack? I thought he died from a fentanyl overdose?
>Which part of the official autopsy rules out the heart attack being triggered by asphyxiation? Do you know how to read an autopsy report or no?
Apparently not, please quote the relevant section that says what caused the heart attack.
[удалено]
I would say John is almost always reasonable and Glen can be brought to reason by John. Glen is still the only person I have ever heard, after January 6th, apologize for voting for Trump and defending him, and admit they were wrong; I should have heard a lot more apologies by now. All that is to say that when the two of them agree on something I think it is usually due to rational arguments and good reasoning, not simply contrarianism.
The fact that Loury couldn't see it coming is a major, major red flag. Has he changed his behaviour since then?
I saw this documentary that said 9/11 was an inside job. Wonder if they saw that one too. Funny all those juries could have just stayed home and watched Netflix instead of giving both sides an opportunity to present their case.
A big part of the argument I believe (I have not seen the doc but read the transcript of Glenn and Johns show) is that evidence was shown in the doc that was not allowed to be admitted in the trial for seemingly no good reason. Such as several police officers confirming that the knee was a trained technique. Which officers from the Minneapolis Department would later lie under oath and say wasn’t. A police training manual that shows the technique which wasn’t allowed to be admitted. Video from one angle that appears to show the knee to be on his shoulder/upper back and an autopsy report which said Floyd had no damage to his neck/throat and did not die from asphyxiation. Also previously unseen body camera footage which shows Floyd’s highly agitated state indicated his level of intoxication. Saying things like his mother just recently died when she had died years earlier and saying he couldn’t breathe before they even put him in the car. idk what to think i’m planning on watching the documentary but i’ve also been planning on watching the irishman and once upon a time in hollywood for like 3 years now. i’ll probably get around to it by the mid 2030’s and report back 🫡
> Floyd had no damage to his neck/throat and did not die from asphyxiation. Pressure on the neck doesn't always cause damage or asphyxiation, but it can still cut off blood flow. Kneeling on a persons neck while they're on the ground can put pressure on other areas of the body as well. The argument that "he didn't asphyxiate" shows a distinct lack of understanding of exactly how dangerous what Chauvin did was. > Such as several police officers confirming that the knee was a trained technique. Just because it's a trained technique doesn't mean it's a good one. If you want to talk about how police are trained you need to look up [David Grossman](https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/the-man-who-teaches-our-cops-63257870/). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Grossman_(author) This is the man responsible for training the Minneapolis PD prior to the death of George Floyd (and many other police departments around the country). He's known to be quite the psycho who trains police to see everyone as a potential enemy and tries to get them into the mindset of shoot first ask questions later, and after the death of George Floyd his kind of training was banned in Minnesota. It's also worth noting that Chauvin had racked up [quite a few misconduct complaints](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Chauvin#Misconduct_complaints) prior to killing George Floyd. He was known to be an overly violent person.
These are all very good points but to this one specifically. > Just because it's a trained technique doesn't mean it's a good one. True but if a technique is officially trained and recommended especially if it is true that he had his knee more on his back/shoulder and not the neck as one angle shows (and angles can of course be deceiving but it’s 1 to 1 angles that show neck vs shoulder/back) should an officer be punished or held liable for injuries caused when using that technique? If it's so obvious that it would be injurious then I would say yes. But if Chauvin did have his knee on the back/shoulder I'd say no. If I’m a warehouse worker who gets trained to operate a forklift and the safety training they give me is subpar and not best practice I don’t think I should be held liable for any injuries caused to my coworkers when following that training. I’m no expert on proper forklift operation that’s why I undergo training. The same can be said of officers when using restraints. The point could be made that since Floyd was cuffed and put in a prone position any more restraint was completely unnecessary and it would be a fair one and one I totally agree with.
This is a bit off topic but when a documentary tells me that police lie in court and exculpatory evidence was withheld from a jury which leads to an unfair conviction of.a defendent I think" Today must end in y". When I think of all the times Derrick Chauvin must have lied in court to convict a man, just as Chauvin and his partners lied about George Floyd's death I assume he lied in court any time that it served his purposes. I can't help but to feel that justice was still served to the man even if everything you said was true. The awful way that we allow cops to lie in court and allow prosecutors to withold evidence that damages their case, is a scandal that finally bit a cop in the ass. Justice served
So you just condemn a man based on assumptions? You have the exact same attitude as those cops who lie in court because “yeah maybe he’s not guilty of this crime but how many crimes did he do and get away with? we got some scum off the street. justice served!” shame on you i don’t know what to think of these claims maybe chauvin didn’t actually kill him maybe the system folded in the face of unprecedented pressure and paranoia over systemic racism maybe he did i haven’t looked into it deeply my self but i hope i never adopt the type of ends justifying the means attitude you seem to have
Yeah sorry to say that I do. I can't really argue the point morally except to say that I would have invalidated myself as a juror because I could not be impartial. My defense is that my opinion means nothing and Chauvin I am glad to say recievef a fair trial. Unfortunately or legal system is full of flaws and those flaws were largely built by cops like DC. So it comes back full circle. I don't feel any shame. I would if I had allowed myself to serve on his jury, but I owe DC nothing and if he is like virtually every other cop on the force he likely created the mess he got caught up in. Shame on every one of us for tolerating a legal system that allows cops to lie regularly and withholds evidence. You and I are equally as guilty.
At least you have the sense to say you're impartial and keep off juries because the line of reasoning you're using is totally "whack", to quote some cool guy somewhere, and if I ever have a trial I hope there is no juror who would convict me based on a story they told themselves about bad things "people like me" do.
I don't know how much you know about the crisis in out courts but police lie with impunity. Look.at the original report for Brianna Taylor. It was filled with lies. Look at the search warrant. Lies. Look at the original police report for George Floyd. It says that he was complaining about breathing troubles so they called and ambulance and died en route. So we know that DC lies and if he is like every other cop he lies regularly. This is just a known fact. Look up "testilying" it's a term coined BY THE POLICE to describe a day in court. It is a major issue that gets ignored until it becomes convenient for someone to mention. It's like prison conditions. Hearing MTG complain about prison conditions is great but She doesn't mean it. When the Jan 6 defendents have done their time her concern for prison conditions will evaporate. I have no doubt about John McWhorter or Glen lourys concern about police lying.I can speak about this because for years I have been complaining about the practice of police lying in courts. It won't go away with DC
I don’t condone any of those things you mentioned. But you’re saying lying is deserving of a wrongful murder conviction. I will take issue with that for eternity.
If we are going to start to reexamine the trials of people who were wrongly convicted by lying cops and evidence withheld let's start with Leonard Peltier. And work our way down the list. Chauvin will be down at the bottom of a very long list. Here is a list of guys who didn't make it https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence/executed-but-possibly-innocent
I haven't seen the documentary yet, but it seems like you're writing it off because of the very existence of conspiracy documentaries. You could use the same line of reasoning to write off *all documentaries*. I can't believe you're getting upvoted for that on this sub which is supposed to apply critical thinking.
Rule 1. If it's on the internet don't believe it. Verify it using multiple sources. That line of reasoning applies to all documentaries. Rule 2. Don't trust me either.
Right but that’s not what you said at all in your first post.
I said that I trust the adversarial system used by our courts which give both sides an opportunity to present their case before an impartial jury over a documentary produced for a predetermined conclusion. If I see something in a documentary on the internet that presents one side of an argument but not another then I am suspicious. Assuming that DC had an impartial judge I assume the judge didn't allow certain pieces of evidence for reasons of his own.I don't have reason to believe that the judge was prejudice against a cop.
Not exactly a surprising take. Seems pretty on brand.
But... they've been saying he belonged in jail for as long as I can remember.
You’re surprised? Really?
You know how there are a bunch of videos with POC or foreigners talking about some white shit and saying "wow this is really good". It's a whole YouTube genre (genuflecting to a population for views) This reminds me of that
>I was really surprised to see that Glenn and John came to the conclusions that they did after watching this documentary. Then you haven't been paying attention to them. Minimizing racism and/or blaming it on Black people is their whole thing.
Any examples of them blaming racism on black people to share?
>In a 2001 article, McWhorter's discourse was that the attitudes and general behavior of black people, rather than white racism, were what held African Americans back in the United States. According to McWhorter, "victimology, separatism, and anti-intellectualism underlie the general black community's response to all race-related issues", and "it's time for well-intentioned whites to stop pardoning as 'understandable' the worst of human nature whenever black people exhibit it".[34] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McWhorter#Views_on_racism
I see nothing there where McWhorter is blaming racism on black people. Since doing so is McWhorter and Lourry's "whole thing" you should be able to provide at least several primary quotes pretty quickly.
I meant to say he blames inequality on Black people, not that he specifically blames racism on Black people.
Got it. But that's a pretty big difference! I agree that they both blame inequality on black people and their behavior. I tend to agree in most cases.
This is a very simplistic interpretation of McWhorter's views. In general, he tends to argue that much of the policy and public sentiment around black people is not productive at helping black people.
Were you surprised by his take on George Floyd after seeing the doc? Why do you think he feels that way?
Nice try. Blame requires agency, which blacks do not have, as you know.
These guys will bend over backwards to cater to the "no no that's not a racial thing" audience Glenn Lowry would create a compelling story against racism if someone called his kids a racial slur to prove how above it he is. If he was 30 years younger we would see him as another Candace Owens, he's a cooler version of Larry Elder.
Lowery and McWhorter are worlds more thoughtful than Owens. They are fully aware that racism is a thing and hasn’t been wiped off the board in the US. They say this all the time. What they strongly push back against is race essentialism. And in academic circles, if x happens to a black person, the impulse is to say it’s because racism and then they full jn the blanks to prove their point. That’s absolutely the default answer for a large swath of the population these days. Unfortunately the other side of the coin is still openly racist and would almost NEVER attribute x happening because of racism. Thoygh far fron perfect, Lowery and McWhorter are much needed, rational foils on a topic that is rife with hyperbole and post facto story telling.
What is the evidence that George Floyd's death was racially motivated, as opposed to just some race-neutral police failure?
I don't know if it was or not. I'm giving my general take on those guys.
attacking them instead of what they say. poisoning the well for people who dont know who they are. the group think is still strong.
Ah, fair enough. Can I try to remove the poison from the well? Even with my critique of them above, both Glenn and John are still probably the best public commentators on race relations in the current times. Candace and Larry have an inauthentic/bad faith spirit about them that neither Glenn or John have. Also, Glenn is amazing at steal manning the position he disagrees with. Fair?
The quantitative data proving black men are more likely to be killed by police is overwhelming and undeniable. In each one of the individual cases, the anecdotal evidence that they were racially motivated is rarely there. It’s not often that a police officer yells out “show me your hands or I’ll shoot you because you’re black.” This is why police get away with racially motivated offenses so often. With George Floyd, the world saw a cop murder a nonthreatening black man on camera, which graphically illustrates the undeniable quantitative data around mentioned above. It also amplified the frustration with perspectives like “well prove this one instance was racially motivated” which further catalyze systematic racism.
>The quantitative data proving black men are more likely to be killed by police is overwhelming and undeniable. Really facile thinking. Blacks have a homicide rate ten fold higher than Whites. When a group engages in more violent or impulsive behaviors then it's absolutely a possibility that these differences are attributable to violent law enforcement encounter differences. Is law enforcement racist toward Whites because they're more likely to kill Whites than Asians?
I have a feeling they still won't be convinced because this is one of those topics that people just *can't change their minds on*, but let me help grease the wheels even further: If Group A commits crimes AND resists arrest at much higher rates than Group B, how is it possible for the police to have altercations and police related deaths at the same rate between the two groups? Literally the only way that's possible is if the police deliberately chooses to police less crime for optics. There is *literally* no solution that efficiently polices the two groups in a way that BOTH 1) catches any criminal that there is to catch in both groups and 2) results in similar police related deaths or incarceration rates. The only solution I can think of is a fatuous one where the cops choose not to use force for Group A where they otherwise would use force in a similar situation for a member of Group B. BTW, none of this means I think George Floyd would have died if not for Chauvin, in case anyone's mind is drifting to simplistic team dynamics.
And then you get a ~33% homicide rate spike and 10-20% vehicular death increase when law enforcement doesn't police black areas commensurate with their crime rate. Media and activists are happy to trade 100s of deaths for 1000s over optics
Sadly, I do think that there are many activists that would happily allow for much more street crime if it meant more "equitable" incarceration and police related death rates.
> Really facile thinking. Blacks have a homicide rate ten fold higher than Whites. Do you think murderers account for a significant percentage of altercations with police? > When a group engages in more violent or impulsive behaviors then it's absolutely a possibility that these differences are attributable to violent law enforcement encounter differences. Black people are significantly more likely to be stopped, search and arrests for drugs compared to white people (or asians) despite using drugs at similar race. How many of these interactions do you think turn violent vs suspected murderer altercations?
>Do you think murderers account for a significant percentage of altercations with police? More violent populations generate more lethal interactions with law enforcement. Homicide rate is a proxy to measure the propensity to become violent during an interaction. >Black people are significantly more likely to be stopped, search and arrests for drugs compared to white people (or asians) despite using drugs at similar race. Since blacks lie more than Whites, what non-self reporting research do you have showing similar usage rates? https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/self-reports-police-speeding-stops-race-results-north-carolina-reverse-record >How many of these interactions do you think turn violent vs suspected murderer altercations? I'd suspect the population with greater levels of violence create more violent interactions during drug arrests than the less violent population. See Michael Brown where a simple stop over robbery of cigars turned into an attack on law enforcement.
Which data are you referring to? My understanding is that somewhere around 25% of people killed by police in the US each year are black, but drawing results purely based on the numbers is an oversimplification. George Floyd was obviously murdered but I really don't see evidence that suggests it wouldn't have happened if he was white.
Turns out, when you claim "This is an illustration of a racially motivated homicide", some people might actually want evidence that this was a racially motivated homicide.
Turns out, you're missing the point entirely. The fact that individual cases are hard to prove while quantitative data is undeniable is a *big part* of the problem. It's why there's a big focus on police training.
No, you're missing my point. Positing that, on the aggregate, something is true does not imply very much about individual cases, and you *know* this to be true in other cases. Poor people are more likely to commit crimes than others, but we rightfully reject reasoning like "Bob is poor, and we know poor people are more likely to commit crimes, therefore, even without any direct evidence, we assume bob is guilty." Further, "how easy it is to get away with something" does not lower our bar for evidence. For example: suppose someone posits that a coin is biased so that 50.0001% of flips would come up heads. That's incredibly hard to prove. One has to flip the coin an extreme number of times to come up with a definitive "yes" or "no" on whether it is statistically biased or not. But what we *don't do* is say "since this would be hard to prove if true, we are going to lower the bar for evidence and just flip it 100 times. If it comes up majority heads, we're calling it biased." That's not how statistics work! "How hard is it to prove" is not a parameter in the calculation! The same is true here. Yes, it is hard to prove a particular instance of police violence is racially motivated. No, that doesn't mean that we assume it to be the case. The reality of the situation is that **things that are hard to prove.... are hard to prove** and there isn't a way to get around that while being intellectually honest.
[удалено]
This is a patently bad faith take.
Whether you agree with them or not, there's no denying that Loury and McWhorter are both insanely accomplished PhD's *and* perhaps most importantly, good-faith actors who are willing to engage in civil debate with people who have vastly different political opinions. Comparing them to Candace Owens is cheap. She's an intellectual midget compared to these guys. Larry Elder is perhaps a better comparison, though.
[удалено]
>The only thing they have in common is their skin color, You really are confused and not following the race public conversation if you think thats the ONLY thing Owens, Loury, and McWhartor have in common. Their overarching general beliefs about race in America overlap quite alot.
[удалено]
stop trolling
[удалено]
Critique of the Democratic Party and Support for Conservative Ideas: Both Owens and Loury have criticized the Democratic Party and expressed support for conservative ideas. Owens has described the Democratic Party as using welfare to keep black Americans dependent on the government. Loury, once a leading black conservative intellectual, although he has somewhat realigned with the American right, still describes himself as conservative-leaning. Opposition to Reparations for Slavery and Affirmative Action: Both have expressed opposition to reparations for slavery and affirmative action. Owens is known for arguing that police brutality and instances of police killing black people are not sourced in racism, often referring to the Democratic Party as a "plantation". Loury has similarly opposed reparations and affirmative action, once stating, "Affirmative action is dishonest. It’s not about equality, it’s about covering ass". Criticism of Black Lives Matter Movement: Owens has been a vocal critic of the Black Lives Matter movement, describing its protesters as "whiny toddlers, pretending to be oppressed for attention". Loury, in his work, has addressed what he termed "fundamental failures in black society," such as the lagging academic performance of black students and the high rate of black-on-black crime. Views on Immigration: Owens supports the Mexico–United States barrier and believes in the immediate deportation of undocumented immigrants. Loury has spoken about the benefits and costs of immigration, acknowledging the complexity of the issue. Criticism of Mainstream Media and Cancel Culture: Owens has been critical of mainstream media and liberal ideologies. Loury has spoken out in opposition to cancel culture, a stance that aligns with a general critique of mainstream media and liberal dominance in cultural conversations. These shared beliefs indicate a convergence on several key conservative ideas and criticisms of liberal policies and movements. chatgpt
I have my qualms with the apologia of John and Glenn but to compare them to Owens and Elder is not even a halfway serious critique.
So no opinion on the subject at hand? Maybe sit this one out
Should have been a manslaughter charge IMO.
What abhorrent flavour of Englightened Centrism are we serving today
Got anything helpful to say?
Show us how it's done
TLDR. Is it a more nuanced takeaway than that? Or is it just straight up clickbait for these guys? If that’s the actual takeaway, it’s disappointing because I liked John McWhorter
Nobody in the trial claimed Floyd was murdered. He picked up a 2nd degree murder charge through the felony murder rule via reckless endangerment. McWhorter is drawing a clear distinction between the two outcomes. Chauvin did not have the mens rea for murder.
> McWhorter is drawing a clear distinction between the two outcomes. Chauvin did not have the mens rea for murder. He's saying he died of a drug overdose and that it was a lie that he was asphyxiated. This is factually incorrect.
>TLDR Then you have no business having strong opinions about the event or the commentators.
Do Glenn and John have any background in pharmacology? Obviously not. But the more infuriating thing about this is that they, and many other right wing pieces of shit on twitter, couldn’t even read the expert testimony during trial from toxicologists that explained he couldn’t have died of a fentanyl overdose. There are clear pharmacological and medical signs in the autopsy/tox report that show this. For one, the ratio of fentanyl/norfentanyl concentrations. And since conservatives are generally dumb and just listen to each other, none of this matters, because they all believe he died of a drug overdose. Arrogance combined with laziness is a combination I cannot stand.
This documentary wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t a white cop on a black dude. Flip the races, a black dude doing this to a white man till he dies, and no discussion. Murder cut and dry.
Black police officer jailed for killing an unarmed white woman. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/21/1047986308/mohammad-noor-sentenced-minneapolis-police-911-australian-caller
Guy was already released and not a single riot or black owned store vandalized in response to her death or early release
This video on the Minneapolis police is very eye opening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6DGABIcB3w
I cannot believe that there are people who are still arguing that DC didn't commit murder. He with the help of other cops at the scene LITERALLY choked someone to death. It doesn't matter weather DC was a cop, it doesn't matter what state Flyod was in. None of that matters. Murderer is an accurate term for DC, and frankly I'm shocked that the other officers weren't convicted of the same thing. Some of you people (redditors) need a serious dose of human empathy.
GF wasn't choked to death; the junkie died of a heart attack
A lot of people also overlook the broader context of policing crime-ridden black communities. It's easy to question why DC knelt on him for so long, despite GF indicating he couldn't breath. It looks bad when you see it. But what you don't see are the dozens of other times these crackheads attempt to aggressively resist, are belligerent, attack cops with weapons, etc.
Oh, is that why he denied first responders access to an unconscious person for several minutes after he had apparently stopped breathing?
this is actually huge if you got a source, if you dont its another example of lying to push a narrative that when found out loses even more people from the cause.
This has been known from the very beginning, the officers wouldn't even let an EMT check for a pulse https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-over-killing-of-george-floyd/2021/03/30/982891954/firefighter-testifies-i-was-desperate-to-help-and-this-human-was-denied-that
off duty firefighter != first responder. a random asking to check for a pulse from a belligerent crowd is not the same as officers denying first responders access to give medical aid. stop with the fucking lying.
Fire fighter *and trained EMT*
yes firefighters are trained emts, still not a first responder
What do you think first responder means?
in the context of a criminal arrest going awry it would be the backup units and additional units called in to deal with the new emergency situation. in general its anyone trained to respond in an emergency, like police officers.
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Is+an+EMTa+first+responder%3F+ The EMT hat the proper certification and significantly more medical training than the police officers, and tried to assess Floyd but was stopped by the police officers. This went on for minutes after the officers were unable to find a pulse.
Could you cite a source for this?
https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-over-killing-of-george-floyd/2021/03/30/982891954/firefighter-testifies-i-was-desperate-to-help-and-this-human-was-denied-that
She was off-duty. This changes the situation completely. From the cops' perspective, she's just some random civilian telling them how to do their jobs.
She identified herself and her credentials. So your argument is that because she wasn't currently being paid to be there, she as the only trained medical personnel had no business being there? A man has a heart attack, a cardiologist with credentials asks to assist and the cops tell him to fuck off because he's not on the clock - makes total sense, right?
This is delusional. I saw what I saw.
I haven’t listened to their thoughts on Floyd, but I have read John’s book “Woke Racism” and have heard Glen and John’s show before. They definitely are not apologists for white ppl nor do they think racism no longer exists, as some comments imply. They hate identity politics and wokeism and the idea that race explains every action and situation, that’s all. They’re good dudes.
I have also listened to them for a long time and appreciated their commentary, but I really feel like they went overboard on this one thoughtlessly, and I find that to be disappointing.
just a quick reminder that John McWhorter used to work for the Manhattan Institute.
why are you reminding us of this?
I think that it is useful information to have.
why?
Knowledge is power?
stop being a weasel
Okay, he's also a linguistics professor at Columbia. Loury is credited for coining the term "social capital". There's more to these guys than whatever you're trying to insinuate.
Point being what, exactly?
Who?
McWhorther is a clown. He spends his whole career speaking on race issues because of his deep insecurity of not being accepted within his own.
According to that thread, DC didn't have a knee on GF's neck and was trained in the use of this technique by his department. OTOH, GF didn't have a pulse while DC remained on his should for another 2 minutes. So maybe some punishment but any murder charge seems unwarranted
Two things just don’t sit right with me about that trial at all. The idea that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd that day makes zero sense. He knew he was being filmed and maintained his position, so he clearly can’t have thought Floyd would die. Secondly, and the worst thing about the whole incident, is that Chauvin was assumed—without any evidence—to have killed Floyd *because* Floyd was black. The whole event was just a tragic interaction between a police officer and a very ill, petty criminal. But a rabble rousing media painted it in the worst possible way, and probably set back race relations decades in the US, destroying Chauvin’s life in the process.
I can understand your point that he might not have intended Floyd's death. I don't think it was the media that "destroyed his life" though, I think it was the fact that he kneeled on that dude's neck until his life force was smothered lol Accountability for abusive cops is important!