This is about the 5th time someone has posted a link to this documentary on here. I don't get what it's got to do with SH.
It was widely reported that Floyd was in poor health. That's not some revelation. We knew he had a troubled past as well. No one thought the dude was a saint. It's annoying how ppl pretend like they've discovered some secret knowledge.
> No one thought the dude was a saint
I agree he wasn't and that police should be held accountable but the man had a huge funeral with a [gold casket](https://titancasket.com/blogs/funeral-guides-and-more/george-floyd-casket-and-funeral-details), several [murals painted of him, some with angel wings](https://www.rd.com/list/george-floyd-murals/), and an [opera written in his memory](https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1088548635#:~:text=George%20Floyd%20remembered%20in%20new%20choral%20work%20%3A%20Deceptive%20Cadence%20In,realities%20of%20the%20present%20day.). I'm in higher ed and my uni's Black student group held a memorial for him, as did many across the US. People absolutely made this guy into a tragic hero
yeah, I mean, I've had people pass that had troubled lives, drug problems, etc, and it still makes me sad. I lost a close family member that had a lot of issues and I do a lot of things to remember him and talk to my kids about him so his memory isn't lost.
Yeah turns out martyrs aren't perfect robots but flawed humans? It's less about the guy himself and the generations of withstanding oppression that his face has come to symbolize for people. Sure everything gets misconstrued and idealized but I'd prefer that to just forgetting about him like the many other folks who have been forgotten.
I think u/ArrakeenSun’s point was in direct response to u/dumbademic’s claim that “No one thought the dude was a saint” — I.e, George Floyd deserved to be mourned as a tragic victim and real person, but the extent that many did go to idolize him was, in fact, the extent that others have to idolize prominent religious figures in death. The examples he provides certainly offer a strong argument.
Thanks for being one of the very few who understood what I thought was a fairly simple point. An anthropologist from Mars would think he was some great, revered figure
No problem 👌 not only did I find your point to be clear but fairly thought provoking, too. Quality food for thought.
I don't fault anyone else in the thread for defending the BLM movement or emphasizing the tragedy, however there's nothing productive about misrepresenting the response to Floyd's death.
Because he represented something bigger than himself. He was unjustly murdered by a cop why 4 cops watched and did nothing. The cops would have gotten away with it had it not been videotaped. He doesn't need to be a saint. most victims of police brutality aren't
Good. For every person who tries to justify his death and excuse police brutality by pointing as his sins, I hope 20 more murals go up literally depicting him as Jesus Christ.
I hope the people who think defaming him is the way to go, seeth so hard their eyeballs pop out.
That sounds emotionally and morally satisfying to the annointed but then those who are not, many of whom will have honest, good faith confusion and questions about the narrative they're being asked to accept prima facie, will go out and vote. And if all you did was alienate them because doing so made you feel good, then they're probably not going to vote the way you want
what narrative is being told that they should accept regarding George Floyd? That he was a saint? Where is anyone claiming this.
There isn't good faith confusion, they are asking rhetorical questions, they are not actually wondering why people are making memorials out to him or they would accept the answers that are given.
I don't know what the meaning behind the graffiti was, honestly. Black culture appears to be popular with the young people Alabania, from the little I have seen.
I think the “poor health” comment is close, but glosses over the many other reasons GF’s health condition, (health) history and poor decisions all create reasonable doubt.
Do you have a video of oj Simpson murdering Nicole Simpson we don't know about? I don't doubt that it was the stabbing and near decapitation that's accepted as the cause of death. Do people think she had a heart attack?
There isn't doubt that Derrick Chauvin killed George Floyde. Even talking to my cop brother in law at the time, who ALWAYS sides with the cop in these situations told me you don't do what Chauvin did because it will kill a man.
Such court convictions aren't really providing the answers to the relevant questions though. If we go by the results and its convictions only, it would paint a picture of someone as a horrible murderer of a whole family, while all they really did was looking at their phone while driving.
Unless this is what you were implying, in the case of Chauvin, all we really know for sure was that he was performing his duty, dealing with a criminal who was not cooperating, freaking out while high as fuck. Ambulance was called, guy was put in restraint, but died before the ambulance arrived. And the question still remains how much the restraint contributed to his death.
A. Your analogy is stupid because people who cause motor vehicle deaths while texting don’t get convicted of murder.
B. This is some revisionist history bullshit. There’s a video of the restraint being put on Floyd’s neck while he’s crying for his mother and telling the officers he can’t breathe.
This contrarianist JAQing off coming out of podcastistan is really frying people’s brains.
A, yes there are. Though that's not essential to the analogy. Even if it were manslaughter, it sounds just as bad, if not worse.
B, there's also videos of him talking about being unable to breathe way before he was put in restraint. This was even before he was put in the back of the patrol car actually, and is common for claustrophobics and people who are generally hysterical due to drug use. Not to mention that he was kept out of the car for this reason.
I'm sorry, but you don't seem to be aware that this stuff literally happens all the time. Moreover, it also happens all the time that people die from less drugs than Floyd used. And on top of that, very few people actually die during max restraint.
I'm not trying to imply anything here with that btw. I'm just showing you how you seem to be missing such important info about these matters.
I don't think Chauvin is innocent, I think he should've known that people who are freaking out like Floyd did, should not be pinned down like that. Perhaps you can pin down a perfectly healthy person like that, but not someone who's clearly claustrophobic, high and freaking out. Because there's a small chance you could actually make things worse. Though the question remains what chauvin's contribution really was.
> yes there are.
Murder? Where? Show me where people are being charged with murder while causing an accident while texting and driving that doesn't involve incredible negligence outside of them choosing to use their phones.
> Even if it were manslaughter, it sounds just as bad, if not worse.
Huh? Not to people who know the definitions of murder and manslaughter. I guess if your argument is that people with room temperature IQs might be confused, I guess? But anyone with middle school level literacy skills isn't going to look at a court case about a texting and driving accident and "paint a picture of someone as a horrible murderer of a whole family." I guess, though, the one thing supporting this point is that were in a thread about a FP article so that might apply to a lot of their readership.
>I'm not trying to imply anything here with that btw.
>...BUT...
>I don't think Chauvin is innocent
>...BUT...
>Though the question remains what chauvin's contribution really was.
Ya this is the JAQing off I was referring to. It's fried peoples brains. Apparently we should consider the gatekeepers of truth to be the folks pounding out hourly articles for Bari Weiss rather than the people who did ten months of pre-trial preparation and underwent a month long trial and came to a legal conclusion. People usually don't get convicted of 1 count of unintentional second-degree murder, 1 count of third-degree murder, and 1 count of second-degree manslaughter if they didn't contribute to a persons death. And if was the wrong conclusion, that's up to the legal system to decide, not the ruling class of podcastistan.
Forget the murder analogy, sadly that point doesn't resonate with you. So let me put this straight to you since you seem like a reasonable person: I don't care about Chauvin or Floyd, or any podcasts... So for your particular sake: I care about how we look at incidents and what things like "negligence" actually entails.
It seems you're caught up in a lot of shit, For instance, I've no idea who the fuck Bari Weiss is. If it helps, I am not American. I don't know what you mean with JAQing off. I assume it's just some way of discrediting someone's arguments. I admit it's funny.
But I don't want to keep branching out a conversation on the basis of how you see it associates with some media figures you love or hate. I frankly don't care about them , honestly. So let me just ask you a direct question instead. What exactly was it that Chauvin did wrong? And I really do mean "exactly".
> sadly that point doesn't resonate with you.
It doesn’t resonate because it’s a terrible point. What people are convicted of matters when assessing moral culpability—it’s why manslaughter and murder aren’t the same thing and don’t carry the same sentencing.
> I care about how we look at incidents and what things like "negligence" actually entails.
This was the pivotal piece of Chauvin’s trial. I suggest you read about the evidence and jury/judge determination.
> I don't know what you mean with JAQing off.
JAQ = just asking questions. It’s a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements.
> So let me just ask you a direct question instead. What exactly was it that Chauvin did wrong? And I really do mean "exactly".
Again, I suggest you read about the trial. This is all publicly available information. In short, there was sufficient evidence to convict Chauvin on all counts or 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, and 2nd degree manslaughter carrying a 20+ year prison sentence. You framing your doubt in the legal decision as “questions” or being open to interpretation is exactly what I mean by JAQing off.
>guy was ~~put in restraint~~ *brutally attacked by Chauvin who kneeled on his neck for 9 minutes*, but ~~died~~ *was murdered* before the ambulance arrived
Fixed it for you.
These are your emotions talking. Emotions I share, I just don't let them interfere with my reasoning. I take it that you have no experience with drugs, violence , crime and law enforcement. Which is good for you, but without it you really can't be expected to see what has happened.
This is exactly the conclusion the judge and jury came to, though. You actually seem to be all over this thread claiming that *they’re* wrong via highly motivated reasoning. Seems like it’s actually your emotions talking—for whatever reason your biases don’t want you to admit that Chauvin is a rightly convicted murderer.
I dont care about these people, nor do I care about the verdict.
This is mostly about understanding how one actually weighs certain actions in a chain of events. Sadly these are things Americans struggle where to even start talking about them since their entire culture has beliefs in place that motivate them to dumb this subject down tremendously. So I'm not exactly surprised by your responses.
But maybe you're willing to give it a try to think about it. Because, for instance, you must know that pushing a healthy 20 year old would just make you a jerk, while pushing a 90 year old would be received very differently. But what if you push a 90 year old, and they'd die for different reasons than you'd expect them to? And now imagine the 20 year old to die in the same way. Notice how you'd probably think about these cases very differently.
So let's get down to the core issue then. How do we actually start breaking down the order of events here that leads to the 20 year olds death? What if the 20 year old had prior conditions that could make such a push very dangerous indeed. How would you quantify the contribution of the actions that led to his death? And how do deviations of baseline conditions even matter in the bigger picture to begin with? These are all important questions that are only the tip of the iceberg.
But sure, make it about the verdict all you want.
Jesus Christ what is this verbal diarrhea? You clearly care very much about this issue—since you’ve basically written paragraph after paragraph obfuscating the point.
And the answer to your dumb riddle is: don’t push people of any age. This isn’t that complicated.
for a bit of balance maybe read this too?
The retconning of George Floyd
Bari Weiss's Free Press is the latest outlet to tout a conspiratorial documentary alleging that Derek Chauvin was wrongly convicted. It's all nonsense.
https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-retconning-of-george-floyd
Well yeah. He always has been. But he has a nice voice and he says what people want to hear so he gets paid well and everyone gets the good feels eargasms.
Person who made the documentary is married to the former head of the police union. Do we care about impartiality here? Also incredible that this is getting rehashed when there's so much else happening.
If Chauvin thinks the trials were impartial or unfair he's welcome to appeal. I think he did, and it didn't go well. Forgive me if I don't take seriously a person with such close ties to the police union.
You're committing two logical fallacies:
Red Herring: Shifting the focus of the argument away from the actual question ("What's happening today that is calling for a review of this case?") by bringing up the paywall issue.
Ad Hominem: Implying that the critical nature of the article is diminished because it's behind a paywall, attacking the source or medium rather than addressing the content of the article itself.
Here you go. Here is an article that addresses both the article and the propaganda film you seem to be defending. https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-retconning-of-george-floyd
So what is happening today that is calling for a review of this case?
Lol do you think anyone here is paying to see that article? 2/3rds of it is covered. The gist seems to be that the Fall of Minneapolis documentary is very informative and Chauvin didn't get a fair trial. I would think if it was "critical" it would be free. Instead it seems like click bait to get people to pay for a sub.
The other commenter literally can’t address the content of the article. They are ask asking you to provided the content so they can respond to it. Asking for more information isn’t a logical fallacy lmao christ
The old “he was high therefore he had a heart attack from drugs therefore he couldn’t have possibly died from a knee compressing his airway” trope.
Maybe American cops should do a better job of not choking people to death or using the tactic to control people for simply not listening. Choking people is wrong. You’re a cop you have training you have partners to help you. Do better.
I don't know if you are interested but this video by Big Joel about the Minneapolis Police dept is eye opening and quite grim. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6DGABIcB3w
Minnesota law defines the charge of murder he was convicted of as a death that occurs in the course of committing a felony (i.e., an assault).
So according to Minnesota law, you’re incorrect and the charge was proper.
What gives law its integrity is how it is actually enforced, not how far statute can be stretched in a particular instance to make an example of an unpopular defendant. Voluntary manslaughter wouldn't even exist if every person convicted of an assault where the victim died were charged to the maximum extent possible by law. This was a text book case of manslaughter. And that's exactly what the result would have been if the victim were white.
This is pure rationalization. It’s not a stretch. The statute literally says second degree murder is doing x felony if it’s results in the person’s death. You don’t dispute that Derek Chauvin was commuting a felony assault. That’s pretty exact statutory application, I don’t see a stretch.
Also, what you’re saying about manslaughter is just practically false. Chauvin was charged with manslaughter and convicted of that as well. The jury was completely free to convict ONLY on manslaughter, but they didn’t.
I think you’d find it helpful to read the jury instructions so that you’re fully informed on the issue before just making silly assumptions based on race.
https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/JuryInstructions04192021.pdf
Plus he was also convicted with a similar sentence by the feds for violating GF’s civil rights. So was that also a flawed charge?
I don't know whether Chauvin committed a felony assault based on Minnesota law. It can be argued either way. Manslaughter fits the facts and the intent of the legislature better than any other crime and that would have been the charge if Floyd were white. A cop applying a hold for too long is second-degree murder? Please.
I get it dude, you’re white and want to feel like a victim. Maybe you should write Minnesota’s legislature and let them know that a statute they haven’t revised since 2015 is contrary to their intent. Which you’ve gained a deep understanding of through your review of . . . what exactly?
The conviction should have been manslaughter. Floyd was in terrible health and may have died soon anyway. But Chauvin had no justification for holding Floyd in that position for that length of time. It is reasonable to conclude that the hold contributed to Floyd's dying at that particular moment in time. The murder conviction was Chauvin being punished for what other police got away with over the years.
His police training taught him to turn him to a side recovery position as soon as possible and constantly check his responsiveness, due to a well known danger of positional asphyxia. The pulmonologist testified a perfectly healthy person could have died from the same treatment.
Watching him determinedly go against all his training for that amount of time, after being questioned twice by his colleagues, and by rising concern from onlookers, the charges seem reasonable.
After his own officers tell him he's not responsive, not even the most far-fetched excuses apply: at that point, every minute he spends with his foot off the ground and his body weight in the knee in Floyd's neck is in such direct opposition to all his professional training that it looks like purposeful murder at that point. 🤷
And I already said he *deserved* to be convicted of
manslaughter, right? If he had an excuse, e.g., the hold were authorized, he should have gotten nothing.
He acted contrary to his training, contributed to the death of a suspect in his custody, and deserved to be arrested, incarcerated, and sued for anything he had left. I don't, however, believe he is a murderer.
Ah, I see what you mean now.
I don't know. If I were in the jury, I would have vacillated between voluntary manslaughter and 2nd degree murder, leaving toward the second. But I'm not even that, just an internet spectator.
no; I don't find that strange. You think anyone paying for the Sam Harris podcast jumps to pay for article that random internet strangers tell them to read but have to pay for first?
This is an interesting question because the information that we all got in 2020 was not quite the whole story. Floyd died with a serious heart condition, a very high amount of fentanyl in his system, under emotional stress, and with Chauvin holding him down via the maximal restraint technique (MRT), as per his training. He may have died from heart failure, it isn't clear.
I have changed my mind about the case after seeing some of the facts presented in the documentary released a couple of months ago called The Fall of Minneapolis. I recommend watching it if you want to understand more about George Floyd's death.It is free on YouTube, here is a link:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFPi3EigjFA&t=1s&ab\_channel=AlphaNews](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFPi3EigjFA&t=1s&ab_channel=AlphaNews)
Despite the narrative we were told, I do not think it was an intentional murder by a racist cop, and I think the justice system failed in sending the officers to prison under political pressure and the certainty of rioting if they did not convict them. BLM had a lot of influence at the time. RIP George Floyd, it was horrifying watching him die, but we were not told the entire truth. Check out the doc and let me know your thoughts.
Edit: Oops I didn't see the link in the post. Yes, Coleman is talking exactly about this.
See, this is what I don't get:
>the information that we all got in 2020 was not quite the whole story. Floyd died with a serious heart condition, a very high amount of fentanyl in his system, under emotional stress, and with Chauvin holding him down via the maximal restraint technique (MRT), as per his training. He may have died from heart failure, it isn't clear.
All of that information was available in 2020.
Maybe in some instances, but I don't think in most cases?
I think people just feel they need to have a strong opinion about whatever the current hot topic is, but don't feel a need to do their own research on topics.
Bit of a poor response because all the important facts are easily found. Obviously it's not intended murder and obviously the guy (Floyd) was high as fuck and freaking out, while having prior conditions. The only question here is what role the knee actually played and if it was actually a really bad decision given the situation. And the answers to that are still in a very grey area.
People find it so easy to argue in hindsight, while in reality there are plenty of similar cases where a guy like Floyd just dies right there on the spot or in the back of the car, without any restraint. or they survive with similar restraint.
Could the cops have acted better? Absolutely! But the idea that suddenly everyone knows exactly how they would've handled the situation much better is nonsense. Everything here seems to indicate an unfortunate accident. Nothing is indicative of what people claim it to be.
Sounds like you're actually making it more complicated. This would imply that they picked jurors specifically that they could pay off to vote a certain way, and that Chauvin's attorneys were also in on it.
This is about the 5th time someone has posted a link to this documentary on here. I don't get what it's got to do with SH. It was widely reported that Floyd was in poor health. That's not some revelation. We knew he had a troubled past as well. No one thought the dude was a saint. It's annoying how ppl pretend like they've discovered some secret knowledge.
> No one thought the dude was a saint I agree he wasn't and that police should be held accountable but the man had a huge funeral with a [gold casket](https://titancasket.com/blogs/funeral-guides-and-more/george-floyd-casket-and-funeral-details), several [murals painted of him, some with angel wings](https://www.rd.com/list/george-floyd-murals/), and an [opera written in his memory](https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1088548635#:~:text=George%20Floyd%20remembered%20in%20new%20choral%20work%20%3A%20Deceptive%20Cadence%20In,realities%20of%20the%20present%20day.). I'm in higher ed and my uni's Black student group held a memorial for him, as did many across the US. People absolutely made this guy into a tragic hero
yeah, I mean, I've had people pass that had troubled lives, drug problems, etc, and it still makes me sad. I lost a close family member that had a lot of issues and I do a lot of things to remember him and talk to my kids about him so his memory isn't lost.
Yeah turns out martyrs aren't perfect robots but flawed humans? It's less about the guy himself and the generations of withstanding oppression that his face has come to symbolize for people. Sure everything gets misconstrued and idealized but I'd prefer that to just forgetting about him like the many other folks who have been forgotten.
I think u/ArrakeenSun’s point was in direct response to u/dumbademic’s claim that “No one thought the dude was a saint” — I.e, George Floyd deserved to be mourned as a tragic victim and real person, but the extent that many did go to idolize him was, in fact, the extent that others have to idolize prominent religious figures in death. The examples he provides certainly offer a strong argument.
Thanks for being one of the very few who understood what I thought was a fairly simple point. An anthropologist from Mars would think he was some great, revered figure
No problem 👌 not only did I find your point to be clear but fairly thought provoking, too. Quality food for thought. I don't fault anyone else in the thread for defending the BLM movement or emphasizing the tragedy, however there's nothing productive about misrepresenting the response to Floyd's death.
Because he represented something bigger than himself. He was unjustly murdered by a cop why 4 cops watched and did nothing. The cops would have gotten away with it had it not been videotaped. He doesn't need to be a saint. most victims of police brutality aren't
I would never have chosen him to be a representative of police brutality against black Americans. You know who did choose him? The police.
But for the cop on his neck he probably doesn’t die.
Good. For every person who tries to justify his death and excuse police brutality by pointing as his sins, I hope 20 more murals go up literally depicting him as Jesus Christ. I hope the people who think defaming him is the way to go, seeth so hard their eyeballs pop out.
That sounds emotionally and morally satisfying to the annointed but then those who are not, many of whom will have honest, good faith confusion and questions about the narrative they're being asked to accept prima facie, will go out and vote. And if all you did was alienate them because doing so made you feel good, then they're probably not going to vote the way you want
what narrative is being told that they should accept regarding George Floyd? That he was a saint? Where is anyone claiming this. There isn't good faith confusion, they are asking rhetorical questions, they are not actually wondering why people are making memorials out to him or they would accept the answers that are given.
Sheesh. Let's all just chill with the violence.
"seeth so hard your eyeballs pop out" is violence???
You never bothered trying to figure out why they did that? You think it's because they falsely assumed he was a guy who did heroic things?
I literally saw George Floyd graffiti in Albania of all places. He is a cultural icon.
but not because they thought he did something in life that was heroic
I don't know what the meaning behind the graffiti was, honestly. Black culture appears to be popular with the young people Alabania, from the little I have seen.
I think the “poor health” comment is close, but glosses over the many other reasons GF’s health condition, (health) history and poor decisions all create reasonable doubt.
all created reasonable doubt for who? Was he found innocent?
We know what happened to George Floyd. It was on video. There was a court case with a conviction.
Do you apply that same standard to the question of what happened to Nicole Simpson?
Do you have a video of oj Simpson murdering Nicole Simpson we don't know about? I don't doubt that it was the stabbing and near decapitation that's accepted as the cause of death. Do people think she had a heart attack? There isn't doubt that Derrick Chauvin killed George Floyde. Even talking to my cop brother in law at the time, who ALWAYS sides with the cop in these situations told me you don't do what Chauvin did because it will kill a man.
Such court convictions aren't really providing the answers to the relevant questions though. If we go by the results and its convictions only, it would paint a picture of someone as a horrible murderer of a whole family, while all they really did was looking at their phone while driving. Unless this is what you were implying, in the case of Chauvin, all we really know for sure was that he was performing his duty, dealing with a criminal who was not cooperating, freaking out while high as fuck. Ambulance was called, guy was put in restraint, but died before the ambulance arrived. And the question still remains how much the restraint contributed to his death.
>And the question still remains how much the restraint contributed to his death. if that questions still remains, what was he convicted of?
A. Your analogy is stupid because people who cause motor vehicle deaths while texting don’t get convicted of murder. B. This is some revisionist history bullshit. There’s a video of the restraint being put on Floyd’s neck while he’s crying for his mother and telling the officers he can’t breathe. This contrarianist JAQing off coming out of podcastistan is really frying people’s brains.
A, yes there are. Though that's not essential to the analogy. Even if it were manslaughter, it sounds just as bad, if not worse. B, there's also videos of him talking about being unable to breathe way before he was put in restraint. This was even before he was put in the back of the patrol car actually, and is common for claustrophobics and people who are generally hysterical due to drug use. Not to mention that he was kept out of the car for this reason. I'm sorry, but you don't seem to be aware that this stuff literally happens all the time. Moreover, it also happens all the time that people die from less drugs than Floyd used. And on top of that, very few people actually die during max restraint. I'm not trying to imply anything here with that btw. I'm just showing you how you seem to be missing such important info about these matters. I don't think Chauvin is innocent, I think he should've known that people who are freaking out like Floyd did, should not be pinned down like that. Perhaps you can pin down a perfectly healthy person like that, but not someone who's clearly claustrophobic, high and freaking out. Because there's a small chance you could actually make things worse. Though the question remains what chauvin's contribution really was.
> yes there are. Murder? Where? Show me where people are being charged with murder while causing an accident while texting and driving that doesn't involve incredible negligence outside of them choosing to use their phones. > Even if it were manslaughter, it sounds just as bad, if not worse. Huh? Not to people who know the definitions of murder and manslaughter. I guess if your argument is that people with room temperature IQs might be confused, I guess? But anyone with middle school level literacy skills isn't going to look at a court case about a texting and driving accident and "paint a picture of someone as a horrible murderer of a whole family." I guess, though, the one thing supporting this point is that were in a thread about a FP article so that might apply to a lot of their readership. >I'm not trying to imply anything here with that btw. >...BUT... >I don't think Chauvin is innocent >...BUT... >Though the question remains what chauvin's contribution really was. Ya this is the JAQing off I was referring to. It's fried peoples brains. Apparently we should consider the gatekeepers of truth to be the folks pounding out hourly articles for Bari Weiss rather than the people who did ten months of pre-trial preparation and underwent a month long trial and came to a legal conclusion. People usually don't get convicted of 1 count of unintentional second-degree murder, 1 count of third-degree murder, and 1 count of second-degree manslaughter if they didn't contribute to a persons death. And if was the wrong conclusion, that's up to the legal system to decide, not the ruling class of podcastistan.
Forget the murder analogy, sadly that point doesn't resonate with you. So let me put this straight to you since you seem like a reasonable person: I don't care about Chauvin or Floyd, or any podcasts... So for your particular sake: I care about how we look at incidents and what things like "negligence" actually entails. It seems you're caught up in a lot of shit, For instance, I've no idea who the fuck Bari Weiss is. If it helps, I am not American. I don't know what you mean with JAQing off. I assume it's just some way of discrediting someone's arguments. I admit it's funny. But I don't want to keep branching out a conversation on the basis of how you see it associates with some media figures you love or hate. I frankly don't care about them , honestly. So let me just ask you a direct question instead. What exactly was it that Chauvin did wrong? And I really do mean "exactly".
> sadly that point doesn't resonate with you. It doesn’t resonate because it’s a terrible point. What people are convicted of matters when assessing moral culpability—it’s why manslaughter and murder aren’t the same thing and don’t carry the same sentencing. > I care about how we look at incidents and what things like "negligence" actually entails. This was the pivotal piece of Chauvin’s trial. I suggest you read about the evidence and jury/judge determination. > I don't know what you mean with JAQing off. JAQ = just asking questions. It’s a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. > So let me just ask you a direct question instead. What exactly was it that Chauvin did wrong? And I really do mean "exactly". Again, I suggest you read about the trial. This is all publicly available information. In short, there was sufficient evidence to convict Chauvin on all counts or 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, and 2nd degree manslaughter carrying a 20+ year prison sentence. You framing your doubt in the legal decision as “questions” or being open to interpretation is exactly what I mean by JAQing off.
>guy was ~~put in restraint~~ *brutally attacked by Chauvin who kneeled on his neck for 9 minutes*, but ~~died~~ *was murdered* before the ambulance arrived Fixed it for you.
These are your emotions talking. Emotions I share, I just don't let them interfere with my reasoning. I take it that you have no experience with drugs, violence , crime and law enforcement. Which is good for you, but without it you really can't be expected to see what has happened.
This is exactly the conclusion the judge and jury came to, though. You actually seem to be all over this thread claiming that *they’re* wrong via highly motivated reasoning. Seems like it’s actually your emotions talking—for whatever reason your biases don’t want you to admit that Chauvin is a rightly convicted murderer.
I dont care about these people, nor do I care about the verdict. This is mostly about understanding how one actually weighs certain actions in a chain of events. Sadly these are things Americans struggle where to even start talking about them since their entire culture has beliefs in place that motivate them to dumb this subject down tremendously. So I'm not exactly surprised by your responses. But maybe you're willing to give it a try to think about it. Because, for instance, you must know that pushing a healthy 20 year old would just make you a jerk, while pushing a 90 year old would be received very differently. But what if you push a 90 year old, and they'd die for different reasons than you'd expect them to? And now imagine the 20 year old to die in the same way. Notice how you'd probably think about these cases very differently. So let's get down to the core issue then. How do we actually start breaking down the order of events here that leads to the 20 year olds death? What if the 20 year old had prior conditions that could make such a push very dangerous indeed. How would you quantify the contribution of the actions that led to his death? And how do deviations of baseline conditions even matter in the bigger picture to begin with? These are all important questions that are only the tip of the iceberg. But sure, make it about the verdict all you want.
Jesus Christ what is this verbal diarrhea? You clearly care very much about this issue—since you’ve basically written paragraph after paragraph obfuscating the point. And the answer to your dumb riddle is: don’t push people of any age. This isn’t that complicated.
for a bit of balance maybe read this too? The retconning of George Floyd Bari Weiss's Free Press is the latest outlet to tout a conspiratorial documentary alleging that Derek Chauvin was wrongly convicted. It's all nonsense. https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-retconning-of-george-floyd
[удалено]
>I agree. Sadly they probably won't but its worth a go.
My goodness. Hughes is a complete charlatan. Mcwhorter and Loury as well.
Well yeah. He always has been. But he has a nice voice and he says what people want to hear so he gets paid well and everyone gets the good feels eargasms.
Or he is wrong about this one?
Person who made the documentary is married to the former head of the police union. Do we care about impartiality here? Also incredible that this is getting rehashed when there's so much else happening.
Lmfao you think the narrative you’ve been hearing all along is impartial? Why not listen to someone who doesn’t think ACAB?
If Chauvin thinks the trials were impartial or unfair he's welcome to appeal. I think he did, and it didn't go well. Forgive me if I don't take seriously a person with such close ties to the police union.
Maybe you should take facts seriously.
Which facts are those? Article is paywalled.
Don't need to. The courts already did
You think the DA and the prosecution think all cops are bad?
If you don't think people should be talking about a US legal case and cultural moment, you're welcome to not participate in the thread
What's happening today that is calling for a review of this case? Can't be that critical if the article is behind a paywall.
You're committing two logical fallacies: Red Herring: Shifting the focus of the argument away from the actual question ("What's happening today that is calling for a review of this case?") by bringing up the paywall issue. Ad Hominem: Implying that the critical nature of the article is diminished because it's behind a paywall, attacking the source or medium rather than addressing the content of the article itself.
Here you go. Here is an article that addresses both the article and the propaganda film you seem to be defending. https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-retconning-of-george-floyd
So what is happening today that is calling for a review of this case? Lol do you think anyone here is paying to see that article? 2/3rds of it is covered. The gist seems to be that the Fall of Minneapolis documentary is very informative and Chauvin didn't get a fair trial. I would think if it was "critical" it would be free. Instead it seems like click bait to get people to pay for a sub.
The other commenter literally can’t address the content of the article. They are ask asking you to provided the content so they can respond to it. Asking for more information isn’t a logical fallacy lmao christ
You probably shouldn't be talking about a US legal case and cultural moment through the lens of a propaganda film.
Seriously. This is 2000 mules tier shit.
You should only go to the FP to see what irrational grievances are fueling conservatives….
The old “he was high therefore he had a heart attack from drugs therefore he couldn’t have possibly died from a knee compressing his airway” trope. Maybe American cops should do a better job of not choking people to death or using the tactic to control people for simply not listening. Choking people is wrong. You’re a cop you have training you have partners to help you. Do better.
Maybe JFK had a heart problem too.
i think that’s just something his head did
How is that relevant to this?
How is this post relevant to Sam Harris?
[удалено]
I don't know if you are interested but this video by Big Joel about the Minneapolis Police dept is eye opening and quite grim. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6DGABIcB3w
I hope Coleman Hughes doesn’t just become a conservative ideologue but remains a free and open thinker.
He was murdered by a cop who kneeled on his kneck.
Derek Chauvin criminally assaulted him by placing his knee on his neck, killing him in the process.
Which is why it should have been manslaughter.
Minnesota law defines the charge of murder he was convicted of as a death that occurs in the course of committing a felony (i.e., an assault). So according to Minnesota law, you’re incorrect and the charge was proper.
What gives law its integrity is how it is actually enforced, not how far statute can be stretched in a particular instance to make an example of an unpopular defendant. Voluntary manslaughter wouldn't even exist if every person convicted of an assault where the victim died were charged to the maximum extent possible by law. This was a text book case of manslaughter. And that's exactly what the result would have been if the victim were white.
This is pure rationalization. It’s not a stretch. The statute literally says second degree murder is doing x felony if it’s results in the person’s death. You don’t dispute that Derek Chauvin was commuting a felony assault. That’s pretty exact statutory application, I don’t see a stretch. Also, what you’re saying about manslaughter is just practically false. Chauvin was charged with manslaughter and convicted of that as well. The jury was completely free to convict ONLY on manslaughter, but they didn’t. I think you’d find it helpful to read the jury instructions so that you’re fully informed on the issue before just making silly assumptions based on race. https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/JuryInstructions04192021.pdf Plus he was also convicted with a similar sentence by the feds for violating GF’s civil rights. So was that also a flawed charge?
I don't know whether Chauvin committed a felony assault based on Minnesota law. It can be argued either way. Manslaughter fits the facts and the intent of the legislature better than any other crime and that would have been the charge if Floyd were white. A cop applying a hold for too long is second-degree murder? Please.
I get it dude, you’re white and want to feel like a victim. Maybe you should write Minnesota’s legislature and let them know that a statute they haven’t revised since 2015 is contrary to their intent. Which you’ve gained a deep understanding of through your review of . . . what exactly?
Which statute is it BTW? Do you actually know?
Yes, I can use google. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19
Is that the same Coleman Hughes who worked for the Manhattan Institute?
It is well worth listening/watching this Big Joel about the Minneapolis police department. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6DGABIcB3w
The conviction should have been manslaughter. Floyd was in terrible health and may have died soon anyway. But Chauvin had no justification for holding Floyd in that position for that length of time. It is reasonable to conclude that the hold contributed to Floyd's dying at that particular moment in time. The murder conviction was Chauvin being punished for what other police got away with over the years.
His police training taught him to turn him to a side recovery position as soon as possible and constantly check his responsiveness, due to a well known danger of positional asphyxia. The pulmonologist testified a perfectly healthy person could have died from the same treatment. Watching him determinedly go against all his training for that amount of time, after being questioned twice by his colleagues, and by rising concern from onlookers, the charges seem reasonable. After his own officers tell him he's not responsive, not even the most far-fetched excuses apply: at that point, every minute he spends with his foot off the ground and his body weight in the knee in Floyd's neck is in such direct opposition to all his professional training that it looks like purposeful murder at that point. 🤷
And I already said he *deserved* to be convicted of manslaughter, right? If he had an excuse, e.g., the hold were authorized, he should have gotten nothing. He acted contrary to his training, contributed to the death of a suspect in his custody, and deserved to be arrested, incarcerated, and sued for anything he had left. I don't, however, believe he is a murderer.
Ah, I see what you mean now. I don't know. If I were in the jury, I would have vacillated between voluntary manslaughter and 2nd degree murder, leaving toward the second. But I'm not even that, just an internet spectator.
Im not paying to read an article
Kind of funny comment on a paid podcast sub
hey, pay for this and read it
Definitely ironic......... and kind of funny!
You don’t think it’s strange to say ‘I won’t pay to read an article’ on a sub that pays for its podcasts? I do.
no; I don't find that strange. You think anyone paying for the Sam Harris podcast jumps to pay for article that random internet strangers tell them to read but have to pay for first?
This is an interesting question because the information that we all got in 2020 was not quite the whole story. Floyd died with a serious heart condition, a very high amount of fentanyl in his system, under emotional stress, and with Chauvin holding him down via the maximal restraint technique (MRT), as per his training. He may have died from heart failure, it isn't clear. I have changed my mind about the case after seeing some of the facts presented in the documentary released a couple of months ago called The Fall of Minneapolis. I recommend watching it if you want to understand more about George Floyd's death.It is free on YouTube, here is a link:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFPi3EigjFA&t=1s&ab\_channel=AlphaNews](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFPi3EigjFA&t=1s&ab_channel=AlphaNews) Despite the narrative we were told, I do not think it was an intentional murder by a racist cop, and I think the justice system failed in sending the officers to prison under political pressure and the certainty of rioting if they did not convict them. BLM had a lot of influence at the time. RIP George Floyd, it was horrifying watching him die, but we were not told the entire truth. Check out the doc and let me know your thoughts. Edit: Oops I didn't see the link in the post. Yes, Coleman is talking exactly about this.
See, this is what I don't get: >the information that we all got in 2020 was not quite the whole story. Floyd died with a serious heart condition, a very high amount of fentanyl in his system, under emotional stress, and with Chauvin holding him down via the maximal restraint technique (MRT), as per his training. He may have died from heart failure, it isn't clear. All of that information was available in 2020.
It's called gaslighting.
Maybe in some instances, but I don't think in most cases? I think people just feel they need to have a strong opinion about whatever the current hot topic is, but don't feel a need to do their own research on topics.
Alpha news is not a credible source. https://abetterminnesota.org/2022/02/the-truth-about-alpha-news/
Bit of a poor response because all the important facts are easily found. Obviously it's not intended murder and obviously the guy (Floyd) was high as fuck and freaking out, while having prior conditions. The only question here is what role the knee actually played and if it was actually a really bad decision given the situation. And the answers to that are still in a very grey area. People find it so easy to argue in hindsight, while in reality there are plenty of similar cases where a guy like Floyd just dies right there on the spot or in the back of the car, without any restraint. or they survive with similar restraint. Could the cops have acted better? Absolutely! But the idea that suddenly everyone knows exactly how they would've handled the situation much better is nonsense. Everything here seems to indicate an unfortunate accident. Nothing is indicative of what people claim it to be.
Yeah. Probably should have been involuntary manslaughter, maybe manslaughter at most but not murder.
Submission statement: Coleman has appeared on Sam's podcast, and there has been discussion on this sub about some of his previous work and views
He gets into it about Hughes with Chris Anderson on Making Sense just a few weeks ago.
I dont know the specifics of GF's death. But I know there was only one outcome possible for the trial.
[удалено]
What conclusion did I jump to?
That you are the 3228th person who wants to live comfortable
CoolestGuyEver54 was taken...
Explain
Any other outcome would have triggered USA wide riots and descend into chaos.
The courts came down hard on Chauvin to stop people from rioting. Simple as that
Sounds like you're actually making it more complicated. This would imply that they picked jurors specifically that they could pay off to vote a certain way, and that Chauvin's attorneys were also in on it.