George Floyd trial,could you make a case for the defendant not being guilty of the charges?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Seattle, Mar 30, 2021.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    As we saw in the afternoon of last January 6 - and have been treated to multiple demonstrations of during your adult lifetime (dramatically over the past few years, less dramatically but perhaps as or more effectively over the decades since Reagan's first inauguration) -

    - Constitutional mechanisms have never been necessary or central to the agenda of any post Korean War Republican President.

    On the contrary: one of the items on that agenda has been rendering the Constitution as powerless and irrelevant as possible, without undermining its role in justifying Presidential acts of coercion and Executive employment of armed force.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    As the Biblical Hebrew nation/tribes appear to have been largely inventions or revisions of history by more recent and variously interested parties, the category "descendant" would be difficult to describe rigorously.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,486
    Vengeance is deaths martyr
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    If Floyd had been around to complain about being held down a little longer than was necessary I would have had little sympathy for him, but would have fired the cop anyway. Cops are supposed to arrest people, not pull them out of the police car and beat the shit out of them and suffocate them when they are in handcuffs. 18 year veterans of the force are not allowed to be "unprofessional" to that degree.

    But that's hardly the point here, eh? The fact that Floyd is not around to complain about being "held down longer than he felt was necessary" (suffocated for nine minutes, including three minutes in which he was unconscious) is kind of important, don't you think?
     
  8. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Ah, you're confusing trying to limit the power of politicians with trying to undermine the Constitution. Chalk it up to poor education system.

    Thanks for demonstrating that you wouldn't know the actual facts of the case if they jumped up and bit you. Floyd obviously, from multiple body cam angles, lunged out the otehr side of the car, proving that he was not in their control and warranting the heightened restraint. And it's anyone's guess where you imagined anyone "beat the shit out of them."
     
  9. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    Yeah, it is kind of important. That's why we had the case. It's not accurate however to describe it as pulling him out of the car to beat the shit out of him.

    They were trying to get him contained within the car, he was struggling and asked to be allowed to lay on the curb to calm his anxiety. They did that.

    The questionable part came after that, just to be accurate. You do want to be accurate, don't you?

    Chauvin was convicted so there's no argument with the fact that he was convicted by a jury.
     
    Vociferous likes this.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That should read "expand the power of politicians", near as I can tell - try to bear down a bit, eh?
    I can't find any of those body cam angles on the internet - all I can find is Marxist edit jobs that make it look like two or three police were pulling him out and forcing him down, with handcuffs photoshopped in to make it look like they had him under control. They also rigged the footage to make it look as if Floyd died (about minute 17 here) before the police allowed medical care. . Got a better link?
    - - -
    That's one reason I didn't post "pulling him out of the car to beat the shit out of him". I don't know why they pulled him out of the car.
    I can't find the part where "they" allowed him to lie down comfortably and calm himself. How long did they let him relax and calm down, do you know? And when was he allowed to lie down on the curb? (He was not killed on or near the curb, of course - that's where the crowd was).
    Here is a short one to aid memory: the part where they somehow appear to pull him out of the car is about the one minute mark.
    Just to be accurate, many people - including me - started questioning long before that: the part where they begin the entire scene by walking up to the side of Floyd's car with guns in their hands and aiming them at his face is my own starting point for asking questions.

    Side point: if you listen to the crowd in the long video above, you can hear a couple of people noticing that Floyd appeared dead from minute 17 on (in the first cam section - it's even clearer in the second) - everyone watching was aware of a problem with the way Floyd was being treated, and a couple of them thought that the police had killed him at the same time the expert witness at the trial noted appeared to have been the time of death.
    - - - -
    From the video and body cam stuff in total. In particular the transition from being approached at gunpoint ( why?) and being arrested to being killed by nine minutes of suffocation while handcuffed and pinned to the road - wimps like me have maybe less tolerance for policemen throwing handcuffed people around than you do. I agree it wasn't a Rodney King scene - these police were in training (Chauvin was training them, apparently in submission techniques), after all. But I know drugged up white people who have been pulled over and arrested without ever seeing the barrel of a gun in their face, or being suffocated for even nine seconds.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2021
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Most deaths like this one are the result of a series of mistakes. Break any link in that chain and you prevent the death. There were several mistakes made here, not just one - and not just after they "allowed him to lie down."
     
    candy likes this.
  12. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    No, I meant what I wrote, but you go right ahead to read whatever you wish was there.

    Did you intentionally find the only body cam footage that didn't show the moment Floyd lunged out the other side? Or did the first thing you found just confirm your bias, by omission? I've got at least three better videos, just Googling the names of involved officers and "full body cam footage." It's not rocket science.
    Your footage is from Alex Kueng:
    Even there, @10:23, you can see Floyd put his foot up on the seat, getting ready to push himself out the other side, just as Kueng bends down to pick up his shoe. Then there's Chauvin's footage, that shows Floyd suddenly lunge out of the other side, @1:31:
    There's also the Lane's footage of trying to pull Floyd into the car, where @ 10:17, he only had one hand on him when Floyd suddenly lunged out of the car:
    Now, unless Lane suddenly had superhuman strength, after failing to push Floyd into the car with the help of two other officers, he could not have pulled Floyd from the car.
    Then there's the CCTV footage, seen by the 911 dispatcher, that shows Lane (with the help of Chauvin) immediately trying to push him back into the car, after Floyd lunged out, @4:32:
    If your initial intent is to pull someone from a car, you don't immediately try to shove them back in, using all your body weight.

    So obviously, you didn't even try to find the relevant footage. If you still believe that "three police were pulling him out," you obviously don't understand very basic physiology or physics. Floyd was also cuffed when three officers couldn't get him secured in the car, which demonstrates that cuffs alone do not define someone being under control.

    Because they obviously didn't, unless your bias overwhelms both your reason and your eyes.

    Seattle didn't say anything about "comfortably." And you're obviously nit-picking about him being laid down on the "curb."
    Since you seem to have missed so much, here's Floyd asking to "lay on the ground," @1:41:
    And earlier, Kueng did have Floyd sit in the curb/sidewalk, which Floyd thanked him for, @4:18:

    You're just ignorant of standard police procedure.
    Lane obviously didn't pull his gun until Floyd failed to follow commands and repeatedly failed to show his hands (posing a potential risk to the officer), @1:34:
    There was at least twenty seconds between first being asked to show both his hands and him finally complying. Within that twenty seconds, that officer could have been shot at least ten times. That is way more than enough reason to draw his gun.

    Not approached at gun point, as demonstrated above. Only drew his gun to a potential threat, as explained above. And drugs in his system, for which he had already gone to the hospital a week or so earlier, significantly contributed to his death.

    I'm not going to argue with that.



    Very true. Floyd could have not passed a counterfeit bill, not been doing drugs that put his health at risk (and already had) even in the best of times, could have not repeatedly resisted arrest, could have not forced his way out the other side of the car, and bystanders could have not exacerbated the situation. Any one of those might have avoided the death, and any one of those could have changed the police response.
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    He claimed Floyd requested that he be allowed to "lie down and relax", and the police "allowed" him to do that on the curb.
    What the cameras show is Floyd being dragged out of the car while handcuffed (instead of being held inside it), pushed to the road, and pinned there by a knee on his neck. That is nobody's idea of being allowed to lie down and relax.
    I'm not ignorant of the fact that putting a gun in the face of a black man in the middle of a street full of bystanders, who is obviously not mentally competent or able to hear and follow commands easily but is otherwise threatening no one and has not threatened anyone (not even the victim of the alleged crime), is standard police procedure in Minneapolis. I presumed that is why the policeman had his gun out and ready to fire - safety already off, as the video shows - in the first place.
    The fact that such behavior is standard police procedure is a large part of the problem. Floyd was - as Floyd himself appears to realize, in a confused sense - very close to being shot. His fear was justified.
    I just pointed out you were mistaken. I have no "wishes" in such matters, except to counter the repetition by which such bs works.
    Nope.
    The long video has the body cam footage from both policemen who's cameras showed the circumstances of Floyd's removal from the car and forcible restraint on the ground. There is no footage that shows him "lunging out", and no footage that shows him escaping from either the handcuffs or the handholds of the police. He was surrounded and held throughout, and pushed to the ground while handcuffed.
    None of that happened.
    All of that stuff was in my links.
    "Initial intent" doesn't change what in fact happened.
    So?
    You shouldn't put stuff in quotes that you made up, and I did not post. It's dishonest.
    And yet he did, right there on camera. And I could have done the same easily - no "superhuman strength" was involved. Handcuffed as he was, Floyd had no way to resist.
    Approached at gun point, as shown; pointed the gun at Floyd's face, with the safety off, in the circumstances visible on camera.

    As noted: that doesn't happen to white people very often. As you admit, it's standard police procedure when they "feel threatened", which when dealing with black men they very often do.
     
  14. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    You shouldn't put stuff in quotes that you made up. Seattle didn't say that. He said:
    And Floyd had repeatedly claimed he was claustrophobic. You know "his anxiety" that could be calmed outside of an enclosed vehicle (of course, completely ignoring that he was originally in a smaller vehicle).

    Your failing eyesight or ignorance of very basic physiology and physics is astounding. As shown to you, with specific timestamps (read no excuse for you not to have watched them, and YouTube even has frame by frame), Floyd obviously wasn't dragged out of the car. Three officers clearly did try to get him held in the car, but after failing to push him in (due to him resisting), tried to pull as well (which he resisted by pushing out the other side). If you can't see that for yourself, you're clearly either delusional or willfully ignorant of the facts.
    Again, no one ever said "relax." Stop arguing straw men you make up.

    Your ignorance of police procedure seems willful at this point. As shown to you, with specific timestamps (read no excuse for you not to have watched them), Lane clearly didn't have a gun in hand until Floyd repeatedly refused orders, as seen by his reflection in Floyd's car windows and tapping on the glass with his flashlight. People who are "obviously not mentally competent" can still shoot you. That's why mens rea is a factor in convictions and sentencing. It takes seconds for an unknown suspect to turn deadly. Yes, Floyd's fear was completely justified, as he was presenting as an uncooperative risk, with the officer having no way of knowing if he was armed or reaching for a weapon. But I guess you think police shouldn't take any precautions to protect their own lives. That's despicable, but expected from you.

    We'll get to that ignorant claim about the safety below.

    No, you just made your usual bare proclamation, without any argument or reasoning at all. Just because you're too ignorant of anything but Howard Zinn revisionist history, doesn't justify your meaningless opinions.

    Then you should already know that your opinion is pure nonsense, but apparently you're too obtuse. All the footage shows Floyd clearly lunging out, if only you had some very small comprehension of basic physics/physiology instead of your foregone conclusions.
    No one has claimed Floyd ever "escaping from either the handcuffs or the handholds of the police," so this is just another bullshit straw man from you. And neither cuffs nor handholds constitute having a suspect under control. Again, your ignorance of basic police work is astounding.

    It all happened. It's all right there in the videos, for anyone to see for themselves. But there's no accounting for your motivated reasoning.

    You're right. They could have intended to pull him out and then, for some odd reason, ended up, factually, trying to push him back in with all their body weight, until he asked to be laid down.

    Oh, we get how blithely you ignore evidence.

    You did post:
    That's so hilarious that you're so dishonest you even deny what you clearly posted and there's a record of. Good luck with the mental gymnastics to justify that one.

    Wow, so now you believe in superhumans, as long as it justifies your foregone conclusions and clear bias.
    You could not have pulled Floyd from the car with one hand, and you're delusional if you really think you could. Again, very basic physics and physiology. So we'll call it ignorance to be charitable.

    Didn't approach at gun point, as the video clearly shows to anyone with an ounce of honesty. He very clearly tapped on the window with his flashlight and held up his other, empty hand.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    He did end up pointing the gun at an uncooperative, unknown, and potential threat. You also seem completely ignorant about guns. Lane was carrying a Sig Sauer P320, and the video clearly shows that his wasn't modified to have an external safety. There's only the breakdown level and slide lock, but no thumb safety. Just more evidence that you have no clue what you're looking at when you attempt to watch these videos.

    There were 511 officers killed in felonious incidents and 540 offenders from 2004 to 2013, according to FBI reports. Among the total offenders, 52 percent were white, and 43 percent were black.
    ...
    From 1980 to 2013, there were 2,269 officers killed in felonious incidents, and 2,896 offenders. The racial breakdown of offenders over the 33-year period was on par with the 10-year period: 52 percent were white, and 41 percent were black.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-white-offenders-more-likely-to-kill-police/
    So about 12-13% of the population accounts for 41-43% of officer deaths. That makes black men, objectively, more dangerous to officers.
    But way to rub your nose in your own ignorance.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No, it doesn't. (You are forgetting both encounter rates and behavior differences when accosting black vs white men.)
    It also fails to consider the actual risk of officer death in these particular circumstances (suspect threatening nobody, afternoon, crowd of bystanders, four cops on hand to arrest one guy for passing a fake twenty, Minneapolis, etc).
    But your verification of the officer's apparent attitude going in (his fear of large black men) as noted by me earlier, is welcome. That was my assumption for the firearm, as well as the acquiescence in suffocating a guy who appears to be on drugs without bringing in medical help, and you agree.

    But I can't help but notice that the cam-cops both seemed a bit - how to say it - down, sober, in a reflective or disturbed mood, when bagging the evidence and so forth after Chauvin had killed the man. They knew, as did the EMT folk in the video, that this had not gone well - whatever they were supposed to have done as policemen, this wasn't it. They didn't join the force to do things like that to people.
    Not completely unknown (he already knew that Floyd had not displayed a gun or any other weapon when committing the crime, for example, and had not threatened anyone with violence) and not completely uncooperative, and "potential threat" evaluated according to his race, which is a central matter under consideration here.

    A gun which he had drawn and readied for fire, which as I pointed out is not how white men in similar circumstances are treated by Minneapolis police either statistically or in my experience.
    So my observation that he did not take the safety off after observing anything about Floyd or the situation - his gun was already a trigger pull from firing as he approached the car, before he knew anything about Floyd's reactions - was accurate. The fact that he was carrying a firearm with no "external" safety is indeed news to me - yet another circumstance that raises questions long before the actual murder (that was the context of the entire gun issue).
    The back window. Floyd couldn't see him yet, or (given his drugged state) hear what he said (hence the tap).
    Nope. Now you've got the sequence screwed up. Regardless of their "intentions", they ended up pulling him out, unresisting (one man did that, easily). They then pushed him to the road (he was not trying to lie down - this was a while after his supposed "request", which was a response to being pushed into the car from the other side while complaining of claustrophobia and otherwise behaving as if drugged), held his legs out, pressed him prone unto the tar, kneeled on his neck until he lapsed into a coma, and continued to kneel on his neck until he died. About six minutes to coma, which may have been the point of death, and about three minutes more after he became unresponsive (at least two bystanders complained about that, one of them knowledgable enough to realize that they were killing him).

    According to you, that was all done at Floyd's request.
    Nonsense. Floyd was not resisting (he appeared to want to get out of the car, he had very little purchase with his feet and he was handcuffed), the cop had leverage both from the car and gravity, Floyd was coming out headfirst - what was the problem?
    But if you think that took superman, I can begin to understand why you (unlike any of the bystanders) might actually think Floyd was some kind of run-amuck, lunging, scary, out of control threat to humanity there - a guy who needs a come-along to get an unresisting drunk out of his car might be living in a more threatening world than the rest of us.
    But a police officer shouldn't be. Really - should not. It raises questions.
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Moderator note: Q-reeus has been warned (again) for hate speech.
     
  17. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Really? So the more encounters you have with police increases the odds of you murdering one? Doesn't matter your race. That would be your own moral failing. You keep assuming some great difference in police handling of whites and blacks, even though I've already shown you two examples of whites dying in similar circumstances to Floyd. Any further difference would seem to be accounted for by a greater propensity to resist arrest.
    But I assume you'll claim that discrepancy is due to racism, again, without any real evidence. From an article trying to claim as much:
    A UNC Chapel Hill study showed 51 percent, or 1,338, of resist charges were made against black people throughout North Carolina from Feb. 13 to Aug. 11, 2015, despite a statewide African-American population of 22 percent. In that same half year, white people were charged 1,150 times, a rate of 43 percent, according to the study headed by political science professor Frank Baumgartner, a specialist in racial disparities in traffic stops.
    https://www.citizen-times.com/story...s-found-across-nc-us-johnnie-rush/2603267002/
    And that might have a chance at flying, except that the FBI's Uniform Criminal Reporting on 2018 homicides says:
    When the race of the offender was known, 54.9 percent were Black or African American, 42.4 percent were White
    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/expanded-homicide
    Now the intellectually dishonest is apt to claim, without evidence, that both reflect false accusations by racists, but according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics National Criminal Victimization Survey 2018 (the race of violent crime offender as reported by the victim):
    The offender was of the same race or ethnicity as the victim in 70% of violent incidents involving black victims, 62% of those involving white victims
    https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf
    Black people were more likely to be violent offenders (compared to their percentage of the population), according to the victims, 70% of which were themselves black. To deny that would be both blaming the victim and ignoring black voices. So which are you going to pull now?
    Again demonstrating your complete ignorance of standard police procedure, with any race.
    It's sad how you feel the need to make up agreement that doesn't exist to claim some imagined victory. I guess your fragile ego needs that though.
    "Completely" is an irrelevant qualifier to "uncooperative." It's trying to hedge and weasel out of the simple fact that Floyd repeatedly failed to cooperate and outright resisted. No, not "'potential threat' evaluated according to his race." Potential threat of any suspect reaching around in a vehicle while not complying with orders. Again, standard police procedure of which you are demonstrably ignorant. Remember, Chauvin was never even accused of being racist in his trial. So you presuming race was a factor ignores the fact that race was not deemed a pertinent factor by the prosecution.
    Again, your ignorance of firearms abounds, but at least you seem to be backpedaling from your earlier ignorant claim about a safety. You've yet to show any evidence of how any white man is treated in similar circumstances (even though I've already shown two). You just keep proclaiming it, like any ideologue.
     
  18. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Cont...

    No, you're still ignoring the painfully obvious fact, repeatedly pointed out to you with both specific video timecode and still frame, that Lane didn't have his gun out until Floyd was uncooperative. Not being cooperative is a reaction to repeated commands. Nothing about your willfully ignorant presumption is "accurate."
    Most police duty handguns have no external safety. External safeties are largely for under-trained civilians. Good firearms training, that teaches trigger finger discipline, doesn't raise any questions. Again, standard operating procedure for police.
    Lane didn't pull his gun until Floyd failed to comply several times after opening his door.
    Starting @1:31, Floyd opens the door, having obviously seen Lane, and Lane then commands Floyd to show his hands three times before pointing a gun at him.
    So what's your next ignorant, bullshit excuse?
    If you insist on not understanding very basic physics/physiology, you're obviously far too dogmatic for anyone to reason with you. (remembering why I have you on ignore)
    You're either lying or have ignored the facts already shown you:
    That's very obviously after coming out the other side of the car. But I guess your eyes and/or reasoning faculties and/or intellectual honesty are seriously impaired.
    You're lying again. As I clearly only said "here's Floyd asking to "lay on the ground."
    Contrary to all the video evidence plus the simple fact that three officers couldn't get him secured in the car. That's pretty thick.
    Yes, Floyd wanted out of the car, while the officers were trying to push him in. And as soon as he thought they were going to succeed at pulling him in and shutting the doors, he lunged out the other side. Notice, he didn't ask to "lay on the ground" until he was already out, trying to bargain his way out of being put back in. Very consistent behavior on Floyd's part.

    You'd have us believe the faerie tale that three police couldn't get him in the car, and what, they just gave up, but instead of pulling him back out the curb side, they decided he needed a trip through the vehicle they had been trying to secure him in? What utter nonsense.

    Floyd clearly did have purchase, with his foot on the seat, lunged out faster than one officer's one-handed grip could possibly account for, and the bystanders repeatedly told Floyd to quit resisting. The only questions your warped view of things raise is how is it possible to be so ignorant of very simple facts repeatedly shown and explain to you. Seems this whole discussion is way outside of your comprehension level. I guess I'll give you a break, before your ears start to smolder.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    It's all very well to trot out statistics like that one. Have you spent any time at all trying to find out what reasons experts suggest to explain such statistics?

    Do you think it's at all possible that socioeconomic factors might have something to do with levels of violence by different groups in societies?
     
  20. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    If it's socioeconomic factors then that's a matter of class, not race, and we should see similar stats by comparable socioeconomic class of every race. If you have those stats, I'd be happy to see them.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Race and socioeconomic status tend to be linked in the United States. Are you unaware of this?

    And what do you mean by "class"? How are you defining "classes" in the United States? Please explain.
     
  22. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    That claim is going to require some evidence to support it. Without any, it seems to imply that poorer socioeconomic status is somehow inherent to black people, but that would be overtly racist. So I presume that you mean something else. I'm all ears.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Speaking of superhuman, I'd pay money to see you try that - "lunging" through the door from one foot up on the seat of an SUV, headfirst with your hands behind your back. Bring a camera - your faceplant on the tar may be net-worthy.
    Even the uncoordinated and mentally fraught Floyd attempted no visible "lunging", his one foot on the seat being in no position to drive his body with force even if he had been coordinated and violent, and the officer appeared to simply haul him out head first and hold him next to the car as anyone would an uncoordinated drunk in danger of hurting himself - he never got outside the door swing, never escaped the controlling grip, never came close to getting past the surrounding police, and might have landed on his head had the officer lost his grip instead of holding him up and allowing him to get his feet under him.
    The superman officers did not drop him, which was good, until they pushed him over onto the road, which was not so good - they did appear to remain low key and conscientious throughout, within the limits imposed by Chauvin. They did not, for example, scream obscenities at him when they approached his window and put a gun in his face (as the guy who shot Castile in front of his family did). If this thread had asked about a defense for one of them it might get more of a pause for thought.
    Maybe you want to review my link? It includes the body cams of the officers involved, with a clear view of what they were doing, rather than the obstructed view from above and across the street.
    I see no evidence that Floyd even heard or registered the commands - he was, as the officers remarked, pretty obviously "on something", and not registering his surroundings, and in fear of being shot even before he saw the gun in his face. By appearances he put his hands on the wheel as soon as he understood what the officer was saying, willingly, and simply hadn't thought to do it earlier. (Floyd wasn't thinking clearly either before or afterwards).
    Minneapolis police in my experience have no trouble arresting drug-addled white guys who aren't mentally able to follow commands with prompt efficiency. They patiently take the time to get them into the patrol car uninjured, handcuffed and searched for weapons, despite all kinds of verbal abuse and flailing, and even obtain medical care for them, without putting fire-readied guns in their faces, without pinning them to the road, without suffocating them into submission.

    That may be why unarmed white guys so seldom get killed by the police for things like passing forged twenties at convenience stores in broad daylight - what do you think? Worth considering?

    One thing we know for sure from this thread, this weird attempt to equate coming up with a defense of public murder based on the incoherent flailings of the drug-addled victim and "impartiality" as a jury member: that "talk" Ta-Nehisi Coates discusses in his book and elsewhere, that CRT analysts have shown is a routine aspect of raising black boys in America, is clearly a reasonable and even necessary part of their upbringing. Even Floyd in his drugged condition was aware of the danger he was in, the treatment he could expect - from the police. That he was suffocated instead of shot looks more like chance than anything else. That the bystanders, the EMT folk, the professional and experienced and knowledgable witnesses across the street, the victim of the swindle - the people the police involved were supposed to be defending - were aware of what they were seeing and simultaneously of their inability to prevent it or intervene even in their own interest, is damning. None of them, by the evidence, could be seated on that jury as "impartial" in the terms of this thread - and they were disinterested eyewitnesses.
     

Share This Page