Harrison Danneskjold

More Electro-Swing!

Crazy in Love I believe this was a Beyonce song, originally, but the version I've linked to is the Electro-Swing remix. Electro-Swing: Like Swing Music (from back before the world was so totally fucked) but with modern synth instruments!

Why specifically Euclidean? I'm not opposed to the idea that budding philosophers should have a good handle on the physical world they are to describe, per se; I'm just not sure why Euclidean geometry, specifically, is what you would connect to that. But I know very little about mathematical geometry, myself, which is part of what makes me so curious.

Alright. How about the second round of race riots, the president of the United States taking a stance on what the "correct verdict" should be or Maxine Waters explicitly urging the rioters to take things up several notches if they saw anything less than "guilty, guilty, guilty"? Now, if I'd been on the jury I would've been tempted to acquit him just to remind miss Waters that she is not the boss of me, but I also know that this is not the usual response to such pressure - particularly when there are credible threats of violence behind it. And such threats were credible. Have you seen what the rioters did to Minneapolis last summer? And speak freely about your conclusions without fear. That trial should not have been conducted in Minneapolis and something should've been done for the anonymity of the jurors.

If you haven't seen Evita before then I cannot help you until you do.

"Black and Tans" refers to the generic camouflage uniform of all modern military forces (but primarily that of the United Kingdom). "IRA" stands for the Irish Republican Army, who were insane nationalistic terrorists (in the 80's I believe?), but who knew how to compose a damn good tune.

A Good Song Never Dies!

Well that's easy. https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/derek-chauvin-trial/6990597-Former-home-of-defense-witness-in-Derek-Chauvin-trial-vandalized-with-pig’s-head-blood It looks like that one didn't make it into national circulation (so I don't blame you for not knowing about it) but it did happen. Once again we seem to touch on the crying need for better media. Every single moment of this case was broadcast nationwide. Any one of us could've taken the trouble that @MisterSwig did and watched the whole damn thing. What relevant information, apart from that, could the Jury have had access to? It's quite ironic that you're calling the defense's closing arguments skeptical while maintaining this position, while I find this position rank skepticism but not necessarily that of the defense. Maybe we're both wrong (although I obviously don't think so at this moment) but you must admit the symmetry is weird.

And you can state what you believe to be true without any fear of having your house burned down while your self and your family are still inside. That's probably the primary advantage we have over the actual jurors.

Amen!

The previous residence of one of the witnesses was showered in pig's blood and had a severed pig's head left on its doorstep. There was rioting in the street once again and when asked about it Maxine Waters explicitly stated that unless he was found guilty on all counts the mob needed to get "more active" and "more confrontational". More confrontational than setting the Twin Cities on fire and beating up random pedestrians, mind you. You might be less keenly aware of this than those of us who actually live in Minnesota; I'm not sure. I honestly don't know how much of my local news has made it into national awareness. But I can provide you with a rather extensive laundry list of evidence of attempted intimidation, if you'd like. I do agree that you were only drawing out the implicit ideas in @whYNOT's post. I don't think you were putting words in his mouth that didn't already belong there. But those implicit words are also correct. Men can lose sight of justice (although it cannot cease to exist) but it is always in their own self-interest to retain their own awareness of it. We can't change the verdict but it is still in all of our own best interests to know (and rationally know, for good reasons) what the right verdict should have been.

They could only have done so by disregarding the very evidence they were supposed to consider. Once again - what would have happened to Floyd without Chauvin? We know there are several distinct possibilities (with one of the major ones being death by drug overdose) but as you yourself said we just can't be certain. This is both true and very relevant to what the jury should've done. Which is why I say "I'm not sure how much track remains ahead of this crazy train". If our current justice system can be distorted into a popularity contest (which seems to be precisely what happened here) then all it would take for any of our lives to be ruined would be widespread unpopularity among the lowest common denominator of our fellow countrymen. Of all the things I personally deserve to brag about, popularity certainly has never been one of them. And I don't think that's an uncommon trait among O'ists (or even the better thinkers of any philosophical persuasion). The only people who would be safe in such a society are the lowest common denominators, themselves. I wholeheartedly agree with @whYNOT here. Trial by jury could soon become something that we should rationally fear. And that should be concerning to you, too.

Tu quoque.

It's also rather telling that the defense wrapped up by addressing the facts and discussing how drugs and a preexisting health condition likely played a role in what happened (and specifically how the jury ought to take this into consideration) while the prosecution wrapped up by declaring in sloppy poetics that Chauvin is basically the Grinch. The problem (if I may adopt the same rhetorical style) is not that Chauvin's heart was too small but that the mob was hungry for it. And when forced to choose between truth and justice versus short-term security we (like the Aztecs before us) gave them what they wanted. Isn't there some bromide about this being the land of the free because of the brave? That's precisely it. There were too many factors involved for us to be certain how much of Floyd's death was in fact caused by Chauvin. In light of all the evidence we saw I don't believe this can be disputed. As you yourself noted, if any of us were asked what would've happened to Floyd if Chauvin hadn't restrained him in that way, we can't really say. Maybe they could've gotten him to a hospital in time to save his life; maybe he would've pulled through on his own, through some stroke of blind luck; maybe he would've died in the squad car; we just don't know. And the legal term for "we just don't know" is reasonable doubt. It would be very interesting to compare what "reasonable doubt" meant in this case versus that of OJ Simpson. How do you figure? I know I'm fond of employing overly-flowery hyperbole myself, on occasion, but I'm not a lawyer. That way of speaking might be fine for me but a court of law is supposed to have very rigorous rules about only speaking on what's strictly relevant and keeping one's interpretations of the facts to oneself. I might describe the mob which was threatening those cops as a "bouquet" of something (although certainly not of "humanity") but if I did it wouldn't even constitute a legal argument, at all.

Didn't the coroner state that Floyd had three or four times the lethal dose of meth and fentanyl in his blood system and that if his body had been found at home it would've been ruled a straightforward, textbook overdose? I think saying that he could've gone to jail or (hopefully) the hospital or perhaps he might've died anyway is the best synopsis any of us could give to that question, given everything we now know. This is why I find it so outrageous that the jury didn't consider there to be any reasonable doubt about manslaughter, let alone the murder charges. It's not relevant how any of the bystanders at the scene felt about what happened. Their collective effect on the officers' judgements isn't even relevant unless we know for sure that they were what killed Floyd. If we can't be sure of that (and from everything we've seen I don't believe we can be) then that, being the root issue, is the only relevant factor. If there's reasonable doubt about manslaughter then we can't even consider murder because the latter requires the former at a bare minimum.

I will personally never allow this thread to die!!! The music is just too good. But that will probably be my final addition for tonight.

It should be said that the rioting started up anew towards the tail end of this trial, prompting a whole new round of curfews across Minnesota. In conjunction with the severed pig's head at the residence of one of the witnesses (etc) it seems fairly obvious what happened here. Chauvin was attempting to deal with an unreasonable and uncooperative individual, who was already in the process of dying (please remember that his drug dealer feared legal liability for this). He used less force than would've been permissible under the circumstances and called an ambulance in the attempt to save Floyd's life. Remember that our epistemic standard here is reasonable doubt. The defense did not have to prove that the balance of probability was on their side (although they seem to have done so anyway); all they had to demonstrate that the case for his guilt was not entirely airtight. The defense showed that we can't even be certain what role Chauvin played (if any at all) in the causal chain leading to Floyd's death; if we have reason to suspect that Floyd might've expired in precisely the same way, regardless of the police presence or absence, then we have reason to doubt the whole damn thing right down to the root. And yet, in the words of Dear Leader Maxine Waters: "guilty, guilty, guilty". This was a human sacrifice to appease the mob. And it didn't even work (as no form of appeasement ever does); no sooner had Chauvin's blood started drying on the altar than they found a new martyr to riot for: teenage knife fights! That last is not hyperbole. A black teenager was just shot in the act of attempting to stab another black teenager (whose black life does not seem to matter after all) and resulted in a discussion of whether we need our police to prevent teenagers from stabbing each other. I'm not sure how much track is left ahead of this crazy train.

There's also something to be said about the way in which George Floyd and his girlfriend were using SpeedBalls and its relation to the choice to live. If you are seriously committed to remaining alive then you do not engage in activities like that. I'm not saying that I, personally, am not in a similar position (with the way I've been drinking); just that it has something to do with the choice to live.

I've been catching up on all of this over the past day (I needed something less relevant to my self to occupy my thoughts) and these are the established facts which actually seem in some way relevant. 1. George Floyd and his girlfriend had been doing "speedballs" (a combination of methamphetamines and fentanyl) for several months. This particular combination of drugs would not be easy for the most careful and forward-thinking individual on Earth to use responsibly. 2. Safety didn't seem to bear any relation to the manner in which they were using these drugs. They didn't seem to know exactly what they were ingesting and it doesn't sound like they tried this brand-new substance in tiny doses, in order to establish what the effects on themselves personally would be, nor anything else like that. They were doing speedballs so irresponsibly that George Floyd almost died from them only two months before this incident. 3. George Floyd had already overdosed and, judging from his behavior, was already in mortal danger long before the police even showed up. 4. When the police showed up George Floyd (who already had WAY too much SpeedBall in his system) ingested the rest of his stash in order to dispose of the evidence. If this was a simple manslaughter case then the prosecution might have something to go with. After all, none of those facts prove that DC's actions didn't contribute to his suspect's accidental suicide. But since they are trying to argue something more than that I really can't imagine this ending in anything other than acquittal. And it's sad that our culture can only discuss this in terms of race. There's something to be said here about the drug war and the fact that, if methamphetamines and fentanyl were legal, perhaps George Floyd would've met the police officers with a simple request to go to the hospital (instead of ingesting the rest of the drugs on his person). If it weren't for the drug war perhaps he might still be alive. But it's difficult to see how the above facts could be integrated in any other way than that George Floyd killed himself.

Is it racist to say that to a Hmong person? 🤣

I've been reading about this in the newspapers off and on and I have to say, the amount of focus the prosecution seems to be placing on feelings is truly amazing. There was a woman who testified about how badly she felt for not interfering with the situation; how it keeps her up at night that she just stood by but that the cop is ultimately the one to blame. There was some firefighter who felt certain that Floyd was in mortal danger (which - yeah; so did everyone else who saw the video, but this doesn't tell us WHY he was in peril) and then some guy said that the whole situation seemed like an animal fight to him, and the next days' big controversy then became whether or not he was describing the policemen as animalistic. Is this trial supposed to be about what caused the death of George Floyd or how the rest of us feel about it?