Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
dream_weaver

What have George Floyd, Micheal Brown and Malice Green in common?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, dadmonson said:

Also, if policemen can have a "few bad apples" why can't protesters?

Whatever the case may be, it is YOU who must decide between GOOD individuals and EVIL ones and between the INNOCENT and the GUILTY ... otherwise you condemn yourself to the very blindness (lumping one in all or all in one) which you profess to abhor... and which is the root of all racism and prejudice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

December 16, 1773: “The Secret Plan”

While this doesn't fully address the question of how the Boston Tea Party was perceived by those seeing it in the news without prior knowledge of the planning that went into it. Many choose to remain anonymous, providing a subtle clue of some unspecified concern. 

They had 18 days in which the plan was laid.

@whYNOT, 'arguementum ad consequentiam' was returned on a fallacy inquiry using 'arguementum ad historiuam' as the search term.

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dadmonson said:

What about Martin Luther King?

He wasn't killed by cops, and he was very specific about his civil disobedience, and very much against any loss of property or violent action. So I don't see why you bring up his name in relation to those people, or the connection you're trying to make between his protests and the hodgepodge here. It isn't difficult to condemn both property loss and the far worse examples of murder or manslaughter. 

I'm not sure if WhyNot is overgeneralizing to say that all protests related to this have looting involved. If he is, that's wrong. But he would be right to suggest that the looting and rioting didn't lead justice to prevail. That's not what it takes to be heard, because it doesn't work, but some form of protest can.

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

And the cop's act is not representative of daily life and all policemen in the USA (unless CNN has got hold of you), a false induction.

You're from South Africa, you wouldn't know daily life either. It really isn't that far off with my experience with cops in the US that they are often callous and don't have much regard for how their actions affect other people. If you only mean to say that being killed by the police isn't daily life, it doesn't matter. Voluntary manslaughter and murder should not occur ever with the people who are supposed to prevent it (and why any law enforcement should be held to a higher standard than a civilian). 

Not all police of course, but probably most of them in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

While this particular reference may not be part of why Narragansette was chosen for the name of the judge that went on strike in Atlas Shrugged, it is more synergistic than most of the other references provided from this particular jumping point.

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who Were the Sons of Liberty?

The appeared on the scene prior to December 1765, with the tea party to be 8 years way.

A pattern that does not appear to be present in the George Floyd protests:

The Sons didn’t stop there. After Parliament passed the Townshend Acts in 1767, which imposed import duties on goods such as china and glass, Adams organized a boycott to keep British goods out of Massachusetts altogether. According to Adams biographer Dennis Fradin, the Sons enforced the boycott by sending boys to smash the windows and smear excrement on the walls of local shops that didn’t comply. If that didn’t work, the proprietor faced the risk of being kidnapped and tarred and feathered, a painful, humiliating torture that could leave lasting scars. [Bold emphasis mine]

An element that appears to be missing from Ms Kelly Carter Jackson writing for The Atlantic is the admiration of the underlying principle behind the violence.

Arguably, calling for a boycott is fine, while implementing a multi-tiered strategy to 'encourage' compliance does have its issues. (argumentum ad consequentium? - Not in a pragmatic sense.)

In contrast, an internet acquaintance posted a photo take of graffiti "For Floyd" was spray painted on the sidewalk in red near the Apple store where its glass door and other windows were broken.

 

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Eiuol said:

He wasn't killed by cops, and he was very specific about his civil disobedience, and very much against any loss of property or violent action. So I don't see why you bring up his name in relation to those people, or the connection you're trying to make between his protests and the hodgepodge here. It isn't difficult to condemn both property loss and the far worse examples of murder or manslaughter. 

I'm not sure if WhyNot is overgeneralizing to say that all protests related to this have looting involved. If he is, that's wrong. But he would be right to suggest that the looting and rioting didn't lead justice to prevail. That's not what it takes to be heard, because it doesn't work, but some form of protest can.

You're from South Africa, you wouldn't know daily life either. It really isn't that far off with my experience with cops in the US that they are often callous and don't have much regard for how their actions affect other people. If you only mean to say that being killed by the police isn't daily life, it doesn't matter. Voluntary manslaughter and murder should not occur ever with the people who are supposed to prevent it (and why any law enforcement should be held to a higher standard than a civilian). 

Not all police of course, but probably most of them in the US.

Has anyone answered to the initiation of force by un-peaceful "protestors"? Or does everyone consider that *morally* justified? I.e. retaliatory, or some such nonsense? Simple precept: One doesn't take the law into one's own hands. Or - the govt. holds the monopoly on retaliatory force.

Yes, I am in South Africa, and I urge you not to let America turn into another South Africa. None of American blacks would put up with this country for a second. Americans are sacrificing the good in the name of The Narrative, Social Justice and - feelings. The good isn't "the perfect". And that's the intrinsicism I hear from Objectivists: We aren't perfect therefore we were never good. Woe is me.

Everything on this topic is tacitly about "White guilt" for the racial injustices/colonizing/slavery of the European past. That's a clear path to surrendering what you have, what many lazily take for granted, until Socialism replaces it. Then it's farewell to the individualism and liberty you have.

Assumed that you read Rand's essay, "Racism" : "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism". (Etc.)

Then astute O'ists should know that it cuts two ways. Just as collectivism-racism presumes that one's virtues (etc.) are inherited from one's ancestors, the corollary of that is that one's vices (etc.) are also gained through your 'blood line". BOTH are collectivist/racist. Whites who humbly take a knee for their forefathers' (supposed and actual) injustices to previous blacks are as much promoting racism. And self-aggrandizingly so. That goes too for the present: the cop who horribly abused another man, they (mystically and collectively) accept the guilt and atonement on his behalf.

There's not much between a supremacist by race and a self-negator by race. Only which form the sacrifice comes in. 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Everything on this topic is about "White guilt" for the racial injustices/colonizing/slavery of the European past. That's a clear path to surrendering what you have, what many lazily take for granted, until Socialism replaces it. 

By topic, are you particularizing this thread, or more broadly, encompassing the "world conversation" on the matter, if you will?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

By topic, are you particularizing this thread, or more broadly, encompassing the "world conversation" on the matter, if you will?

Ah, always encompassing, d_w. I can''t help it ;) The topic implicitly carries the subject of race, not so?

That there relates to other places I know of, and my experiences of racism as a white in Africa. Racism on both sides, that is.

On top of it all, "the narrative" everywhere around the world today in light of the killing and subsequent riots on social media is: "America equates with racism". A big lie.

 Those who hate/envy the USA are top among them.

If you know the distinction, America HAS a problem with "racialism". Highlighting any incident or act by whites as 'racist'.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2020 at 10:31 PM, StrictlyLogical said:

In the absence of any EVIDENCE there is NO legitimacy to use of force.

 

You could not justify attacking hundreds of businesses in tens of cities scattered thousands of miles apart even if you KNEW one of them DID contribute to the act (but did not know which one), but to try to justify an attack on hundreds of businesses in tens of cities scattered thousands of miles apart because you suspect that one of those businesses "might" have contributed, is laughable. Recall, you cannot get to "might" without "some" no matter how small, actual concrete evidence.

Mere armchair speculation and leftist spun conspiracy theories do not count for anything. 

Businesses do not collectively conspire to harm some poor person in another state, nor do they collectively conspire to initiate harm against anyone, no matter what the leftist Marxist academia or media might want you to believe.  Individual businesses and organizations do the best to pursue their own bottom line, or government mandate whatever the case may be. 

 

 

In older days there'd be a lynch mob to take a (suspected) culprit out of custody before trial and string him up.

The mentality hasn't changed much: "someone" must suffer for an injustice.

Who else are easily accessible but shopkeepers and their properties?

Added bonus, for many violent rioters the store is a symbol of capitalism. 

"Repressive Capitalism", that is, to those of Leftist conviction.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

The mentality hasn't changed much: "someone" must suffer for an injustice.

I'm not aware of any looter making claims about anything at all. I've heard people making up justifications that connected to protesting, just as I've heard people making up narratives that the looters have an underlying leftist motive. But more or less, the connection isn't strong at all. The majority of looters maybe people who don't give a damn about politics, or property, or anything at all really. No motive other than opportunism. I am sure that some are anti-capitalists who want to destroy the constant private property, and some are part of a lynch mob, so nothing is really cohesive.

Overall though, not in reference to anything or anyone in particular, I wish there was someone articulate and coordinated and principled in their approach as MLK. Such a person is an antidote to a mob mentality, and even preventive. Plus he brought about meaningful change.

I think it's important to remember ETs point earlier, that many people are operating on emotion, even nonviolent protesters. Some sense of calm is necessary in order to bring about any principled change, or to get anyone to listen. In a way, that's the point of nonviolent protest. It's not that violence is inherently wrong, but that violence often pulls people away from rationality even if somehow the violence were justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2020 at 6:38 AM, dream_weaver said:

The Double Standard of the American Riot

Law enforcement has always required the ability to use force. Resistance to improper force is indeed justified. Discriminating just usage is equally important.

Did the Boston Tea Party appear reactionary or proactionary as it leaped into the headlines of the times? The argument packages elements together in a way that enrolls others, but boogieman in the background emerges in contrast to the longing for rights and freedom being denied 'somehow' to verdict concluded as selective information is 'tried' in the media.

 

On 6/3/2020 at 10:03 AM, whYNOT said:

Argumentum ad historiam? This is not "resistance" to oppression, not proper self-defense, not proper protest; it's vengeance by the mob. Especially that innocent third parties are affected. 

 

On 6/4/2020 at 6:01 AM, dream_weaver said:

Who Were the Sons of Liberty?

The appeared on the scene prior to December 1765, with the tea party to be 8 years way.

A pattern that does not appear to be present in the George Floyd protests:

The Sons didn’t stop there. After Parliament passed the Townshend Acts in 1767, which imposed import duties on goods such as china and glass, Adams organized a boycott to keep British goods out of Massachusetts altogether. According to Adams biographer Dennis Fradin, the Sons enforced the boycott by sending boys to smash the windows and smear excrement on the walls of local shops that didn’t comply. If that didn’t work, the proprietor faced the risk of being kidnapped and tarred and feathered, a painful, humiliating torture that could leave lasting scars. [Bold emphasis mine]

An element that appears to be missing from Ms Kelly Carter Jackson writing for The Atlantic is the admiration of the underlying principle behind the violence.

Arguably, calling for a boycott is fine, while implementing a multi-tiered strategy to 'encourage' compliance does have its issues. (argumentum ad consequentium? - Not in a pragmatic sense.)

In contrast, an internet acquaintance posted a photo take of graffiti "For Floyd" was spray painted on the sidewalk in red near the Apple store where its glass door and other windows were broken.

Ayn Rand held the founders of America in high esteem, as men of both idea and action.

The failure to abolish slavery at America's inception is arguably a taproot of the War between the States. To ascribe social change to rioting alone, sets aside the principles which underscored the original steps taken to establish freedom, liberation and justice in this country.

It is with a strange sense of irony that the turn taken with George Floyd parallels the thought expressed in a parallel expression:

"No, you do not have to think; it is an act of moral choice. But someone had to think to keep you alive; if you choose to default, you default on existence and you pass the deficit to some moral man, expecting him to sacrifice his good for the sake of letting you survive by your evil.

When is thinking, and consequently expressing the proper ideas needed to establish the moral ideals of capitalism are defaulted upon, to whom is that deficit passed on to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My initial thoughts on what the common thread between these three incidents was errant.

Malice Green, after years of drug consumption, had weakened his health to a point where the force used to keep him from going for the officer's gun, unfortunately for the officers, cost Malice Green his life, and Larry Nevers and Walter Budzyn went to jail. The conversation about civil unrest being the consequence of the incident was argued by Mark Scott at the time, to 'hang' Nevers and Budzyn to appease the anger being stirred.

Michael Brown, charging Officer Darren Wilson, was shot as he did so. Before the coroner's report could be performed, violent clashes had already commenced.

George Floyd's preliminary leak of the coroner's report, and the rapid protest response, led me to suspect that the conclusion was being drawn in advance of the evidence. As it turns out, my suspicion was undermined. The protests and violence spread across the United States and was echoed in a few other countries as well in a world that CoViD-19 concerns had been the center of focus for three months.

 

Megan McArdle, columnist at The Washington Post, presents Social Distancing is Over, offering a somewhat silver lining she sees in an otherwise dark cloud, over which she makes several valid points.

  • Some things are worth dying for. The equality of every American before the law certainly sounds like one of them to me.
  • But there are reasonable counterarguments: First, as was pointed out when red states were protesting, you may have every right to risk your own death, but with infectious disease, protesters also risk killing other people, who might not have volunteered to die for your cause. Which brings us to the second caveat: In a diverse and highly pluralistic society, authorities don’t get to declare some causes worthy and others worthless.

By the time she gets to "One can, of course, argue that there’s a moral difference. But moral distinctions have no force outside the community that makes them.", I am thinking: the moral distinctions are the inescapable force that shapes the community that makes them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2020 at 7:39 PM, Eiuol said:

I'm not aware of any looter making claims about anything at all. I've heard people making up justifications that connected to protesting, just as I've heard people making up narratives that the looters have an underlying leftist motive. But more or less, the connection isn't strong at all. The majority of looters maybe people who don't give a damn about politics, or property, or anything at all really. No motive other than opportunism. I am sure that some are anti-capitalists who want to destroy the constant private property, and some are part of a lynch mob, so nothing is really cohesive.

Overall though, not in reference to anything or anyone in particular, I wish there was someone articulate and coordinated and principled in their approach as MLK. Such a person is an antidote to a mob mentality, and even preventive. Plus he brought about meaningful change.

I think it's important to remember ETs point earlier, that many people are operating on emotion, even nonviolent protesters. Some sense of calm is necessary in order to bring about any principled change, or to get anyone to listen. In a way, that's the point of nonviolent protest. It's not that violence is inherently wrong, but that violence often pulls people away from rationality even if somehow the violence were justified.

Obviously a protest/riot has the nature and purpose of drawing attention to an issue protesters/rioters are upset/enraged by. Most often they begin with some genuine gripe, a "spontaneous", emotional movement. But some we know don't end that way. The first movement gets co-opted and /or organized by some dangerous groups and the entire thing explodes in confrontation with those charged with keeping law and order and protecting lives and property. This bunch are looking for martyrs or victims to their cause, so the more blood shed the better. The aim is always intimidation of and creating fear and/or raising sympathy in the wider public and so the media are integral. Nothing has changed, except much vaster coverage and publication, from the country wide '70s riots in South Africa I saw first hand (those I was assigned to cover). I can attest to the fact that what was officially nominated an innocent "worker-protest" by one of the Trade Unions would be prearranged to turn violent. Even back then extra people, agitators,  would be "bused in". I once or twice arrived before other pressmen on the scene (tipped off by a reporter's contacts) to see the police on one side and the strikers on the other, all looking quite peaceable. Raise a camera and like magic, on cue the rocks began flying and after a few warnings the police line charged in on them with batons and some strikers were naturally injured. A few times firearms would be used by the cops and a few would be killed. We of the liberal Press were righteously on the side of the strikers of course, despite knowing that the banned, underground ANC had manipulated events (and us) for their political ends and the pictures of wounded people, (their own loyal cadre members) ready made victims of apartheid, would be on international front pages the next morning. Ends that justify the means...no?

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This story seems to be gaining traction:

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/investigations/2019/08/02/police-responded-to-his-911-call-for-help-he-died-what-happened-to-tony-timpa/

It came to my attention under the headline “White privilege didn’t save Tony Timpa”.

Differences to the Floyd case:

1.    The decedent was white

2.    The cops laughed while restraining/killing him

3.    14 minutes vs. 9 minutes

4.    He was on coke (Floyd was on Meth & Fentanyl)

5.    The video didn’t become available immediately

There’s no evidence (yet) that the Minneapolis police behaved differently towards Floyd because he was black.  I’m ready to believe that the fact he was such a big guy (6’ 6”) was a factor.  

Now imagine if #2 were true in the Floyd case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ninth Doctor said:

Now imagine if #2 were true in the Floyd case. 

Had that been the case, it would have been more clear cut that the officers were mocking Mr. Floyd. 

A seemingly relevant fact, not yet addressed, deals with the reason(s) underscoring the initial encounter between George Floyd and the arresting officers. Was there an actual counterfeit bill involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ninth Doctor said:

2.    The cops laughed while restraining/killing him

2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Was there an actual counterfeit bill involved?

What is the relevance of any of this?

The cops were laughing so hard they forgot they had handcuffs that could be used. Actual counterfeit bills would have changed everything. And then I woke up.

If you forget that he was black, you may have a glimpse of the fact that people are protesting against authoritarian rule in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

What is the relevance of any of this?

The cops were laughing so hard they forgot they had handcuffs that could be used. Actual counterfeit bills would have changed everything. And then I woke up.

If you forget that he was black, you may have a glimpse of the fact that people are protesting against authoritarian rule in general.

He (Timpa) was already cuffed (with legs bound too) when they started laughing. 

The $20 bill is in the custody of the police.  Was Floyd a counterfeiter, or did he just happen to get passed a counterfeit bill and he was in turn passing it on?  Knowingly or not?  Don't know.

"Forget that he was black"?  The protests arising from this case (Floyd) are certainly about race, not authoritarianism in general.  It is evolving such that now there's a call to "defund the police", and that sounds anti-authoritarian I'll grant.  Are you disputing that the protests are primarily about race?   From what I've seen they are overwhelmingly so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ninth Doctor said:

Are you disputing that the protests are primarily about race?

Here was a man chocking to death right in front of each of us. Granted he was black and protests are in the name of that.

But the core reaction of each of us is: I don't want a knee on my neck or my kid's neck. No race issue there. You may not say it (or people on the news have not have said it), but self interest is at the core.

So in that sense, I dispute it.

As an aside, I was excited if defunding police meant annihilating the  police union but it probably does not mean that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ninth Doctor said:

  Are you disputing that the protests are primarily about race?   From what I've seen they are overwhelmingly so. 

Amidst the quite deliberate confusion in the media, that should first be cleared up, 9th.

My reading of facts I know:

1. The infamous act was not, is not, about race (unless someone can show the officer had callous, cruel, RACIST intentions/motives. OR: was trained in a "culture" of white racist policing).

2. The subsequent violent protests indeed were "primarily about race". Pro-black, anti-white. (Mixed with some  merited protest against badly trained arrest technique).

(I believe a non-race-sensitized individualist probably would have seen the pictures/video something like:

One man restraining an other man in some sort of conflict. (before learning what happened next and who they were).

The race-sensitized-"racialist"-collectivist would as most did and always do, jump straight to a conclusion from superficial identification -  the symbolic association of skin colors:

White man brutalizing black man! As always. And he's a cop! etc.

And as is said when human acts follow non-causally/deterministically from a previous act, the entire episode "took on a life of its own": riots, destruction, further deaths, racialist solidarity and pandering, around the world...

"Racialism"  - I keep saying, not racism - does the worst harm to a society).

 

 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

(I believe a non-race-sensitized individualist probably would have seen the pictures/video something like:

One man restraining an other man in some sort of conflict. (before learning what happened next and who they were).

But you see, plenty of people are judging what happened after they knew what happened. They saw the video, then they judged. There was a conflict, past tense, then there wasn't, because Floyd was restrained. Floyd asked for medical attention. Floyd went unconscious. The cop continued. The cop had complete control of the situation. I truly do not understand how this could be considered not knowing what happened. If someone didn't see the video, sure. But if you want to say "they need to know what really happened and not just some of the story" that's on the level of denying the moon landing. Is it not enough to see a man on the moon jumping around in low gravity? 

A cop is supposed to be so damn good that they can restrain someone without killing them, not even by accident. They should know exactly how much force to use, and exactly how much to use. The result would be absolutely no deaths of anyone, while any death makes a cop completely to blame. People are restrained in the medical profession all the time, and nobody dies. Nurses deal with violent patients, but they don't die either. If someone did die, the people restraining the person would be 100% to blame - even if the patient was wildly violent. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

But you see, plenty of people are judging what happened after they knew what happened. They saw the video, then they judged. There was a conflict, past tense, then there wasn't, because Floyd was restrained. Floyd asked for medical attention. Floyd went unconscious. The cop continued. The cop had complete control of the situation. I truly do not understand how this could be considered not knowing what happened. If someone didn't see the video, sure. But if you want to say "they need to know what really happened and not just some of the story" that's on the level of denying the moon landing. Is it not enough to see a man on the moon jumping around in low gravity? 

A cop is supposed to be so damn good that they can restrain someone without killing them, not even by accident. They should know exactly how much force to use, and exactly how much to use. The result would be absolutely no deaths of anyone, while any death makes a cop completely to blame. People are restrained in the medical profession all the time, and nobody dies. Nurses deal with violent patients, but they don't die either. If someone did die, the people restraining the person would be 100% to blame - even if the patient was wildly violent. 

 

Disingenuous.

And who said or implied that the blame on the perpetrator is not 100%? No one is questioning his poor professionalism, personal culpability nor the criminal charges. Likely also his bad ethics.

We know this has been taken by everybody, purely as a racist incident. (Implied: against blacks, and the black race).

Shift the original scenario to:

Black cop arrests white man who consequently dies from over-exuberant/indifferent/sadistic/badly trained/etc. restraint procedure. Or:

Hispanic, Asian, or black female cop on woman, white woman on man - make up your own mix, all ending in a death.

Is the whole US and many other countries going to get into a moral uproar? Would the "consequent" riots, injuries and damage to be considered morally justified by 58% of Americans - a headline I saw some days ago?

(I am not even confident that libertarians/Objectivists have unambiguously condemned the riots for IOF/NAP. Troubling itself).

No. Riots would hardly happen, if at all. They, the masses of people, wouldn't react in kind and to this degree to this other injustice/incident/accidental death. Past rioting has always followed black injustice, by blacks for blacks and gained white sympathy, sometimes properly..

You know that.

That is then a clear indication of a selective morality, tribal collectivism exclusively slanted one way: pro-black; rarely white.

An Objectivist should call that out on principle - it is prejudiced racialism. For thee, not for me.

Your argument is encouraging to BLM, an organization which identifies and prides itself on taking vigilante actions - um, against - vigilantism (presumably only by whites). 

What you're seeing and the world is pandering to is the growth of a Black Supremacist movement, in politics - but also a violent underground. See if you enjoy that any better than the White sort.

 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2020 at 3:46 PM, dream_weaver said:

Still, the coroner, so far, has said that that cause of death wasn't consistent with asphyxia or strangulation. If the method of restraint contributed to the death, the causal connection is not clear at this time.

Have you read the criminal complaint or full autopsy report? I'll copy them below.

Some people look at the initial video and imagine that they have all the facts they need to determine cause of death. This is a failure of objectivity, a failure of imagination and a rush to judgment. It is impossible to see on that video any artery or airway being blocked. That would be an assumption based on seeing the neck restraint--and making the restraint the cause of death is an additional assumption.

Those of us who have not rushed to judgment need not be concerned with rationalizing a misguided hot-take. We follow the evidence objectively, not assumptively. If the complete evidence, including the cops' body cam footage, ultimately proves that the cops did murder Floyd, then that's fine. But it will also be fine with us if the cops did not murder him.

The evidence presented so far does not include physical evidence that Floyd was asphyxiated. That's what the criminal complaint says quoting the medical examiner. Toxicology found that Floyd was suffering from fentanyl intoxication, which is known to cause respiratory distress and death in high doses mixed with other substances. The fact that Floyd said he was having trouble breathing while still standing up suggests his respiratory problem might have been due to the fentanyl.

Furthermore, he was acting agitated and resisting arrest, refusing to go in the police car, dropping to the ground and claiming to be claustrophobic. The cops, in the moment, suspected this was a case of excited delirium, which might explain why they tried to stop him from moving and further exhausting himself. Excited delirium can cause sudden death.

From my own viewing of the bystander video, Floyd appears to fade away, like he was slowly losing strength and consciousness. I did not hear him choking or convulsing, like his airway was being blocked. Possibly the knee was compressing the carotid artery, but I can't determine that from the video alone, and I don't know if that would cause death, depending on the varying amounts of pressure applied. That is a complex medical question to be determined by experts in court. Even the family's pathologist admits that such pressure cannot be determined afterward. And I have reason not to trust the family's pathologist. He testified on behalf of OJ Simpson, and I thought he was ridiculous and sketchy back then.

Quoting from the criminal complaint:

Quote

On May 25, 2020, someone called 911 and reported that a man bought merchandise from Cup Foods at
3759 Chicago Avenue in Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota with a counterfeit $20 bill. At 8:08p.m., Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) Officers Thomas Lane and J.A. Kueng arrived with their body worn cameras (BWCs) activated and running. The officers learned from store personnel that the man who passed the counterfeit $20 was parked in a car around the corner from the store on 38th Street. 
BWC video obtained by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension shows that the officers
approached the car, Lane on the driver’s side and Kueng on the passenger side. Three people were in the
car; George Floyd was in the driver’s seat, a known adult male was in the passenger seat and a known
adult female was sitting in the backseat. As Officer Lane began speaking with Mr. Floyd, he pulled his gun
out and pointed it at Mr. Floyd’s open window and directed Mr. Floyd to show his hands. When Mr. Floyd
put his hands in the steering wheel, Lane put his gun back in its holster. 
While Officer Kueng was speaking with the front seat passenger, Officer Lane ordered Mr. Floyd out of the
car, put his hands on Mr. Floyd, and pulled him out of the car. Officer Lane handcuffed Mr. Floyd. Mr. Floyd
actively resisted being handcuffed.
Once handcuffed, Mr. Floyd became compliant and walked with Officer Lane to the sidewalk and sat on the
ground at Officer Lane’s direction. In a conversation that lasted just under two minutes, Officer Lang asked
Mr. Floyd for his name and identification. Officer Lane asked Mr. Lloyd if he was “on anything” and explained that he was arresting Mr. Lloyd for passing counterfeit currency. 
Officers Kueng and Lane stood Mr. Floyd up and attempted to walk Mr. Floyd to their squad car (MPD 320) at 8:14 p.m. Mr. Floyd stiffened up, fell to the ground, and told the officers he was claustrophobic. 
MPD Officers Derek Chauvin (the defendant) and Tou Thoa then arrived in a separate squad car. 
The officers made several attempts to get Mr. Floyd in the backseat of squad 320 from the driver’s side.
Mr. Floyd did not voluntarily get in the car and struggled with the officers by intentionally falling down, saying
he was not going in the car, and refusing to stand still. Mr. Floyd is over six feet tall and weighs more than 200 pounds. 
While standing outside the car, Mr. Floyd began saying and repeating that he could not breathe. The defendant went to the passenger side and tried to get Mr. Floyd into the car from that side and Lane and
Kueng assisted. 
The defendant pulled Mr. Floyd out of the passenger side of the squad car at 8:19:38 p.m. and Mr. Floyd went to the ground face down and still handcuffed. Kueng held Mr. Floyd’s back and Lane held his legs. The defendant placed his left knee in the area of Mr. Floyd’s head and neck. Mr. Floyd said, “I can’t breathe”
multiple times and repeatedly said, “Mama” and “please,” as well. The defendant and the other two officers
stayed in their positions. 
The officers said, “You are talking fine” to Mr. Floyd as he continued to move back and forth. Lane asked,
“should we roll him on his side?” and the defendant said, “No, staying put where we got him.” Officer Lane said, “I am worried about excited delirium or whatever.” The defendant said, “That’s why we have him on his stomach.” None of the three officers moved from their positions. 
BWC video shows Mr. Floyd continue to move and breathe. At 8:24:24, Mr. Floyd stopped moving. At 8:25:31 the video appears to show Mr. Floyd ceasing to breathe or speak. Lane said, “want to roll him on his side.” Kueng checked Mr. Floyd’s right wrist for a pulse and said, “I couldn’t find one.” None of the officers moved from their positions.
At 8:27:24, the defendant removed his knee from Mr. Floyd’s neck. An ambulance and emergency medical
personnel arrived, the officers placed Mr. Floyd on a gurney, and the ambulance left the scene. Mr. Floyd was pronounced dead at Hennepin County Medical Center.
The Hennepin County Medical Examiner (ME) conducted Mr. Floyd’s autopsy on May 26, 2020. The full report of the ME is pending but the ME has made the following preliminary findings. The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation. Mr. Floyd had
underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions and any
potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death. 
The defendant had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds in total. Two minutes and 53
seconds of this was after Mr. Floyd was non-responsive. Police are trained that this type of restraint with a subject in a prone position is inherently dangerous. 
Defendant is in custody.

From the autopsy press report:

Quote

Cause of death: Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual,
restraint, and neck compression
Manner of death: Homicide
How injury occurred: Decedent experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest while 
being restrained by law enforcement officer(s)
Other significant conditions: Arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease; 
fentanyl intoxication; recent methamphetamine use

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Is the whole US and many other countries going to get into a moral uproar? Would the "consequent" riots, injuries and damage to be considered morally justified by 58% of Americans - a headline I saw some days ago?

Okay, I agree, but what does this have to do with what I responded to? You said that people were responding before they knew what happened. I said the opposite. 

47 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Your argument is encouraging to BLM, an organization which identifies and prides itself on taking vigilante actions - against - vigilantism (presumably only by whites). 

Could you repeat to me what my argument is? I don't think you understand what my position is, so I'd rather fix your misunderstanding. I was very clear earlier about not using violent action. 

 

On 6/8/2020 at 2:39 AM, Easy Truth said:

What is the relevance of any of this?

An interesting note is that DW remove my moderator status because I disagreed with him about this. Sometimes the effort to evade reality is astounding. It's disheartening that people can be more articulate about the whole thing. I'm not referring to anyone else by the way, there is a lot to disagree about, but suggesting that a counterfeit bill could make any kind of difference whatsoever is just a whole other level. Ninth's response is fine, he was just pointing out differences, but I think by pointing out the differences, it's easier to see that the commonality is police brutality.

Since humor can show things in a different light, this clip is pretty good:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Okay, I agree, but what does this have to do with what I responded to? You said that people were responding before they knew what happened. I said the opposite. 

Could you repeat to me what my argument is? I don't think you understand what my position is, so I'd rather fix your misunderstanding. I was very clear earlier about not using violent action. 

 

 

 

Well pardon me, Eiuol,  if I find your argument insufficient and a little too moderate. Violence here, is merely the ostensive tip of the iceberg.

This has ugly causes and repercussions, globally, (like a friggin pandemic).

Its nature has to be philosophically identified and questioned - from ethics to politics to 'identity politics'. The inciting role of the international media anywhere and its purposeful 'white vs. black' and 'victim narrative' (we all know, to gain hearts and minds and garner power for particular Parties) needs to be be morally denounced, in no uncertain terms. 

Further consequences and public violence (to expose "police brutality") are probably coming.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...