George Floyd murder / Derek Chauvin guilty of murder

[Bigga]

I am not trying to refute a position you later "shifted goals to." Which is why I was shocked you accused me of something you in fact did.

Your claim again: " hands were clearly seen at all times."
Again, since you couldn't ascertain that from your vantage point ( you clearly can't tell what the officer can see.) So any statement about what he can clearly see that you can't, is on its face false.

It doesn't matter that you think it's possible that he saw his hands, it's equally possible he didn't. Which makes your original statement that it was "clearly seen" false.

You don't seem to understand which one of us has the burden of proof. Go back and read your original statement. It's false.

I qualified my statement by stating about the officer's own actions and the 'lack of threat', which I asked you about and you ignored therefore prompting you into narrative not encompassing the question asked.

Not my issue.

 

[Dax777]

I qualified my statement by stating about the officer's own actions and the 'lack of threat', which I asked you about and you ignored therefore prompting you into narrative not encompassing the question asked.

Not my issue.

Again, what you did later is not relevant here: As what I claimed was false is this:

Silva Spell:A gun was only drawn for a short time whilst Floyd reached about in his car. Once Floyd stopped the gun was holstered and never came back out.

Bigga: *Floyd's hands were clearly seen at all times and even breaks into tears fearing he'd be shot (again) and, ultimately in fear for his life.

That was the claim SS made and your complete response to it. Where is the qualifier here?

Sometimes it's better to just admit when you are wrong. The above statement taken in its entirety as a response to Silva_Spell's statement is false.

This is because you cannot say for sure what was seen.

On a separate note, It's mind boggling that you'd believe every utterance from someone trying to get out of a jam. But a cop taking an affirmative action based on what he is saying he can't see in real time and then de-escalating once he can, that you don't find believable.

Your judgement on these matters are clearly suspect to say the least.

 

[Dax777]

I'll live with that Dax. I would contend though that even if Chauvin did not intend to kill him, he sure as heck didn't seem to care.

Right there. You've spotted the strongest argument for why he should go to jail

 

[DrBlueBob]

Right there. You've spotted the strongest argument for why he should go to jail

Hands in pockets like he was just having a chat with his mates. It sickens me that George Floyd's life meant nothing to him. I have been more upset at having to kill a spider because my lovely wife doesn't like them. Callous doesn't even begin to cover it.
As to what the eventual charge may be, I wait to see. I hope it is appropriate.

 

[Bigga]

Again, what you did later is not relevant here: As what I claimed was false is this:

Silva Spell:A gun was only drawn for a short time whilst Floyd reached about in his car. Once Floyd stopped the gun was holstered and never came back out.

Bigga: *Floyd's hands were clearly seen at all times and even breaks into tears fearing he'd be shot (again) and, ultimately in fear for his life.

That was the claim SS made and your complete response to it. Where is the qualifier here?

Sometimes it's better to just admit when you are wrong. The above statement taken in its entirety as a response to Silva_Spell's statement is false.

This is because you cannot say for sure what was seen. It's mind boggling that you'd believe every utterance from someone trying to get out of a jam. But a cop taking an affirmative action based on what he is saying he can't see, that you also can't see from the vantage point of his chest view, somehow that is not believable to you.

Your judgement on these matters are clearly suspect to say the least.

Firstly the qualifier came with more explanation (to you) than just the initial observation (with SS) using context to enforce the position. When individuals hash out a conversation things become clearer with each interaction/ response as replies force the debating individuals to a) learn more from the ensuing conversation and or b) explain the position better than just a quick response. Not everyone thinks of qualifiers straight away unless challenged on the position.

That should be a logical position to understand.

Secondly, I could pull you up on the claustrophobic position you so wilfully dismissed out of hand and, strangely, not bothered to revisit or acknowledge.

Since this conversation was directly held with yourself, would you like to revisit/ explore your professional and psychological opinion of the victim's statement of suffering from the affliction claimed?

An assertion made and concluded, that the victim was "most likely" suffering from 'ExDs' and not claustrophobia.

Or do you concede you were talking utter tosh on the matter as Floyd CLEARLY states his issues within the video excerpt?

 

[Bigga]

Hands in pockets like he was just having a chat with his mates. It sickens me that George Floyd's life meant nothing to him. I have been more upset at having to kill a spider because my lovely wife doesn't like them. Callous doesn't even begin to cover it.
As to what the eventual charge may be, I wait to see. I hope it is appropriate.

This observation of hands in the pocket is the crux. It was nonchalant and calculating as he is looking at and talking/ mocking the victim throughout. If it was calculating then there was 'intent' and that 'intent' was to 'cause harm'. This is further unlined by ignoring the pleas from witnesses to get up and dismissing his colleagues to revisit the situation.

There is certainly murder involved, intentional or not.

I'm not sure how any other conclusion can be made.

 

[DrBlueBob]

This observation of hands in the pocket is the crux. It was nonchalant and calculating as he is looking at and talking/ mocking the victim throughout. If it was calculating then there was 'intent' and that 'intent' was to 'cause harm'. This is further unlined by ignoring the pleas from witnesses to get up and dismissing his colleagues to revisit the situation.

There is certainly murder involved, intentional or not.

I'm not sure how any other conclusion can be made.

nonchalant - exactly
I agree. Unfortunately it may not end up with a murder conviction. I say unfortunately but perhaps I am guilty of not being in possession of all the facts but Chauvin does have previous in terms of having multiple complaints made against him.
Life should not be so cheap.

 

[Dax777]

Hands in pockets like he was just having a chat with his mates. It sickens me that George Floyd's life meant nothing to him. I have been more upset at having to kill a spider because my lovely wife doesn't like them. Callous doesn't even begin to cover it.
As to what the eventual charge may be, I wait to see. I hope it is appropriate.

3rd degree murder is possible:
"Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree"


So is Manslaughter.
an unlawful killing that doesn't involve malice aforethought—intent to seriously harm or kill, or extreme, reckless disregard for life.” ... In the state of Minnesota, manslaughter can be defined as a crime of extreme passion or negligence.


Negligence makes Manslaughter easy to prove. Especially in light of Chauvin refusal to consider the danger to Floyd's life after Keogh told him to lean him o his side due to the possibility of ED.

3rs degree is plausible but showing a depraved mine would be hard.

 

[DrBlueBob]

3rd degree murder is possible:
"Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree"


So is Manslaughter.
an unlawful killing that doesn't involve malice aforethought—intent to seriously harm or kill, or extreme, reckless disregard for life.” ... In the state of Minnesota, manslaughter can be defined as a crime of extreme passion or negligence.


Negligence makes Manslaughter easy to prove. Especially in light of Chauvin refusal to consider the danger to Floyd's life after Keogh told him to lean him o his side due to the possibility of ED.

3rs degree is plausible but showing a depraved mine would be hard.

I agree. The fact I mentioned sentencing was merely because a poster earlier had, IIRC, suggested that nobody would be convicted of murder, hence my appropriate sentencing remark.

 

[Dax777]

Firstly the qualifier came with more explanation (to you) than just the initial observation (with SS) using context to enforce the position. When individuals hash out a conversation things become clearer with each interaction/ response as replies force the debating individuals to a) learn more from the ensuing conversation and or b) explain the position better than just a quick response. Not everyone thinks of qualifiers straight away unless challenged on the position.

That should be a logical position to understand.

Again, I was responding to you saying how can what you said be false... Your response should have been "correction, I believe the Cop could see both hands." So yes, my original statement was wrong. But I am now qualifying it to fully describe the idea I was trying to convey and meant to when I made the original claim. Now that would have been a true statement of what you did.

Now let's move to a point you'd prefer to discuss...

Secondly, I could pull you up on the claustrophobic position you so wilfully dismissed out of hand and, strangely, not bothered to revisit or acknowledge.

I didn't revisit it coz it wasn't an important point and there was no request until now to revisit it. If there was a prior request to revisit. Do you mind quoting the request?


Anyway, since you seem to think this is a winning point for you... I guess we should oblige you and revisit.

Yes, I did not find his claustrophobia claim to be more credible than the claim that it was the drugs he was on that was the key.. I hope the reason for this is self evident to you. But if isn't. Feel free to ask. IAnd i'll explain. Again.

Further, i do not understand what you mean by " not bothered to revisit or acknowledge." It wasn't an issue.

Since this conversation was directly held with yourself, would you like to revisit/ explore your professional and psychological opinion of the victim's statement of suffering from the affliction claimed?

You don't seem to understand what the standard is here. No, I do not need a professional nor psychological opinion to find Floyd's claim of Claustrophobia not as credible as the claim that he was on drugs. Again, let me know if you are having a hard time figuring out why that is.

An assertion made and concluded, that the victim was "most likely" suffering from 'ExDs' and not claustrophobia.

Or do you concede you were talking utter tosh on the matter as Floyd CLEARLY states his issues within the video excerpt?

Again, you really have to become better at marshalling the facts accurately. I did not make or imply the bolded claim. Another one we can check off as false.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

The Chicago Mayor :( Another idiot like the one here in New York. What did they think was going to happen?

These A-holes never do anything until it affects them. The A-hole in Seattle let a few people die in that insidious CHAD/Chop and did nothing. Until they brought it to her neighborhood, then she shut it down.

I mean how long before people can see these A-holes don't give a damn?

Has anyone noticed the common denominator in the political affiliations of the mayors in these cities? To see these idiots actually praising and urging on the actions of anarchist thugs setting up some kind of commie utopia, putting barriers up screaming 'No police' (how ironic is that?), turning the places into drug, assault, and murder shitholes plastered with graffiti, then when the inevitable nightmare reveals itself to them, they squeal about wanting the police back.
This, after actively supporting defund the police slogans scrawled everywhere by these types, federal buildings being attacked, and hundreds of officers injured, some killed.
The MSM isn't showing it, but people know what's happening.

 

[Bigga]

Again, I was responding to you saying how can what you said be false... Your response should have been "correction, I believe the Cop could see both hands." So yes, my original statement was wrong. But I am now qualifying it to fully describe the idea I was trying to convey and meant to when I made the original claim. Now that would have been a true statement of what you did.

Now let's move to a point you'd prefer to discuss...


I didn't revisit it coz it wasn't an important point and there was no request until now to revisit it. If there was a prior request to revisit. Do you mind quoting the request?


Anyway, since you seem to think this is a winning point for you... I guess we should oblige you and revisit.

Yes, I did not find his claustrophobia claim to be more credible than the claim that it was the drugs he was on that was the key.. I hope the reason for this is self evident to you. But if isn't. Feel free to ask. IAnd i'll explain. Again.

Further, i do not understand what you mean by " not bothered to revisit or acknowledge." It wasn't an issue.

You don't seem to understand what the standard is here. No, I do not need a professional nor psychological opinion to find Floyd's claim of Claustrophobia not as credible as the claim that he was on drugs. Again, let me know if you are having a hard time figuring out why that is.


Again, you really have to become better at marshalling the facts accurately. I did not make or imply the bolded claim. Another one we can check off as false.

Go back two or three pages(or as many as you need to), find my request within those pages and revisit your reply.

It would help if you don't skim, but absorb.

 

[Dax777]

Go back two or three pages(or as many as you need to), find my request within those pages and revisit your reply.

It would help if you don't skim, but absorb.

I don't need to. I have seen the complete videos from both tOfficers Lane and Keung. I've read their transcripts of their interactions too. I have observed Floyd's behavior from beginning to end.

And it is apparent to anyone who is simply after the truth and who has any commons sense as it relates to interactions between the cops and a suspects, what most likely was going on.

It doesn't actually require intelligence to know this. Just the absence of bias. So I don't need to revisit anything.

You proffered a claim that was possible, "George Floyd said he was Claustrophobic." Yes, he said it. But that is not proof it's true. I am saying it is unlikely its true. He also said he wasn't on drugs. That was untrue. He also said he just had Covid. There is no evidence of that. He also said he wasn't that type of guy. It turns out he was. He also said he wasn't resisting arrest as he was resisting. He did everything in his power to evade questions, and disobey instructions while attempting to talk his way through things and acting erratic.

Again, engaging common sense is not that hard. You just have to set your preconceived bias aside.

Look at the facts we already know. And then make a judgment about the likelihood of others. The most common sense likelihood is that Floyd was trying to talk his way out of a jam and he was reaching for anything he could think of.


So there is nothing to revisit. You can believe that nonsense if it suit your narrative. I don't have to join you. I am generally sceptical about claims from someone in a bad situation who has made other false claims in that very interaction.

 

[Dax777]

Has anyone noticed the common denominator in the political affiliations of the mayors in these cities? To see these idiots actually praising and urging on the actions of anarchist thugs setting up some kind of commie utopia, putting barriers up screaming 'No police' (how ironic is that?), turning the places into drug, assault, and murder shitholes plastered with graffiti, then when the inevitable nightmare reveals itself to them, they squeal about wanting the police back.
This, after actively supporting defund the police slogans scrawled everywhere by these types, federal buildings being attacked, and hundreds of officers injured, some killed.
The MSM isn't showing it, but people know what's happening.

It's obvious. Here is an amazing ad from a young woman running for Congress in Baltimore. That makes the same point.

 

[domalino]

 

[Silva_Spell]

I'm assuming you watched the video, unless your eyes witnessed something mine didn't. These were not kids in a school yard.

Seen much worse on a school yard. And non of it was part of the social contract or any of the participant's job.

As I've stated, in the other response, body cam can only see so far, not helped by reflections from sunlight, closed doors and raised windows. It is not at the height of eyes, so hands were not 'visible' to the body cam only.

This is NOT subjective. This is fact.

This is further underlined by the 'lack of threat' the officer clearly does not feel, even if his weapon is drawn with one hand and not two (which is the 'threat' default position. His eyes are on the subject at his eyeline, which you cannot see from body cam position.

"Let me see your hands"
"Let me see your other hand"
"Let me see your other hand!"
"Put your fucking hands up right now!. Let me see your other hand!"
"Let him see your other hand!" <----- Floyd's exGF getting in on the act with some sound advice
"Put your hand up there. Put your fucking hand up there! Jesus Christ keep your fucking hands on the wheel!"

...whilst Floyd's hands are darting around behind the seat and near the gear stick on the other side of Floyd (cops don't have X-Ray vision and you don't need an eyecam to know that)

You will need to post this evidence or it is merely hearsay to support your story. We can clearly hear the charge said as the victim is being manhandled as he comes out of the police vehicle. At this point, from what has been posted, this is the only time.

Why would I lie when anyone can just watch the full video or read the transcript?

Spoiler: transcript extract

I think it's a bit weird of you to go into a "dissection" without bothering to do either. You say further down (tho I've edited it out as it was a misunderstanding and thus irrelevant) that you use the MSM to get an outline. Where do you go to get the 'meat' if not to the source?

So, you agree. Just say that, then.

I wasn't exactly being serious. If your argument is that I'm wrong because Floyd didn't resist during every second of the attempted arrest then great, good for you, it's the least charitable interpretation of "throughout" and an example of trying to get a win no matter what but if that's your "dissection" style...

Again, it is your opinion of the event in 'real time' and was not fact at that point in time to anyone. You're making revisionist assertions(now you know he had drugs in his system) that the police could not corroborate in real time as having no evidence that the subject was high. Merely suspicion.

It isn't revisionist, it's based on the video/transcript, the cops clearly thought he was on something. There was plenty of evidence that he was high. That's why they talked about it between themselves, to Floyd, to the other people involved in the incident and called a medic.
You've got quite a hurdle to clear to make the case that it is unreasonable for someone to hold the view that the cops thought he was on something.

"Reasons" you've not expressed. You've made ONE subjective outcome as to why Floyd was on the ground. And just to counter that narrative, why would officers pin down a potentially ill man if 'health' was one of your brilliant assertions...??

I thought at least one reason would be obvious considering it should be obvious and in my initial post I made it explicit when I said "and with excited delirium being a possible reason for Floyd's death (with or without the knee) there is a sizeable amount of reasonable doubt there"

The other less obvious reason, would be, in the officer's eyes, a case of him essentially crying wolf. Maybe less explicit but in my initial post I also said "Despite the reasons to dismiss Floyd's pleas they still called for a medic"

The prone position is standard procedure when dealing with someone who is resisting (and Floyd was very successful at resisting). It's later on in the incident, when Floyd has stopped moving, where Chauvin will have difficulties in court, particularly in terms of showing he wasn't negligent

"... Chauvin is a more complicated case but unless the state has an as yet unknown silver bullet he is not going down for murder. We're talking more about negligence than murder and with excited delirium being a possible reason for Floyd's death".

If this isn't opinion, I don't know what is!!

8 mins 46 secs of putting a grown man's body weight on someone's neck. 2 mins of which the victim seizes to move again. Not only did Chauvin fail to listen to his colleagues, he also failed to adhere to the witnesses who told him repeatedly that Floyd was not moving and to get off him.

Possibly "excited delirium" is a strange choice of possible verdict given all the evidence that presents itself!

What?
I. Just. Said. It. Was. An. Opinion.

Floyd showed symptoms of excited delirium, a condition you can die from, so not sure what's so strange about saying that this creates some reasonable doubt.

TYT and co have cited being on drugs should not result in death by cop, so I'm not sure where that accusation comes from? As for the rest of it, malevolence will entirely be subjective in how training comes back to the police and following leadership examples on how to treat an arrested person.

When the bodycam footage was released the bulk of the media concentrated on the cop pointing the gun at Floyd (and TYT laughably kept going on about the gun being pointed at his head, the rest of their video was equally absurd) as tho that's a big deal, and/or Floyd's pleas - the stuff that would inflame rather than inform.
Their coverage of the transcript was near nonexistent even tho it brought very relevant new information.
Re: malevolence gobbledygook, I'm happy to look at the evidence myself and use my brain.

Sailing extremely close to a personal attack, there. Perhaps I should report you...?

Nah, you're not bright enough to scale the high opinion I have of myself, so let me just finish by saying that at least you acknowledge that 'opinions' can be rooted in misinterpretations also.

Toodle pip.

Not sure where I gave the impression that I think opinions can't be rooted in misinterpretation.
I think I'm quite bright but I've no doubt that I'm not as bright as you think you are, correct.

 

[Bigga]

I don't need to. I have seen the complete videos from both tOfficers Lane and Keung. I've read their transcripts of their interactions too. I have observed Floyd's behavior from beginning to end.

And it is apparent to anyone who is simply after the truth and who has any commons sense as it relates to interactions between the cops and a suspects, what most likely was going on.

It doesn't actually require intelligence to know this. Just the absence of bias. So I don't need to revisit anything.

You proffered a claim that was possible, "George Floyd said he was Claustrophobic." Yes, he said it. But that is not proof it's true. I am saying it is unlikely its true. He also said he wasn't on drugs. That was untrue. He also said he just had Covid. There is no evidence of that. He also said he wasn't that type of guy. It turns out he was. He also said he wasn't resisting arrest as he was resisting. He did everything in his power to evade questions, and disobey instructions while attempting to talk his way through things and acting erratic.

Again, engaging common sense is not that hard. You just have to set your preconceived bias aside.

Look at the facts we already know. And then make a judgment about the likelihood of others. The most common sense likelihood is that Floyd was trying to talk his way out of a jam and he was reaching for anything he could think of.


So there is nothing to revisit. You can believe that nonsense if it suit your narrative. I don't have to join you. I am generally sceptical about claims from someone in a bad situation who has made other false claims in that very interaction.

Let me just debunk any "preconceived bias" which seems entirely yours:

Floyd's claim of claustrophobia is dismissed by yourself because 'he's sat in a car with two other people'. That's not how that phobia works in its entirety. In the original car there are clear windows allowing light through. This aspect would help alleviate much anxiety for some sufferers that they could 'cope' in that situation. I would assume knowing the two people in the car would help this, too.

Floyd asks the officer to sit in the car with him as per his fear, but as I've said, officers are not going to chaperone a grown male detainee in a police car whilst an investigation is going on.

I would hazard a reasonable assumption Floyd feared that too, hence why the reaction is so extreme. I would find this much more likely than the reach of 'ExDs'.

He said he has had COVID, according to you(and promptly dismissed this) and, indeed, he tested positive for the virus in the autopsy.

What 'kind of guy' did he say he was? I'm assuming you're hell bent on believing he knowingly passed on a false note in a shop he used regularly enough that the owner offered his testimony on Floyd's character. But you, who didn't know him I assume, cast judgement on him anyway.

People act irrational and erratic all the time with the police. It doesn't take being on drugs to make this a factor. I mean, there is video of man being shot in the last few pages as proof.

Be skeptical all you like, if it helps you be that judge and jury.

I'll wait until the trial.

 

[Dax777]

Let me just debunk any "preconceived bias" which seems entirely yours:

Floyd's claim of claustrophobia is dismissed by yourself because 'he's sat in a car with two other people'. That's not how that phobia works in its entirety. In the original car there are clear windows allowing light through. This aspect would help alleviate much anxiety for some sufferers that they could 'cope' in that situation. I would assume knowing the two people in the car would help this, too.

Dude stop. The windows were all wound up. You are twisting yourself into a knot here trying to explain away every contradictory point. Which is the very point. They all make the claim less credible. Even if still plausible.

Floyd asks the officer to sit in the car with him as per his fear, but as I've said, officers are not going to chaperone a grown male detainee in a police car whilst an investigation is going on.

I would hazard a reasonable assumption Floyd feared that too, hence why the reaction is so extreme. I would find this much more likely than the reach of 'ExDs'.

Again, as I've said before. His erratic behavior was more likely a function of his drug use. I don't know why you keep repeating EXDS as if someone ever argued that. The reason why drugs is more plausible is because he was erratic from the initial interractions. He started to foam at the mouth. And there was drugs in his system. But hey, let's pretend all this don't matter.

He said he has had COVID, according to you(and promptly dismissed this) and, indeed, he tested positive for the virus in the autopsy.

I stand corrected. He did test positive. Yet this doesn't change the point of his giving this information amongst a many others as an attempt to get off.

What 'kind of guy' did he say he was? I'm assuming you're hell bent on believing he knowingly passed on a false note in a shop he used regularly enough that the owner offered his testimony on Floyd's character. But you, who didn't know him I assume, cast judgement on him anyway.

The guy said he was a nice guy who comes in to the store a lot. That's not a character witness. It's a shop owner trying to absolve himself from what had become a politcally charged situation. Use a bit of sense here man. People are burning down businesses over Floyd's death. Businesses unrelated to the caseIt's a bit of a shock that his store still stands. The Wendy's where the other guy was killed got burned down. Again, pay attention to self interests. The store owner had the good sense to know he had to mend fences and show support to save his business.

People act irrational and erratic all the time with the police. It doesn't take being on drugs to make this a factor. I mean, there is video of man being shot in the last few pages as proof.

George was acting like someone under the influence. And he turned out to have drugs in his system. But hey, let's call 2+2, 9.

Be skeptical all you like, if it helps you be that judge and jury.

I'll wait until the trial.

The trial is about the officers, not what was reasonable to believe about what George was saying on that unfortunate day.

 

[Bigga]

Dude stop. The windows were all wound up. You are twisting yourself into a knot here trying to explain away every contradictory point. Which is the very point. They all make the claim less credible. Even if still plausible.

FFS, you CLEARLY don't understand there are different levels of claustrophobia. For some reasons you think it's 'one size fits all' situation. I'll leave you to bang your head on it.

Again, as I've said before. His erratic behavior was more likely a function of his drug use. I don't know why you keep repeating EXDS as if someone ever argued that. The reason why drugs is more plausible is because he was erratic from the initial interractions. He started to foam at the mouth. And there was drugs in his system. But hey, let's pretend all this don't matter.

Did you agree with SS on the possibility of 'ExDs' or not?

The guy said he was a nice guy who comes in to the store a lot. That's not a character witness. It's a shop owner trying to absolve himself from what had become a politcally charged situation. Use a bit of sense here man. People are burning down businesses over Floyd's death. Businesses unrelated to the caseIt's a bit of a shock that his store still stands. The Wendy's where the other guy was killed got burned down. Again, pay attention to self interests. The store owner had the good sense to know he had to mend fences and show support to save his business.

Are you dismissing this man's opinion on a customer he's dealt with before? Has he cited having issues with Floyd on another occasion? Are you now judging this man's opinion of Floyd? As you say Wendy's had NOTHING to do with Brooks' death but was burned down. Why would you think a few plaudits would keep a shop standing?

Is it possible that the shop owner had genuinely had that opinion of Floyd as he'd dealt with him all the time, like his regular habiting of topping up his phone in the shop? You're very good at dismissing possibilities even with evidence to the contrary.

George was acting like someone under the influence. And he turned out to have drugs in his system. But hey, let's call 2+2, 9.

Who argued he didn't have drugs in his system...?

The trial is about the officers, not what was reasonable to believe about what George was saying on that unfortunate day.

No clue what you're talking about here. I'm simply awaiting the case to be heard.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

It's obvious. Here is an amazing ad from a young woman running for Congress in Baltimore. That makes the same point.

Very interesting, I think the republicans will start to spread this message in a big way, people have witnessed the riots and murders, and they are seeing it in Democrat controlled cities. That girl made a bold statement, 'Tell me a Blue City where black lives have improved.' Baltimore has 10 times the murder rate, and
crime has rocketed elsewhere, in it NYC has increased massively, as has LA, this can't have gone unnoticed.