That's the thing with superficial reasoning and optics versus logic and rationality. A cop hears someone saying "I can't breath", or sees a suspect saying "Its okay I surrender its all cool" while his hands are still in his back pocket palming something, or is told by a woman that all her toddler's injuries were from the boyfriend she hates. Should he take everyone at their word, always believe everything people say? People can be mistaken, people can be freaking out and unaware of their circumstances, or they can be malicious and lying. But when the crowd of onlookers form and start screaming "He said he can't breath bro!", cops aren't going to be able to patiently explain to every person in a crowd that someone who can talk can breath, that their airways are clearly not obstructed if they're able to vocalize. Besides, even once this concept is explained to people, they will naturally have a hostile defensive mechanism that prevents them from accepting that fact, they'll dismiss it, because that's how human psychology works, at least for the nitwits who make up the vast majority of the population.

Rational analysis is done by looking at the evidence and absence of evidence and weighing probabilities. Understanding that initial impressions and what things seem at a surface level don't necessarily reflect the underlying mechanics. That just because the cop has a knee to his neck doesn't mean he's being asphyxiated, but likewise just because he's a petty criminal hopped up on drugs doesn't mean he caused his own death. Instead its a matter of delving into the facts. And what we got was a mountain of evidence that he died of heart failure caused by the acute drug overdose but made lethal by his preexisting heart conditions, with no evidence the restraint contributed to it.

How many people died from BLM insurrection because some piece of trash drug addict who robs pregnant women got smoked by the cops? If there was any sanity left, we'd all have said GOOD FUCKING RIDDANCE when the cunt died.

about 25 in direct consequences of the riots nationwide, only 3 of which were in Minneapolis (one looter shot by a bodega owner, one looter trapped in a building torched by the arsonists, one woman killed by her ex boyfriend in the middle of the street). In the two years since, we recorded an excess ~10,000 homicides when compared to the 2019 rates. In Minneapolis alone, homicide rates doubled so there's about ~95 excess deaths in the two years. Even if we just looked locally at Mayor Frey and Governor Walz's decision to stand down and let the mobs torch the city and let criminals run amok instead of cracking down on them, justifying it by saying lives matter more than property, we could say it cost about 100 lives so far and counting.

Don't forget all the extra victims who were murdered as the result of BLM crime waves.

We also knew other kinds of facts, like he had the air slowly squeezed out of him over 9 minutes and 32 fucking seconds.

His heart was not healthy. And certainly not healthy enough to keep blood flowing through his compressed vascular system.

Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
4 user(s) are reading this topic (2 guests): Santara, SunnyvaleTrailerPark

inb4hepopsinwithamultitoreply

The evidence shows he was able to talk and turn his head and spend those 9 minutes and 32 seconds without asphyxiating like would happen if he were fully choked out. We have the absence of evidence of force used- no petechiae in the face, mouth or eyes, no injuries to the muscles of the neck or larnyx, no scalp, skull or brain injuries, no chest wall tissue injuries, rib fractures (from the restraint, not CPR), no bruising or occult trauma. Taken together, that's the physical evidence he was not asphyxiated and no physical evidence he was asphyxiated.

The theory that Chauvin's magic knee applied just enough pressure to 'slowly squeeze' enough air to fatally restrict Floyd's breathing in a way that wouldn't happen with an overdose alone, without leaving a mark- is a theory in spite of evidence. Its as I said earlier this thread and several others, its an attempt to construct a theory that reaches a preformed conclusion by excusing all the evidence against it, instead of following the course of the evidence to its natural conclusion, a type of belief perseverance. Its not supported by the evidence, constructing a hypothetical that contorts for each point of evidence to avoid directly contradicting them.

And besides that being an irrational way to process information, it begs the question I asked: How is it falsifiable?. If the theory is that Derek Chauvin used the magic goldilocks level of pressure that didn't even leave a bruise, but had the force necessary to kill a man, how could that theory be contradicted if its wrong? Perhaps the flying spaghetti monster choked out George Floyd with its noodle appendage and changed the results of every lab test to cover it without a trace. Or perhaps there was a china teapot in an elliptic orbit around the sun too small to be seen on a telescope that reflected a stream of tachyons emitted by a distant quasar, striking squarely into George Floyd's chest and sapping him of his breath by sending oxygen molecules backwards through time. This was a criminal trial and the prosecution's charge was an unfalsifiable claim, one predicated on a theory of a crime that leaves no evidence. I like to say it inverted the burden of proof, but it really goes far beyond that to the extreme. A magic knee on the neck of American civil liberties and the presumption of innocence.

No, the evidence is that he stopped talking after gasping that he can't breathe. You don't have to be fully choked out to accurately claim you can't breathe. Stop perpetuating this lie. Autopsy evidence of these injuries is not always there for compressive asphyxiation. That's been pointed out too.

It wasn't just the knee, it was also the 2 assholes on his back slowing squeezing the life out of him. You're also pretending there's no evidence. The evidence you claim is missing isn't always going to be there for this type of asphyxiation. Doctors testified to that effect. You CAN squeeze the life out of someone without there being "no petechiae in the face, mouth or eyes, no injuries to the muscles of the neck or larnyx."

He gasped "I can't breathe" about a hundred times before he stopped talking, most of them before anyone restrained him. He was saying it while in the vehicle. Again, the theory you're arguing is one in spite of evidence, an unfalsifiable claim. If the argument goes that "there isn't always going to be evidence", well then how can you prosecute someone for murder? A proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in a crime on a theory that cannot be proven because it cannot be disproven. There could have been clear evidence of the amount of force used that would have been compelling. If there was bruising, trauma, physical injury of any kind. Then we could point to that and say, Chauvin & Co used enough force to cause these marks. Instead, we're left to this goldilocks scenario where they used exactly the right amount of force- held consistently for 9+ minutes- where any more and they'd leave marks, any less and it wouldn't cause harm. The absence of such evidence can't disprove that scenario, but it does weight against it and make it unlikely.

If Nancy Pelosi were found dead in the oval office in 2019 and a bloodstained knife had Donald Trump's fingerprints on it and his shoeprints were in the pooled blood, and lets throw in a used condom for good measure, well, we could construct a 'possible' scenario where an ingenious Puerto Rican-looking assassin framed Trump by obtaining his fingerprints from a diet coke, planting them on the knife, stealing his shoes to wear, sprinkling his DNA at the scene obtained from a hooker who works a corner behind a DC McDonalds and picking up his phone to tweet about it. And the assassin carefully removed every possible shred of evidence he was ever there. But there would be no evidence to support that theory, and all the evidence we have weighs against it and says the obvious conclusion about whodunnit.