So we agree that the union “protecting” this nurse had no idea about the murders.
Of course it must have had an idea that seven
patients had died under her watch, due to "mistakes". She would then confess while on drug rehab that she intended to kill them, a necessary condition for establishing a murder charge. Without the confession, it could be a form of negligent homicide or manslaughter, one that for some reason went unreported to the legal authorities by both the care center and the nurse union.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Meanwhile, the MPD union obviously knows about the murder, and supports the killer anyway.
So you are saying the police union knows Chauvin intended to kill George Floyd? Has he confessed so?
Pants-of-dog wrote:I will now consider my claim (that police unions, unlike other public sector unions, support their members even when they murder people) to be true and not refuted.
You can "consider" whatever you want, it's easy to do when you lack arguments and prefer to pretend refutations did not happen.
Pants-of-dog wrote:And the first (and the only one before Mr. Floyd’s killer) police officer in the MPD to be punished (i.e. fired but not convicted) for killing a black person was Philando Castile’s killer.
And that was the last time it had happened without justification (keeping in mind only 4 African Americans in total were killed by MPD cops in 2013-2019, it's not too informative - we don't even know if the other 3 killings were justified or not, no matter how much you want to assume they were).
Pants-of-dog wrote:So Mr. Floyd’s killer would have (correctly) assumed his union would support him,
Sure, but he couldn't have assumed that means he could get away with an unjustified killing filmed on camera.
Pants-of-dog wrote:had already killed a person of colour with impunity once before, and had seen most police officers who killed people of colour get way with it.
How many of those killings were unjustified and how many of the unjustified ones were caught on camera?
Pants-of-dog wrote:There seems to be no reason to assume irrationality on the part of Mr. Floyd’s killer if we want to look at why he thought he would get away with it.
Only if you choose to disregard the relevant information that damages your case.
The truth is that the bulk of your "statistical" argument rests on presuming police killings are unjustified - and therefore criminal - until proven to the contrary, but that is not how presumption of innocence works in the justice system. This reasoning is no different from that used by those who used to engage in lynchings in the American South back in the day.