[skinster]

[Saeko]

[Saeko]

[skinster]

[Pants-of-dog]

Indeed, do you know if the lesser charges remain in place? If they don't, I'd be concerned to be honest.

I think it more important to analyse the relationship between the DA and the MPD and why the DA was allowed to shirk their duty. This was probably a deliberate attempt to stop the public from holding the police accountable for killing an unarmed man.

Maybe, although the current DA did also prosecute the responsible for the murder of Justine Damond and a got a conviction (for second degree manslaughter and third degree murder, actually). In this case, the cop shot without looking since he was spooked and unintentionally killed her.

The fact that the DA used these charges in a significantly different context does not change the fact that DAs should not be in charge of investigating cops with whim they work with on a day to day basis.

Maybe, although he could also say he didn't set out to kill him but that he was extremely imprudent - like in third degree murder.

Of course, there's another angle to this: Since it seems Chauvin and Floyd worked together as bouncers, and even shared shifts, there's the possibility that they knew each other. If so, I'd go for the second degree murder charge since they were not strangers to each other in this case, and I doubt a reasonable cop would act the same way with someone he knows and likely has an idea of how he'd react to stopping the choking. I think that would change the situation and indeed make this a case of intentional murder.

Speculation about a possible relationship is unnecessary.

There is a lot of video evidence showing he intentionally kept kneeling on Mr. Floyd’s neck after he was informed that Mr. Floyd was unable to breathe.

My understanding is that the maneuver Chauvin did is actually discouraged by the Department and has been since before this incident. I'm not sure if it's outright banned though.

Feel free to do the research.

At this point, it seems like the MPD has no plans to change this policy.

Any citizen can, as long as enough people sign up:

The scenario you describe would clearly fall into the nonfeasance category.

How often has this happened in the past?

Or to move things along faster: why did this not happen for the other 200+ killings?

You can read this paper if you want more systematic evidence. Grand juries are meant to shield people from arbitrary prosecutions, so grand jurors can in fact show disbelief of whatever the DA says if the office has a poor history in these matters. I also think these fillings should be made public when dealing with indictment of public officials (in general, cops or not, elected or not).

Please quote the relevant text.

Why? It is by exposing these acts of individual racism that instances of systematic racism can be caught and dealt with.

Really? How do police bodycams help stop the DAs who refuse to prosecute, or the judges who let cops off on technicalities? Or the racism of juries? Or how jury selection is set up to make things harder for black people?

Why? I actually think there will be plenty of lawsuits, at the very least civil ones.

How do you sue a cop who has no identifying badge or number?

More importantly, how does a lawsuit deal with the DAs who refuse to prosecute, or the judges who let cops off on technicalities? Or the racism of juries? Or how jury selection is set up to make things harder for black people?

Shall I bother posting videos of protesters kicking cops and the like?

Feel free.

I have no idea what the point would be, except to make police violence seem justified.

Key word there, and you said it yourself, is "soldiers". They just shot looters to kill, volunteers also shot them even before the Guardsmen were deployed. The police would have likely used less lethal means to deal with looters.

Most of the time, it was cops. The fact that the government then sent in even more violent killers does not change that.

Anyway, all of this supports the idea that we need to get rid of cops, or minimally, defund and disarm them.

Why don't you read the 911 conversation? The store clerk said he paid with a counterfeit bill, and then left with the goods without paying attention to him when he asked him to return them. I think that if I did so they'd call the cops on me, and I'm not Black either.

None of this is a crime.

None of this is violent.

At worst, Mr. Floyd was absentminded for a second.

Many instances of police brutality that don't get prosecuted despite being filmed would, am I correct? And therefore, this transparency would serve to correct this by making it an electoral issue.

Really? How do police bodycams help stop the DAs who refuse to prosecute, or the judges who let cops off on technicalities? Or the racism of juries? Or how jury selection is set up to make things harder for black people?

Besides, and politician running on a campaign of police brutality would lose. Such a candidate would be vilified by the “law and order” candidate, and there would be a significant number of white people who would support the law order and candidate because “looting”.

This thread has many examples of white conservatives replying to discussions of police brutality with “yeah, but what about the looting?”.

[Saeko]

[wat0n]

I think it more important to analyse the relationship between the DA and the MPD and why the DA was allowed to shirk their duty. This was probably a deliberate attempt to stop the public from holding the police accountable for killing an unarmed man.

The fact that the DA used these charges in a significantly different context does not change the fact that DAs should not be in charge of investigating cops with whim they work with on a day to day basis.

Maybe, although in that case it was the DA who pursued the charges until getting a conviction.

Speculation about a possible relationship is unnecessary.

There is a lot of video evidence showing he intentionally kept kneeling on Mr. Floyd’s neck after he was informed that Mr. Floyd was unable to breathe.

Maybe, although it needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I think a relationship between both would deal the deal, since the situation is different in that case.

Feel free to do the research.

At this point, it seems like the MPD has no plans to change this policy.

Well, it seems we are both right and wrong at the same time. What Chauvin did is considered to be non-deadly, but cannot be used if there is passive resistance

Active Resistance: A response to police efforts to bring a person into custody or control for detainment or arrest. A subject engages in active resistance when engaging in physical actions (or verbal behavior reflecting an intention) to make it more difficult for officers to achieve actual physical control. (10/01/10) (04/16/12)

Passive Resistance: A response to police efforts to bring a person into custody or control for detainment or arrest. This is behavior initiated by a subject, when the subject does not comply with verbal or physical control efforts, yet the subject does not attempt to defeat an officer’s control efforts. (10/01/10) (04/16/12)

...

5-311 USE OF NECK RESTRAINTS AND CHOKE HOLDS (10/16/02) (08/17/07) (10/01/10) (04/16/12)

DEFINITIONS I.

Choke Hold: Deadly force option. Defined as applying direct pressure on a person’s trachea or airway (front of the neck), blocking or obstructing the airway (04/16/12)

Neck Restraint: Non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person’s neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck). Only sworn employees who have received training from the MPD Training Unit are authorized to use neck restraints. The MPD authorizes two types of neck restraints: Conscious Neck Restraint and Unconscious Neck Restraint. (04/16/12)

Conscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with intent to control, and not to render the subject unconscious, by only applying light to moderate pressure. (04/16/12)

Unconscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure. (04/16/12)

PROCEDURES/REGULATIONS II.

The Conscious Neck Restraint may be used against a subject who is actively resisting. (04/16/12)

The Unconscious Neck Restraint shall only be applied in the following circumstances: (04/16/12)

On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or;
For life saving purposes, or;
On a subject who is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject; and if lesser attempts at control have been or would likely be ineffective.

Neck restraints shall not be used against subjects who are passively resisting as defined by policy. (04/16/12)

After Care Guidelines (04/16/12)

After a neck restraint or choke hold has been used on a subject, sworn MPD employees shall keep them under close observation until they are released to medical or other law enforcement personnel.

An officer who has used a neck restraint or choke hold shall inform individuals accepting custody of the subject, that the technique was used on the subject.

This would now open a few questions:

1) Was Chauvin trained in the technique?
2) Was George Floyd actively resisting? If so, was an unconscious neck restraint justified under the policy?

I tend to believe he was passively resisting: It seems they were having trouble to sit him into the car, but that he did not actually try to release himself from arrest. He was just scared.

That is, the MPD policy should not be useful for claiming it allowed this kind of choking.

How often has this happened in the past?

Or to move things along faster: why did this not happen for the other 200+ killings?

We are going in circles now, aren't we? The 200 figures may as well include people killed in a shootout with the police. Is that an unjustified use of force?

As for how often do Minnesotan county officials get recalled, I don't know. But the mechanism is definitely there, and I don't see why wouldn't it be used in a case like this. It would also explain why the DA didn't hesitate for too long to pursue a conviction in the Justine Damond case - working with the police is a bit useless if you get fired anyway.

Please quote the relevant text.

Unfortunately, it's mentioned throughout.

Really? How do police bodycams help stop the DAs who refuse to prosecute, or the judges who let cops off on technicalities? Or the racism of juries? Or how jury selection is set up to make things harder for black people?

For the first two, they can be recalled or lose the next election. For the latter two, crudely showing the reality of police brutality against Black citizens should change attitudes of jurors. It's not the same when it's caught on camera.

How do you sue a cop who has no identifying badge or number?

The first step would be to sue the department, which in any event would likely be the appropriate target since if they are widespread then chances are that it was an order from above.

Feel free.

I have no idea what the point would be, except to make police violence seem justified.

Why wouldn't a violent arrest, using the minimum force necessary to accomplish the task, be justified to subdue someone who is attacking a cop?

Most of the time, it was cops. The fact that the government then sent in even more violent killers does not change that.

Anyway, all of this supports the idea that we need to get rid of cops, or minimally, defund and disarm them.

That's not what the source says, however. The cops walked out and virtually left the city unattended, which is why the looting began.

None of this is a crime.

None of this is violent.

At worst, Mr. Floyd was absentminded for a second.

Even though they reached to him? When do we jump from being absent-minded to leaving without paying?

Besides, and politician running on a campaign of police brutality would lose. Such a candidate would be vilified by the “law and order” candidate, and there would be a significant number of white people who would support the law order and candidate because “looting”.

This thread has many examples of white conservatives replying to discussions of police brutality with “yeah, but what about the looting?”.

But those White conservatives are not the majority of the electorate in places like Minneapolis, which has both a Black Police Chief and is where Ilhan Omar's home district, who is neither White nor conservative.

Even worse, there's also evidence of DAs overcharging to avoid pressure in the context of an election for their post, where looking weak on police brutality may hurt him or her politically. It all depends on the political leaning of the district at hand, of course, and indeed it's why these protests are taking place in heavily Democratic cities.

Does it mean this system is perfect? No, but real and sustainable change in a democracy needs to come from the voters themselves. Bodycams showing police brutality help to do just that, and also help to restrain police misbehavior (as shown in several RCTs in and outside the US).

[Unthinking Majority]

In the USA you have freedom of speech, which means a person of colour can legally put up his middle finger to a police officer and tell him to go fuck himself and to eat his nuts, even while detained. This is a great example of how it's done. Warning, best to not assert your rights without video livestreaming it to Youtube so the evidence can't be confiscated and erased by cops:

[Pants-of-dog]

Maybe, although in that case it was the DA who pursued the charges until getting a conviction.

Perhaps the DA is good at convicting black cops who shoot white victims, but not vice versa.

Maybe, although it needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I think a relationship between both would deal the deal, since the situation is different in that case.

While I am unable to see how there could be any reasonable doubt after seeing the video, it is illuminating to see that many others do not see the obvious intent to kill.

Well, it seems we are both right and wrong at the same time. What Chauvin did is considered to be non-deadly, but cannot be used if there is passive resistance

This would now open a few questions:

1) Was Chauvin trained in the technique?
2) Was George Floyd actively resisting? If so, was an unconscious neck restraint justified under the policy?

I tend to believe he was passively resisting: It seems they were having trouble to sit him into the car, but that he did not actually try to release himself from arrest. He was just scared.

That is, the MPD policy should not be useful for claiming it allowed this kind of choking.

Mr. Floyd was handcuffed and lying on the ground, pinned by other police officers. Even if he was trying to resist with all his might that that point, he was already restrained such that there is no way that he presented a threat to anyone.

So, the policy does allow this choke hold, and in this instance it was unnecessary and a criminally lethal use of force.

At this point, it makes to sense to ask why the MPD is letting cops with multiple violence complaints use these choke holds even when it is clear that cops use them even when it is unnecessary.

We are going in circles now, aren't we? The 200 figures may as well include people killed in a shootout with the police. Is that an unjustified use of force?

As for how often do Minnesotan county officials get recalled, I don't know. But the mechanism is definitely there, and I don't see why wouldn't it be used in a case like this. It would also explain why the DA didn't hesitate for too long to pursue a conviction in the Justine Damond case - working with the police is a bit useless if you get fired anyway.

This mechanism, or the threat of this mechanism, only seems to be effectivd in very rare cases. Ones that result in international media attention, riots, and intense scrutiny.

It did nothing to stop the non-zero number of unjustified killings before the last few years.

Unfortunately, it's mentioned throughout.

At this point, I am going to dismiss this argument about grand juries since it seems based on your speculation and the implausibility of them being more significant than, say, systemic racism.

For the first two, they can be recalled or lose the next election. For the latter two, crudely showing the reality of police brutality against Black citizens should change attitudes of jurors. It's not the same when it's caught on camera.

People do not lose elections in the USA because of racism. Trump actually had a measurable benefit from using racism on the campaign trail.

And even when it is caught on camera, the racism of the jurors could easily influence how the jurors perceive the video evidence.

The first step would be to sue the department, which in any event would likely be the appropriate target since if they are widespread then chances are that it was an order from above.

The likelihood of getting evidence of orders to commit these acts of brutality is almost nil.

Why wouldn't a violent arrest, using the minimum force necessary to accomplish the task, be justified to subdue someone who is attacking a cop?

If that is the argument you would be making by showing these videos, then it i seems like an unnecessary argument. Cops already have this benefit and no one is arguing otherwise. Even the argument that cops should be disarmed and defunded is not the same as this strawman that you are asking about.

That's not what the source says, however. The cops walked out and virtually left the city unattended, which is why the looting began.

...and then the non-striking cops and other security forces started beating and killing people. Again, we see opportunistic property damage and theft by civilians, and repetitive physical violence (including killing) by police and other government officials.

Even though they reached to him? When do we jump from being absent-minded to leaving without paying?

What does it mean when you say “they reached to him”?

But those White conservatives are not the majority of the electorate in places like Minneapolis, which has both a Black Police Chief and is where Ilhan Omar's home district, who is neither White nor conservative.

Do not worry. Many white liberals would also vote for the law and order candidate.

Even worse, there's also evidence of DAs overcharging to avoid pressure in the context of an election for their post, where looking weak on police brutality may hurt him or her politically. It all depends on the political leaning of the district at hand, of course, and indeed it's why these protests are taking place in heavily Democratic cities.

This sounds like a myth.

Does it mean this system is perfect? No, but real and sustainable change in a democracy needs to come from the voters themselves. Bodycams showing police brutality help to do just that, and also help to restrain police misbehavior (as shown in several RCTs in and outside the US).

I am not arguing that bodycams are entirely useless. They are just useless when it comes to addressing the systemic racism of the US justice system.

[Beren]

Well the cop definitely couldn't hit her. I mean he could have stood there and taken the verbal abuse but what if she was a nutjob with a knife or something? Be honest, you would have maced her too just for the lulz

I'd have maced her if she'd been attacking me with a knife, but I wouldn't have maced her for the lulz or just because I couldn't have been standing her any longer. However, I'm not a cop and never will be.

[Unthinking Majority]

None of this is a crime.

None of this is violent.

At worst, Mr. Floyd was absentminded for a second.

I'm pretty sure it's a crime to pay with counterfeit money, and then refuse to give merchandise back when caught. It's theft.

He wasn't absentminded, who the hell walks around with fake bills in their wallet? He was also publicly intoxicated on fentanyl as the autopsy showed.

People are responsible for their actions.

[Donna]

I'm pretty sure it's a crime to pay with counterfeit money, and then refuse to give merchandise back when caught. It's theft.

He wasn't absentminded, who the hell walks around with fake bills in their wallet? He was also publicly intoxicated on fentanyl as the autopsy showed.

People are responsible for their actions.

For all you know he was accidentally given counterfeit bills by the local fucking Wal-Mart, you cunt.

[Unthinking Majority]

For all you know he was accidentally given counterfeit bills by the local fucking Wal-Mart, you cunt.

Ya and someone slipped fentanyl in his drink LOL. George is a sweet innocent angle. There goes your victim/oppressor narrative again. Defend the weak at all costs, even if they commit crimes eh?

Why are you calling me names? You dickless penis-breathe.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm pretty sure it's a crime to pay with counterfeit money, and then refuse to give merchandise back when caught. It's theft.

According to the description given by wat0n, that is not what happened.

According to the statement by the store, they were legally required to call the police for all counterfeit money. The statement does not mention any criminal or violent acts or intent on the part of Mr. Floyd.

He wasn't absentminded, who the hell walks around with fake bills in their wallet?

Many people do. The whole point of counterfeiting money is to produce bills that most people do not know is fake. That is how counterfeiting works.

He was also publicly intoxicated on fentanyl as the autopsy showed.

Did it say he was intoxicated at the time of his death, or that there were traces of drugs in his system?

People are responsible for their actions.

So Mr, Floyd was responsible for his death because he had counterfeit money in his wallet and had been stoned in the recent past?

[Donna]

Ya and someone slipped fentanyl in his drink LOL. George is a sweet innocent angle. There goes your victim/oppressor narrative again. Defend the weak at all costs, even if they commit crimes eh?

Why are you calling me names? You dickless penis-breathe.

I'm calling you names because you're a total garbage person and a racist concern troll.

He had fentanyl in his system, so fucking what? Is this a segue for another shitty talking point that criminalizes addicts? Fuck you, cunt.

[Unthinking Majority]

According to the description given by wat0n, that is not what happened.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-flo ... is-police/

911 Operator: How can I help you?
Caller: Um someone comes our store and give us fake bills and we realize it before he left the store, and we ran back outside, they was sitting on their car. We tell them to give us their phone, put their (inaudible) thing back and everything and he was also drunk and everything and return to give us our cigarettes back and so he can, so he can go home but he doesn't want to do that, and he's sitting on his car cause he is awfully drunk and he's not in control of himself.

Did it say he was intoxicated at the time of his death, or that there were traces of drugs in his system?

He had drugs in his system and the store clerk told 911 he was drunk.

So Mr, Floyd was responsible for his death because he had counterfeit money in his wallet and had been stoned in the recent past?

No, the cops are responsible for their own actions too, including kneeling on this guy's neck even after unconscious and killing him. Floyd is responsible for being intoxicated on illegal narcotics and giving a guy counterfeit bills, unless it can be shown that he didn't know they were counterfeit.

He was obviously in contact with shady people who deal drugs if he had 2 illegal drugs in his system and had possession of counterfeit bills.. Maybe they're the ones who gave him the counterfeit bills. Either way, I don't feel bad for him for paying with counterfeit bills and being involved in criminal activity. For some reason you and Donna do.

Floyd is no hero and no angel, but he is a tragic victim of policy brutality.

[wat0n]

Perhaps the DA is good at convicting black cops who shoot white victims, but not vice versa.

Maybe but the Minneapolis Police Union condemned the conviction as well.

While I am unable to see how there could be any reasonable doubt after seeing the video, it is illuminating to see that many others do not see the obvious intent to kill.

He could claim that he was trying to leave him unconscious. Second degree is not impossible, but I can see how he could get away from that charge. I don't think he has a good chance of getting away from third degree murder, and I am pretty sure a second degree manslaughter charge will stand.

If they knew each other though I find it harder for him to claim there was no intent to kill, as it's easier to claim that his state of mind was not that of a law enforcement member but that it was way more personal - making the second degree murder a lot easier to prove, and also makes first degree murder viable.

Mr. Floyd was handcuffed and lying on the ground, pinned by other police officers. Even if he was trying to resist with all his might that that point, he was already restrained such that there is no way that he presented a threat to anyone.

So, the policy does allow this choke hold, and in this instance it was unnecessary and a criminally lethal use of force.

At this point, it makes to sense to ask why the MPD is letting cops with multiple violence complaints use these choke holds even when it is clear that cops use them even when it is unnecessary.

Precisely what you mention in the first paragraph is why this technique was improperly used (even if Floyd hadn't died), under MPD's own manual. And it's also why he'll have trouble getting away with this by shielding himself on his employer.

Agreed on the complaints as well. The MPD Will have to explain how it dealt with them, if it did at all.

This mechanism, or the threat of this mechanism, only seems to be effectivd in very rare cases. Ones that result in international media attention, riots, and intense scrutiny.

It did nothing to stop the non-zero number of unjustified killings before the last few years.

But it's particularly effective now that these killings are being filmed. Hence the conviction in the JD case - what else could the DA do once this became public?

At this point, I am going to dismiss this argument about grand juries since it seems based on your speculation and the implausibility of them being more significant than, say, systemic racism.

Why? You got the source, and actually it's not inconsistent with systemic racism either - why else would you or anyone else care about the race of jurors?

But since solving that involves changing community views on these matters, it's not as simple as blaming public officials and being done with it. Ultimately, it is the community's views themselves that need to change, and this is something that can and will happen as more footage becomes ever available.

Indeed, it's precisely because of footage that there have been protests ever since the mid 2010s (not counting Rodney King).

People do not lose elections in the USA because of racism. Trump actually had a measurable benefit from using racism on the campaign trail.

It all depends on the election, prosecutors in urban areas - where Trump didn't perform particularly well - will have an incentive not to look racist since the voting population there is not particularly Trumpist.

And even when it is caught on camera, the racism of the jurors could easily influence how the jurors perceive the video evidence.

Maybe, and that's when State and Federal officials can also intervene. Furthermore, if racism is so widespread that you cannot find 13 randomly selected non-racist guys to serve as grand jurors, then it doesn't really matter whatever else you do: Unless you want to invade and occupy those American counties to impose your ideology and bring them democracy - in a similar manner to how Bush II gave "democracy" to Iraq - then it doesn't matter what laws you pass to stop it, they'll find a way around it.

However, I don't think racism is that widespread in this country and particularly not in large cities. I've lived here for long enough to tell that. And the fact that protests are largely taking place in those cities should be quite enlightening in this regard. You can't have it that a large percentage of the population is racist and yet at the same time that these protests enjoy a measure of widespread support.

The likelihood of getting evidence of orders to commit these acts of brutality is almost nil.

I don't know if there are any precedents to that effect. Cities do seem to pay a lot of money in settlements.

If that is the argument you would be making by showing these videos, then it i seems like an unnecessary argument. Cops already have this benefit and no one is arguing otherwise. Even the argument that cops should be disarmed and defunded is not the same as this strawman that you are asking about.

Then you should have no trouble in acknowledging that protesters who attack cops are being lawfully detained.

As for disarming and defunding the police, I think it depends on the city. I don't think that should be done when there's enough arms among gangs and other forms of organized crime as to make it hard for the police to keep them in check.

Part of the reason why they are heavily armed is because the population at large also has quite a lot of arms. Also there should probably be a broader reform such as legalizing most drugs but that's another matter, for another thread since it's a long one, even if it's related to policing.

...and then the non-striking cops and other security forces started beating and killing people. Again, we see opportunistic property damage and theft by civilians, and repetitive physical violence (including killing) by police and other government officials.

Don't forget sexual assault by some civilians as well. But leaving that aside, it's a matter of numbers as usual. For Boston, all deaths were the result of the military and the volunteers also shot some looters. In Baltimore, a single looter was killed by a nonstriking cop. Care to explain your reasoning here?

What does it mean when you say “they reached to him”?

The employee(s) told him the bill was fake and requested him to return the purchase. The employee said he didn't pay attention to them and, in the employee's opinion, "was awfully drunk" and "not in control of himself". It seems there's footage of that interaction as well.

Do not worry. Many white liberals would also vote for the law and order candidate.

Before what's happened since Memorial Day? I very, very much doubt it.

This sounds like a myth.

That's actually what (for example) Jacksonville's DA was accused of doing in the Travyon Martin case

I am not arguing that bodycams are entirely useless. They are just useless when it comes to addressing the systemic racism of the US justice system.

Why?

@Unthinking Majority I would not assume there was criminal intent on his end either, just as @Donna said he could have inadvertently gotten it from elsewhere and paid with it. Even more if as you pointed out he wasn't sober. My point though is that it isn't about his state of mind, but about what would the store clerk be expected to do. What else should have he legally done but called the police? Fight a bouncer? Pull a weapon? Or what?

[Donna]

@wat0n there is also the possibility that the store clerk exercised racial bias as well and made the assumption that Floyd must have been intentionally trying to pass counterfeit money, whereas had he been white the clerk (and the responding officers for that matter) might have given him the benefit of the doubt and presumed he acquired it accidentally.

[Pants-of-dog]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-floyd-death-911-transcript-minneapolis-police/

911 Operator: How can I help you?
Caller: Um someone comes our store and give us fake bills and we realize it before he left the store, and we ran back outside, they was sitting on their car. We tell them to give us their phone, put their (inaudible) thing back and everything and he was also drunk and everything and return to give us our cigarettes back and so he can, so he can go home but he doesn't want to do that, and he's sitting on his car cause he is awfully drunk and he's not in control of himself.

So he paid for his stuff, went and sat outside, and then the teenager behind the counter went and told him that he paid with counterfeit money and then Mr. Floyd just sat there.

Again, none of this is a crime or violent.

He had drugs in his system and the store clerk told 911 he was drunk.

Being drunk or even high is not illegal.

No, the cops are responsible for their own actions too, including kneeling on this guy's neck even after unconscious and killing him. Floyd is responsible for being intoxicated on illegal narcotics and giving a guy counterfeit bills, unless it can be shown that he didn't know they were counterfeit.

Sorry, but are we supposed to presume that he was guilty of knowingly using counterfeit bills even though there is no evidence?

Also, it is logically inconsistent to argue that he was so intoxicated that it was a problem and simultaneously claim that he was carefully trying to commit a crime.

He was obviously in contact with shady people who deal drugs if he had 2 illegal drugs in his system and had possession of counterfeit bills.. Maybe they're the ones who gave him the counterfeit bills. Either way, I don't feel bad for him for paying with counterfeit bills and being involved in criminal activity. For some reason you and Donna do.

Floyd is no hero and no angel, but he is a tragic victim of policy brutality.

I have no idea why you are ascribing an emotional position to me.

Every single tradesperson in their twenties that I have ever met has had lots of cash in his or her wallet and most have had traces of illegal drugs in their systems.

Knowing people who pay in cash and knowing drug dealers is not illegal. Nor is it even necessarily immoral.

How any of this is something for which Mr. Floyd needed to be held “responsible” is beyond me, and seems completely irrelevant to the fact that the police killed him despite the lack of crime, violence, or resistance.

[wat0n]

@wat0n there is also the possibility that the store clerk exercised racial bias as well and made the assumption that Floyd must have been intentionally trying to pass counterfeit money, whereas had he been white the clerk (and the responding officers for that matter) might have given him the benefit of the doubt and presumed he acquired it accidentally.

Maybe, but how does he get the goods back either way?