George Floyd murderer's trial

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why not? What is YOUR life worth, for instance, if you are tortured to death by a cop for suspicion of passing a fake $20?
Just a ballpark figure will do, Derec.

How much does someone who swallows a handful of dangerous drugs, knowing they have serious health issues already, while being arrested, value their own life?
Tom

There are some questionable* premises and assumptions there, but even accepting those, the one is not as related to the other like you have assumed. When one is an addict, for example, and we're talking generally here, not necessarily in this specific case, an addict does not necessarily make rational decisions based on rational priorities and reasoned internal debate regarding their values. Features of drug addiction affect decision-making because of neuro-biological response to craving, withdrawal, and physical dependency. Therefore, we ought not conclude life is value-less to drug addicts based on the decisions they make.



* deplorable, slanderous, apologetic

 

[laughing dog]

Or that said person deserves some compensation from the city.

Some compensation would be fine. $27 fucking million dollars is not.

Can you provide a convincing rationale why your judgment should be accepted and the elected officials of Minneapolis should not?

 

[TomC]

Why not? What is YOUR life worth, for instance, if you are tortured to death by a cop for suspicion of passing a fake $20?
Just a ballpark figure will do, Derec.

How much does someone who swallows a handful of dangerous drugs, knowing they have serious health issues already, while being arrested, value their own life?
Tom

There are some questionable* premises and assumptions there, but even accepting those, the one is not as related to the other like you have assumed. When one is an addict, for example, and we're talking generally here, not necessarily in this specific case, an addict does not necessarily make rational decisions based on rational priorities and reasoned internal debate regarding their values. Features of drug addiction affect decision-making because of neuro-biological response to craving, withdrawal, and physical dependency. Therefore, we ought not conclude life is value-less to drug addicts based on the decisions they make.



* deplorable, slanderous, apologetic

So, this is a long, complex, way of dodging my question.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There are some questionable* premises and assumptions there, but even accepting those, the one is not as related to the other like you have assumed. When one is an addict, for example, and we're talking generally here, not necessarily in this specific case, an addict does not necessarily make rational decisions based on rational priorities and reasoned internal debate regarding their values. Features of drug addiction affect decision-making because of neuro-biological response to craving, withdrawal, and physical dependency. Therefore, we ought not conclude life is value-less to drug addicts based on the decisions they make.



* deplorable, slanderous, apologetic

So, this is a long, complex, way of dodging my question.
Tom

I did not dodge your RHETORICAL question. I said you are making assumptions. You can choose not to address those assumptions by putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "LALALALA" but it doesn't change the fact that you made assumptions.

 

[TomC]

There are some questionable* premises and assumptions there, but even accepting those, the one is not as related to the other like you have assumed. When one is an addict, for example, and we're talking generally here, not necessarily in this specific case, an addict does not necessarily make rational decisions based on rational priorities and reasoned internal debate regarding their values. Features of drug addiction affect decision-making because of neuro-biological response to craving, withdrawal, and physical dependency. Therefore, we ought not conclude life is value-less to drug addicts based on the decisions they make.



* deplorable, slanderous, apologetic

So, this is a long, complex, way of dodging my question.
Tom

I did not dodge your RHETORICAL question. I said you are making assumptions. You can choose not to address those assumptions by putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "LALALALA" but it doesn't change the fact that you made assumptions.

Yes, actually, you did dodge my question.

Which was a rhetorical question in response to another rhetorical question, which I quoted. Which included this assumption:

tortured to death by a cop for suspicion of passing a fake $20

Which clearly was an unsupported assumption. Floyd was safely in a patrol car. Had he stayed there, things would have worked out very differently. He may still have died, but who knows. He demanded to be let out of the car, and he got his way. And things happened that turned out badly for everyone.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I did not dodge your RHETORICAL question. I said you are making assumptions. You can choose not to address those assumptions by putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "LALALALA" but it doesn't change the fact that you made assumptions.

Yes, actually, you did dodge my question.

Your rhetorical question was invalid because of the assumptions I exposed.

Which was a rhetorical question in response to another rhetorical question, which I quoted. Which included this assumption:

tortured to death by a cop for suspicion of passing a fake $20

Which clearly was an unsupported assumption. Floyd was safely in a patrol car. Had he stayed there, things would have worked out very differently. He may still have died, but who knows. He demanded to be let out of the car, and he got his way. And things happened that turned out badly for everyone.
Tom

Someone who leaves the car does not deserve to be tortured to death.

 

[Elixir]

There are some questionable* premises and assumptions there, but even accepting those, the one is not as related to the other like you have assumed. When one is an addict, for example, and we're talking generally here, not necessarily in this specific case, an addict does not necessarily make rational decisions based on rational priorities and reasoned internal debate regarding their values. Features of drug addiction affect decision-making because of neuro-biological response to craving, withdrawal, and physical dependency. Therefore, we ought not conclude life is value-less to drug addicts based on the decisions they make.



* deplorable, slanderous, apologetic

So, this is a long, complex, way of dodging my question.
Tom

Nah, it's a straightforward, albeit mild, way of declining to honor your "question" because it's deplorable, slanderous and apologetic.
Stop flattering yourself.

 

[TomC]

Your rhetorical question was invalid because of the assumptions I exposed.

And my question was a rhetorical response to another rhetorical question.
Why don't you understand that?

Which was a rhetorical question in response to another rhetorical question, which I quoted. Which included this assumption:

tortured to death by a cop for suspicion of passing a fake $20

Which clearly was an unsupported assumption. Floyd was safely in a patrol car. Had he stayed there, things would have worked out very differently. He may still have died, but who knows. He demanded to be let out of the car, and he got his way. And things happened that turned out badly for everyone.
Tom

Someone who leaves the car does not deserve to be tortured to death.

I agree. Which is why I never said anything such thing.
Can you respond to something I actually say, instead of strawmanning me?

Similarly, some guy tasered himself to death. One of the Capitol Hill invaders, on January 6th.
Did he deserve to die a painful and ignominious death? No.
Was his death a result of choices he mostly made? Yes.

Other people made bad choices as well, like Trump.
But he chose to bring a taser. Head into the Capitol building. Stick the taser down his pants. Once the taser hit him once, he was unable to get it out. He died tasering himself in the privates while committing a crime.

Did he deserve to die that way? I don't think anybody does. But, rather like Floyd and Wright, he made most of the choices that led to his death. Not all, but most.
Tom

 

[TomC]

There are some questionable* premises and assumptions there, but even accepting those, the one is not as related to the other like you have assumed. When one is an addict, for example, and we're talking generally here, not necessarily in this specific case, an addict does not necessarily make rational decisions based on rational priorities and reasoned internal debate regarding their values. Features of drug addiction affect decision-making because of neuro-biological response to craving, withdrawal, and physical dependency. Therefore, we ought not conclude life is value-less to drug addicts based on the decisions they make.



* deplorable, slanderous, apologetic

So, this is a long, complex, way of dodging my question.
Tom

Nah, it's a straightforward, albeit mild, way of declining to honor your "question" because it's deplorable, slanderous and apologetic.
Stop flattering yourself.

I "honored" your rhetorical question to [MENTION=228]Derec[/MENTION]; with a response.

Which you didn't bother responding to.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

Floyd was safely in a patrol car. Had he stayed there, things would have worked out very differently. He may still have died, but who knows. He demanded to be let out of the car, and he got his way. And things happened that turned out badly for everyone.
Tom

There’s an interesting argument going on here.
The trial is, “what did DEREK CHAUVIN do wrong, if anything and does it need to be addressed.”
The thread is, “what is going on in the trial of DEREK CHAUVIN and its review of what he did wrong.”


Several people, TomC among them, take this trial and take this thread and say,

“You know what, let’s not talk about what Chauvin did. Can we change the subject, please? I would like to talk instead about what George Floyd did wrong. I want to change the subject because (we the readers wonder, perhaps,) I do not have anything at all to say on the topic of what DEREK CHAUVIN did wrong, and that’s why I want to change the subject.”


Now, what the readers of this thread are left to figure out is, why are TomC and Derec and Trausti and Barbo and others so invested in changing the subject?. Why do they make such a huge and ongoing effort to drive the conversation away from what DEREK CHAUVIN did wrong?

Is it because they don’t understand what Chauvin did?
Is it because they understand and they don’t think there as anything wrong with it?
Is is subconscious and they don’t realize how reluctant they themselves are to allowing a conversation about DEREK CHAUVIN to unfold without obstruction and so they deflect without thinking?
Is it because they feel George Floyd was not punished enough by his jury and they need to make their vote? That Floyd’s “trial” should not be over?
Is it because they feel that no matter what DEREK CHAUVIN did, right or wrong, George Floyd deserved it, and they feel content with this world?
Is it because they genuinely do not understand why George Floyd’s life matters to other people?
Is it because they like what DEREK CHAUVIN did?

Who knows. We read their words and see what choices they make about what to discuss. But one thing is crystal clear, they are trying their damnedest to interrupt the conversation about what DEREK CHAUVIN did wrong and imply with this redirection perhaps that what DEREK CHAUVIN did was not wrong, and did not cause harm, and should not be sanctioned or have consequences or punishment in any way, because that is the only reason why we would stop talking about DEREK CHAUVIN.

In other words, they appear to want to say, “Derek Chauvin did nothing wrong that mattered to anyone who mattered,” without actually coming right out and saying, “Derek Chauvin did nothing wrong that mattered to anyone who mattered.” They want to imply it by stopping the conversation about it, but they realize that just saying that is indefensible. But it’s what they are working very very hard to convey.

 

[TomC]

.Several people, TomC among them, take this trial and take this thread and say,

“You know what, let’s not talk about what Chauvin did. Can we change the subject, please? I would like to talk instead about what George Floyd did wrong. I want to change the subject because (we the readers wonder, perhaps,) I do not have anything at all to say on the topic of what DEREK CHAUVIN did wrong, and that’s why I want to change the subject.”

I suppose the fact that I said nothing of the sort doesn't really matter to your "argument".
Tom

 

[Rhea]

.Several people, TomC among them, take this trial and take this thread and say,

“You know what, let’s not talk about what Chauvin did. Can we change the subject, please? I would like to talk instead about what George Floyd did wrong. I want to change the subject because (we the readers wonder, perhaps,) I do not have anything at all to say on the topic of what DEREK CHAUVIN did wrong, and that’s why I want to change the subject.”

I suppose the fact that I said nothing of the sort doesn't really matter to your "argument".
Tom

I outlined how it works. You’ve already been shown that your claim, “no one said it was irrelevant” was false by having someone else dig up the quote for you (you could have done a thread-search on the word “irrelevant” and found it yourself in less than 60 seconds.)

Likewise here, you can see that I said, by your focus on what Floyd did wrong you convey a disinterest in what DEREK CHAUVIN did wrong. You can go back and look at your own posts and see how many times you brought up every possible accusation against Floyd.


Maybe something different is going on in your headd when you do that. But what we see is you changing the subject.

 

[TomC]

Maybe something different is going on in your headd when you do that. But what we see is you changing the subject.

Something entirely different from that is going on in my head. And I'm pretty sure I've said so. There's a bunch of threads on this issue, so maybe I wasn't clear in this particular thread.
So I'll explain.

I definitely think Chauvin was wrong. So wrong, he shouldn't ever be entrusted with a security position, much less a police job, ever again. There should be penalties for what he did.
But not murder.

HOWEVER, Floyd contributed hugely to his own demise. An emotive video that went viral doesn't begin to cover the whole situation, but it did convince a bunch of people that Chauvin tortured Floyd to death for allegedly passing a fake $20. The video doesn't show Floyd's health issues, or that Floyd took enough drugs to kill some people, or that Floyd was safely in a car demanding to be restrained physically on the ground instead. The video only shows Floyd's death. Which I doubt would have happened if Floyd had made a few choices differently.

Floyd certainly wouldn't have been restrained by the knee on the neck if he'd stayed in the car. But he didn't want to stay safely in the car.
And he got his way.

What I'm pointing out is that there's plenty of blame to spread around. Blaming everything on Chauvin is ridiculous.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And my question was a rhetorical response to another rhetorical question.
Why don't you understand that?

Which was a rhetorical question in response to another rhetorical question, which I quoted. Which included this assumption:

tortured to death by a cop for suspicion of passing a fake $20

Which clearly was an unsupported assumption. Floyd was safely in a patrol car. Had he stayed there, things would have worked out very differently. He may still have died, but who knows. He demanded to be let out of the car, and he got his way. And things happened that turned out badly for everyone.
Tom

Someone who leaves the car does not deserve to be tortured to death.

I agree. Which is why I never said anything such thing.
Can you respond to something I actually say, instead of strawmanning me?

Similarly, some guy tasered himself to death. One of the Capitol Hill invaders, on January 6th.
Did he deserve to die a painful and ignominious death? No.
Was his death a result of choices he mostly made? Yes.

Other people made bad choices as well, like Trump.
But he chose to bring a taser. Head into the Capitol building. Stick the taser down his pants. Once the taser hit him once, he was unable to get it out. He died tasering himself in the privates while committing a crime.

Did he deserve to die that way? I don't think anybody does. But, rather like Floyd and Wright, he made most of the choices that led to his death. Not all, but most.
Tom

In a free society, everyone makes most of the choices that lead to their death. The murder trial isn't about 99% of those actions. It's about Chauvin's violence, pattern of violence, willful ignorance, depraved indifference, anger, multiple failures to follow rational police procedure safe-guarding another person under his control, multiple refusals to follow experts "on the ground" while he was in the process of killing someone, and his deliberate violent actions causing risk to life and limb and Floyd's eventual death.

This thread is not the other thread. It's about the trial and evidence in the trial. If you think it's not murder 2 or murder 3, then review the statute, present evidence from the trial, and show your conclusion.

 

[Rhea]

Maybe something different is going on in your headd when you do that. But what we see is you changing the subject.

Something entirely different from that is going on in my head. And I'm pretty sure I've said so. There's a bunch of threads on this issue, so maybe I wasn't clear in this particular thread.
So I'll explain.

I definitely think Chauvin was wrong. So wrong, he shouldn't ever be entrusted with a security position, much less a police job, ever again. There should be penalties for what he did.
But not murder.

HOWEVER, Floyd contributed hugely to his own demise. An emotive video that went viral doesn't begin to cover the whole situation, but it did convince a bunch of people that Chauvin tortured Floyd to death for allegedly passing a fake $20. The video doesn't show Floyd's health issues, or that Floyd took enough drugs to kill some people, or that Floyd was safely in a car demanding to be restrained physically on the ground instead. The video only shows Floyd's death. Which I doubt would have happened if Floyd had made a few choices differently.

Floyd certainly wouldn't have been restrained by the knee on the neck if he'd stayed in the car. But he didn't want to stay safely in the car.
And he got his way.

What I'm pointing out is that there's plenty of blame to spread around. Blaming everything on Chauvin is ridiculous.
Tom

Why are we spreading blame around during the trial of DEREK CHAUVIN, though?
Why would we spend time spreading blame around in a discussion of DEREK CHAUVIN’s trial?

To what end?
What’s the point?

To someone pondering, why would we bring a witness to the trial of DEREK CHAUVIN making claims about the blame to spread to Floyd? The only reason to bring such a witness is to reduce the blame to DEREK CHAVIN. To make the Jury think of something besides the wrong acts of DEREK CHAUVIN, whose trial it is.

Why bring that witness? The only reason such witness is brought is to diminish the magnitude of the wrong that DEREK CHAUVIN is being tried for. To change the subject. In other words, to put George Floyd on trial, too. To make the jury do less thinking about the wrongs of the man who is on trial.

So why do you (and others) feel the need to put Floyd on trial in a thread about someone else’s trial? What do you hope to gain in the conversation by talking about Floyd and not DEREK CHAUVIN? Why do you need to “spread the blame around” in this thread about DEREK CHAUVIN’S actions? What do you get out of that?

 

[TomC]

Why are we spreading blame around during the trial of DEREK CHAUVIN, though?
Why would we spend time spreading blame around in a discussion of DEREK CHAUVIN’s trial?

To what end?
What’s the point?

Honesty. Sorting out what actually happened. Trying to prevent it from happening again.

Do you really not care about that sort of thing?
Tom

 

[Rhea]

Remember, George Floyd already had his trial. He had a jury of 4 police officers. They gave him the death penalty and carried it out without possibility of appeal.

You keep insisting that their verdict was his own choice. You keep insisting in a way that makes the reader think you agree with it. Because hyo keep bringing up evidence in THAT trial, whenever we talk about THIS one.

This is DEREK CHAUVIN’s trial.

 

[Rhea]

Why are we spreading blame around during the trial of DEREK CHAUVIN, though?
Why would we spend time spreading blame around in a discussion of DEREK CHAUVIN’s trial?

To what end?
What’s the point?

Honesty. Sorting out what actually happened. Trying to prevent it from happening again.

Do you really not care about that sort of thing?
Tom

You know full well that I do.

And that I feel that telling regular people how to be arrested better in the face of danger, how to make sure they have better health before they are arrested dangerously, how to make sure that they convey the danger better.... will never make anything better.

If the police had not fucked up, there would be no need to tell citizens how to better predict and survive police fuck-ups.

And it is not a good look to say, “okay, let’s stop talking about the police fuck-up, and instead talk more about how to survive police fuck-ups,” during a trial about police fuck-ups.

 

[TomC]

Remember, George Floyd already had his trial.

This is the kind of crap that makes this discussion so difficult.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

Remember, George Floyd already had his trial.

This is the kind of crap that makes this discussion so difficult.
Tom

Why. Because it interrupts your desire to put him on trial now?