Apparently, he was complaining "I can't breathe" while standing on the sidewalk, when seated inside the police car, as he stood outside the police car...
I've reviewed all the footage heavily, the autopsy, transcripts, etc. It's a fact that Chauvin is innocent. This is based on the consensus of evidence itself which is the only thing that really has a say in the matter.
When we examine the cultural presence of people lying that they can't breath when restrained we find this is a common practice. This can be observed happening in the playground almost every other day going back years. This has been observed as the subject of conversation going back decades.
Our post contemporary discourse analysis reveals it as a common theme in discussing the powers of security guards such as at supermarkets when suspecting shop lifting often around cases of being falsely accused and detained by people who are not officers of the law dating back as far as the previous century.
Recent publicised events have increased its prevalence. For example, the case of Eric Gardner. This is in part due to the greater exposure of raw material over the internet allowing word of such incidents to reach far and wide long before the truth is out with traditionally trusted sources of confirmation such as mass media confirming the lie rather than the truth. With footage more freely accessible we've been able to find cases of at least half a dozen youths in the UK being arrested stating they couldn't breath when they clearly could to get out of it recreating the scene from footage of this incident.
This is a normal and well known part of police work. People will say anything to get out of it and always do. Sociologically the only finding we can report is that for reasons unknown the general public have become less able to see through this kind of ploy.
Our panel of world renowned experts found themselves flabbergasted by the inability of grown adults in positions of senior responsibility to parse and comprehend basic playground behaviours. This data was double and triple checked only to yield the same devastating result.
We know from the footage that not only did the subject say he could not breath for a prolonged period while not restrained in any way that could impact breathing but that he also gave the reason for not being able to breath. He stated psychological, not physical reasons which give the illusion of not being able to breath. In effect, he informed the officers that he could in fact breath.
The records show that the officers were not blind to his potential for an impending medical emergency. They correctly suspected that he was going to have a heart attack and had already summoned an ambulance. Officers and passers by were also aware of his dangerously intoxicated state.
The footage prior to his restraint on the ground shows him throwing his weight around and resisting arrest. The records also show that he was both intercepted and arrested by the police for lawful reasons. The subject lived a life of crime and their is no evidence of attracting the attention of the police due to his race.
Any person regardless of race would expect to attract the attention of the law if for example they tried to use counterfeit money to buy things while barely able to control themselves due to severe intoxication and especially if they hung around outside after being caught waiting for the police to come.
On examining the record of Chauvin the only things we find alarming are:
Accusations such as having correspondence with the KKK or feuds with black people including the subject that either turn out to be patently false or cannot be verified. Caution should be taken as this goes both ways. Claims about a woman the subject robbed being pregnant when either he or his accomplice brandished a firearm at her abdomen can not be confirmed and may be propaganda to incense people who are pro-life. This detail is immaterial however to the overall case nor is it necessary to demonstrate that the subject's ultimate demise were the product of his poor life choices.
Suspicious obscurity. Reports of the number of complaints but a lack of details from parties openly biased against and that would be sure to both source and disclose such details were they to raise the severity.
When we examine the frequency of complaints over a long period of service we find nothing unusual. Police often receive malicious complaints from criminals that are caught. Criminals have no restraint and will do anything to get off the hook or to get their own back. This is why they are criminals. They have no restraint when it comes to things such as making false complaints and this is why they end up in situations where they must be restrained by an external party.
We find that the frequency of complaints appears to be inflated with clusters that to refer to single incidents rather than comprising multiple separate and distinct complaints. Of those which the details have been made available we find at best procedural errors. We do not judge people by accusations alone as anyone can make any accusation they like for any reason or no reason. In so many years of service minor mistakes are expected and we do not find anything out of the ordinary. In a practical sense we would describe his record as clean.
Our study of the restraint shows nothing inappropriate. To have multiple officers restraining him is standard practice. Policing is not a sport where it must be one on one. It is required to have enough people to fully and confidently restrain the subject. The method of restraint and the circumstances were both entirely in line with that permitted by the police force, trained in and known to be safe.
Although the subject asked to be put on the floor we consider this of peripheral significance at best as the perpetrator typically does not instruct the officer on how to arrest them and is not deemed to be "in charge" in such a situation.
The safety of the restraint can be demonstrated with a simple scientific experiment: Stand on the scales and see how much you weigh. Now put one foot on the floor putting your weight on it and leave the other on the scales to see how much force you are now applying.
The autopsy further confirms that this is the case. Chauvin was not putting any significant weight on the neck and applying only minimal force below the threshold of detection which is substantially lower than the threshold of lethal force.
To have killed the subject in the way described without leaving a mark either an unlikely and unbelievable misfortune would be required or he would need to possess almost magical skills and abilities traditionally confined to fantasy such as Martial Arts films.
If Chauvin were so unfortunate he could not have easily been cognisant of such a remote possibility. If he had near magical powers to inflict death without leaving mark that would require proof.
During the footage we observe that Chauvin's ability to offer care or examine the subject while restrained was suppressed by a hostile crowd. We have established that the behaviour of this crowd interfered with police work and closely approached if not met the criteria for obstructing police officers in the line of duty.
We find that Chauvin was racially abused by at least one member of the crowd when examining the audio. We also deem the behaviour of the crowd, whether intended or to have posed a threat to the police officers. A member of the public attempts to intervene to tell the police officers that the subject has overdosed but is berated and bullied away by the hostile crowd. We found that most footage in the press and distributed freely online had been cut to remove the racial abuse and other incidences of hostility from the crowd.
When the subject loses consciousness Chauvin can be seen looking down and examining the situation to re-evaluate but it interrupted by the crowd attempting to rush him with only one officer to keep many hostile actors at bay. Chauvin takes out his mace to hold them back and is distracted from the subject being unable to adjust restraint or evaluate. The officers behind the car and not able to see the crowd are more relaxed. Body camera footage catches them later mentioning the hostility of the crowd to each other.
The medical examination not only shows that the subject was on a high dose of drugs known to cause the heart to stop, which is what the autopsy shows but he also has heart disease and circulatory system disease in addition to a SARS-CoV-2 infection which further stresses the very same system. Specifically he had pathological blood pressure and SARS-CoV-2 specifically attacks the receptors that regulate blood pressure. The subject had a set of synergistic conditions that would put an overwhelming pressure on his heart to fail or for some other similar ailment to lead to death.
We would rule that if cause of death has any contribution from a party other than the subject himself then it would be that which provided him with both illegal and dangerous recreational drugs. This leads us to answer the question who really killed the subject and where is the manhunt for the felon whose wilful negligence supplied the subject with the means to get themselves killed through misadventure? This is akin to knowingly supplying someone a gun unlawfully for reckless activity such as playing Russian Roulette.
When we analyse this subjectively we feel that the failure to track down this guilty party is a real tragedy. Our profiling of the subject shows particularly low intelligence which would likely further increase culpability for those he was criminally involved with. We do not find evidence for the subject possessing a level of intelligence much beyond that of a child though it has been considered that this may be part of the act or specifically a form of playing dumb to elicit sympathy and feign an innocent state of being.
On full examination of all the data we cannot find any sustainable argument for guilt on behalf of the officers involved. We cannot say the same for a great many parties that would seek to frame and lynch this officer. Given the extensive injury from these actions including malicious prosecution as well as knowingly misleading media coverage leading to among other things the loss of his wife and employment we find grounds to support the case to award damages and compensation to Chauvin which should amount to no less than twenty seven million US dollars.
Because facts do not work on the left I have compensated with an official tone of authority which makes it impossible for any left wing user reading this to rebut without revealing themselves as the enemy, those who do not bow to and respect the appearance of authority unconditionally.
I'm also tired of people on the right saying yes it was terrible but it doesn't justify the reaction. Not only would it not justify the action if it were true but it is not true. The subject was not murdered. The subject was not mistreated. The subject was not a victim of police brutality. The subject was not a victim of racism. The subject was in that position because of their own choices including the choice to victimise someone else which is why the police were called.
If he were a victim of police brutality you'd know it because Chauvin would be standing up kicking the subject in the head while on the ground. That's what we mean when we refer to police brutality. We do not use it to refer to the level of force that must be employed and that is justified in the course of rightfully enforcing the law. Such footage has not come to light.
If you're conceding that it's wrong and he should be punished you're part of the problem. Even if you have the right standards otherwise don't let yourself be compromised by gullibility. If you want to be a peacemaker don't compromise the truth to manufacture common ground. Never compromise.
I already know the blog post titles I'll be reading sometime in a few months to a few years from now.
"It turns out Chauvin didn't kill Saint Floyd but here's why it's still racist."
Apparently, he was complaining "I can't breathe" while standing on the sidewalk, when seated inside the police car, as he stood outside the police car...
I've reviewed all the footage heavily, the autopsy, transcripts, etc. It's a fact that Chauvin is innocent. This is based on the consensus of evidence itself which is the only thing that really has a say in the matter.
When we examine the cultural presence of people lying that they can't breath when restrained we find this is a common practice. This can be observed happening in the playground almost every other day going back years. This has been observed as the subject of conversation going back decades.
Our post contemporary discourse analysis reveals it as a common theme in discussing the powers of security guards such as at supermarkets when suspecting shop lifting often around cases of being falsely accused and detained by people who are not officers of the law dating back as far as the previous century.
Recent publicised events have increased its prevalence. For example, the case of Eric Gardner. This is in part due to the greater exposure of raw material over the internet allowing word of such incidents to reach far and wide long before the truth is out with traditionally trusted sources of confirmation such as mass media confirming the lie rather than the truth. With footage more freely accessible we've been able to find cases of at least half a dozen youths in the UK being arrested stating they couldn't breath when they clearly could to get out of it recreating the scene from footage of this incident.
This is a normal and well known part of police work. People will say anything to get out of it and always do. Sociologically the only finding we can report is that for reasons unknown the general public have become less able to see through this kind of ploy.
Our panel of world renowned experts found themselves flabbergasted by the inability of grown adults in positions of senior responsibility to parse and comprehend basic playground behaviours. This data was double and triple checked only to yield the same devastating result.
We know from the footage that not only did the subject say he could not breath for a prolonged period while not restrained in any way that could impact breathing but that he also gave the reason for not being able to breath. He stated psychological, not physical reasons which give the illusion of not being able to breath. In effect, he informed the officers that he could in fact breath.
The records show that the officers were not blind to his potential for an impending medical emergency. They correctly suspected that he was going to have a heart attack and had already summoned an ambulance. Officers and passers by were also aware of his dangerously intoxicated state.
The footage prior to his restraint on the ground shows him throwing his weight around and resisting arrest. The records also show that he was both intercepted and arrested by the police for lawful reasons. The subject lived a life of crime and their is no evidence of attracting the attention of the police due to his race.
Any person regardless of race would expect to attract the attention of the law if for example they tried to use counterfeit money to buy things while barely able to control themselves due to severe intoxication and especially if they hung around outside after being caught waiting for the police to come.
On examining the record of Chauvin the only things we find alarming are:
When we examine the frequency of complaints over a long period of service we find nothing unusual. Police often receive malicious complaints from criminals that are caught. Criminals have no restraint and will do anything to get off the hook or to get their own back. This is why they are criminals. They have no restraint when it comes to things such as making false complaints and this is why they end up in situations where they must be restrained by an external party.
We find that the frequency of complaints appears to be inflated with clusters that to refer to single incidents rather than comprising multiple separate and distinct complaints. Of those which the details have been made available we find at best procedural errors. We do not judge people by accusations alone as anyone can make any accusation they like for any reason or no reason. In so many years of service minor mistakes are expected and we do not find anything out of the ordinary. In a practical sense we would describe his record as clean.
Our study of the restraint shows nothing inappropriate. To have multiple officers restraining him is standard practice. Policing is not a sport where it must be one on one. It is required to have enough people to fully and confidently restrain the subject. The method of restraint and the circumstances were both entirely in line with that permitted by the police force, trained in and known to be safe.
Although the subject asked to be put on the floor we consider this of peripheral significance at best as the perpetrator typically does not instruct the officer on how to arrest them and is not deemed to be "in charge" in such a situation.
The safety of the restraint can be demonstrated with a simple scientific experiment: Stand on the scales and see how much you weigh. Now put one foot on the floor putting your weight on it and leave the other on the scales to see how much force you are now applying.
The autopsy further confirms that this is the case. Chauvin was not putting any significant weight on the neck and applying only minimal force below the threshold of detection which is substantially lower than the threshold of lethal force.
To have killed the subject in the way described without leaving a mark either an unlikely and unbelievable misfortune would be required or he would need to possess almost magical skills and abilities traditionally confined to fantasy such as Martial Arts films.
If Chauvin were so unfortunate he could not have easily been cognisant of such a remote possibility. If he had near magical powers to inflict death without leaving mark that would require proof.
During the footage we observe that Chauvin's ability to offer care or examine the subject while restrained was suppressed by a hostile crowd. We have established that the behaviour of this crowd interfered with police work and closely approached if not met the criteria for obstructing police officers in the line of duty.
We find that Chauvin was racially abused by at least one member of the crowd when examining the audio. We also deem the behaviour of the crowd, whether intended or to have posed a threat to the police officers. A member of the public attempts to intervene to tell the police officers that the subject has overdosed but is berated and bullied away by the hostile crowd. We found that most footage in the press and distributed freely online had been cut to remove the racial abuse and other incidences of hostility from the crowd.
When the subject loses consciousness Chauvin can be seen looking down and examining the situation to re-evaluate but it interrupted by the crowd attempting to rush him with only one officer to keep many hostile actors at bay. Chauvin takes out his mace to hold them back and is distracted from the subject being unable to adjust restraint or evaluate. The officers behind the car and not able to see the crowd are more relaxed. Body camera footage catches them later mentioning the hostility of the crowd to each other.
The medical examination not only shows that the subject was on a high dose of drugs known to cause the heart to stop, which is what the autopsy shows but he also has heart disease and circulatory system disease in addition to a SARS-CoV-2 infection which further stresses the very same system. Specifically he had pathological blood pressure and SARS-CoV-2 specifically attacks the receptors that regulate blood pressure. The subject had a set of synergistic conditions that would put an overwhelming pressure on his heart to fail or for some other similar ailment to lead to death.
We would rule that if cause of death has any contribution from a party other than the subject himself then it would be that which provided him with both illegal and dangerous recreational drugs. This leads us to answer the question who really killed the subject and where is the manhunt for the felon whose wilful negligence supplied the subject with the means to get themselves killed through misadventure? This is akin to knowingly supplying someone a gun unlawfully for reckless activity such as playing Russian Roulette.
When we analyse this subjectively we feel that the failure to track down this guilty party is a real tragedy. Our profiling of the subject shows particularly low intelligence which would likely further increase culpability for those he was criminally involved with. We do not find evidence for the subject possessing a level of intelligence much beyond that of a child though it has been considered that this may be part of the act or specifically a form of playing dumb to elicit sympathy and feign an innocent state of being.
On full examination of all the data we cannot find any sustainable argument for guilt on behalf of the officers involved. We cannot say the same for a great many parties that would seek to frame and lynch this officer. Given the extensive injury from these actions including malicious prosecution as well as knowingly misleading media coverage leading to among other things the loss of his wife and employment we find grounds to support the case to award damages and compensation to Chauvin which should amount to no less than twenty seven million US dollars.
Because facts do not work on the left I have compensated with an official tone of authority which makes it impossible for any left wing user reading this to rebut without revealing themselves as the enemy, those who do not bow to and respect the appearance of authority unconditionally.
I'm also tired of people on the right saying yes it was terrible but it doesn't justify the reaction. Not only would it not justify the action if it were true but it is not true. The subject was not murdered. The subject was not mistreated. The subject was not a victim of police brutality. The subject was not a victim of racism. The subject was in that position because of their own choices including the choice to victimise someone else which is why the police were called.
If he were a victim of police brutality you'd know it because Chauvin would be standing up kicking the subject in the head while on the ground. That's what we mean when we refer to police brutality. We do not use it to refer to the level of force that must be employed and that is justified in the course of rightfully enforcing the law. Such footage has not come to light.
If you're conceding that it's wrong and he should be punished you're part of the problem. Even if you have the right standards otherwise don't let yourself be compromised by gullibility. If you want to be a peacemaker don't compromise the truth to manufacture common ground. Never compromise.
I already know the blog post titles I'll be reading sometime in a few months to a few years from now.