You go from the "knee cannot have helped at all" (true) and your conclusion here is he likely committed "intentional murder." See the problem here? You seem to have the logical mindset of a personal injury attorney.
As far as I can tell, Chauvin should be investigated for intentional murder.
You write:
[...] your conclusion here is he likely committed "intentional murder."
I think that it at the very least should be investigated for intentional murder, for it seems extremely off in multiple regards (seriously? Kneeling on the neck? Not providing aid or checking? Etc. etc. etc. etc.).
And you also leave out other parts of my argumentation. What about this part of my comment?:
[...], and Chauvin could have done things very, very differently. And then there are the rumours that Chauvin knew Floyd before-hand. It seems really, really strange.
Why did Chauvin not change his pin from having a knee on the neck to having a knee on the back, or otherwise change the pin, after Floyd stopped moving? Why not see if Floyd is conscious or breathing? Or check if he might need CPR? Floyd repeatedly complained about not being able to breath. Does the police officer not have an obligation to provide life-saving measures if a suspect is dying while being pinned, especially given that the suspect nor others can help in such a case? The bystanders did not help matters at all, but there was still 4+ police officers.
And then there is the possible part about Floyd and Chauvin knowing each other, which I also mention.
What you are advocating for is wrong, as is your reasoning and here's why:
Officers know or have at least heard of people who have extremely long wrap sheets that involve violent crime and serious drug abuse. So, that information is irrelevant on it's own unless you can prove that Chauvin responded to a call specifically because it involved Floyd but even then that seems pretty flimsy.
There are protocols in place for virtually every type of arrest situation. If Chauvin and his fellow officers are following that protocol, by definition they are not at fault. Again you need to have some basic understanding of how police work or any bureaucratic agency works. Doesn't make his actions righteous or "good," but it does make them "not criminal." So, if they are following protocol then there is no case at all.
Not administering help to Floyd is only a crime if it is apparent to the officer that he is in need of medical help AND that they can safely provide it to him. If they did see he needed help and failed to provide it- which is very hard to prove considering the scene of the incident- then that is still not "intentional murder" but rather some degree of potentially criminal negligence.
This should sum it up for you. Those are the three major flaws in your argument. It's not about what is right or what should have happened, it's about what did happen and who should be responsible for what part of it.
Officers know or have at least heard of people who have extremely long wrap sheets that involve violent crime and serious drug abuse. So, that information is irrelevant on it's own unless you can prove that Chauvin responded to a call specifically because it involved Floyd but even then that seems pretty flimsy.
This argument does not make any sense, Chauvin did not have to know at all that it was Floyd before responding, he could very easily recognize that it was Floyd once he was on the scene.
There are protocols in place for virtually every type of arrest situation. If Chauvin and his fellow officers are following that protocol, by definition they are not at fault. Again you need to have some basic understanding of how police work or any bureaucratic agency works. Doesn't make his actions righteous or "good," but it does make them "not criminal." So, if they are following protocol then there is no case at all.
Sources for what protocols they were or were not following? Sources and arguments for Chauvin and others actually following these protocols? Do all protocols specify everything in great detail? Or do they require officers to follow them meaningfully? And are you certain that Chauvin did not break, or grossly break, these protocols?
Not administering help to Floyd is only a crime if it is apparent to the officer that he is in need of medical help AND that they can safely provide it to him. If they did see he needed help and failed to provide it- which is very hard to prove considering the scene of the incident- then that is still not "intentional murder" but rather some degree of potentially criminal negligence.
.............................. do you even believe your own writing here?
"Please, the knee in my neck, I can't breath shit."
EDIT: and him not moving or talking at some point, with others pointing it out? They talking about him possibly being drugged up? Etc. etc. etc. etc.?
This should sum it up for you. Those are the three major flaws in your argument. It's not about what is right or what should have happened, it's about what did happen and who should be responsible for what part of it.
My apologies, but your arguments here are of very poor quality, and you are fully wrong when you claim they point out any flaws in my arguments. And I have trouble seeing that you are not fully aware of that.
My apologies, but your arguments here are of very poor quality, and you are fully wrong when you claim they point out any flaws in my arguments. And I have trouble seeing that you are not fully aware of that.
MY IMPRESSION OF YOUR ARGUMENT IN A NUTSHELL:
You seem to think Chauvin showed up, stealthy executed Floyd because he knew him (1), on camera in front of everyone and completely against department protocol with the knee on the neck (2). Then somehow he got his fellow officers to not help the man who they definitely all knew was clearly dying in front of them (3). This "inaction" of theirs should be a criminal offense despite the fact that an ambulance was already on the way due to Floyd's self inflicted condition of being high off his tits on multiple drugs.
A SHORT RECAP OF 3 REASONS WHY THIS IS INCORRECT:
Police officers often know career criminals so Chauvin knowing Floyd is not a smoking gun. THIS IS VERY COMMON. Doesn't prove he had motive, doesn't prove anything. Agree or disagree?
The quote is "IF Chauvin and his fellow officers are following protocol then there is no case." All this says is that you only have an argument if you can prove they weren't following protocol and you haven't done that. Agree or disagree?
Yeah, I think we should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was intentionally failing to give medical help before we send them to jail as an accessory to murder. Call me crazy. Even if Chauvin did intend to cause harm or even kill Floyd this is important as it relates to the other officers charged. Agree or disagree?
I challenge you to rebut the core points of my recap 1-3 without resorting to insults or deflection.
You go from the "knee cannot have helped at all" (true) and your conclusion here is he likely committed "intentional murder." See the problem here? You seem to have the logical mindset of a personal injury attorney.
You misquote me. I wrote:
You write:
I think that it at the very least should be investigated for intentional murder, for it seems extremely off in multiple regards (seriously? Kneeling on the neck? Not providing aid or checking? Etc. etc. etc. etc.).
And you also leave out other parts of my argumentation. What about this part of my comment?:
Why did Chauvin not change his pin from having a knee on the neck to having a knee on the back, or otherwise change the pin, after Floyd stopped moving? Why not see if Floyd is conscious or breathing? Or check if he might need CPR? Floyd repeatedly complained about not being able to breath. Does the police officer not have an obligation to provide life-saving measures if a suspect is dying while being pinned, especially given that the suspect nor others can help in such a case? The bystanders did not help matters at all, but there was still 4+ police officers.
And then there is the possible part about Floyd and Chauvin knowing each other, which I also mention.
What you are advocating for is wrong, as is your reasoning and here's why:
Officers know or have at least heard of people who have extremely long wrap sheets that involve violent crime and serious drug abuse. So, that information is irrelevant on it's own unless you can prove that Chauvin responded to a call specifically because it involved Floyd but even then that seems pretty flimsy.
There are protocols in place for virtually every type of arrest situation. If Chauvin and his fellow officers are following that protocol, by definition they are not at fault. Again you need to have some basic understanding of how police work or any bureaucratic agency works. Doesn't make his actions righteous or "good," but it does make them "not criminal." So, if they are following protocol then there is no case at all.
Not administering help to Floyd is only a crime if it is apparent to the officer that he is in need of medical help AND that they can safely provide it to him. If they did see he needed help and failed to provide it- which is very hard to prove considering the scene of the incident- then that is still not "intentional murder" but rather some degree of potentially criminal negligence.
This should sum it up for you. Those are the three major flaws in your argument. It's not about what is right or what should have happened, it's about what did happen and who should be responsible for what part of it.
This argument does not make any sense, Chauvin did not have to know at all that it was Floyd before responding, he could very easily recognize that it was Floyd once he was on the scene.
Sources for what protocols they were or were not following? Sources and arguments for Chauvin and others actually following these protocols? Do all protocols specify everything in great detail? Or do they require officers to follow them meaningfully? And are you certain that Chauvin did not break, or grossly break, these protocols?
.............................. do you even believe your own writing here?
And in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6F62EdX_yg , George Floyd specifically mentions the following around 0:20:
EDIT: and him not moving or talking at some point, with others pointing it out? They talking about him possibly being drugged up? Etc. etc. etc. etc.?
My apologies, but your arguments here are of very poor quality, and you are fully wrong when you claim they point out any flaws in my arguments. And I have trouble seeing that you are not fully aware of that.
MY IMPRESSION OF YOUR ARGUMENT IN A NUTSHELL:
You seem to think Chauvin showed up, stealthy executed Floyd because he knew him (1), on camera in front of everyone and completely against department protocol with the knee on the neck (2). Then somehow he got his fellow officers to not help the man who they definitely all knew was clearly dying in front of them (3). This "inaction" of theirs should be a criminal offense despite the fact that an ambulance was already on the way due to Floyd's self inflicted condition of being high off his tits on multiple drugs.
A SHORT RECAP OF 3 REASONS WHY THIS IS INCORRECT:
Police officers often know career criminals so Chauvin knowing Floyd is not a smoking gun. THIS IS VERY COMMON. Doesn't prove he had motive, doesn't prove anything. Agree or disagree?
The quote is "IF Chauvin and his fellow officers are following protocol then there is no case." All this says is that you only have an argument if you can prove they weren't following protocol and you haven't done that. Agree or disagree?
Yeah, I think we should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was intentionally failing to give medical help before we send them to jail as an accessory to murder. Call me crazy. Even if Chauvin did intend to cause harm or even kill Floyd this is important as it relates to the other officers charged. Agree or disagree?
I challenge you to rebut the core points of my recap 1-3 without resorting to insults or deflection.