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.
And now you are lying to the extreme, attacking intentional strawmen, tactics, tricks, manipulation, etc. etc. etc. Besides seeming greatly triggered by me calling you out on your fully intentional lies.
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?
Chauvin had 18 complaints on his official record, two of which ended in discipline from the department, including official letters of reprimand.[11] He had been involved in three police shootings, one of which was fatal.[8][12][13][14] According to the former owner of El Nuevo Rodeo, a Latin nightclub, Floyd and Chauvin had worked overlapping shifts as security guards at the club; Chauvin for 17 years and Floyd at about a dozen events. The former owner said it was not clear whether they knew each other, but she did not believe so.[15][16] She also said Chauvin had sometimes used overaggressive tactics when dealing with black clientele, responding to fights by spraying the crowd with mace instead of dealing with those who were fighting.[17]
Why would you not mention that or be aware of that? This makes this argument invalid.
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 protocol and you haven't done that. Agree or disagree?
This is a crap, extremely dishonest argument, and you are fully aware of that. This is you lying and manipulating to the extreme again. An investigation and court case can determine that. I argued clearly in favour of an investigation. What one obviously cannot do is claim that protocol was followed without arguing or proving it and then proclaim that there should be no investigation based on that claim. I would hope that that is not what you are attempting to argue. You are in favour of an investigation at the very least, correct? "As far as I can tell, Chauvin should be investigated for intentional murder.", as I wrote in the first comment.
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?
And here you are attacking a completely obvious, clear and extreme strawman, and you are fully aware of that. I called for an investigation reg. intentional murder, I never proclaimed that Chauvin was guilty of intentional murder and should be condemned to prison or executed.
I am calling you out fully correctly, and you seem greatly triggered by me calling you out fully correctly, despite you knowing well that I am fully right in calling out your arguments as being of very poor quality. And me calling you out was not at all deflection nor me "resorting to insults", instead it is fully intentional extreme lies on your part, and you know that well.
You didn't address any of the points (1, 2 or 3) directly you just deflected and claimed I am arguing in bad faith. I'm not. I think you are incorrect in 3 specific ways. I have now explained those ways twice. I'm not triggered at all by any of this.
Once again the 3 things that refute your claims re: this case are:
Cops often know and have histories with crooks
Protocol matters a lot here
Failing to provide medical attn. is a tough crime to prove and we need to be very careful here, especially re: the other officers being charged who aren't Chauvin.
Refute them if you must but refute them directly and with facts and logic please or don't bother. Capiche? You don't need to write me a novel in response. I'm not on the jury either so whatever happens happens I have no skin in the game aside from wanting to see justice. This shouldn't be an emotional thing for anyone.
And you continue lying to the extreme, manipulating, attacking strawmen, distracting, using tricks and tactics, etc. etc. etc. And you have indeed proving beyond any doubt that you are arguing in bad faith, and me calling you out on your extreme lies, manipulation, etc. etc. etc. is not at all a deflection, but fully valid reg. the debate, and you likewise know that.
I'm not. I think you are incorrect in 3 specific ways. I have now explained those ways twice.
And you continue with your extreme, fully intentional lies, strawmen and the like.
I'm not triggered at all by any of this.
Said the caps-lock user :).
Once again the 3 things that refute your claims re: this case are:
Cops often know and have histories with crooks
Protocol matters a lot here
Failing to provide medical attn. is a tough crime to prove and we need to be very careful here, especially re: the other officers being charged who aren't Chauvin.
And now you are coming with strawmen, extreme lies, etc. etc. etc. again as before.
Refute them if you must but refute them directly and with facts and logic please or don't bother.
And this is more extreme lying on your part, and it seems a lot like intentional projection on your part, accusing me of what you know I am not at all guilty of and what you yourself know well that you are guilty of.
Capiche?
Definitely not triggered :).
You don't need to write me a novel in response. I'm not on the jury either so whatever happens happens I have no skin in the game aside from wanting to see justice. This shouldn't be an emotional thing for anyone.
And now I am getting the impression that you are intentionally distracting from my comments after I fully rightly called you out on your extreme lies, strawmen, tricks, tactics, etc. too clearly and obviously.
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.
And now you are lying to the extreme, attacking intentional strawmen, tactics, tricks, manipulation, etc. etc. etc. Besides seeming greatly triggered by me calling you out on your fully intentional lies.
As far as I know, Chauvin possibly knew Floyd from working with him as a security guard at a nightclub. See for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Chauvin :
Why would you not mention that or be aware of that? This makes this argument invalid.
This is a crap, extremely dishonest argument, and you are fully aware of that. This is you lying and manipulating to the extreme again. An investigation and court case can determine that. I argued clearly in favour of an investigation. What one obviously cannot do is claim that protocol was followed without arguing or proving it and then proclaim that there should be no investigation based on that claim. I would hope that that is not what you are attempting to argue. You are in favour of an investigation at the very least, correct? "As far as I can tell, Chauvin should be investigated for intentional murder.", as I wrote in the first comment.
And here you are attacking a completely obvious, clear and extreme strawman, and you are fully aware of that. I called for an investigation reg. intentional murder, I never proclaimed that Chauvin was guilty of intentional murder and should be condemned to prison or executed.
I am calling you out fully correctly, and you seem greatly triggered by me calling you out fully correctly, despite you knowing well that I am fully right in calling out your arguments as being of very poor quality. And me calling you out was not at all deflection nor me "resorting to insults", instead it is fully intentional extreme lies on your part, and you know that well.
You didn't address any of the points (1, 2 or 3) directly you just deflected and claimed I am arguing in bad faith. I'm not. I think you are incorrect in 3 specific ways. I have now explained those ways twice. I'm not triggered at all by any of this.
Once again the 3 things that refute your claims re: this case are:
Refute them if you must but refute them directly and with facts and logic please or don't bother. Capiche? You don't need to write me a novel in response. I'm not on the jury either so whatever happens happens I have no skin in the game aside from wanting to see justice. This shouldn't be an emotional thing for anyone.
And you continue lying to the extreme, manipulating, attacking strawmen, distracting, using tricks and tactics, etc. etc. etc. And you have indeed proving beyond any doubt that you are arguing in bad faith, and me calling you out on your extreme lies, manipulation, etc. etc. etc. is not at all a deflection, but fully valid reg. the debate, and you likewise know that.
And you continue with your extreme, fully intentional lies, strawmen and the like.
Said the caps-lock user :).
And now you are coming with strawmen, extreme lies, etc. etc. etc. again as before.
And this is more extreme lying on your part, and it seems a lot like intentional projection on your part, accusing me of what you know I am not at all guilty of and what you yourself know well that you are guilty of.
Definitely not triggered :).
And now I am getting the impression that you are intentionally distracting from my comments after I fully rightly called you out on your extreme lies, strawmen, tricks, tactics, etc. too clearly and obviously.
Will you answer my arguments and sources in https://thedonald.win/p/FzTveRM4/x/c/12jJnPoy4f ?