You seem to not appreciate the concept that while Floyd contributed somewhat to his situation by his actions, he would not have died BUT FOR the knee to the neck, which was against police procedure and by all account not necessary. There are other effective ways to restrain a suspect, and if fact he was already effectively restrained. The officer acted with recklessness and should be punished for it.

We live in a society that demands compassion, even to criminals. What Floyd did does not deserve a death sentence.

We do not have to choose at all, because no one appointed you dictator with the power to deport people with whom you do not agree.

The Democrat vs Republican dynamic was a lot different in the earlier parts of the 20th century, and you really cannot draw direct lines to what is happening today. It was not as bright-line conservative/liberal within the parties. It was not as partisan in some ways, but not necessarily better ways. The Democrats had a major split in their own party - the Dixiecrats controlled the south with some racist ideas. But this allowed the Democrats to win more in the South and the northern Democrats tolerated some of this for this reason. So the "control" the Democrats had is not the same control a party would have today, where they are more unified. They had control, party-wise, but they did not have cohesion within the party to get things done like maybe could be done today, as the votes were not party line.

So I live in Texas, which is more or less solid red. People talk of a blue wave, but nothing like that is going to happen in the near future on a state population level. However, several cities show blue - Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio. Not sure by how much of a margin, but they seem to lean blue. (source: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/11/analysis-blue-dots-texas-red-political-sea/). The rest of the state is enough red to make up for this.

Under your proposal, we would have rural Texas with red representatives, and then an additional 3 or 4 blue states with Democrat senators for each of the cities I mentioned. I am not sure how this helps get more Republicans in office, as it would just send Democrats.

Also it seems to me that it would be hard to keep your plan in line. Cities grow over time. If a city gets large enough and starts voting Democrat, do they get kicked out of the "rural" portion and become their own state now? Is voting Democrat the litmus test?

One more point, the large population centers do pay more in property and sales taxes, as there is more commerce there, and properties are more valuable. This goes to the state, which spends it on the entire state, to some degree. This money is used in rural ares for roads, state troopers, etc. It does not all flow one way as you claim.

Also, we Houstonians, Austinites, Dallasites, San Antonians consider ourselves proud Texans. You are talking about kicking us out of our own state?

But where does this logic end? Someone else could then ask to exclude the red voters from rural areas. Why do you want to exclude people's votes from counting?

Sorry for the late reply. I guess my point of confusion is that if you make big cities their own states, you will still have Democrat representation - for those city-states you just created.

Also, I do not think it is stealing if it is caused by voting by large population centers. People's votes matter, and the more people there are, the more votes there are. I do not understand why you want to exclude big cities from the population count for each state. That is where the people live.

Or are you arguing that empty land should have a vote too?

Wait, are you defending the actions of Emmett Till's killers? And his dad died like 10 years earlier, and after being in the army for a bit. I do not think 14 year old Emmett would even remember him.

How do you mean? Many big cities are blue.

That's right. No opposing views allowed here!

None of this would have happened if Bubba did not come out with shotgun drawn.

We know through the video that the younger McMichael had his shotgun out during the confrontation. What the hell was he doing with it out and ready? Possessing a gun legally typically means having it holstered. Once you have it out, and use it to menace another individual, the situation is a lot different.

And are you saying that the testimony of the only people who lived through than encounter is all that matters? You do not think their testimony will be self serving? I think the physical and video evidence will have its place.

It is illegal to brandish your weapon in a threatening fashion at another individual. Given that action, it is not unreasonable to expect the threatened individual to fight.

Mental state is a valid escalation method in criminal law. For example, meaning to kill someone versus doing it unintentionally but negligently. Why is hate an invalid mental state to use?

That is true, the McMichaels did not shoot him for his crime - this happened during the struggle.

But I guess my point is that it is not at all clear that Abery was guilty of anything. And as an innocent guy, confronted by a man with a brandished shotgun, why wouldn't he also have the right to defend himself against the perceived threat. The McMichaels son wasn't just walking idly by with his shotgun - he confronted Abery with it, and quite possibly put Abery in fear of his life.

Is it actually a crime to go inside a house under construction? I mean, there is not anything to steal there, and there is no evidence he stole anything. People do it out of curiosity all the time. Hell, I've done it. Maybe it is technically trespassing, but I do not think that is a shooting offense.

Got what he deserved? Applying this logic to your own experience, had you maybe made a bad choice about this at some point, perhaps when you were younger, and tried to take a gun away from someone threatening you with it, and got shot in the process, would you have gotten what you deserve?

The answer is no. People should not have guns pointed at them in these situations, and the fault lies with the person pointing the gun.

What's up, Fellas! Hey what's with dem guns you got?

But it's also very easy to see it from Arbery's point of view. A guy comes out brandishing a shotgun at him and obviously confronting him. He fears for his life and needs to get control of the situation. He takes an active approach and tries to get control of the weapon.

It has been confirmed that the person taping was a neighbor of the father and son, lived a few doors down.

Well the video just came out, so that's the ruckus.

OK that is interesting. However I am trying to figure this out for myself. I found a cdc.gov source:

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm

Based on this graph, 2019/2020 flu was indeed higher than some previous years, such as 2013/14 and 2015/16 and 2010/11, but on par with 16/17 and 18/19, and notably lower than 17/18 and 14/15.

You think this virus has actually already been through most of the population centers, and gone unnoticed, and now we are noticing it? What in the world are you talking about?

Italy, for example, got totally overwhelmed in March. Are you saying that maybe sometime last year, the virus spread through Italy, and nobody noticed, and only in the tail end of it do their hospitals get overwhelmed?