In my last episode with John McWhorter, we discussed the new documentary The Fall of Minneapolis, which presents a damning account of the media narrative surrounding the death of George Floyd. Understandably, that conversation caused some controversy. It is our most popular episode yet, with well over a million views on YouTube. Clearly, there’s more to be said about the documentary, so we invited the filmmakers Liz Collin and JC Chaix on the show.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison wrote back to Glenn with an additional comment. I'm sharing it here at Glenn's request and with AG Ellison's permission:
Thanks for presenting the information regarding George Floyd’s cause of death. Despite our different perspectives, I commend your integrity for doing so. So, you will recall, JC Chaix claimed that the Hennepin County Medical Examiner, Dr. Baker, never used the word “homicide” in connection with George Floyd’s death. This is untrue. Check out the video I just sent to you both. Dr. Baker, the county medical examiner identifies homicide as Floyd’s manner of death in the ME report and repeats it on the witness stand in both state and federal trials and he was subjected to a probing and thorough cross examination. You should weigh the credibility of this film in light of JC Chaix’s provably false claims.
I don’t think he is taking it seriously. Ellison is one of the chief culprits of propping up a sham trial in which limited evidence was allowed. It is utterly unsurprising to me that 100% of the evidence that wasn’t allowed to be shown to the jury would have bolstered the defense’s case. This was not a mistake, this was not a mere accident or coincidence.
I should rephrase my words. I am glad Ellison and Loury (and his Substack) are publicly engaged on this issue, especially after that interview.
Needless to say, this is a crucial conversation. Echo chamber attitudes is the last thing we need. Major props to Dr. G for allowing a serious back-and-forth to develop.
And I reiterate, let the chips fall where they may.
Indeed. I can’t ignore Ellison’s selectivity though regarding who he’ll talk to and who he won’t about this issue. This is pure speculation on my part but what it *looks* like to me is that Ellison wants to appear like he’s open to other perspectives even though he *may disagree* and what better way to do so than with a public intellectual that has a history of being at least open to hearing all perspectives on an issue, playing devil’s advocate by steel-manning the opposition’s claims, etc. In reality, and when it mattered most, this couldn’t be further from the truth. He was obstinate and would NOT listen any other perspectives and did nothing but reinforce the dominant socio-political orthodoxy of the “progressive” left. There’s a saying, “to determine the true function of a thing, don’t listen to what was intended or designed, look at what happened.” Always enjoy reading your thoughtful and measured comments, Charles.
Chaix and Collin NEVER do hard interviews. Now we know why.
We also know why Chauvin's defense team has yet to say anything about this "documentary". They saw the absurdity of the arguments in The Fall of Minneapolis and distanced themselves accordingly—obviously.
During your interview with Collin and Chaix, you asked a good question, that went largely unanswered. You asked them if it was possible to have asphyxiation without physical evidence of it. Dr. Tobin testified that, Derek Chauvin applied 91.5 pounds of pressure to the neck of George Floyd. The pressure being applied via Chauvin's knee cap. So the real question should be, Is it possible for someone to die of asphyxiation due to 91.5 pounds of pressure being delivered to a neck by a hard surface, maybe 3 inches in diameter. What say you?
Your question of Collin and Chaix highlight an issue with the prosecution. It is the prosecution who must present evidence as to how the victim died. It is not the defense that must prove anything. The most conclusive evidence of death is an autopsy with forensic toxicology. As you will find in this readable explanation, "Four to six weeks is pretty standard" https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/features/the-truth-about-toxicology-tests. The autopsy with full toxicology for Prince took 6-weeks, Matthew Perry took 7-weeks and it took 8-weeks for Michael Jackson. For George Floyd it took 6-days. No, AI did not make it possible for the exceedingly compressed timing for George Floyd. They limited the toxicology to what they already knew, because they did not want definitive evidence that contradicted the narrative.
Two important questions: (1) Why did Dr. Martin Tobin lie, Irish accent and all? (2) Why was full toxicology testing not conducted on George Floyd?
"I want to illustrate two brief things that Dr. Tobin testified about and I want to illustrate how I think that these demonstrate a bias, because you still have to consider an expert witness in the context of bias. I’m going to call it the finger and knuckle testimony and the toe lifting testimony."
Eric Nelson presents the image the prosecution used to illicit the emotional testimony of Dr. Tobin as to George Floyd struggling for his last breath. He says, "That this slide shows George Floyd pushing his fingers against the street to lift his shoulder off the street, that he was pushing his knuckles against the tire. He described what he interpreted this was basically Mr. Floyd trying to push himself up onto his left side to free the right lung to help him breathe."
Eric Nelson then puts the DAGGER in the credibility of the testimony of Dr. Tobin when he says, "They were taken at 8:19:35, 15 seconds after Mr. Floyd was placed on the ground. Dr. Tobin also explained that Mr. Floyd went on to breathe for an additional 5 minutes and 51 seconds until he took his last breath at 8:25. He neglects the fact that at this point, this is the point that we just saw when Mr. Floyd is taken out of the car and he is actually in the side recovery position for about the first two minutes of this 9 minutes and 29 seconds."
George Floyd went on to BREATH FOR 5 MINUTES and 51 SECONDS UNTIL HE TOOK HIS LAST BREATH. Dr. Tobin watched 150 hours of video. The segment Dr. Tobin emphasized, and Mr. Loury and Mr. McWhorter focus on in the "mechanics" comment, was a lie or simply completely WRONG. Dr. Tobin was caught in a major F UP and nobody, most of all the jury, gives a sh!t.
Thank you Glenn and John for discussing the death of George Floyd. The media is too quick to present everything as black and white when in reality most things have a lot of grey area. My job is headquartered in Minneapolis and the riots have totally destroyed the city. Walking around downtown is still like a ghost town. A lot of businesses and people I have left. Every time I visit Minneapolis I get multiple warnings to be careful and not walk alone. It’s an absolute travesty what the city leadership allowed to happen.
I listened to this fascinating interview. I learned things that have been covered up by mainstream media and overlooked by partisan republican media. While this is valuable one question at the end showed bias of the films creators. When asked about the aftermath of the trial and riots they could find nothing good to say. Hopeful signs I saw were the failed referendum to abolish the police department and the tough primary campaign of Ilhan Omar. She faced an unknown and under funded challenge in the primary of progressive democratic voters yet just barely won. Her opponent made public safety an issue. After the election many said they wished they had helped but didn't because they thought the challenge was hopeless.
Why are Blacks so seemingly invested in Chauvin being guilty, when the more important issue for our justice system is that no innocent man is wrongfully imprisoned, and especially since the case is so inappropriately racialized; and we may run out of good candidates for law enforcement jobs because the risk is increased to an unbearable degree.
Be careful. There are plenty of “blacks” (a rough nomenclature in my opinion, but I digress) that want nothing to do with the left or their ideas. Black folks are not a monolith any more than any other racial demographic. When you put it in such stark terms, you’re treating the demographic group based on race as if they all think identically. John and Glenn obliterate this misconception all by themselves. Ironically, this is what the left does and is part of the identity politicking parcel. You seem to be against identity politics, yet you appear to be unwittingly engaging in just that.
At least until recently, it was a common claim that a black man could not be sure of getting fair treatment by the criminal justice system.
Now there have been a number of comments on this and the prior Glenn Show episode on this topic seeming to rely on the fact that the legal system has ruled against Chauvin as definitive.
The legal processes are little changed, so the system is as much susceptible to political and social pressures in modern Minneapolis as in the Jim Crow South.
I guess it makes sense that Google has labeled this "Age-restricted". Who knows what conclusions a viewer -- who hasn't been properly indoctrinated at today's universities -- might draw if left to their own intact reasoning skills?
What do I think is significant? The original autopsy, the full video, including the position of Chauvin's knees, and the early "I can't breath" statements.
"Did Chauvin -- at the time -- deliberately murder (2nd degree) Floyd?" I'm 90% NO
"Did Chauvin accidently murder Floyd?" I don't know. Given "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" as a standard, I couldn't convict.
To John's comment that maybe Floyd was near death from his own actions, and Chauvin pushed him over the edge: Maybe, but I can't convict a person who is behaving responsibly and the victim dies anyways because of complications Chauvin wasn't responsible for and had no way of knowing about.
I am forever wary of people who self-apply academic titles for obscure degrees, particularly anyone with a "mastery of semiotics" and a dubious command of English.
Thanks for taking the discussion about this further. I wanted to hear more about the documentary since it was birthed from a questionable source - but also demonstrates that sometimes you have to go to the opposite side for the truth about something. The left won't tell any new truths about this, just as you can't count on the right to tell the truth about Donald Trump and his myriad follies. BTW, anyone who hasn't yet read Hate Crime Hoax by a black political science professor Wilfred Reilly, I highly recommend it. It's a bit snarky and unprofessional, one could even argue biased, but he makes many great cases for why so many so-called 'hate crimes' against other races (not just black people) are likely not hate crimes. I think it was John who recommended it awhile back so I bought it.
I am really, really hoping we have in fact hit 'peak woke' and can now start having adult conversations about sacred cows the left holds dear. Hoping Trump doesn't get elected next year so we can eliminate the MAGAs from this, who are just as much an obstacle to progress in America as the far left.
Yeah, I figured that's where she got it. It was a popular meme, although I don't know that White ever actually said that. A lot of quotes we see are misattributed.
Your handle is classic. My gf always says things like that. “Balls are fragile things that make men wince at the slightest flick, but those vaginas can handle anything!”
At what point will anyone acknowledge the backdrop Black Lives Matter played in the trial, LEVERAGING a one solution verdict? Ben Crump? Say their names: Ellison’s son, Jeremiah on city council, St. Paul school board member Chauntyll Allen, attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong, fmr State Rep. John Thompson, and all the free friendly publicity with Facebook, CBS, ABC, NBC and NPR News.
So, Collin's and Chaix's bottom line with respect to Derek Chauvin is this: That the jury was not privy to certain (key) evidence, but had they been, Chauvin would be a free man today.
Is that (essentially) their claim? That Chauvin would have been acquitted? Or guilty of far lesser crimes? Or that perhaps the case never would have seen a courtroom?
*IF* the above is true, is there no recourse available for Chauvin at this point? Sincere question.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal; and as I understand it, that particular appeal was focused on, not what Collin and Chaix are talking about, but concerns about pre-trial publicity, public safety, public pressure to 'get justice', etc. But again, nothing about evidence being withheld from a jury.
But why would that *not* be part of Chauvin's appeal? It is quite odd that his defense team does not appear to be in one accord with Collin and Chaix. Perhaps this is the result of some funky legal technicality, but it's a real question deserving of a real answer.
Collin and Chaix don't strike me as two people risking life and limb to get justice for Derek Chauvin. I don't sense very strong crusader vibes out of them. I could be wrong of course, but what they are doing feels more like a D'Souza-style money grab.
Which is largely why I remain conflicted about all of this. Collin and Chaix raise more questions than they answer. But of course my personal opinions don't disqualify their claims.
Yet still, my questions persist (and they are valid). The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld Chauvin's conviction. Then the Minnesota Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal. Then our mighty SCOTUS--Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Coney-Barrett, Alito, Kavanaugh; *those* guys--declined to hear Chauvin's appeal. And as recently as last month, Chauvin's lawyers filed a motion to dismiss his federal civil rights conviction, this time based on his email conversations with a Dr. William Schaetzel of Topeka, KS, a pathologist claiming that Floyd's death was about a brain tumor?
My point is this: Chauvin's defense team has not been dormant. But are they talking about any of the things that Chaix and Collin are talking about? If not, why not? Something's not adding up.
It seems a stretch to think that justice has eluded Chauvin so repeatedly, and at so many levels. I was hoping Glenn and John would have at least asked about the SCOTUS rejecting Chauvin's case for appeal, but they didn't even hint at it.
McWhorter came closest to my thoughts (sort of) when he asked, "Can we really say that those officers did not take Floyd from sick to death?" (paraphrased)
But I guess that's the question: reasonable doubt.
Also, this suggestion that the jury was just too chickens*** to 'do the right thing' (i.e., acquit) is weird.
I say that because, why should we automatically assume that about a jury? Do we see ourselves in that same light? I sure hope not. Let us not forget that juries are a reflection of US.
If I were serving on a jury and was convinced that my fellow jurors were about to mess up an innocent man's life, I would like to think that I'd have enough integrity to stand my ground and not instantly cow because riots were happening around me. (And hopefully, I wouldn't be alone.)
I just re-read this comment Charles, and you have many valid points. And ones I wish we did have answers for. First, I’ll say that it does cops no favors in the execution of their duties in the long run, to have cops guilty of murder go free. And to be clear, this has FOR SURE happened before, and probably has since the inception of police.
I want to say a couple things, particularly about integrity of the jurors. Keep in mind those jurors watched a bloodthirsty mob take over and destroy a police precinct. They watched murder, assault, carjacking and general violent crime skyrocket. If I’m a juror, I’m thinking about all these things and if I am, and if I’m anything short of a well trained mercenary (which none of them were), there is ZERO chance that I risk 20 years of a cop going to prison, a cop I don’t know, vs my life and safety and risking my family being fatherless, then that’s not a real choice. Call it a lapse of integrity if you want, but there’s no way that with all the following criteria, I’m giving a not guilty verdict:
The jurors weren’t sequestered.
The courthouse had to be fortified like a prison (historic precedent)
The court of public opinion including every major university, newsroom, corporation, and state level ranking politician had already come to a verdict and reminded the public, including jurors, through not only interviews but social media that this was the case.
They knew there would be no reprisal for a verdict of guilty, and they also knew that wasn’t the case for a not guilty verdict. They knew this because they had hundreds and sometimes thousands of people screaming at them in fits of unabashed rage that they damn well better issue a guilty verdict.
There were so many things about that case and trial that were new precedents. I have integrity. I’ve faced situations where my life was in danger and those situations also involved angry crowds. The three things that aided the retention of my integrity in those moments were that I knew I had support, I knew if I didn’t fight back that would have probably resulted in my death and the death of others, and I was armed to the teeth. None of those things were true for those jurors. So with all due respect, it’s quite easy to armchair and say ”I trust their judgement, I don’t think they were influenced”. Unless you’ve been in a similar situation where you’re outnumbered and you know the consequence of you not capitulating is 100% violence, and you’ve also see the same mob take an entire precinct down, I think it’s folly to believe that unless you’re a combat veteran with loads of experience and have performed numerous times under that kind of pressure and let’s face it, credible threat of bodily harm, that you can simply discount all those things and keep your integrity when you know there’s no consequence for a guilty verdict, and when you’ve been given partial evidence and a skewed perspective on purpose.
"when you’ve been given partial evidence and a skewed perspective on purpose"
Respectfully, Jake, that is what prosecutors do, whether we agree with them or not.
But more importantly, and again, respectfully, I think you are assuming way too much about people you don't know. I agree that many potential jurors--and maybe even the average person--would think/act in the way you are suggesting. But it's not that simple.
For one thing, there's a jury selection process. It's not like the attorneys went eenie-meenie-miny-mo.
Did some potential jurors decline or maneuver their way out of duty because they were scared? I assume so. But I don't get how you can feel so confident that the folks who were eventually selected were (essentially) no different from them.
Please don't get me wrong. I don't think that jury was comprised of 12 fearless citizens with untouchable integrity--no jury is. But why should I assume the opposite? It almost sounds like you think Chauvin's conviction was a fait accompli, and I just don't buy it. I would have to believe a LOT to believe that.
Not only would I have to believe that 12 out of 12 jurors were intimidated into an unjust verdict, I would have to furthermore believe that a state appeals court's confirmation of that verdict was meaningless, and that a state supreme court's refusal to hear an appeal was also meaningless; and that the United States Supreme Court's refusal to hear an appeal was also meaningless.
Sure, it is possible that jury was scared to death of a bloodthirsty mob, and felt their only alternative was to throw Derek Chauvin under the bus. But why does this theory not apply across the board?
The defense had witnesses. We saw the faces of those witnesses. We knew their names and what they did for a living. Granted, witnesses don't have a (practical) choice in these matters, but I don't recall any stories about their lives being turned upside-down after their testimony.
But another poster made a better point about Kyle Rittenhouse; he was acquitted. Did that jury have more balls? Moreover, consider Kyle's lifestyle after that trial. He became a MAGA rock star; a *major* beneficiary of that ecosystem. He wasn't hard to find at all, and he definitely doesn't look like a Navy Seal to me.
And let me be perfectly honest, Jake. I have read and learned a fair amount about this case (and related cases) in the last week or so--way more than I did when the Chauvin case was transpiring--and the more I read and learn, the more I am convinced that Chaix and Collin are a joke.
Seriously. What do Chauvin's lawyers have to say about this documentary? Do we know? I haven't heard a thing. What about the lawyers for the other three cops? Anything?
Bringing it back home: Three days ago, Glenn posted a message from Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who seems to have caught Collin/Chaix in a significant lie, and no one has said anything.
If I am Chaix/Collin--and I know my case is airtight?--I am not letting Keith Ellison publicly call me out as a liar...unless of course I am a blankety-blank liar.
The recourse is for the governor of Minnesota to issue a pardon, on the recommendation of the attorney general of the State. But the governor Tim Waltz is to "progressive" to d othe right thing. And the AG is the loathsome Keith Ellison: need I say more?
Got that right. Walz , the governor of Minnesota, immediately began talking about "George Floyd's murder" after the incident and long before the actual trial. The city of Minneapolis gave the Floyd family $27 million in compensation **as the jury was being selected*** ---- do you think they got the message? The crowd decided the verdict from the get-go, and no one had the courage to stand up for the necessity of waiting for the facts.
Charles: I live in Minnesota and I watched the trial, which was televised. The jury was NOT sequestered so they walked past crowds every day who were demanding a guilty verdict. As the jury was actually being selected, the City of Minneapolis very publicly gave Floyd's family $27 million in compensation. The crowd could see the jurors, and they were doxxed after the trial too. The case was so public that high-priced prosecuting attorneys were lining up to prosecute Chauvin, while his defense consisted of just one defense attorney. He was swamped with work to do but no one else would come forward,
As to why SCOTUS refused the case, they refuse the vast majority of appeals because they have so many to go through. The fact they refused does not itself say anything about the validity of Chauvin's case.
As for your remark "I don't sense very strong crusader vibes out of them. I could be wrong of course, but what they are doing feels more like a D'Souza-style money grab.", my sense is quite the opposite. I think that because they are a cop's wife and a retired cop, they feel very strongly that Chauvin was screwed at trial and they very much want to see proper justice done for him. It matters that cops be given a fair trial, but because of the BLM infected mood in the nation, that is going to be tough from now on. Minneapolis has lost a third of its police force, crime is through the roof, and cops across the country are retiring early or leaving the force for other jobs. It very much matters that Chauvin's case be reviewed properly. But the mood of the crowds, and the endless riots in 2020, have got everybody too spooked to want to get involved in it.
I despair for the future of justice in America, when yelling crowds and destructive riots can bully good people into turning away from a clear miscarriage of justice.
"the City of Minneapolis very publicly gave Chauvin's family $27 million in compensation"
I assume you meant Floyd's family.
I think your points about the SCOTUS and the likely fears of the jurors are *basically* valid. But does that mean 12 out of 12 jurors were scared crapless, AND Minnesota's Supreme and AppeaIs courts went along with the injustice as well? I am not saying it's impossible, but that's quite an allegation.
It is also possible that the jury believed their verdict was the correct one.
But I really don't get why Chauvin's lawyers don't appear to be on the same page as Collin and Chaix. Again, maybe that's the result of some legal technicality bs--that happens. I don't know.
If your analysis of the effects of the Floyd verdict is true, then the Minneapolis justice system is, sadly, in a truly f'd up state. But I don't think most American cities/towns are at that point yet. There have been hundreds of cases of cops killing Black men since Floyd--no riots. Which suggests to me that the nation (generally) accepts the fact that sometimes cops gotta do what they gotta do.
Not to veer off too far, but the Floyd case was an eerily perfect storm. For a real-time, real-life video like that to appear on everybody's TV during the throes of COVID, when everybody was more or less stuck at home losing our minds anyway; it set the stage for something unique at best. Ergo, I cannot dismiss the possibility that Chauvin has been railroaded. But right now, for me, that strikes me as a stretch.
And I should place my cards on the table. On issues like these, I look askance at organizations like Alpha News and Rumble, similar to the way I do when left-leaning sources talk about affirmative action. The only reason I was willing to listen to this interview is because of my respect for Glenn and John. If this was purely rightwing bs, I don't think both of them would be giving it this kind of a platform.
That said, it would be enormously helpful if they interviewed a counter-voice that they respected.
I don't know if that person exists, but I hope so.
You make good points, Charles. It really is curious that Chauvin's lawyers -- who do seem competent -- don't make any attempt to use the "evidence withheld from the jury" argument. I hadn't considered that until reading your comments; that is indeed an excellent point.
I'm also not sure about the jury being so intimidated that they felt they had no choice but to declare Chauvin guilty. Maybe -- they certainly did have good reason to be afraid. But that made me think of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, and despite all the threats of violence against judge and jury, the jury acquitted Rittenhouse. We can't know how much a threat, or a perceived threat, of violence will actually sway a jury. We just can't assume the Chauvin jury was intimidated into a guilty verdict.
A huge problem these days is everything becomes partisan, you have to be on one side or the other, and you must condemn and hate the "other side" or you yourself will be condemned. We're supposed to take a side: you must believe Floyd was an innocent victim, or you must believe Chauvin was a racist murderer. Personally, I think the truth is much murkier and more complicated, which is something a lot of people don't want to deal with. Easier to pick a side and stick with it, no matter what. I understand wanting a clear, simple answer, but that can be a dangerous path to walk down.
Amen to all of this. But I do give John "some" credit for at least recognizing that.
But I'm with you.
"I think the truth is much murkier and more complicated"
That is certainly how I see it. But I am open to whatever the truth is. But as you say, who is willing to get to that objective truth dispassionately these days?
Sensitive issues like Floyd/Chauvin only make the journey tougher.
Yes! One of the main reasons I follow Glen and John here is their willingness to discuss sensitive topics, to go into many different aspects of an issue. The polarization which shuts down critical thinking makes everything so much worse. We all need to talk to each other, to listen to other viewpoints, try to weight the evidence. Being open-minded probably makes one a white supremacist bigot these days, but I think it may be our only hope to crawl out of this mess.
Even when Glenn and John irritate me I can take it in stride because I know they are serious thinkers.
I don't need people to agree with me. Just be serious, please. As long as folks are thinking, I'm good.
"We all need to talk to each other, to listen to other viewpoints"
It's easy to get pigeon-holed by people who DON'T want to talk or listen lol
"Being open-minded probably makes one a white supremacist bigot these days"
I don't know what it's like to be called a White supremacist, but I have certainly been called a "leftist" more times than I can remember...based on literally nothing =)
Let me re-iterate : the fact that SCOTUS refused to hear Chauvin's case does NOT mean anything re its validity, just that SCOTUS has very limited time to hear appeals, and they have hundreds if not thousands more than they can hear.
I also will propose that the case is so incredibly hyper-political and toxic that any appeals court hearing Chauvin's appeal knows that it would be hammered by vicious partisan and possibly violent pushback, and they would not be confident that "the public" would accept their anti-leftwing narrative viewpoint. Believers in the truth are showing a considerable amount of cowardice these days when it becomes apparent how violent the opposition can be. And when you see what happens to folks who get doxxed due to their public opinions, who can blame them?
I get your point about the SCOTUS 100%. Point well-taken.
"Believers in the truth are showing a considerable amount of cowardice these days...when you see what happens to folks who get doxxed due to their public opinions, who can blame them?"
But *this* is a FUNDAMENTAL point, and it is not relegated to the left, right or center.
If the average US citizen is that fearful about participating in the system, what do we have? Problems. Major ones.
And the above applies to Minneapolis/Floyd/Chauvin as much as Atlanta/Freeman-Moss/Giuliani. Not a sustainable picture for any nation calling itself a democracy.
I think his point is that though the mobs were placated with a guilty verdict, destruction occurred anyway. I didn’t follow anything in Minneapolis after the verdict, so I don’t know if there’s any veracity to that claim, but that’s what I discern from his comment.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison wrote back to Glenn with an additional comment. I'm sharing it here at Glenn's request and with AG Ellison's permission:
Thanks for presenting the information regarding George Floyd’s cause of death. Despite our different perspectives, I commend your integrity for doing so. So, you will recall, JC Chaix claimed that the Hennepin County Medical Examiner, Dr. Baker, never used the word “homicide” in connection with George Floyd’s death. This is untrue. Check out the video I just sent to you both. Dr. Baker, the county medical examiner identifies homicide as Floyd’s manner of death in the ME report and repeats it on the witness stand in both state and federal trials and he was subjected to a probing and thorough cross examination. You should weigh the credibility of this film in light of JC Chaix’s provably false claims.
Keith
https://youtu.be/jRMOoBevbIM?si=j4_mI4VjoE6d4zya
I appreciate Ellison for taking this so seriously, and I appreciate Glenn for sharing. What comes next is anybody's guess.
But let the chips fall where ever they are going to fall.
I don’t think he is taking it seriously. Ellison is one of the chief culprits of propping up a sham trial in which limited evidence was allowed. It is utterly unsurprising to me that 100% of the evidence that wasn’t allowed to be shown to the jury would have bolstered the defense’s case. This was not a mistake, this was not a mere accident or coincidence.
I should rephrase my words. I am glad Ellison and Loury (and his Substack) are publicly engaged on this issue, especially after that interview.
Needless to say, this is a crucial conversation. Echo chamber attitudes is the last thing we need. Major props to Dr. G for allowing a serious back-and-forth to develop.
And I reiterate, let the chips fall where they may.
Indeed. I can’t ignore Ellison’s selectivity though regarding who he’ll talk to and who he won’t about this issue. This is pure speculation on my part but what it *looks* like to me is that Ellison wants to appear like he’s open to other perspectives even though he *may disagree* and what better way to do so than with a public intellectual that has a history of being at least open to hearing all perspectives on an issue, playing devil’s advocate by steel-manning the opposition’s claims, etc. In reality, and when it mattered most, this couldn’t be further from the truth. He was obstinate and would NOT listen any other perspectives and did nothing but reinforce the dominant socio-political orthodoxy of the “progressive” left. There’s a saying, “to determine the true function of a thing, don’t listen to what was intended or designed, look at what happened.” Always enjoy reading your thoughtful and measured comments, Charles.
I think I know what my next Q&A question will be about.
I'll put it this way. Dr. McWhorter, you said you were prepared to eat crow over this.
Well, it might be time to grab the hot sauce and butter.
My suspicions have been vindicated. In short, Radley Balko has ripped the Chaix/Collin narrative to shreds (and this is only Part 1).
https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-retconning-of-george-floyd
Chaix and Collin NEVER do hard interviews. Now we know why.
We also know why Chauvin's defense team has yet to say anything about this "documentary". They saw the absurdity of the arguments in The Fall of Minneapolis and distanced themselves accordingly—obviously.
Sometimes 2 + 2 really does equal 4.
"Cleanup on Aisle 4, please."
Oh dear.
This needs to be read; especially by John and Glenn.
radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-retconni…
During your interview with Collin and Chaix, you asked a good question, that went largely unanswered. You asked them if it was possible to have asphyxiation without physical evidence of it. Dr. Tobin testified that, Derek Chauvin applied 91.5 pounds of pressure to the neck of George Floyd. The pressure being applied via Chauvin's knee cap. So the real question should be, Is it possible for someone to die of asphyxiation due to 91.5 pounds of pressure being delivered to a neck by a hard surface, maybe 3 inches in diameter. What say you?
Your question of Collin and Chaix highlight an issue with the prosecution. It is the prosecution who must present evidence as to how the victim died. It is not the defense that must prove anything. The most conclusive evidence of death is an autopsy with forensic toxicology. As you will find in this readable explanation, "Four to six weeks is pretty standard" https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/features/the-truth-about-toxicology-tests. The autopsy with full toxicology for Prince took 6-weeks, Matthew Perry took 7-weeks and it took 8-weeks for Michael Jackson. For George Floyd it took 6-days. No, AI did not make it possible for the exceedingly compressed timing for George Floyd. They limited the toxicology to what they already knew, because they did not want definitive evidence that contradicted the narrative.
Two important questions: (1) Why did Dr. Martin Tobin lie, Irish accent and all? (2) Why was full toxicology testing not conducted on George Floyd?
At 02:12:22 into the Defense closing arguments in the case, Eric Nelson confronts the opinion of Mr. McWhorter as to Dr. Tobin's not having an interest in the outcome. https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/defense-closing-argument-transcript-derek-chauvin-trial-for-murder-of-george-floyd
"I want to illustrate two brief things that Dr. Tobin testified about and I want to illustrate how I think that these demonstrate a bias, because you still have to consider an expert witness in the context of bias. I’m going to call it the finger and knuckle testimony and the toe lifting testimony."
Eric Nelson presents the image the prosecution used to illicit the emotional testimony of Dr. Tobin as to George Floyd struggling for his last breath. He says, "That this slide shows George Floyd pushing his fingers against the street to lift his shoulder off the street, that he was pushing his knuckles against the tire. He described what he interpreted this was basically Mr. Floyd trying to push himself up onto his left side to free the right lung to help him breathe."
Eric Nelson then puts the DAGGER in the credibility of the testimony of Dr. Tobin when he says, "They were taken at 8:19:35, 15 seconds after Mr. Floyd was placed on the ground. Dr. Tobin also explained that Mr. Floyd went on to breathe for an additional 5 minutes and 51 seconds until he took his last breath at 8:25. He neglects the fact that at this point, this is the point that we just saw when Mr. Floyd is taken out of the car and he is actually in the side recovery position for about the first two minutes of this 9 minutes and 29 seconds."
George Floyd went on to BREATH FOR 5 MINUTES and 51 SECONDS UNTIL HE TOOK HIS LAST BREATH. Dr. Tobin watched 150 hours of video. The segment Dr. Tobin emphasized, and Mr. Loury and Mr. McWhorter focus on in the "mechanics" comment, was a lie or simply completely WRONG. Dr. Tobin was caught in a major F UP and nobody, most of all the jury, gives a sh!t.
Mr. Loury, how about asking Dr. Tobin about this?
Thank you Glenn and John for discussing the death of George Floyd. The media is too quick to present everything as black and white when in reality most things have a lot of grey area. My job is headquartered in Minneapolis and the riots have totally destroyed the city. Walking around downtown is still like a ghost town. A lot of businesses and people I have left. Every time I visit Minneapolis I get multiple warnings to be careful and not walk alone. It’s an absolute travesty what the city leadership allowed to happen.
I listened to this fascinating interview. I learned things that have been covered up by mainstream media and overlooked by partisan republican media. While this is valuable one question at the end showed bias of the films creators. When asked about the aftermath of the trial and riots they could find nothing good to say. Hopeful signs I saw were the failed referendum to abolish the police department and the tough primary campaign of Ilhan Omar. She faced an unknown and under funded challenge in the primary of progressive democratic voters yet just barely won. Her opponent made public safety an issue. After the election many said they wished they had helped but didn't because they thought the challenge was hopeless.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/12/ilhan-omar-democratic-primary-challenge-minneapolis
Why are Blacks so seemingly invested in Chauvin being guilty, when the more important issue for our justice system is that no innocent man is wrongfully imprisoned, and especially since the case is so inappropriately racialized; and we may run out of good candidates for law enforcement jobs because the risk is increased to an unbearable degree.
Be careful. There are plenty of “blacks” (a rough nomenclature in my opinion, but I digress) that want nothing to do with the left or their ideas. Black folks are not a monolith any more than any other racial demographic. When you put it in such stark terms, you’re treating the demographic group based on race as if they all think identically. John and Glenn obliterate this misconception all by themselves. Ironically, this is what the left does and is part of the identity politicking parcel. You seem to be against identity politics, yet you appear to be unwittingly engaging in just that.
At least until recently, it was a common claim that a black man could not be sure of getting fair treatment by the criminal justice system.
Now there have been a number of comments on this and the prior Glenn Show episode on this topic seeming to rely on the fact that the legal system has ruled against Chauvin as definitive.
The legal processes are little changed, so the system is as much susceptible to political and social pressures in modern Minneapolis as in the Jim Crow South.
I cannot seem to join the discord. How do I listen to this second discussion? I am subscribed. Thanks and Merry Christmas to you both❤️
You should now be able to view it within this post.
Mark, I’m always struck by how responsive and effective your support of members is. Glenn’s lucky to have you on board.
Thanks, Jake!
I guess it makes sense that Google has labeled this "Age-restricted". Who knows what conclusions a viewer -- who hasn't been properly indoctrinated at today's universities -- might draw if left to their own intact reasoning skills?
What do I think is significant? The original autopsy, the full video, including the position of Chauvin's knees, and the early "I can't breath" statements.
"Did Chauvin -- at the time -- deliberately murder (2nd degree) Floyd?" I'm 90% NO
"Did Chauvin accidently murder Floyd?" I don't know. Given "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" as a standard, I couldn't convict.
To John's comment that maybe Floyd was near death from his own actions, and Chauvin pushed him over the edge: Maybe, but I can't convict a person who is behaving responsibly and the victim dies anyways because of complications Chauvin wasn't responsible for and had no way of knowing about.
The fact that YouTube has “age restricted this video” is seriously disturbing. It’s just four people talking.
YouTube, just like Google, Facebook, Disney, etc etc the list goes on, do lots of things that are very disturbing, and none of it is new.
Agreed. We should all point it out when we see it.
I am forever wary of people who self-apply academic titles for obscure degrees, particularly anyone with a "mastery of semiotics" and a dubious command of English.
Thanks for taking the discussion about this further. I wanted to hear more about the documentary since it was birthed from a questionable source - but also demonstrates that sometimes you have to go to the opposite side for the truth about something. The left won't tell any new truths about this, just as you can't count on the right to tell the truth about Donald Trump and his myriad follies. BTW, anyone who hasn't yet read Hate Crime Hoax by a black political science professor Wilfred Reilly, I highly recommend it. It's a bit snarky and unprofessional, one could even argue biased, but he makes many great cases for why so many so-called 'hate crimes' against other races (not just black people) are likely not hate crimes. I think it was John who recommended it awhile back so I bought it.
I am really, really hoping we have in fact hit 'peak woke' and can now start having adult conversations about sacred cows the left holds dear. Hoping Trump doesn't get elected next year so we can eliminate the MAGAs from this, who are just as much an obstacle to progress in America as the far left.
I was trying to remember where I first saw this sentiment, and it came to me just now- BETTY WHITE! RIP
Yeah, I figured that's where she got it. It was a popular meme, although I don't know that White ever actually said that. A lot of quotes we see are misattributed.
True, and you may be 100% correct because I can’t find anything BUT memes. However, this does bolster my claim a little https://youtu.be/aFuewcSoXfM?si=NxBHM3WWsIw2u8DH 😂
Your handle is classic. My gf always says things like that. “Balls are fragile things that make men wince at the slightest flick, but those vaginas can handle anything!”
It’s time to get on Rumble.
💯
At what point will anyone acknowledge the backdrop Black Lives Matter played in the trial, LEVERAGING a one solution verdict? Ben Crump? Say their names: Ellison’s son, Jeremiah on city council, St. Paul school board member Chauntyll Allen, attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong, fmr State Rep. John Thompson, and all the free friendly publicity with Facebook, CBS, ABC, NBC and NPR News.
Major opportunity missed on Black Lives Matter.
Like most things socio-political in contemporary American society, half the country believes what the other half vehemently denies.
So, Collin's and Chaix's bottom line with respect to Derek Chauvin is this: That the jury was not privy to certain (key) evidence, but had they been, Chauvin would be a free man today.
Is that (essentially) their claim? That Chauvin would have been acquitted? Or guilty of far lesser crimes? Or that perhaps the case never would have seen a courtroom?
*IF* the above is true, is there no recourse available for Chauvin at this point? Sincere question.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal; and as I understand it, that particular appeal was focused on, not what Collin and Chaix are talking about, but concerns about pre-trial publicity, public safety, public pressure to 'get justice', etc. But again, nothing about evidence being withheld from a jury.
But why would that *not* be part of Chauvin's appeal? It is quite odd that his defense team does not appear to be in one accord with Collin and Chaix. Perhaps this is the result of some funky legal technicality, but it's a real question deserving of a real answer.
Collin and Chaix don't strike me as two people risking life and limb to get justice for Derek Chauvin. I don't sense very strong crusader vibes out of them. I could be wrong of course, but what they are doing feels more like a D'Souza-style money grab.
Which is largely why I remain conflicted about all of this. Collin and Chaix raise more questions than they answer. But of course my personal opinions don't disqualify their claims.
Yet still, my questions persist (and they are valid). The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld Chauvin's conviction. Then the Minnesota Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal. Then our mighty SCOTUS--Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Coney-Barrett, Alito, Kavanaugh; *those* guys--declined to hear Chauvin's appeal. And as recently as last month, Chauvin's lawyers filed a motion to dismiss his federal civil rights conviction, this time based on his email conversations with a Dr. William Schaetzel of Topeka, KS, a pathologist claiming that Floyd's death was about a brain tumor?
My point is this: Chauvin's defense team has not been dormant. But are they talking about any of the things that Chaix and Collin are talking about? If not, why not? Something's not adding up.
It seems a stretch to think that justice has eluded Chauvin so repeatedly, and at so many levels. I was hoping Glenn and John would have at least asked about the SCOTUS rejecting Chauvin's case for appeal, but they didn't even hint at it.
McWhorter came closest to my thoughts (sort of) when he asked, "Can we really say that those officers did not take Floyd from sick to death?" (paraphrased)
But I guess that's the question: reasonable doubt.
Also, this suggestion that the jury was just too chickens*** to 'do the right thing' (i.e., acquit) is weird.
I say that because, why should we automatically assume that about a jury? Do we see ourselves in that same light? I sure hope not. Let us not forget that juries are a reflection of US.
If I were serving on a jury and was convinced that my fellow jurors were about to mess up an innocent man's life, I would like to think that I'd have enough integrity to stand my ground and not instantly cow because riots were happening around me. (And hopefully, I wouldn't be alone.)
I just re-read this comment Charles, and you have many valid points. And ones I wish we did have answers for. First, I’ll say that it does cops no favors in the execution of their duties in the long run, to have cops guilty of murder go free. And to be clear, this has FOR SURE happened before, and probably has since the inception of police.
I want to say a couple things, particularly about integrity of the jurors. Keep in mind those jurors watched a bloodthirsty mob take over and destroy a police precinct. They watched murder, assault, carjacking and general violent crime skyrocket. If I’m a juror, I’m thinking about all these things and if I am, and if I’m anything short of a well trained mercenary (which none of them were), there is ZERO chance that I risk 20 years of a cop going to prison, a cop I don’t know, vs my life and safety and risking my family being fatherless, then that’s not a real choice. Call it a lapse of integrity if you want, but there’s no way that with all the following criteria, I’m giving a not guilty verdict:
The jurors weren’t sequestered.
The courthouse had to be fortified like a prison (historic precedent)
The court of public opinion including every major university, newsroom, corporation, and state level ranking politician had already come to a verdict and reminded the public, including jurors, through not only interviews but social media that this was the case.
They knew there would be no reprisal for a verdict of guilty, and they also knew that wasn’t the case for a not guilty verdict. They knew this because they had hundreds and sometimes thousands of people screaming at them in fits of unabashed rage that they damn well better issue a guilty verdict.
There were so many things about that case and trial that were new precedents. I have integrity. I’ve faced situations where my life was in danger and those situations also involved angry crowds. The three things that aided the retention of my integrity in those moments were that I knew I had support, I knew if I didn’t fight back that would have probably resulted in my death and the death of others, and I was armed to the teeth. None of those things were true for those jurors. So with all due respect, it’s quite easy to armchair and say ”I trust their judgement, I don’t think they were influenced”. Unless you’ve been in a similar situation where you’re outnumbered and you know the consequence of you not capitulating is 100% violence, and you’ve also see the same mob take an entire precinct down, I think it’s folly to believe that unless you’re a combat veteran with loads of experience and have performed numerous times under that kind of pressure and let’s face it, credible threat of bodily harm, that you can simply discount all those things and keep your integrity when you know there’s no consequence for a guilty verdict, and when you’ve been given partial evidence and a skewed perspective on purpose.
"when you’ve been given partial evidence and a skewed perspective on purpose"
Respectfully, Jake, that is what prosecutors do, whether we agree with them or not.
But more importantly, and again, respectfully, I think you are assuming way too much about people you don't know. I agree that many potential jurors--and maybe even the average person--would think/act in the way you are suggesting. But it's not that simple.
For one thing, there's a jury selection process. It's not like the attorneys went eenie-meenie-miny-mo.
Did some potential jurors decline or maneuver their way out of duty because they were scared? I assume so. But I don't get how you can feel so confident that the folks who were eventually selected were (essentially) no different from them.
Please don't get me wrong. I don't think that jury was comprised of 12 fearless citizens with untouchable integrity--no jury is. But why should I assume the opposite? It almost sounds like you think Chauvin's conviction was a fait accompli, and I just don't buy it. I would have to believe a LOT to believe that.
Not only would I have to believe that 12 out of 12 jurors were intimidated into an unjust verdict, I would have to furthermore believe that a state appeals court's confirmation of that verdict was meaningless, and that a state supreme court's refusal to hear an appeal was also meaningless; and that the United States Supreme Court's refusal to hear an appeal was also meaningless.
Sure, it is possible that jury was scared to death of a bloodthirsty mob, and felt their only alternative was to throw Derek Chauvin under the bus. But why does this theory not apply across the board?
The defense had witnesses. We saw the faces of those witnesses. We knew their names and what they did for a living. Granted, witnesses don't have a (practical) choice in these matters, but I don't recall any stories about their lives being turned upside-down after their testimony.
But another poster made a better point about Kyle Rittenhouse; he was acquitted. Did that jury have more balls? Moreover, consider Kyle's lifestyle after that trial. He became a MAGA rock star; a *major* beneficiary of that ecosystem. He wasn't hard to find at all, and he definitely doesn't look like a Navy Seal to me.
And let me be perfectly honest, Jake. I have read and learned a fair amount about this case (and related cases) in the last week or so--way more than I did when the Chauvin case was transpiring--and the more I read and learn, the more I am convinced that Chaix and Collin are a joke.
Seriously. What do Chauvin's lawyers have to say about this documentary? Do we know? I haven't heard a thing. What about the lawyers for the other three cops? Anything?
Bringing it back home: Three days ago, Glenn posted a message from Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who seems to have caught Collin/Chaix in a significant lie, and no one has said anything.
If I am Chaix/Collin--and I know my case is airtight?--I am not letting Keith Ellison publicly call me out as a liar...unless of course I am a blankety-blank liar.
An excellent response, Charles.
The recourse is for the governor of Minnesota to issue a pardon, on the recommendation of the attorney general of the State. But the governor Tim Waltz is to "progressive" to d othe right thing. And the AG is the loathsome Keith Ellison: need I say more?
Got that right. Walz , the governor of Minnesota, immediately began talking about "George Floyd's murder" after the incident and long before the actual trial. The city of Minneapolis gave the Floyd family $27 million in compensation **as the jury was being selected*** ---- do you think they got the message? The crowd decided the verdict from the get-go, and no one had the courage to stand up for the necessity of waiting for the facts.
White folks didn’t give a damn about facts under Jim Crow. Lol!
Charles: I live in Minnesota and I watched the trial, which was televised. The jury was NOT sequestered so they walked past crowds every day who were demanding a guilty verdict. As the jury was actually being selected, the City of Minneapolis very publicly gave Floyd's family $27 million in compensation. The crowd could see the jurors, and they were doxxed after the trial too. The case was so public that high-priced prosecuting attorneys were lining up to prosecute Chauvin, while his defense consisted of just one defense attorney. He was swamped with work to do but no one else would come forward,
As to why SCOTUS refused the case, they refuse the vast majority of appeals because they have so many to go through. The fact they refused does not itself say anything about the validity of Chauvin's case.
As for your remark "I don't sense very strong crusader vibes out of them. I could be wrong of course, but what they are doing feels more like a D'Souza-style money grab.", my sense is quite the opposite. I think that because they are a cop's wife and a retired cop, they feel very strongly that Chauvin was screwed at trial and they very much want to see proper justice done for him. It matters that cops be given a fair trial, but because of the BLM infected mood in the nation, that is going to be tough from now on. Minneapolis has lost a third of its police force, crime is through the roof, and cops across the country are retiring early or leaving the force for other jobs. It very much matters that Chauvin's case be reviewed properly. But the mood of the crowds, and the endless riots in 2020, have got everybody too spooked to want to get involved in it.
I despair for the future of justice in America, when yelling crowds and destructive riots can bully good people into turning away from a clear miscarriage of justice.
Thank you Charles, yes I meant the Floyd family was gifted with millions in MN taxpayer money.
"the City of Minneapolis very publicly gave Chauvin's family $27 million in compensation"
I assume you meant Floyd's family.
I think your points about the SCOTUS and the likely fears of the jurors are *basically* valid. But does that mean 12 out of 12 jurors were scared crapless, AND Minnesota's Supreme and AppeaIs courts went along with the injustice as well? I am not saying it's impossible, but that's quite an allegation.
It is also possible that the jury believed their verdict was the correct one.
But I really don't get why Chauvin's lawyers don't appear to be on the same page as Collin and Chaix. Again, maybe that's the result of some legal technicality bs--that happens. I don't know.
If your analysis of the effects of the Floyd verdict is true, then the Minneapolis justice system is, sadly, in a truly f'd up state. But I don't think most American cities/towns are at that point yet. There have been hundreds of cases of cops killing Black men since Floyd--no riots. Which suggests to me that the nation (generally) accepts the fact that sometimes cops gotta do what they gotta do.
Not to veer off too far, but the Floyd case was an eerily perfect storm. For a real-time, real-life video like that to appear on everybody's TV during the throes of COVID, when everybody was more or less stuck at home losing our minds anyway; it set the stage for something unique at best. Ergo, I cannot dismiss the possibility that Chauvin has been railroaded. But right now, for me, that strikes me as a stretch.
And I should place my cards on the table. On issues like these, I look askance at organizations like Alpha News and Rumble, similar to the way I do when left-leaning sources talk about affirmative action. The only reason I was willing to listen to this interview is because of my respect for Glenn and John. If this was purely rightwing bs, I don't think both of them would be giving it this kind of a platform.
That said, it would be enormously helpful if they interviewed a counter-voice that they respected.
I don't know if that person exists, but I hope so.
"it would be enormously helpful if they interviewed a counter-voice that they respected. I don't know if that person exists, but I hope so."
Narrator: "Little did we know, that person did exist. His name Radley Balko."
You make good points, Charles. It really is curious that Chauvin's lawyers -- who do seem competent -- don't make any attempt to use the "evidence withheld from the jury" argument. I hadn't considered that until reading your comments; that is indeed an excellent point.
I'm also not sure about the jury being so intimidated that they felt they had no choice but to declare Chauvin guilty. Maybe -- they certainly did have good reason to be afraid. But that made me think of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, and despite all the threats of violence against judge and jury, the jury acquitted Rittenhouse. We can't know how much a threat, or a perceived threat, of violence will actually sway a jury. We just can't assume the Chauvin jury was intimidated into a guilty verdict.
A huge problem these days is everything becomes partisan, you have to be on one side or the other, and you must condemn and hate the "other side" or you yourself will be condemned. We're supposed to take a side: you must believe Floyd was an innocent victim, or you must believe Chauvin was a racist murderer. Personally, I think the truth is much murkier and more complicated, which is something a lot of people don't want to deal with. Easier to pick a side and stick with it, no matter what. I understand wanting a clear, simple answer, but that can be a dangerous path to walk down.
Amen to all of this. But I do give John "some" credit for at least recognizing that.
But I'm with you.
"I think the truth is much murkier and more complicated"
That is certainly how I see it. But I am open to whatever the truth is. But as you say, who is willing to get to that objective truth dispassionately these days?
Sensitive issues like Floyd/Chauvin only make the journey tougher.
Man I love reading your thoughts. Whenever I do, I always end up thinking; “the pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple”.
That is very kind of you. I appreciate it.
I haven't always seen the light of complexity, but the older I get I can't avoid it.
Yes! One of the main reasons I follow Glen and John here is their willingness to discuss sensitive topics, to go into many different aspects of an issue. The polarization which shuts down critical thinking makes everything so much worse. We all need to talk to each other, to listen to other viewpoints, try to weight the evidence. Being open-minded probably makes one a white supremacist bigot these days, but I think it may be our only hope to crawl out of this mess.
Even when Glenn and John irritate me I can take it in stride because I know they are serious thinkers.
I don't need people to agree with me. Just be serious, please. As long as folks are thinking, I'm good.
"We all need to talk to each other, to listen to other viewpoints"
It's easy to get pigeon-holed by people who DON'T want to talk or listen lol
"Being open-minded probably makes one a white supremacist bigot these days"
I don't know what it's like to be called a White supremacist, but I have certainly been called a "leftist" more times than I can remember...based on literally nothing =)
Let us not be deterred.
Let me re-iterate : the fact that SCOTUS refused to hear Chauvin's case does NOT mean anything re its validity, just that SCOTUS has very limited time to hear appeals, and they have hundreds if not thousands more than they can hear.
I also will propose that the case is so incredibly hyper-political and toxic that any appeals court hearing Chauvin's appeal knows that it would be hammered by vicious partisan and possibly violent pushback, and they would not be confident that "the public" would accept their anti-leftwing narrative viewpoint. Believers in the truth are showing a considerable amount of cowardice these days when it becomes apparent how violent the opposition can be. And when you see what happens to folks who get doxxed due to their public opinions, who can blame them?
I get your point about the SCOTUS 100%. Point well-taken.
"Believers in the truth are showing a considerable amount of cowardice these days...when you see what happens to folks who get doxxed due to their public opinions, who can blame them?"
But *this* is a FUNDAMENTAL point, and it is not relegated to the left, right or center.
If the average US citizen is that fearful about participating in the system, what do we have? Problems. Major ones.
And the above applies to Minneapolis/Floyd/Chauvin as much as Atlanta/Freeman-Moss/Giuliani. Not a sustainable picture for any nation calling itself a democracy.
And the riots happened anyway.
Not sure what that has to do with my post. But yes, obviously they did.
I think his point is that though the mobs were placated with a guilty verdict, destruction occurred anyway. I didn’t follow anything in Minneapolis after the verdict, so I don’t know if there’s any veracity to that claim, but that’s what I discern from his comment.
Bingo