Late last year, John McWhorter and I released two episodes focusing on the documentary The Fall of Minneapolis and the filmmakers behind it, Liz Collin and JC Chaix. The documentary argues, among other things, that Derek Chauvin followed standard procedure while arresting George Floyd, that he was convicted of murder partially on the strength of false testimony, and that he is not culpable for Floyd’s death. John and I found the film convincing, and we said as much. But a
Gaining an understanding of what killed George Floyd requires a fair amount of work.
T.J. Harker, a former federal prosecutor, recently did a two-part essay for the American Mind where he suggested that Derek Chauvin was "scapegoated." Here are the links:
Read them, compare them with Radley Balko's analysis, then make up your own mind.
It is worth noting that Dr. Andrew Baker, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner who performed George Floyd's autopsy, told the FBI that he could not say whether George Floyd would have lived "but for" the actions of the officers. He also told the FBI that George Floyd's underlying heart disease, intoxicants, and the stress of his encounter with the officers were more than he could tolerate. Use this link to see a copy of the FBI notes:
Dr. Baker's "but for" comments and his conclusion that George Floyd's death was the result of several factors are covered on pages 2 and 6 of the document.
Dr. Baker also told the FBI that, "Absent suspicious circumstances, if Floyd had been found dead in his bed with the level of fentanyl in his blood that was present for this autopsy, it would have been classified as a fentanyl fatality due to the level of fentanyl." (See page 7)
Keep in mind that Dr. Baker told Hennipen County prosecutors something similar:
Mr. Loury, you said you & John might be out of a job in response to Coleman’s new book. Surely you jest! I’ve been following you gentlemen for four years, now. I’m a white senior citizen grandmother, but I’m glad I found you. You won’t get rid of your loyal listeners/readers that fast! Thank you.
Anyone who actually WATCHED the trial of Derek Chauvin and had some actual experience in practicing law (I have done so for 43 years and have both defended and prosecuted capital murder trials) will know whatever the truth may be, Chauvin did not get a fair trial. It was a public damnation and watching the less edited video of the four officers' encounters with Floyd only reinforces that.
If you switched out the races and professions of the parties in Minnesota vs. Chauvin it would inconceivable for a rational prosecutor to bring those charges or for a judge to allow them to stand.
Issues like whether the MPD allowed certain holds or did not are tangential to the real issue. Were the actions of Chauvin and the other officers so far outside the performance of their duties that they constituted criminal homicide, and most importantly, were their actions the proximal and actual cause of Floyd's death.
As someone who has decided to both proceed in bringing murder charges and also decided not to, the original doubt voiced by the Minneapolis medical examiner was minimized to a point I found unbelievable, The state may only prosecute people for whom the evidence is clear they are legally and factually guilty of the crime. If, in ANY OTHER CONTEXT, there was this kind of suppression of doubt about the cause of death, I not would expect, but have seen in other cases, courts reverse the convictions of men convicted of murder. But the Chauvin/Floyd trial was not a legal event. It was a political one.
The Minnesota Attorney General has politicized the prosecution to such a degree that many people doubt the reason for the case itself, and for good reason. But Keith Ellison was never a prosecutor and the job he holds was the consolation prize for not becoming Chair of the Democratic National Party several years ago.
I listened to this episode today. I admire the humility and integrity of Glen Loury and John McWhorter, who exemplify the strength of character it takes to reconsider their positions when faced with new evidence. Their willingness to adapt and learn, rather than stubbornly hold onto outdated views, has further elevated my already high respect for them.
It’s interesting that many substacks this week are getting heavily ratio’d. As in many more comments than likes. That being the opposite of usual. Not trying to make a comment with this post on the specifics of this article BTW.
I admire anyone that admits and examines their mistakes and even more those that do it publically. That's why I admire Glen and John. Especially as someone who is left of center. I come to Glen to hear the reasoned and intelligent perspective of the right! You two are my favorite intellectuals. Thanks for your brilliance and all your errors included which everyone makes!
One subscriber's opinion: The interview episode with these documentary filmmakers was the closest I've come to disregarding the Glenn Show as a credible source. If it weren't for the novelty of the Israel-Palestine views presented I may have stopped listening.
The issue was simply this: based on your description, this documentary seems to be asking us "not to believe our lying eyes" (to use Glenn's phrase).
I appreciate the candidness of this correction, but mostly I appreciate the correction. It seems clear that the earlier episode probably persuaded some viewers on their path toward "George Floyd revisionism," and it goes to show that even the most critically-minded in our society can have blind spots. I hope anyone so persuaded will see this correction as well, so I humbly request that you take steps to highlight this update on your earlier video in order to alert viewers to the addendum.
I just finished Hughes book that is discussed in this episode. It is evident that he is a Sowell disciple (in certain areas). I don't think Sowell would agree with some of Hughes tendencies to still rely on government machinations in certain scenarios. However, it gives me hope that the younger generation is picking up Sowell's torch. At the same time, I have despair that his voice and others like him will not be amplified just like Sowell's voice was not. After all, Sowell has refuted (successfully) the current progressive ideology for the past 4 decades and that ideology has only increased its stranglehold on our culture and both educational and government institutions.
The more interesting question for me is who benefited from calling the death of Floyd a murder and the subsequent prosecution and conviction of Chauvin? All of the players were self interested …the mayor, police chief, Ellison , the judge , Biden and co . , BLM . They all had their own agendas . Why the trial wasn’t moved is a mystery to me or perhaps it isn’t.
How many times have we heard Democratic politicians, right up to Harris and Biden, say that Michael Brown was murdered by the police. I have read the report from Eric Holder, the black attorney general working for Obama. The report makes it perfectly clear that Brown wasn't murdered. That means nothing to most Democrats and the national media spreads the claim of murder with zero pushback or clarification. Balko should be asked why he didn't feel it necessary to call out those who are clearly in the wrong about Brown. Good for you for acknowledging your doubts about your original opinion. That's how truth seeking works.
Could the real answer be that the documentary and Balko could be too biased to arrive at an answer? I guess I see both sides making dependent facts mutually exclusive and vise versa to support there thesis. From my perspective it showed the inability of human beings have at being objective about realities that perhaps don’t fit neatly in a “box”.
I would think that men of your integrity and influence could find an objective person to find the bias in each that can be framed as material to the consideration of the evidence as it relates to each conclusion.
Also I appreciate that Coleman brought the race discussion out from the sole possession of the left. Is his position perfect? Perhaps not. But I think we need the discussing to be framed so that we can fix it once and for all. After 60 years it seems to me that the power elite want us distracted over race and abortion. I would love to hear the intellectual discussion with Coleman included
I appreciate Glenn and John taking this on and being willing to re-evaluate.
I was more interested in the parts of "The Fall of Minneapolis" dealing with all that came before Chauvin's pinning of Floyd down. It's certainly plausible to me that what Chauvin did is what finally did Floyd in, and that his use of force was excessive. But it is also clear to me that Floyd was suffering from his multiple problems before Chauvin had him down and that Floyd was resisting in every way all of the clearly reasonable efforts to restrain him less vigorously up to the point of getting him down on the ground. Why is that relevant here? Because it speaks to the overriding narrative about all this, the charge that it was a racist cop illustrating the profound racist flaws of the entire society. And it seems clear to me that the terrible destruction which that false narrative wrought heavily influenced and corrupted this trial. Hence, it is profoundly unfortunate that Balko felt a need to feed that narrative by his false depictions of all its critics as "right wing." That trial was conducted with jurors exposed to the most outrageous dangers to themselves as a result of the hysteria surrounding it. I will be interested to hear if Balko tempers his self-righteousness by factoring any of that into his analysis.
Balko just came out with part 2....and concludes that essay with:
"It seems clear that the producers of The Fall of Minneapolis are doing all of this willfully — they’re knowingly spreading false information. It’s less clear if pundits like Hughes and outlets like the Free Press are knowingly perpetuating these lies or have fallen victim to them. But as self-described skeptics — as the self-appointed debunkers of forced narratives — they’re doing exactly what they accuse the legacy media of doing: They’re reverently, unskeptically amplifying dubious claims because those claims happen to coincide with their own prejudices. "
Gaining an understanding of what killed George Floyd requires a fair amount of work.
T.J. Harker, a former federal prosecutor, recently did a two-part essay for the American Mind where he suggested that Derek Chauvin was "scapegoated." Here are the links:
https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-scapegoating-of-derek-chauvin-pt-i/
https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-scapegoating-of-derek-chauvin-pt-ii/
Read them, compare them with Radley Balko's analysis, then make up your own mind.
It is worth noting that Dr. Andrew Baker, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner who performed George Floyd's autopsy, told the FBI that he could not say whether George Floyd would have lived "but for" the actions of the officers. He also told the FBI that George Floyd's underlying heart disease, intoxicants, and the stress of his encounter with the officers were more than he could tolerate. Use this link to see a copy of the FBI notes:
https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12949-TT/Exhibit112112020.pdf
Dr. Baker's "but for" comments and his conclusion that George Floyd's death was the result of several factors are covered on pages 2 and 6 of the document.
Dr. Baker also told the FBI that, "Absent suspicious circumstances, if Floyd had been found dead in his bed with the level of fentanyl in his blood that was present for this autopsy, it would have been classified as a fentanyl fatality due to the level of fentanyl." (See page 7)
Keep in mind that Dr. Baker told Hennipen County prosecutors something similar:
https://www.mncourts.gov/getattachment/Media/StateofMinnesotavTouThao/Container-Documents/Content-Documents/Exhibit-4.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US
To be fair, prosecutors brought in outside experts who said that the fentanyl levels in George Floyd's blood weren't fatal:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/16/fact-check-fentanyl-george-floyd-not-enough-to-cause-death/7239448002/
None of them examined George Floyd's body.
Decide for yourself if there was reasonable doubt about who or what killed George Floyd and if the jury made the right decision.
Mr. Loury, you said you & John might be out of a job in response to Coleman’s new book. Surely you jest! I’ve been following you gentlemen for four years, now. I’m a white senior citizen grandmother, but I’m glad I found you. You won’t get rid of your loyal listeners/readers that fast! Thank you.
Anyone who actually WATCHED the trial of Derek Chauvin and had some actual experience in practicing law (I have done so for 43 years and have both defended and prosecuted capital murder trials) will know whatever the truth may be, Chauvin did not get a fair trial. It was a public damnation and watching the less edited video of the four officers' encounters with Floyd only reinforces that.
If you switched out the races and professions of the parties in Minnesota vs. Chauvin it would inconceivable for a rational prosecutor to bring those charges or for a judge to allow them to stand.
Issues like whether the MPD allowed certain holds or did not are tangential to the real issue. Were the actions of Chauvin and the other officers so far outside the performance of their duties that they constituted criminal homicide, and most importantly, were their actions the proximal and actual cause of Floyd's death.
As someone who has decided to both proceed in bringing murder charges and also decided not to, the original doubt voiced by the Minneapolis medical examiner was minimized to a point I found unbelievable, The state may only prosecute people for whom the evidence is clear they are legally and factually guilty of the crime. If, in ANY OTHER CONTEXT, there was this kind of suppression of doubt about the cause of death, I not would expect, but have seen in other cases, courts reverse the convictions of men convicted of murder. But the Chauvin/Floyd trial was not a legal event. It was a political one.
The Minnesota Attorney General has politicized the prosecution to such a degree that many people doubt the reason for the case itself, and for good reason. But Keith Ellison was never a prosecutor and the job he holds was the consolation prize for not becoming Chair of the Democratic National Party several years ago.
I listened to this episode today. I admire the humility and integrity of Glen Loury and John McWhorter, who exemplify the strength of character it takes to reconsider their positions when faced with new evidence. Their willingness to adapt and learn, rather than stubbornly hold onto outdated views, has further elevated my already high respect for them.
It’s interesting that many substacks this week are getting heavily ratio’d. As in many more comments than likes. That being the opposite of usual. Not trying to make a comment with this post on the specifics of this article BTW.
I admire anyone that admits and examines their mistakes and even more those that do it publically. That's why I admire Glen and John. Especially as someone who is left of center. I come to Glen to hear the reasoned and intelligent perspective of the right! You two are my favorite intellectuals. Thanks for your brilliance and all your errors included which everyone makes!
You are jumping the gun.
https://salsassin.wordpress.com/2024/02/15/re-the-retconning-of-george-floyd-by-bradley-balko/
https://salsassin.wordpress.com/2024/02/15/re-the-retconning-of-george-floyd-by-bradley-balko/
One subscriber's opinion: The interview episode with these documentary filmmakers was the closest I've come to disregarding the Glenn Show as a credible source. If it weren't for the novelty of the Israel-Palestine views presented I may have stopped listening.
The issue was simply this: based on your description, this documentary seems to be asking us "not to believe our lying eyes" (to use Glenn's phrase).
I appreciate the candidness of this correction, but mostly I appreciate the correction. It seems clear that the earlier episode probably persuaded some viewers on their path toward "George Floyd revisionism," and it goes to show that even the most critically-minded in our society can have blind spots. I hope anyone so persuaded will see this correction as well, so I humbly request that you take steps to highlight this update on your earlier video in order to alert viewers to the addendum.
I just finished Hughes book that is discussed in this episode. It is evident that he is a Sowell disciple (in certain areas). I don't think Sowell would agree with some of Hughes tendencies to still rely on government machinations in certain scenarios. However, it gives me hope that the younger generation is picking up Sowell's torch. At the same time, I have despair that his voice and others like him will not be amplified just like Sowell's voice was not. After all, Sowell has refuted (successfully) the current progressive ideology for the past 4 decades and that ideology has only increased its stranglehold on our culture and both educational and government institutions.
The more interesting question for me is who benefited from calling the death of Floyd a murder and the subsequent prosecution and conviction of Chauvin? All of the players were self interested …the mayor, police chief, Ellison , the judge , Biden and co . , BLM . They all had their own agendas . Why the trial wasn’t moved is a mystery to me or perhaps it isn’t.
How many times have we heard Democratic politicians, right up to Harris and Biden, say that Michael Brown was murdered by the police. I have read the report from Eric Holder, the black attorney general working for Obama. The report makes it perfectly clear that Brown wasn't murdered. That means nothing to most Democrats and the national media spreads the claim of murder with zero pushback or clarification. Balko should be asked why he didn't feel it necessary to call out those who are clearly in the wrong about Brown. Good for you for acknowledging your doubts about your original opinion. That's how truth seeking works.
Could the real answer be that the documentary and Balko could be too biased to arrive at an answer? I guess I see both sides making dependent facts mutually exclusive and vise versa to support there thesis. From my perspective it showed the inability of human beings have at being objective about realities that perhaps don’t fit neatly in a “box”.
I would think that men of your integrity and influence could find an objective person to find the bias in each that can be framed as material to the consideration of the evidence as it relates to each conclusion.
Also I appreciate that Coleman brought the race discussion out from the sole possession of the left. Is his position perfect? Perhaps not. But I think we need the discussing to be framed so that we can fix it once and for all. After 60 years it seems to me that the power elite want us distracted over race and abortion. I would love to hear the intellectual discussion with Coleman included
I appreciate Glenn and John taking this on and being willing to re-evaluate.
I was more interested in the parts of "The Fall of Minneapolis" dealing with all that came before Chauvin's pinning of Floyd down. It's certainly plausible to me that what Chauvin did is what finally did Floyd in, and that his use of force was excessive. But it is also clear to me that Floyd was suffering from his multiple problems before Chauvin had him down and that Floyd was resisting in every way all of the clearly reasonable efforts to restrain him less vigorously up to the point of getting him down on the ground. Why is that relevant here? Because it speaks to the overriding narrative about all this, the charge that it was a racist cop illustrating the profound racist flaws of the entire society. And it seems clear to me that the terrible destruction which that false narrative wrought heavily influenced and corrupted this trial. Hence, it is profoundly unfortunate that Balko felt a need to feed that narrative by his false depictions of all its critics as "right wing." That trial was conducted with jurors exposed to the most outrageous dangers to themselves as a result of the hysteria surrounding it. I will be interested to hear if Balko tempers his self-righteousness by factoring any of that into his analysis.
Balko just came out with part 2....and concludes that essay with:
"It seems clear that the producers of The Fall of Minneapolis are doing all of this willfully — they’re knowingly spreading false information. It’s less clear if pundits like Hughes and outlets like the Free Press are knowingly perpetuating these lies or have fallen victim to them. But as self-described skeptics — as the self-appointed debunkers of forced narratives — they’re doing exactly what they accuse the legacy media of doing: They’re reverently, unskeptically amplifying dubious claims because those claims happen to coincide with their own prejudices. "
https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-retconning-of-george-floyd-part
Balko's second post is up.
https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-retconning-of-george-floyd-part