en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Floyds
In my police-reporting days
Question: Was their anything racial in Floyd’s death? That is, is there any reason to believe that if Floyd had been a white petty criminal and drug addict, but otherwise identical to Floyd, would Chauvin have behaved differently? Accounts differ. By some he is said to have been reprimanded for being “overzealous,” meaning pushing people around. ” I can find no credible evidence that he singled out blacks. If such evidence existed, the media would have trumpeted it nonstop. His wife was Meng, a member of a nonwhite Southeast Asian hill tribe. This is not consistent with general racial prejudice.
If Chauvin did not act from hostility to blacks, as there seems no reason to believe that he did, then the whole thing was fabricated by the media, not intentionally but because it fit a reflex template.
There exists such a thing as template journalism in which reporters and commentators fit events into expected categories, like filling in a form. One of these is “racist white cop does something bad to innocent black.” This is accepted without investigation. Since the template is accepted as moral certainty, a reporter who disagreed would find himself seriously at odds with is associates. These days racial incorrectness is literally a firing offense.
Now let us consider the events as they seemed to the police at the time, this being what determined their actions. What some other people who weren’t there would think at a later date largely based on political biases was information not available to them.
Floyd had bought minor items in a store with a counterfeit twenty which we will charitably but not very realistically accept that he may not have known to be phony. Noticing this, the store clerk ran out and asked for payment with good money. Floyd refused. In effect, it was shoplifting. The clerk later said that Floyd seemed stoned or drunk. This is consistent with use of fentanyl.
To the cops, on routine patrol, it was a day like any other. They got what seemed, and was, a minor call. Shoplifting or something similar. This was not a crime to have the adrenaline flowing. I have been with cops on many such calls. It was just another day at the office, exciting as a traffic ticket.
Arriving at the scene, they encountered Floyd. He was not violent, not armed, had no outstanding warrants for serious crimes. In the normal run of events the cops would have arrested him, which is what they were supposed to do, and taken him downtown where, if Minneapolis operates as other such departments I have known, he would have been booked, given a court date, and released on recog. He would not have shown up for the hearing, and that would have been thee end of the matter.
They handcuffed him, which is what they were supposed to do. This involved no violence. Then they told him to get into the police car. He refused, resisting arrest. This complicated things. What to do? Letting criminals resist arrest is not an option for police as then all criminals would resist and nobody would ever be arrested.
At some point in these proceedings, Floyd said, “I can’t breathe,” a classic symptom of fentanyl poisoning. Users of the drug often die of it, in factt at a rate of about a hundred thousand a year in the US.
Interestingly, in its account the Wikipedia and other sites play the fentanyl angle down hard. If Floyd died of fentanyl overdose, which is consistent with the evidence, then the most cherished racial murder since Emmit Till, and the resultant riots and destruction, were a product of the media. There is no doubt about the Till murder. Floyd is a probable fraud.
The police did not swarm Floyd to force him into the squad car, four against one. They did not rough him up. Nor did they pepper spray him or tase him. Instead they called for transport, the polite word for a paddy wagon. No violence. In fact, deliberate avoidance of violence. At this point they had no idea that they would be on national television. They could have used force, which would have been justified, but didn’t, apparently because they didn’t want to.
At this point the cops had no idea that anything of note was about to happen. No one had been hurt. No indication existed that Floyd was dying or going to die. It was a minor, mildly annoying arrest. A month later, they probably would not have remembered it.
Then Floyd either fell to the ground or said he wanted to lie down. This is consistent with advancing fentanyl poisoning. In many hundreds of hours of riding with various police departments,I have never heard this request. The cops allowed him to do so. Meanwhile a crowd of blacks gathered.
Then Chauvin, with stupidity that would jusstify sterilization, put his knee on Floyd’s back, or neck, depending on account. The appearance was that of a big-game hunter posing with his prey. This is consistent with a tough-guy attitude–“over zealous” if you will. In a region of blacks not fond of the police, it might have justified firing. Floyd’s continued protests that he couldn’t breathe are consistent with advanced fentanyl poisoning.
At some point, the cops called an ambulance, which is not consistent with hostility to blacks or wanton disregard for Floyd’s life. Somewhat later, they increased the ambulance call to urgent. This is even less consistent with unconcern for Floyd’s life.
In the many accounts I found on the web, almost none even mentionedt that the cops had called an ambulance, instead focusing on the purported errors of the ambulance crew. This suggests a desire to make the police seem as bad as possible, entirely consistent with the usual template journalism. The question arises of why cops wearing body cams would record their commission of murder or anything approaching it.
One thing is certain: Chauvin had no idea that he was endangering Floyd’s life. Nobody will commit murder with a dozen witnesses a yard or so away, with one of them conspicuously videoing the event.
Of the other three cops, two were rookies and not likely to question what a much senior man was doing. They had no idea that anything of importance was happening. Floyd, not violent, had refused to get into the car, so the cops, not violent, had called for a paddy wagon. This was neither unusual nor ominous. When he started having medical symptoms, they had called an ambulance. That’s what you do when someone has medical symptoms. Then, presumably when the symptoms worsened, they had upped the call to urgent. This is what you do when symptoms begin to seem threats to life. The three had no idea that they were committing murder. Again, murder and racial abuse are not characteristically done knowingly in front of multiple witnesses and video cameras.
For several reasons, Chauvin could not have had a fair trial. And didn’t. For one thing, the jurors had to be intimidated. Their identities were supposed to be secret, but leaks happen and there had been death threats against them. They knew that if they produced the wrong verdict, violent and probably widespread rioting would result. The courthouse was surrounded by barbed wire and the National Guard had been called out. Stores had armored their windows againsst looting with sheets of plywood. The jurors had to have known that a verdict of not guilty, apart from endangering their own lives, would result in heavy damage and perhaps deaths. Might a prison sentence for one man, who had not behaved well, be preferable? It was a show trial with a predetermined outcome.
A doctor testified that if he had found Floyd dead at home, he would have attributed the death to fentanyl poisoning, basing this on the level of the drug detected in the autopsy. This would seem to suggest a reasonable doubt as to what had killed Floyd
As a juror, what would you, the reader, living in the area, have done? Would you have dared vote not guilty, which means “not proved,” against eleven frightened fellow jurors?
Here it is worth pondering the role of the media in promoting riots of the Floyd sort. In the Ferguson riots, witnesses lied, as was later determined, saying that Michael Brown was shot with his hands in the air and saying, “don’t shoot!” The deceased, a disagreeable thug, was in fact trying to take the cop’s gun. The media, having disseminated this story without investigation, refused to retract it. The story, not true, influenced later events. Note that during Floyd’s riots, mobs all across the country chorused, “Hands up! Don’t shoot!”
The media consistently, repeatedly assert, to gullible blacks, that they are hunted down in numbers and murdered by white cops. The President of the United States has explicitly promoted this tale.
Let’s look at a couple of examples of how this is done. We often read of a black man killed in a “traffic stop.” Whether calculatedly or otherwise, this gives the impression that the cop pulls a black driver for a broken tail light and kills him because he doesn’t like blacks. This doesn’t happen. The slightest research, which used to be called “reporting,” reveals that the guy had an outstanding warrant for armed robbery or reached for a gun or tried to run over the cop. The consequences to the cop of a causeless killing include losing his job, pension and mortgage, and wife, and spending years in a penitentiary. He would really have to hate blacks. Given the prevalence of body cams he would be documenting himself as a murderer. Not too likely.
Another term of art is “unarmed black man.” The unstated subtext is “innocent, unarmed black man killed by racist cop because he wanted to hurt blacks from vicious racism, and humiliate them, and ruin their lives.” If the black is trying to take the cop’s gun (Michael Brown) or is beating his head against the sidewalk (Travon Martin), well, he is an unarmed black man.
If you have doubts as to the effectiveness of the media in promoting false narratives, I recommend this survey by the Western Journal. Do read it: It is fascinating. One finding was that forty-four percent of people who described themselves as liberals believe that at least a thousand unarmed black men were killed annually by police. The actual number for that year was twelve, according to the Washington Post, hardly biased against blacks.
The only way these liberals (conservatives were only a bit more realistic) could have acquired such wildly inaccurate ideas is through the media. When blacks are unceasingly fed the same propaganda, is it any surprise that they kill whites?
The extent to which the falsification is deliberate is not clear. Journalists write this stuff but they also read it. Everyone they know says the same things and their is a strong sense of moral crusade. In my view it approaches distributed mass hysteria. Symmetric to the desire of the media to find white cops guilty of murder is the desire to conceal the murder of whites by blacks. The man who compiled the link foregoing posts a similar one every month.
Onward and upward.