patrick.net

Patrick says

It seems to me that you are overriding your own better judgement in order to avoid uncomfortable thoughts.

Why would a person I've never met dying of a drug overdose be an uncomfortable thought to me?

Patrick says

Argument by appealing to authority

I am not appealing to authority. You asked a specific factual question, and I gave you clear evidence as to the answer. I have no personal stake in this. I'm just getting tired of checking your facts and finding them to be wrong.

Patrick says

The obvious explanation is usually the correct explanation.

I agree with this statement, and so did the medical examiner and the chief of police and the jury. The obvious explanation WAS the correct explanation.

Onvacation says

cisTits says

You can't 'debate' ppl brainwashed with bullshit,

it's true

I have to hope that there is still some independent thought left in people who watch corporate media. Maybe they do suspect, at least a little bit, that they are being used.

And @DeficitHawk I have to say I'm impressed you're still here.

Patrick says

And DeficitHawk I have to say I'm impressed you're still here.

Happy to be here! could use a little help though... anyone? anyone?

DeficitHawk says

Patrick says

Argument by appealing to authority

I am not appealing to authority. You asked a specific factual question, and I gave you clear evidence as to the answer.

Uh, no, you are still simply dismissing the overwhelmingly obvious answer that Floyd died primarily from the massive amount of fentanyl in his system, not to mention the meth.

Patrick says

I have to hope that there is still some independent thought left in people who watch corporate media. Maybe they do suspect, at least a little bit, that they are being used.

I don't think so. Consider all the lies we've heard from corporate media in just the last 5 years. Donald Trump is a racist, a warmonger, rapist, and misogynist. The Steel Dossier was real, George Floyd was just a totally innocent man that was brutally murdered, the "mostly peaceful protests", the vaccine is "safe and effective", we're in a "pandemic".

These were all pushed, HARD by our "news" media. It's just pure propaganda, and it's EVERYWHERE - did Fox news ever direct their viewership to the bodycam video of his arrest, or demonstrate Floyd was resisting arrest? Did Fox news cover the January 6th protests accurately? They could do a lot to inform their viewers, but they don't. They're not better.

DeficitHawk says

Patrick says

And DeficitHawk I have to say I'm impressed you're still here.

Happy to be here! could use a little help though... anyone? anyone?

Why did you misrepresent my statement?

https://patrick.net/post/1377632/2022-11-10-can-anyone-find-some-democrats-willing?start=447#comment-1900264

I pointed that out, and you ignored it. I would like to know why you did that.

richwicks, when you talk about wiping people along with progeny to destroy their gene pool, its frankly over the line, and I don't think I can have productive discourse with you on the topic any further.

I don't care the rationale why you think this kind of talk is reasonable. It's not. I don't want to use the ignore feature on you yet because I think maybe you will have something productive to say on a different topic and Im willing to wait and see.

DeficitHawk says

richwicks, when you talk about wiping people along with progeny to destroy their gene pool,

PROVIDED they have created a mass genocide event among the human population. Like a 10% or more cull of the population.

That will be the worst genocide in human history, and you think it's appropriate to do nothing about that?

IF this was done, there are 2 choices

1) allow sociopaths that created a genocide to benefit from it
2) wipe them out and remove them from the gene pool, or at least, severely limit that.

IF this was a genocide our world will be in chaos. It will overthrow governments, it will destroy corporations. EVERYBODY will know somebody that was killed by the injection.

Now, if the injections prove to be 100% fatal (or even 50%) fatal or say just 10% fatal, what is to be done? Nothing?

DeficitHawk says

I don't care the rationale why you think this kind of talk is reasonable.

To prevent any future genocide ever again. You don't quite understand the time we live in. What you record on a phone today, can be viewable in equal quality in 2,000 years. Most people don't grasp the enormity of where we are today. History is no longer going to be written by the victors, since it can be recorded permanently, by anybody. The idiots in charge have FINALLY figured this out, which is why there is censorship and attempts to curb free speech.

If we had the technology today, of 1990, but the same nations, the same political landscape, if Russia had invaded Ukraine today, there would be nobody at all in the West capable of explaining the nuance of the situation, and it's a lot more likely we'd be in a real war with Russia by now. If all we had were dial up phones, no internet, just television, chemical film and video tape, nearly nobody would be able to understand the situation. We wouldn't know (for certain) that Victoria Nuland was picking out the next puppet leader in 2014 for Ukraine, the "Russian propaganda" of Ukrainian Nazis would be entirely a myth here.

The common, everyday, jerk can record history today. We can record all the lies of the mainstream "news", we can (and do) catch our elected "leaders" lie to us all the time, we can record it all, and review it, and future generations can review it. If there's a genocide that was committed, we will absolutely know.

Patrick says

you are still simply dismissing the overwhelmingly obvious answer that Floyd died primarily from the massive amount of fentanyl in his system

It seems to me you are dismissing the obvious answer that some guy had a knee on his neck for 9 minutes.

Look, I dont think cops are bad guys or inherently racist. I like cops. I work with the cops in my town all the time, and I wish they had stronger enforcement on a number of problems I have in my neighborhood. AND I review controversies like officer involved shootings, and I do NOT often come to the conclusion that the officer was in the wrong. In fact, I have not seen a case where I thought the officer was in the wrong in my town at all, despite controversial cases where our city council came out against the police department... I mentioned above that I voted against local government officials for wrongly embracing the 'racist cops narrative' in the most recent election... and this was the reason why.

I dont believe the narrative that cops are racist murderers. I dont believe that everyone who gets themselves killed fighting with cops was innocent or should be glorified. Most of the time its very much the opposite. I dont believe that people should be let go if they resist arrest because 'you wouldnt want it to escalate'... I think the police should escalate force proportionally to the resistance until they subdue and arrest the perp. Its a hard job, and some allowance is due for honest errors with good intentions.

But I do not ignore facts and information that I can see, and I don't have such an entrenched political viewpoint that I have to side with a tribe each time there is a controversy. I just look at the facts. 9 minutes with a knee on the neck. Medical examiner says the neck compression killed him. There was no reason for this.

Even if I side with the cops 99% of the time, this one was wrong.

DeficitHawk says

Patrick says

you are still simply dismissing the overwhelmingly obvious answer that Floyd died primarily from the massive amount of fentanyl in his system

It seems to me you are dismissing the obvious answer that some guy had a knee on his neck for 9 minutes.

The media lied about him not resisting arrest, they lied about the drugs that were in his system, they never reported that a year before he did the same stunt (ingesting all the drugs he had on him to prevent a possession charge) a year before, they never revealed what actually happened, they lied about a 2nd autopsy (that never happened, just some pathologist that never inspected the body making claims).

Floyd didn't have any damage done to him by Chauvin. I gave you the video because you can see that he restrained him and didn't crush him.

Floyd was complaining about not being able to breathe BEFORE he was pinned. He was having a reaction to his over dose then.

Floyd has been arrested multiple times, he was lying about having claustrophobia.

richwicks says

The media lied about him not resisting arrest, they lied about the drugs that were in his system, they never reported that a year before he did the same stunt (ingesting all the drugs he had on him to prevent a possession charge) a year befo

I am not the media. I am not defending or arguing in support of any media report you heard. I did not say Floyd didnt resist arrest... I know he did, I watched the video. The whole video... bodycams and bystander cams. He was being very difficult and was definitely resisting arrest.

I dont care what happened the previous year, or what drugs the guy took... I dont care if he falsly said he had claustrophobia... all of those background stories dont change the facts of the event itself. None of this changes the fact that the officer kept a knee on the neck of a man for 9 minutes, even continuing after he knew the person wasnt moving and wasnt breathing.

Floyd wasnt a threat, he was face down and unconscious. The knee on neck was a risky/life threatening restraint, which was not appropriate for the situation according to his chief. The officer knew the person was unconscious, but persisted in keeping the knee on the neck. I can definitely make an allowance for a police officer who was just in a difficult struggle to take some time to calm down and realize the resistance/threat is removed and take a moment to adjust his level of force... but the officer kept the restraint on for way way longer than is reasonable even giving generous allowance for 'cooling down'.

DeficitHawk says

I dont care what happened the previous year, or what drugs the guy took... I dont care if he falsly said he had claustrophobia... all of those background stories dont change the facts of the event itself.

It gives you an idea of what is most likely to have killed him.

Same thing happened to him a year before, but he survived his OD that time and this time, he didn't.

You're ignoring data. It's not PROOF that he died of a drug overdose, it's just circumstantial evidence he did and you insist it's not worthy of even considering.

DeficitHawk says

I am not the media. I am not defending or arguing in support of any media report you heard. I did not say Floyd didnt resist arrest...

I have a good advantage over you. I haven't seen "mainstream media" except in snippets in 2 decades. I completely gave up on it when the "mistook" our way into the Iraq War. It took me to about 2005 or so to realize it's not making "errors", it's just lying. You know how I hear the "mainstream media" today? People mindlessly repeat it. Word for word sometimes, but always the same idea.

DeficitHawk says

He hadnt been resisting arrest for a long time, he was face down and unconscious. He wasnt a threat, he was face down and unconscious. The knee on neck was a risky/life threatening restraint,

Again, blame the police department for that. Chauvin was just following his training.

How do YOU know it was a "risky/life threatening restraint"?

When I first heard about the death of Floyd, I remember thinking "well, he was handcuffed! Why restrain him? What was he going to do? Run away?"

Yes, he would have. The police should have released the video ASAP, not weeks later. The corner was correct as well. Floyd has OD many times before, he just got unlucky on this one.

DeficitHawk says

1) George Floyd case
2) Kyle Rittenhouse case
3) Ahmaud Arbery case

I think the juries got all three exactly right. Gives me some confidence in the justice system.

Of the three court cases I mentioned, Im only catching flack for the first one. Does everyone agree on the other two?

DeficitHawk says

Of the three court cases I mentioned, Im only catching flack for the first one. Does everyone agree on the other two?

Floyd they got wrong, but we're already talking about that.

Kyle Rittenhouse I think was correct, in fact, there shouldn't even have been a trial.

I don't know enough about the Ahmaud Arbery case. There was a lot of misinformation with regard to that case, to the point I just got sick of trying to figure out what was true.

DeficitHawk says

DeficitHawk says

1) George Floyd case
2) Kyle Rittenhouse case
3) Ahmaud Arbery case

I think the juries got all three exactly right. Gives me some confidence in the justice system.

Of the three court cases I mentioned, Im only catching flack for the first one. Does everyone agree on the other two?

1) drug addled thug who died of his drug addiction, got what he deserved after pointing a gun onto a pregnant woman's belly during a home invasion and many more crimes.
2) self defense
3) thug who messed with the wrong people. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

DeficitHawk says

some guy had a knee on his neck for 9 minutes.

Would that have killed him without all the drugs in his system?
DeficitHawk says

I am not defending or arguing in support of any media

Actually, you are.

Chauvin was a victim of politics. Floyd was a thug. Chauvin did not intend to kill Floyd.
https://spectator.org/chauvin-floyd-evidence/

If justice were the goal, prosecutors would have taken two critical steps to assure that the medical testimony supported the charge of murder. The first was to run a controlled experiment to see if Chauvin’s actions could possibly have resulted in the death of George Floyd. The second was to make the court and the defense aware of the potential compromise of its star medical witness, Hennepin County Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker.

Dr. John Dunn did run such an experiment, and he made a video of the same. Dr. Dunn comes well credentialed. He is a former member and chair of the medico-legal committee for the American College of Emergency Physicians, board certified in legal medicine, and co-author with a pathologist of a chapter on forensics for a text published by the American College of Legal Medicine. He has followed the case from the beginning, studied the videos, and reviewed Floyd’s autopsy report.

Not content to speculate, Dr. Dunn enlisted the help of two men to determine whether or not the prone restraint used by Chauvin on Floyd could have asphyxiated and killed him. He recruited a 230-pound man to play the role of Floyd and a 170-pound man to play Chauvin’s role. At the time of the incident, Floyd weighed 223 pounds, and Chauvin, with his gear, weighed about 170.

The Chauvin proxy applied the handcuffs and placed the “suspect” in the prone restraint position. For a 10-minute period, he put his left knee on the man’s neck and shoulder, matching the pressure Chauvin put on Floyd. Throughout the experiment, Dunn used a pulse oximeter to monitor the oxygen level and pulse of the man being held in this prone restraint.

As Dunn attests and the video shows, “The results were that there was no impact on the oxygen level or the pulse of the restrained man for the full 10 minutes, and no ill effects at the time or two days later when he was interviewed.” Arguably, Dunn’s experiment has more evidentiary value than any contrary proof offered by the State.

Dunn believes that Floyd died from cardiac arrhythmia — a lethal heart rhythm. He observes that Floyd was suffering from severe cardiac disease aggravated by the drugs in his system including methamphetamine and fentanyl. “Exertion and excitement from intoxication and the arrest situation along with the amphetamine stimulant drug effects increase the arrhythmia risk,” says Dunn.

As the State’s charging documents make clear, even the officers on the scene were aware that Floyd may have been suffering from the severe effects of intoxicants. While restraining Floyd, rookie officer Thomas Lane said to Chauvin, “I am worried about excited delirium or whatever.” Chauvin responded, “That’s why we have him on his stomach.” Chauvin was acting in the interest of Floyd’s safety in his positioning, not acting to kill him.

DeficitHawk says

1) George Floyd case
2) Kyle Rittenhouse case
3) Ahmaud Arbery case

I think the juries got all three exactly right. Gives me some confidence in the justice system.

I don't think the jury ever needed to see these three cases. They were all politically motivated prosecutions meant to perpetuate the myth that innocent blacks are being killed for no reason.

Onvacation says

I don't think the jury ever needed to see these three cases. They were all politically motivated prosecutions

I dont agree. I think its important to have laws and enforce them.

Rittenhouse didnt commit a crime, but he did kill people, and it is not uncommon to have a trial in self defense cases that kill people. The facts supported the self defense claim and the jury agreed. Though, I do understand the opinion of some who thought this should not have gone to trial... the particular video evidence of Rittenhouse running away from the first person he would shoot was pretty strong evidence that self defense would be justified... and if I had been the prosecutor I would not have brought the case after seeing that.

The other two cases I think definitely needed to go to trial, and I think the juries got all three right.

DeficitHawk says

Absolutely it does. Cardiopulmonary arrest means his heart and lungs stopped functioning. No dispute that his heart and lungs stopped functioning. But the question is Why? Was it caused by a drug overdose? or was it caused by neck compression?

The medical examiner was explicit on the death certificate and in testimony. Neck compression was the primary cause. Drugs was a contributing factor.

So the phrase that a cop cannot be judge, jury and executioner is valid right? I agree with it. Therefore how can one person determine cause of death 100% factually as in the medical examiner? Sure he can be trained. So was Chauvin. Who had better training? Chauvin made a mistake. Maybe the medical examiner made a mistake? Maybe the ME had someone in his ear hoping to make this go away? Maybe he feared for his own life if he gave his honest and educated opinion.

We have ZERO clue if any of what I just said happened. So it's not just fact because a single medical examiner says so. Our judicial system puts so many innocent people behind bars which is something I think you'd agree with. A jury is unlikely to have any medical experts in it. So that doesn't even matter. They're just going to believe what ONE medical examiner testified. The video was damning obviously, BUT both Chauvin and the medical examiner were EXPERTS in their respective field. You cannot discount that the ME was wrong. And don't bring up the past. Did the ME's past get looked into and factored in?

Fact is his lungs and heart stopped working. No way an ME could determine it wasn't the Fentanyl. If he was actually choking him out in the state he was already in, he'd have been dead or out in a minute. People die not moving sitting on a couch from Fentanyl. He was resisting arrest. His BP and heart rate had to be through the roof leading up to the knee. It's a high probability if they let him go he'd collapse dead 10 minutes later.

No single person can prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. It was an unfortunate case. Dealing with the criminal element on a daily basis is not a glorious job. Fact is, Floyd should not have been taking illegal substances. I have myself. Never been arrested. There are ways to have fun with stuff, but he was on a highly dangerous drug and freaked out. Your heart explodes and you stop breathing. He was likely having a heart attacked before the knee if you've witnessed one.

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/the-act-of-submitting-engenders-submission

when you are faced with dire danger and act the coward, you need an excuse for your actions. you never want to admit your fear and your tepid inaction. so you decide "it must not really be dangerous. those people saying it is are crazy." the phrase “conspiracy theorist” often pops up. you tell yourself “it’s not really that oppressive or we would not all be putting up with it.”

and that way you can still see yourself as a good person.

if you accepted the magnitude of the threat, you'd have to do something about it or feel like a craven and a failure for doing nothing. and very few are willing to do that, especially if the cost of standing up is high.

but this means that the very act of compliance makes you more compliant. wearing a mask makes you more likely to do other things you’re told and (perversely) the more you disbelieve that a mask works, the more potent this effect becomes on you. if you believed it protected you, you’d already have a reason. if you don’t, the reason must be “because you have to do what you are told.” ...

the flipside of this is REALLY potent as well because the more you stand up and act, be brave, do something about it, the more you can and will see what’s coming.

your brain wants justification. so it looks and finds. what your brain was not allowing you to see comes into focus because your actions now align with that reality. the more you speak and act in opposition to tyranny, the more you will be able to see the tyranny that is being imposed. ...

if one seeks to control the prevailing mores of a society, what actions are allowed and which banned becomes a critical and dispositive matter:

burn a car dealership and a police station to the ground and it smiles indulgently. maybe you get probation. probably not. those ideals are OK.

loiter peacefully in a buffalo hat in the capitol rotunda, and they drop the world on your head. terrorist. treason. confess and repent and maybe, just maybe, we’ll let you out of prison in 5 years. these ideals are anathema.

WookieMan says

Therefore how can one person determine cause of death 100% factually as in the medical examiner? Sure he can be trained. So was Chauvin. Who had better training? Chauvin made a mistake. Maybe the medical examiner made a mistake?

Oh of course a person can make a mistake. Its totally valid to question the ME report. Its totally valid to get 2nd opinion. Its totally valid to have different doctors debate the observations and conclusions. No one is saying this whole case rested on the text in the death certificate. Certainly I am not.

The reason I am being somewhat pedantic about the death certificate and official cause of death is simple: I am frustrated with people on this forum being loose and inaccurate with facts. I feel like someone makes a false/misleading/inaccurate statement and then I go chase down the actual truth and everyone is fighting me when I bring the facts. Its hard to have honest debate when people wont even acknowledge documented facts. The question asked was "Wasnt the offical cause of death fentanyl overdose?". The cause of death, literally on the death certificate is neck compression during police restraint leading to a complication of heart and lung stoppage. NOT drug overdose. Just getting to agreement on simple fact has taken ~50 comments and counting... STILL no one will acknowledge it. But it is true.

Can the ME have made a mistake? Sure people make mistakes all the time, and normally a case will hinge on more than the opinion of one person who didnt witness the crime.
It should, in order to achieve a standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. And in this case, the main evidence was video evidence of the crime itself, and testimony that the conduct of the officer was inappropriate by his own police chief.

WookieMan says

Maybe the ME had someone in his ear hoping to make this go away? Maybe he feared for his own life if he gave his honest and educated opinion

Could be, but there is no evidence of this, and he testified in court that this didnt happen.

DeficitHawk says

The medical examiner was explicit on the death certificate and in testimony.

@DeficitHawk

Can you show us the death certificate?

Here is George Floyd's autopsy results:

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/ExhibitMtD08282020.pdf

An important part of that is:



Now I read that as:

Autopsy performed May 26 in am. Showed slides/photos
from autopsy. Abrasions or force consistent w(ith) being
on face & on left side. No (illegible) in eyelids. No
bruising in neck or any muscles or injuries to structures
Bruise (R) shoulder, abrasion (C) shoulder. Wrists show
typical marks from handcuffs. Sternum is fractured(?) ...

I told you, our media lies. Track down the original documents and you often discover you've been ruthlessly and repetitively lied to.

richwicks says

Can you show us the death certificate?

I literally posted this in a previous comment. It is literally what the last 50 comments have been discussing. Here it is again.

DeficitHawk says

richwicks says

Can you show us the death certificate?

I literally posted this in a previous comment. It is literally what the last 50 comments have been discussing. Here it is again.

Include link.

Want me to quickly falsify a document? I'm on a computer than can do nuclear bomb simulation, and here's something funny, SO ARE YOU.

It completely contradicts the autopsy report as well. I don't care about a picture, I want to see a source that has something that can possibly be real. We are constantly fed false information, I don't know why people see a fucking PICTURE and run with it thinking "well this must be true!".

No link, no credibility. Simple as that.

richwicks says

No link, no credibility. Simple as that.

If I provide a link, and it confirms that the cause of death as shown in the image below, will you dedicate a full comment to acknowledging that the official cause of death was NOT drug overdose?

DeficitHawk says

richwicks says

No link, no credibility. Simple as that.

If I provide a link, and

Fuck you. If you don't provide a link, I'll simply think you didn't do your due diligence and are repeating something that conforms to your programmed beliefs given to you by a propaganda outlet.

We created HTML links 30 YEARS ago. If you can't fucking use them after 3 decades, FUCK YOU.

Here, you want to see something I regularly consume as information?


original link

And in the description, he includes this:

https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/us-foreign-policy-covid-19-great-reset-all-unseen-tabs

That contains all his sources - you'd see them listed in chronological order 1/4 way down the page.

I'm fucking tired of people making claims, and then insisting I believe them, or passing on "what they heard" and insisting I'm crazy not to believe the same thing. I have the Mueller report downloaded. It's in two parts. Do you have ANY idea how many times people claimed that "but the Mueller Report said X"? My response is "Really? What page?" - They have no idea. Our media lies CONSTANTLY, what is called "fact checkers" are propagandists. Don't you realize this by NOW?

I'm fucking tired of people repeating RUMOR endlessly.

I'm tired of this. If you can't put up, just shut up. "Your" ideas aren't your OWN, they are somebody else's. Could be a FBI spook propagandist, they've been inciting racial hatred for 5 decades at least.

OK richwicks. If you demand links, data and information, but wont acknowledge the facts even if they are provided... then you are not worth my time.

You are my first 'ignore'.

DeficitHawk says

OK richwicks. If you demand links, data and information, but wont acknowledge the facts

Dude, if you can't produce links, I have no reason to even possibly assess if they are "facts".

If, for example, you link back to MSNBC or something, I will IGNORE that. They lie openly and blatantly. Do you have any idea to what extent they lie?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LQMvABRTLQ

Is ANY of that right? It's not "misinformation". Rachael Maddow is the HIGHEST paid "news" broadcaster in the United States.

DeficitHawk says

You are my first 'ignore'.

Oh great, then you don't have to listen to my responses as I point out your logic and reasoning errors but other people can read them. That way, I don't have to deal with your stubbornness in ignoring reality and I can just tear you apart behind your back, because you prefer that. You won't be bothering me with false information I have to refute, I won't have to bother with dealing with logical fallacies or obfuscation of yours.

In this day and age, ignorance and stupidity is a CHOICE. You're no longer relegated to it.

Although I have ignored richwicks because I dont think he is able to acknowledge facts even if there is a link, still, here is the link:

https://apnews.com/article/death-of-george-floyd-racial-injustice-faddce75c2e073a88653dacb0ce3d860

DeficitHawk says

Although I have ignored richwicks because I dont think he is able to acknowledge facts even if there is a link, still, here is the link:

https://apnews.com/article/death-of-george-floyd-racial-injustice-faddce75c2e073a88653dacb0ce3d860

HAHA - APNews! Not a court document, NOT a government document, AP "news"!

AP stands for American Propaganda. It's been worthless since at least 2001. Find that weapons of mass destruction in Iraq yet?

cisTits says

AP also pitched the bullshit RUSSIA BOMBED POLAND propaganda atory.

They pitched the idea that Assad was gassing his own people, that Qaddafi was "about to cause a humanitarian crisis" and that Saddam Hussein had a secret weapons of mass destruction program.

It's all just BS.

I used to scour through news articles until I realized, it's all bullshit and propaganda. Operation Mockingbird was completed sometime in the late 1990's. It was Clinton that ended the prohibition of news agencies from being owned centrally, and it was the FCC that enabled that, headed by Michael Powell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Powell(lobbyist)

Powell was appointed to the FCC by President Bill Clinton on November 3, 1997, and was chosen by President George W. Bush to serve as chair of the commission on January 22, 2001. Powell is the son of former Secretary of State Colin Powell and his wife Alma Powell.

AP has been garbage for a very long time. It, and Reuters, are the two main sources of American propaganda I think today.

Patrick says

Blue says

Thanks Patrick for great analogy.

Actually I kind of regret taking it to the logical extreme now.

It's more like this: "No one is required to follow any law. They are required only if they don't want to be punished for breaking the law."

Actually, we should take the demand for injection of unknown substances to its logical extreme:

DeficitHawk says

Although I have ignored richwicks because I dont think he is able to acknowledge facts even if there is a link, still, here is the link:

https://apnews.com/article/death-of-george-floyd-racial-injustice-faddce75c2e073a88653dacb0ce3d860

ap isn't news, it's a propaganda outlet similar to goebbels or pravda

mell says

DeficitHawk says

Although I have ignored richwicks because I dont think he is able to acknowledge facts even if there is a link, still, here is the link:

https://apnews.com/article/death-of-george-floyd-racial-injustice-faddce75c2e073a88653dacb0ce3d860

ap isn't news, it's a propaganda outlet similar to goebbels or pravda

@DeficitHawk - I went to the court records. I know what kind of "news" agencies we have, and have had, for 2 decades, maybe my entire lifetime. Do your fucking research. I've seen the FIB lie multiple times. They tried to with-hold evidence in the Rittenhouse trial. Fuck them. Your civic duty is to be informed, not to repeat bullshit from our propaganda. Find out if it's true. MAYBE it is, but AP isn't even worth thinking about, neither is Fox News, NewsMax, CNN, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, Breitbart, NY Times, or any of that bullshit.

All corporate "news" in the US is bullshit at this point. We have links galore, where did AP get their "information"? Pulled out of an asshole most likely, but why don't they PROVE they are telling the truth? A link is simple to make.

cisTits says

AP also pitched the bullshit RUSSIA BOMBED POLAND propaganda atory.

mell says

ap isn't news, it's a propaganda outlet similar to goebbels or pravda

OK, it seems that we are still debating facts and information sources rather than policy. So I guess that's where we need to focus, and drill this down to basic truth until we can agree. It isn't going to be possible to debate on policy until we can agree on how to introduce and acknowledge facts. This one is so basic and verifiable... the words on a death certificate.

I have posted images of the death certificate and linked where I got them. I have also linked testimony of the ME confirming what was written on the death certificate. mell and cis response is that they dont trust AP, implying that AP has falsified the information.

mell and cis, please answer directly: Do you believe that the cause of death is as I typed below? OR do you believe that AP and other news agencies falsified these images, and coordinated to falsify their reporting on the ME's court testimony? If it is the latter, can you please say what YOU think the death certificate says, and how you reached that conclusion?

DeficitHawk says

Lets just type out the Medical examiners determinations in full glory so we dont argue which words are more important.
Cause of death; Immediate: Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression
Other contributing conditions: Arteriosclerotic and hyptertensive heart disease; fentanyl intoxication; recent methamphetamine use
Manner: Homicide

DeficitHawk says

cisTits says

AP also pitched the bullshit RUSSIA BOMBED POLAND propaganda atory.

mell says

ap isn't news, it's a propaganda outlet similar to goebbels or pravda

OK, it seems that we are still debating facts and information sources rather than policy. So I guess that's where we need to focus, and drill this down to basic truth until we can agree. It isn't going to be possible to debate on policy until we can agree on how to introduce and acknowledge facts. This one is so basic and verifiable... the words on a death certificate.

I have posted images of the death certificate and linked where I got them. I have also linked testimony of the ME confirming what was written on the death certificate. mell and cis response is that they dont trust AP, implying that AP has fals...

Your ap link states he didn't die of the neck restraint, so they lie blatantly in the headline. It vaguely says the neck restraint "complicated" things, but the cardiac arrest clearly wasn't primarily caused by it. Of course none of this standard procedure had anything to do with race. Ap = goebbels.

There is a difference between stupid and willfully ignorant. Not a big difference, but still.