Your rational analysis fails on the facts of the case regarding George Floyd. You are endorsing a murder conviction born of a politicized court trial. The overwhelming medical evidence demonstrates George was in his death throes & would have died regardless of the lunatic tactic employed by a bad cop. Courts get things wrong for a lot of reasons, but endorsing the irrational conclusion of murder only fuels the already false narrative of systemic police racism completely refuted by any respected scholar familiar with this subject. There is plenty of room for police reform & the training improvements required to reduce tragic killings, but pretending racism has anything to do with it flies against the evidence. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883
If WSJ has it right (by no means certain or even likely), the question is more about whether Floyd could have lived had the cops recognized he was at risk and token appropriate action?
Great to see you on here Michael, looking forward to reading more of your work!
Your rational analysis fails on the facts of the case regarding George Floyd. You are endorsing a murder conviction born of a politicized court trial. The overwhelming medical evidence demonstrates George was in his death throes & would have died regardless of the lunatic tactic employed by a bad cop. Courts get things wrong for a lot of reasons, but endorsing the irrational conclusion of murder only fuels the already false narrative of systemic police racism completely refuted by any respected scholar familiar with this subject. There is plenty of room for police reform & the training improvements required to reduce tragic killings, but pretending racism has anything to do with it flies against the evidence. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883
If WSJ has it right (by no means certain or even likely), the question is more about whether Floyd could have lived had the cops recognized he was at risk and token appropriate action?