(09-01-2020 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 09:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It appears to me that the two sides in this debate are saying different things.

Tanq seems to be saying that the toxicology results could make it hard for the howling mob to get the verdict and punishment they have demonstrated coast to coast for. In fact, it might be that if the DA overcharges, we could get a Zimmermann verdict.

Lad and 93 are saying damn the toxicology, we have video. And we want "justice", which in this case is Chauvin sent to prison for life or longer. And all his racist helpers with him. Just like the rioters have said.

Funny, usually it it left saying the right is ignoring the science. Here the left is saying, to hell with the science. Science is open to interpretation, except climate science.

Now OO's question of a couple months ago arise again - what is the history of the "knee on the neck hold" - has it's usage ever before been related to a death in custody?

What I have not seen is any hint that this happened because Floyd was black. No hint that this happened because the Minneapolis police are racist. That seems to be a foregone conclusion in the minds of the rioters and their supporters. No evidence at all that this was a racist act on the part of anybody.

Included in the motion to dismiss where I pulled the above information are more documents, one per each exhibit.

In those there are various items:

MPD Defensive Tactics training video
MPD Policy training materials
MPD training materials on EXD
MPD Defense and Control Response Training Guide

All of these mention the use of neck restraints.

The one for EXD relates to use of control on detainees showing excited delirium syndrome -- the officer videos of Floyd very much track the symptoms of this, and this is one of the issues that can easily and often occur with large fentanyl dosages.

The picture in this particular manual is quite striking -- if someone can tell me how to directly embed an image into a post I will do so. The picture on page 5, under the heading "They are in handcuffs -- now what" shows the restraint position of three officers kneeling on the suspect. One at the feet, one at the mid back, and one with a knee on the neck.

Well, THAT is not going to make a conviction any easier.

But they have the video - of a cop doing exactly as the manual suggests.

As a gambler, I have to be very careful of judging my choices by the results. Did I make a bad fold? I cannot say it was was bad, just because subsequent cards would have made me a winner. Did I make a bad call? I cannot say it was bad because subsequent cards made me a loser. In cards, I have to judge each action by the situation at the time I made the action, not by how it turned out.

Floyd ended up dead. Probably the only thing everybody can agree on. But was there any reason, at any time, by any person, to think that would be the result? I think not. I think that is judging the action by the results. Possibly, the prosecution can argue that in the judgement of an average cop, 8:46 was too much - but then where is the cut off? six minutes? eight minutes? 8:45?

Probably when it became obvious that he was no longer a threat to resist?

(09-01-2020 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 09:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 09:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It appears to me that the two sides in this debate are saying different things.

Tanq seems to be saying that the toxicology results could make it hard for the howling mob to get the verdict and punishment they have demonstrated coast to coast for. In fact, it might be that if the DA overcharges, we could get a Zimmermann verdict.

Lad and 93 are saying damn the toxicology, we have video. And we want "justice", which in this case is Chauvin sent to prison for life or longer. And all his racist helpers with him. Just like the rioters have said.

I'm not saying "damn the toxicology"... I'm saying that it is simply one element in this question as to whether Chauvin killed George Floyd. I have said repeatedly that having Fentanyl in his system could make it more likely that Floyd died during this interaction. I'm also saying that I don't believe that Fentanyl is in his system was likely his cause of death.

I understand that the Fentanyl will create problems for the prosecution. I have already said that I don't believe that Chauvin tried to murder Floyd but I believe that he will be found guilty of a lesser charge. I don't see where you can pin a racist motive on this one without further proof (I have said this before as well).

Please point out where I "demanded justice", OO. Please point out where I said that Chauvin was racist. You, again, have ascribed things to me that I have never said.

I am ascribing them to the crowd you stand with, 93 - BLM, the "protesters", and the Biden voters camp. I agree you stand out on the far right of that crowd - fairer and more balanced than the crowd you run with.

Because I tend to vote Democrat doesn't mean that I "stand with" the rioters. Just like the fact that you tend to vote Republican doesn't mean that you stand with white supremacists who are agitating for a race war.

Quote:Do you think I am wrong? If that happens will you be one of the lonely voices on the left saying loudly it was a good deal? Be careful, you may make yourself a target if you speak too well and too loudly that it was a good deal. Or will you quietly go about your morning coffee as cities burn?

In an ideal world, no person - PERSON! - should ever die in custody, or be shot by cops, but we don't live in that world. I don't see any evidence that Floyd, or Blake, or Rice or Garner were the result of of racism run wild and loose. But we keep hearing the same names over and over. Ten years from now, we will be hearing the names Blake and Floyd. Screw the evidence, it was racism, that's all we have heard and will hear.

No doubt that's the way it used to be. I remember Chaney, and Goodwin, and Schwerner. I have seen the pictures (black and white!) of lynchings. But there is little evidence that it is the same now. Only lynchings I see are the legal lynchings of cops. Yet we have rioting coast to coast because some people say it is racism.. I am tired of the this fabrication every time a black man suffers at the hands of white cops, that it was all just unfettered racism. Stand up against this kneejerk reaction, unless you prefer kneeling.

And then a couple of guilty white liberals here dispute the meaning of the toxicology. Sounds like more of the same.

We're disputing the interpretation of the toxicology. I think that's fair game. Especially when this dispute started with the claim that Floyd took 11 mg of Fentanyl.

Quote:Sorry, 93, you sound like a reasoned and reasonable man, easily in the top 1% of liberals. This is likely my last rodeo. I am very sorry to see the world in this mess as I leave it. Very frustrating to see the decades of MLK and peaceful marches and incremental progress result in mindless and pointless rioting.

I hate these riots as well. I think everybody here supports peaceful protest. I'm pretty sure that nobody here is in favor of rioting/looting/violence. These riots take away from the underlying issue that was being protested in the first place. I do wish the Democrats came out more forcefully against the riots.

Silence is compliance. Where have I heard that before>

I figured you would go to white supremacists. They choose to vote GOP, but they are not the backbone of the GOP, nor are they wanted by the GOP. The people protesting and rioting are the backbone of the Democratic Party. They are one reason Biden HAD to pick a black woman as VP. Don't compare a few hundreds of WS to a few millions of agitators. Democrats lose the SJWs, they lose. GOP loses the WS, they celebrate

As for the 11 gms +/- of Fentanyl, that does not seem to be in dispute. But tell, me, why are y'all disputing the toxicology? It seems to me you are combating anything that might lessen or eliminate Chauvin's legal culpability, and promoting the video.

(09-01-2020 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And, the meeting is being described as occurring on June 1.

The typewritten notes state that the meeting being described occurred 'On May 31, 2020 at 7:30 PM'. Th


I misunderstood that the hand written document and the memo were from different lawyers since they were dated the same.

????

(09-01-2020 10:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 09:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 09:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It appears to me that the two sides in this debate are saying different things.

Tanq seems to be saying that the toxicology results could make it hard for the howling mob to get the verdict and punishment they have demonstrated coast to coast for. In fact, it might be that if the DA overcharges, we could get a Zimmermann verdict.

Lad and 93 are saying damn the toxicology, we have video. And we want "justice", which in this case is Chauvin sent to prison for life or longer. And all his racist helpers with him. Just like the rioters have said.

I'm not saying "damn the toxicology"... I'm saying that it is simply one element in this question as to whether Chauvin killed George Floyd. I have said repeatedly that having Fentanyl in his system could make it more likely that Floyd died during this interaction. I'm also saying that I don't believe that Fentanyl is in his system was likely his cause of death.

I understand that the Fentanyl will create problems for the prosecution. I have already said that I don't believe that Chauvin tried to murder Floyd but I believe that he will be found guilty of a lesser charge. I don't see where you can pin a racist motive on this one without further proof (I have said this before as well).

Please point out where I "demanded justice", OO. Please point out where I said that Chauvin was racist. You, again, have ascribed things to me that I have never said.

I am ascribing them to the crowd you stand with, 93 - BLM, the "protesters", and the Biden voters camp. I agree you stand out on the far right of that crowd - fairer and more balanced than the crowd you run with.

Because I tend to vote Democrat doesn't mean that I "stand with" the rioters. Just like the fact that you tend to vote Republican doesn't mean that you stand with white supremacists who are agitating for a race war.

Quote:Do you think I am wrong? If that happens will you be one of the lonely voices on the left saying loudly it was a good deal? Be careful, you may make yourself a target if you speak too well and too loudly that it was a good deal. Or will you quietly go about your morning coffee as cities burn?

In an ideal world, no person - PERSON! - should ever die in custody, or be shot by cops, but we don't live in that world. I don't see any evidence that Floyd, or Blake, or Rice or Garner were the result of of racism run wild and loose. But we keep hearing the same names over and over. Ten years from now, we will be hearing the names Blake and Floyd. Screw the evidence, it was racism, that's all we have heard and will hear.

No doubt that's the way it used to be. I remember Chaney, and Goodwin, and Schwerner. I have seen the pictures (black and white!) of lynchings. But there is little evidence that it is the same now. Only lynchings I see are the legal lynchings of cops. Yet we have rioting coast to coast because some people say it is racism.. I am tired of the this fabrication every time a black man suffers at the hands of white cops, that it was all just unfettered racism. Stand up against this kneejerk reaction, unless you prefer kneeling.

And then a couple of guilty white liberals here dispute the meaning of the toxicology. Sounds like more of the same.

We're disputing the interpretation of the toxicology. I think that's fair game. Especially when this dispute started with the claim that Floyd took 11 mg of Fentanyl.

Quote:Sorry, 93, you sound like a reasoned and reasonable man, easily in the top 1% of liberals. This is likely my last rodeo. I am very sorry to see the world in this mess as I leave it. Very frustrating to see the decades of MLK and peaceful marches and incremental progress result in mindless and pointless rioting.

I hate these riots as well. I think everybody here supports peaceful protest. I'm pretty sure that nobody here is in favor of rioting/looting/violence. These riots take away from the underlying issue that was being protested in the first place. I do wish the Democrats came out more forcefully against the riots.

Silence is compliance. Where have I heard that before>

I figured you would go to white supremacists. They choose to vote GOP, but they are not the backbone of the GOP, nor are they wanted by the GOP. The people protesting and rioting are the backbone of the Democratic Party. They are one reason Biden HAD to pick a black woman as VP. Don't compare a few hundreds of WS to a few millions of agitators. Democrats lose the SJWs, they lose. GOP loses the WS, they celebrate

You don't like to be associated with that group, I don't like to be associated with rioters/looters. There are not millions of rioters/looters. Protesters /= rioters and you should not group the two together.

Quote:As for the 11 gms +/- of Fentanyl, that does not seem to be in dispute. But tell, me, why are y'all disputing the toxicology? It seems to me you are combating anything that might lessen or eliminate Chauvin's legal culpability, and promoting the video.

Well... it was couched as an 11 mg dose (not 11 ng/ml concentration) which is funny because the person who made this error then made snarky comments to Lad to the effect of "in all your medical expertise". I'm not disputing the toxicology... I'm questioning how big of a role Fentanyl played in his death. I have read many experts dispute it as well.

It seems that you guys combat any possibility that Chauvin was in any way responsible for Floyd's death.

(09-01-2020 10:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Very similar here. My comments are that these tox screens and evals are not conclusive that fentanyl either killed Floyd, or even played a role.

Actually that's not entirely true. You've had an MD and director of numerous facilities, someone who would make just this sort of determination tell you that the presence of ANY amount of Fentanyl, especially an even possibly lethal amount would suppress respirations, and that what wouldn't kill the average person, might kill this one as a result.

It played a role. The only real question is, was it foreseeable or likely. That may not be the legal wording, but it's the idea. Should the cop have known and therefore done something different.

(09-01-2020 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Because I tend to vote Democrat doesn't mean that I "stand with" the rioters. Just like the fact that you tend to vote Republican doesn't mean that you stand with white supremacists who are agitating for a race war.

I wish more people felt this way.

(09-01-2020 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The picture in this particular manual is quite striking -- if someone can tell me how to directly embed an image into a post I will do so. The picture on page 5, under the heading "They are in handcuffs -- now what" shows the restraint position of three officers kneeling on the suspect. One at the feet, one at the mid back, and one with a knee on the neck.

Well, THAT is not going to make a conviction any easier.

But they have the video - of a cop doing exactly as the manual suggests.

As a gambler, I have to be very careful of judging my choices by the results. Did I make a bad fold? I cannot say it was was bad, just because subsequent cards would have made me a winner. Did I make a bad call? I cannot say it was bad because subsequent cards made me a loser. In cards, I have to judge each action by the situation at the time I made the action, not by how it turned out.

Floyd ended up dead. Probably the only thing everybody can agree on. But was there any reason, at any time, by any person, to think that would be the result? I think not. I think that is judging the action by the results. Possibly, the prosecution can argue that in the judgement of an average cop, 8:46 was too much - but then where is the cut off? six minutes? eight minutes? 8:45?

My position, like 93's all along has been the amount of time. Based on COPS (once again, sorry... it's my only data point for this) the cops with knees to the upper torso seems to be taught everywhere... COPS shows police from all across the country, and on every show, sometimes multiple times, you see this. Obviously death doesn't result often, otherwise it would have been banned long ago.

From my perspective, it's not about 8 minutes or 3 minutes, but about alternatives. What I see on COPS is that almost the moment the guy is cuffed, much of the physical restraint stops. The person is almost always made to sit up and/or put into a car fairly quickly. This is why the time stands out to me.... because it seems that there are numerous opportunities for him to stop. Even if the guy is still struggling, they seem to let him up and then tackle him again if necessary to add more restraints (a hobbler?)

I think they guy did exactly what he was taught to do and has done hundreds of times without incident over iirc 20+ years on the force there. I don't know what made him feel it was necessary to keep the pressure on. It is possible that this is a rule unique to his jurisdiction... and thus a systemic problem... but even if so, unless the position is that there is something about being black that makes one more susceptible to Fentanyl or upper torso restraints, then its not systemic RACISM. Maybe there was something going on where the cop felt this extra restraint was necessary and no other options were available. I'd need to hear that.

(09-01-2020 10:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And, the meeting is being described as occurring on June 1.

The typewritten notes state that the meeting being described occurred 'On May 31, 2020 at 7:30 PM'. Th


I misunderstood that the hand written document and the memo were from different lawyers since they were dated the same.

????

The typed up memo is dated June 1. In the intro it states it is from a meeting on May 31 - I either missed that in the text or didn’t connect the dots.

The language in the handwritten memo and the typed memo are so similar, and the dates of production the same, that it seemed like they were notes and corresponding memo. Tanq cleated that up.

(09-01-2020 10:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 01:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 09:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  OK... trying to understand this... don't freak out on me, Tanq.

I assume the first two pages are lawyer's notes from the meeting? These clearly say "could".

And then in the typewritten notes it's the same sentence describing Baker's opinion however this time it's "would".

Obviously "would"/"could" is a big deal... why the change?

Who are these attorneys? The ones representing Chauvin?

The lawyers with the typewritten notes are the Hennepin County prosecutors. That makes it far more impactful.

Second the handwritten notes are from a different session. The handwritten notes detail that 'Present were Matt Frank, David Voight, John Keller, Dionne Dodd, Beth Stark.' Further, in the handwritten notes they '[m]et w/ Dr Baker at AGO' (I presume Atty General's Office). And, the meeting is being described as occurring on June 1.

The typewritten notes state that the meeting being described occurred 'On May 31, 2020 at 7:30 PM'. The meeting that the typewritten notes came from include Dr Baker, 'Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Patrick Lofton and [the author, Amy Sweasy].' The meeting that the typewritten notes emanated from was done on Microsoft Teams and that 'All three of us were in different locations.'

The first two pages are notes from a meeting with the state AG Office attorneys. The typewritten notes are from a previous meeting with the Hennepin County DA office.

The issue of the handwritten notes and the typewritten notes is not one of a transcription error between the two.

As for 'why the change' --- that is a question for Dr Baker.

Thanks for the clarification there - this would have helped our back and forth get nipped in the bud much earlier. I misunderstood that the hand written document and the memo were from different lawyers since they were dated the same.

Not my problem you really didnt read it fully. The differences in the memos are plain as day, tbh. Im not the one leaping to false assumptions without fully looking at the link, let alone even noting where the direct quotes came from. Please dont pin your misunderstanding on me or my actions.

Oof - looks like I’ll just never admit my misunderstanding or mistakes again if you’re going to be a massive ******* about it.

(09-01-2020 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 09:31 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm not saying "damn the toxicology"... I'm saying that it is simply one element in this question as to whether Chauvin killed George Floyd. I have said repeatedly that having Fentanyl in his system could make it more likely that Floyd died during this interaction. I'm also saying that I don't believe that Fentanyl is in his system was likely his cause of death.

I understand that the Fentanyl will create problems for the prosecution. I have already said that I don't believe that Chauvin tried to murder Floyd but I believe that he will be found guilty of a lesser charge. I don't see where you can pin a racist motive on this one without further proof (I have said this before as well).

Please point out where I "demanded justice", OO. Please point out where I said that Chauvin was racist. You, again, have ascribed things to me that I have never said.

I am ascribing them to the crowd you stand with, 93 - BLM, the "protesters", and the Biden voters camp. I agree you stand out on the far right of that crowd - fairer and more balanced than the crowd you run with.

Because I tend to vote Democrat doesn't mean that I "stand with" the rioters. Just like the fact that you tend to vote Republican doesn't mean that you stand with white supremacists who are agitating for a race war.

Quote:Do you think I am wrong? If that happens will you be one of the lonely voices on the left saying loudly it was a good deal? Be careful, you may make yourself a target if you speak too well and too loudly that it was a good deal. Or will you quietly go about your morning coffee as cities burn?

In an ideal world, no person - PERSON! - should ever die in custody, or be shot by cops, but we don't live in that world. I don't see any evidence that Floyd, or Blake, or Rice or Garner were the result of of racism run wild and loose. But we keep hearing the same names over and over. Ten years from now, we will be hearing the names Blake and Floyd. Screw the evidence, it was racism, that's all we have heard and will hear.

No doubt that's the way it used to be. I remember Chaney, and Goodwin, and Schwerner. I have seen the pictures (black and white!) of lynchings. But there is little evidence that it is the same now. Only lynchings I see are the legal lynchings of cops. Yet we have rioting coast to coast because some people say it is racism.. I am tired of the this fabrication every time a black man suffers at the hands of white cops, that it was all just unfettered racism. Stand up against this kneejerk reaction, unless you prefer kneeling.

And then a couple of guilty white liberals here dispute the meaning of the toxicology. Sounds like more of the same.

We're disputing the interpretation of the toxicology. I think that's fair game. Especially when this dispute started with the claim that Floyd took 11 mg of Fentanyl.

Quote:Sorry, 93, you sound like a reasoned and reasonable man, easily in the top 1% of liberals. This is likely my last rodeo. I am very sorry to see the world in this mess as I leave it. Very frustrating to see the decades of MLK and peaceful marches and incremental progress result in mindless and pointless rioting.

I hate these riots as well. I think everybody here supports peaceful protest. I'm pretty sure that nobody here is in favor of rioting/looting/violence. These riots take away from the underlying issue that was being protested in the first place. I do wish the Democrats came out more forcefully against the riots.

Silence is compliance. Where have I heard that before>

I figured you would go to white supremacists. They choose to vote GOP, but they are not the backbone of the GOP, nor are they wanted by the GOP. The people protesting and rioting are the backbone of the Democratic Party. They are one reason Biden HAD to pick a black woman as VP. Don't compare a few hundreds of WS to a few millions of agitators. Democrats lose the SJWs, they lose. GOP loses the WS, they celebrate

You don't like to be associated with that group, I don't like to be associated with rioters/looters. There are not millions of rioters/looters. Protesters /= rioters and you should not group the two together.

Rioters are a subgroup of protesters. Not all protesters are rioters - you for instance - but all rioters are protesters, or just criminals using the protesters as cover. They are not a "tiny" subgroup. As for the numbers, I can only estimate from the newscasts, as the census is not taken on them. I guess you ciould make the case it ia only a dozen people in each of the dozens of locations. Not what I see on TV, though.

Quote:

Quote:As for the 11 gms +/- of Fentanyl, that does not seem to be in dispute. But tell, me, why are y'all disputing the toxicology? It seems to me you are combating anything that might lessen or eliminate Chauvin's legal culpability, and promoting the video.

Well... it was couched as an 11 mg dose (not 11 ng/ml concentration) which is funny because the person who made this error then made snarky comments to Lad to the effect of "in all your medical expertise". I'm not disputing the toxicology... I'm questioning how big of a role Fentanyl played in his death. I have read many experts dispute it as well.

It seems that you guys combat any possibility that Chauvin was in any way responsible for Floyd's death.

"...in any way...". Quite a reach there, 93. Good thing you used the "seems".

I was not a tech major at Rice, so I don't know 11 of this or 11 of that. What I do know is that it will be introduced at trial to offer reasonable doubt. I also don't know how his death can be pinned 100% on the kneehold. Or even 60% or 10%. it is because of these things that I think a plea deal will be offered. End of story.

If you want my opinion (you haven't asked for it yet), I don't know if Chauvin was legally responsible for Floyd's death. I don't know if he is maybe/probably guilty of lesser offenses (lesser than murder). What it seems like to me is that you and Lad are fighting any interpretation of other contributing factors that could lessen the impact of the video. That is the job of the DA, I think.

As I said multiple times, it seems you/Lad are fighting Tanq, when all Tanq has said is that this toxicology report will not help the prosecution, if fact may hurt it.

Reasonable doubt is not racist.

(09-01-2020 11:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am ascribing them to the crowd you stand with, 93 - BLM, the "protesters", and the Biden voters camp. I agree you stand out on the far right of that crowd - fairer and more balanced than the crowd you run with.

Because I tend to vote Democrat doesn't mean that I "stand with" the rioters. Just like the fact that you tend to vote Republican doesn't mean that you stand with white supremacists who are agitating for a race war.

Quote:Do you think I am wrong? If that happens will you be one of the lonely voices on the left saying loudly it was a good deal? Be careful, you may make yourself a target if you speak too well and too loudly that it was a good deal. Or will you quietly go about your morning coffee as cities burn?

In an ideal world, no person - PERSON! - should ever die in custody, or be shot by cops, but we don't live in that world. I don't see any evidence that Floyd, or Blake, or Rice or Garner were the result of of racism run wild and loose. But we keep hearing the same names over and over. Ten years from now, we will be hearing the names Blake and Floyd. Screw the evidence, it was racism, that's all we have heard and will hear.

No doubt that's the way it used to be. I remember Chaney, and Goodwin, and Schwerner. I have seen the pictures (black and white!) of lynchings. But there is little evidence that it is the same now. Only lynchings I see are the legal lynchings of cops. Yet we have rioting coast to coast because some people say it is racism.. I am tired of the this fabrication every time a black man suffers at the hands of white cops, that it was all just unfettered racism. Stand up against this kneejerk reaction, unless you prefer kneeling.

And then a couple of guilty white liberals here dispute the meaning of the toxicology. Sounds like more of the same.

We're disputing the interpretation of the toxicology. I think that's fair game. Especially when this dispute started with the claim that Floyd took 11 mg of Fentanyl.

Quote:Sorry, 93, you sound like a reasoned and reasonable man, easily in the top 1% of liberals. This is likely my last rodeo. I am very sorry to see the world in this mess as I leave it. Very frustrating to see the decades of MLK and peaceful marches and incremental progress result in mindless and pointless rioting.

I hate these riots as well. I think everybody here supports peaceful protest. I'm pretty sure that nobody here is in favor of rioting/looting/violence. These riots take away from the underlying issue that was being protested in the first place. I do wish the Democrats came out more forcefully against the riots.

Silence is compliance. Where have I heard that before>

I figured you would go to white supremacists. They choose to vote GOP, but they are not the backbone of the GOP, nor are they wanted by the GOP. The people protesting and rioting are the backbone of the Democratic Party. They are one reason Biden HAD to pick a black woman as VP. Don't compare a few hundreds of WS to a few millions of agitators. Democrats lose the SJWs, they lose. GOP loses the WS, they celebrate

You don't like to be associated with that group, I don't like to be associated with rioters/looters. There are not millions of rioters/looters. Protesters /= rioters and you should not group the two together.

Rioters are a subgroup of protesters. Not all protesters are rioters - you for instance - but all rioters are protesters, or just criminals using the protesters as cover. They are not a "tiny" subgroup. As for the numbers, I can only estimate from the newscasts, as the census is not taken on them. I guess you ciould make the case it ia only a dozen people in each of the dozens of locations. Not what I see on TV, though.

Quote:

Quote:As for the 11 gms +/- of Fentanyl, that does not seem to be in dispute. But tell, me, why are y'all disputing the toxicology? It seems to me you are combating anything that might lessen or eliminate Chauvin's legal culpability, and promoting the video.

Well... it was couched as an 11 mg dose (not 11 ng/ml concentration) which is funny because the person who made this error then made snarky comments to Lad to the effect of "in all your medical expertise". I'm not disputing the toxicology... I'm questioning how big of a role Fentanyl played in his death. I have read many experts dispute it as well.

It seems that you guys combat any possibility that Chauvin was in any way responsible for Floyd's death.

"...in any way...". Quite a reach there, 93. Good thing you used the "seems".

I was not a tech major at Rice, so I don't know 11 of this or 11 of that. What I do know is that it will be introduced at trial to offer reasonable doubt. I also don't know how his death can be pinned 100% on the kneehold. Or even 60% or 10%. it is because of these things that I think a plea deal will be offered. End of story.

I don't think I have ever disagreed with anything here.

Quote:If you want my opinion (you haven't asked for it yet), I don't know if Chauvin was legally responsible for Floyd's death. I don't know if he is maybe/probably guilty of lesser offenses (lesser than murder). What it seems like to me is that you and Lad are fighting any interpretation of other contributing factors that could lessen the impact of the video. That is the job of the DA, I think.

As I said multiple times, it seems you/Lad are fighting Tanq, when all Tanq has said is that this toxicology report will not help the prosecution, if fact may hurt it.

Tanq initially freaked out when I made a post that titled "the killing of George Floyd". He made the argument that Floyd had a heart attack. When this was proved false, he then made the argument that Fentanyl was the issue. So he has been fighting the notion that Chauvin is responsible from the get-go.

I agree that the tox report (and the fresher blood draw) will not help the prosecution.

Quote:

Reasonable doubt is not racist.

I've probably typed five times that I can't put racism on Chauvin's actions.

(09-01-2020 11:16 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 11:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Because I tend to vote Democrat doesn't mean that I "stand with" the rioters. Just like the fact that you tend to vote Republican doesn't mean that you stand with white supremacists who are agitating for a race war.


We're disputing the interpretation of the toxicology. I think that's fair game. Especially when this dispute started with the claim that Floyd took 11 mg of Fentanyl.


I hate these riots as well. I think everybody here supports peaceful protest. I'm pretty sure that nobody here is in favor of rioting/looting/violence. These riots take away from the underlying issue that was being protested in the first place. I do wish the Democrats came out more forcefully against the riots.

Silence is compliance. Where have I heard that before>

I figured you would go to white supremacists. They choose to vote GOP, but they are not the backbone of the GOP, nor are they wanted by the GOP. The people protesting and rioting are the backbone of the Democratic Party. They are one reason Biden HAD to pick a black woman as VP. Don't compare a few hundreds of WS to a few millions of agitators. Democrats lose the SJWs, they lose. GOP loses the WS, they celebrate

You don't like to be associated with that group, I don't like to be associated with rioters/looters. There are not millions of rioters/looters. Protesters /= rioters and you should not group the two together.

Rioters are a subgroup of protesters. Not all protesters are rioters - you for instance - but all rioters are protesters, or just criminals using the protesters as cover. They are not a "tiny" subgroup. As for the numbers, I can only estimate from the newscasts, as the census is not taken on them. I guess you ciould make the case it ia only a dozen people in each of the dozens of locations. Not what I see on TV, though.

Quote:

Quote:As for the 11 gms +/- of Fentanyl, that does not seem to be in dispute. But tell, me, why are y'all disputing the toxicology? It seems to me you are combating anything that might lessen or eliminate Chauvin's legal culpability, and promoting the video.

Well... it was couched as an 11 mg dose (not 11 ng/ml concentration) which is funny because the person who made this error then made snarky comments to Lad to the effect of "in all your medical expertise". I'm not disputing the toxicology... I'm questioning how big of a role Fentanyl played in his death. I have read many experts dispute it as well.

It seems that you guys combat any possibility that Chauvin was in any way responsible for Floyd's death.

"...in any way...". Quite a reach there, 93. Good thing you used the "seems".

I was not a tech major at Rice, so I don't know 11 of this or 11 of that. What I do know is that it will be introduced at trial to offer reasonable doubt. I also don't know how his death can be pinned 100% on the kneehold. Or even 60% or 10%. it is because of these things that I think a plea deal will be offered. End of story.

I don't think I have ever disagreed with anything here.

Quote:If you want my opinion (you haven't asked for it yet), I don't know if Chauvin was legally responsible for Floyd's death. I don't know if he is maybe/probably guilty of lesser offenses (lesser than murder). What it seems like to me is that you and Lad are fighting any interpretation of other contributing factors that could lessen the impact of the video. That is the job of the DA, I think.

As I said multiple times, it seems you/Lad are fighting Tanq, when all Tanq has said is that this toxicology report will not help the prosecution, if fact may hurt it.

Tanq initially freaked out when I made a post that titled "the killing of George Floyd". He made the argument that Floyd had a heart attack. When this was proved false, he then made the argument that Fentanyl was the issue. So he has been fighting the notion that Chauvin is responsible from the get-go.

I agree that the tox report (and the fresher blood draw) will not help the prosecution.

Quote:

Reasonable doubt is not racist.

I've probably typed five times that I can't put racism on Chauvin's actions.

But your side can, and does I expect more of this crap in a Biden America, and you will vote for that.

Got to break off for a while.

(09-01-2020 11:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 11:16 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 11:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Silence is compliance. Where have I heard that before>

I figured you would go to white supremacists. They choose to vote GOP, but they are not the backbone of the GOP, nor are they wanted by the GOP. The people protesting and rioting are the backbone of the Democratic Party. They are one reason Biden HAD to pick a black woman as VP. Don't compare a few hundreds of WS to a few millions of agitators. Democrats lose the SJWs, they lose. GOP loses the WS, they celebrate

You don't like to be associated with that group, I don't like to be associated with rioters/looters. There are not millions of rioters/looters. Protesters /= rioters and you should not group the two together.

Rioters are a subgroup of protesters. Not all protesters are rioters - you for instance - but all rioters are protesters, or just criminals using the protesters as cover. They are not a "tiny" subgroup. As for the numbers, I can only estimate from the newscasts, as the census is not taken on them. I guess you ciould make the case it ia only a dozen people in each of the dozens of locations. Not what I see on TV, though.

Quote:

Quote:As for the 11 gms +/- of Fentanyl, that does not seem to be in dispute. But tell, me, why are y'all disputing the toxicology? It seems to me you are combating anything that might lessen or eliminate Chauvin's legal culpability, and promoting the video.

Well... it was couched as an 11 mg dose (not 11 ng/ml concentration) which is funny because the person who made this error then made snarky comments to Lad to the effect of "in all your medical expertise". I'm not disputing the toxicology... I'm questioning how big of a role Fentanyl played in his death. I have read many experts dispute it as well.

It seems that you guys combat any possibility that Chauvin was in any way responsible for Floyd's death.

"...in any way...". Quite a reach there, 93. Good thing you used the "seems".

I was not a tech major at Rice, so I don't know 11 of this or 11 of that. What I do know is that it will be introduced at trial to offer reasonable doubt. I also don't know how his death can be pinned 100% on the kneehold. Or even 60% or 10%. it is because of these things that I think a plea deal will be offered. End of story.

I don't think I have ever disagreed with anything here.

Quote:If you want my opinion (you haven't asked for it yet), I don't know if Chauvin was legally responsible for Floyd's death. I don't know if he is maybe/probably guilty of lesser offenses (lesser than murder). What it seems like to me is that you and Lad are fighting any interpretation of other contributing factors that could lessen the impact of the video. That is the job of the DA, I think.

As I said multiple times, it seems you/Lad are fighting Tanq, when all Tanq has said is that this toxicology report will not help the prosecution, if fact may hurt it.

Tanq initially freaked out when I made a post that titled "the killing of George Floyd". He made the argument that Floyd had a heart attack. When this was proved false, he then made the argument that Fentanyl was the issue. So he has been fighting the notion that Chauvin is responsible from the get-go.

I agree that the tox report (and the fresher blood draw) will not help the prosecution.

Quote:

Reasonable doubt is not racist.

I've probably typed five times that I can't put racism on Chauvin's actions.

But your side can, and does I expect more of this crap in a Biden America, and you will vote for that.

Man I see a lot of of crap in our current Trump America that you will vote for.

(09-01-2020 11:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Got to break off for a while.

Good timing. I do as well. Have a good rest of your day.

(09-01-2020 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Well... it was couched as an 11 mg dose (not 11 ng/ml concentration) which is funny because the person who made this error then made snarky comments to Lad to the effect of "in all your medical expertise".

And I told you (and this board) at the the time I was denoting issues from memory, something I had read about a day or two before, and from very 'communication' challenged area. I guess you skipped that portion.

The horror of denoting 11mg for 11 ng, or 11 pentagrams. The temerity of not remembering the absolute precise units 48 hours previous, after a 2 hour road trip to the outer rural areas, after 8 hours on a bobcat doing grading work, and ona cell connection that sputters at best.

And yes, when lad substitutes his point of view on a toxicology report and an opinion of the role of the results therein for a highly trained Medical Examiner -- I do think that rather stupid and ill informed. And when he opines that 'obviously' it was only a word change based solely at the lawyer end, with zero basis for that, I also think that in the same manner. The horrors of that.

The difference between your two examples above is strikingly massive, if you bother to stop and ponder it a micro (nano)(femto)(penta) second.

Yeah, and you wonder why I think some are absolute tools......

(09-01-2020 10:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 01:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 09:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  OK... trying to understand this... don't freak out on me, Tanq.

I assume the first two pages are lawyer's notes from the meeting? These clearly say "could".

And then in the typewritten notes it's the same sentence describing Baker's opinion however this time it's "would".

Obviously "would"/"could" is a big deal... why the change?

Who are these attorneys? The ones representing Chauvin?

The lawyers with the typewritten notes are the Hennepin County prosecutors. That makes it far more impactful.

Second the handwritten notes are from a different session. The handwritten notes detail that 'Present were Matt Frank, David Voight, John Keller, Dionne Dodd, Beth Stark.' Further, in the handwritten notes they '[m]et w/ Dr Baker at AGO' (I presume Atty General's Office). And, the meeting is being described as occurring on June 1.

The typewritten notes state that the meeting being described occurred 'On May 31, 2020 at 7:30 PM'. The meeting that the typewritten notes came from include Dr Baker, 'Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Patrick Lofton and [the author, Amy Sweasy].' The meeting that the typewritten notes emanated from was done on Microsoft Teams and that 'All three of us were in different locations.'

The first two pages are notes from a meeting with the state AG Office attorneys. The typewritten notes are from a previous meeting with the Hennepin County DA office.

The issue of the handwritten notes and the typewritten notes is not one of a transcription error between the two.

As for 'why the change' --- that is a question for Dr Baker.

Thanks for the clarification there - this would have helped our back and forth get nipped in the bud much earlier. I misunderstood that the hand written document and the memo were from different lawyers since they were dated the same.

Not my problem you really didnt read it fully. The differences in the memos are plain as day, tbh. Im not the one leaping to false assumptions without fully looking at the link, let alone even noting where the direct quotes came from. Please dont pin your misunderstanding on me or my actions.

Oof - looks like I’ll just never admit my misunderstanding or mistakes again if you’re going to be a massive ******* about it.

lad, the point is you decided not to treat my direct quotes as such at the outset in the first place.

Then you kept making some very baseless comments about what apparently obviously happened.

And finally, while the dates confused you, you overlook that the actors, places, and means of meeting in the two portions of the linked document were at great variance with one another.

So yes, when you 'school' me that 'I should have pointed that out to you earlier' is a tad galling. Nothing kept you from charging willy nilly down whatever rabbit hole sounded good to you --- and when it turns out the basic facts in the two sections dont even match, you make a comment that I took as 'well dude, you shouldve pointed that out well before hand'.

Honestly, nothing prevented you from finding an exact quote. Instead you latched onto one that was similar and ran with that implying that *I* had changed the language.

Nothing stopped you then from going down the path that 'the lawyer changed the language' -- all with absolutely zero basis for that.

It was only *after* you ran down those rabbit holes that I could discern that you thought the typed portion was a redo of the handwritten notes. Sorry, none of those are really my problem with an error.

If you had said, 'you know, my bad' that would have been fine. Again, nothing prevented you from saying that without casting blame (at least in part) somewhere else.

Sorry, I read both portions, and noted that they were talking about two different events, with different people, different locations, and different ways of having a meeting. I am truly sorry that you did not. I am not chastened by that.

But, the portion where you cast *your* basic misunderstanding onto me and making it *my* responsibility kind of seemed a little churlish from this end.

(09-01-2020 12:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Well... it was couched as an 11 mg dose (not 11 ng/ml concentration) which is funny because the person who made this error then made snarky comments to Lad to the effect of "in all your medical expertise".

And I told you (and this board) at the the time I was denoting issues from memory, something I had read about a day or two before, and from very 'communication' challenged area. I guess you skipped that portion.

The horror of denoting 11mg for 11 ng, or 11 pentagrams. The temerity of not remembering the absolute precise units 48 hours previous, after a 2 hour road trip to the outer rural areas, after 8 hours on a bobcat doing grading work, and ona cell connection that sputters at best.

And yes, when lad substitutes his point of view on a toxicology report and an opinion of the role of the results therein for a highly trained Medical Examiner -- I do think that rather stupid and ill informed. And when he opines that 'obviously' it was only a word change based solely at the lawyer end, with zero basis for that, I also think that in the same manner. The horrors of that.

The difference between your two examples above is strikingly massive, if you bother to stop and ponder it a micro (nano)(femto)(penta) second.

Yeah, and you wonder why I think some are absolute tools......

Yeah... not remembering the units is not a big deal - it's not like I don't make mistakes on this board.

I guess, though, when you go have a long history of going histrionic when others make a small error on this board then others become less likely to give you some grace. Perhaps Lad was in the middle of something when he made the unforgivable error of confusion as to the handwritten notes and the typed ones. Perhaps I was as well when it was not immediately obvious to me.

I don't think anybody wonders why you think some are absolute tools, Tanq. You haven't built a mystery in that regard. You've been very direct.

OK... gotta work.

(09-01-2020 12:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 12:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Well... it was couched as an 11 mg dose (not 11 ng/ml concentration) which is funny because the person who made this error then made snarky comments to Lad to the effect of "in all your medical expertise".

And I told you (and this board) at the the time I was denoting issues from memory, something I had read about a day or two before, and from very 'communication' challenged area. I guess you skipped that portion.

The horror of denoting 11mg for 11 ng, or 11 pentagrams. The temerity of not remembering the absolute precise units 48 hours previous, after a 2 hour road trip to the outer rural areas, after 8 hours on a bobcat doing grading work, and ona cell connection that sputters at best.

And yes, when lad substitutes his point of view on a toxicology report and an opinion of the role of the results therein for a highly trained Medical Examiner -- I do think that rather stupid and ill informed. And when he opines that 'obviously' it was only a word change based solely at the lawyer end, with zero basis for that, I also think that in the same manner. The horrors of that.

The difference between your two examples above is strikingly massive, if you bother to stop and ponder it a micro (nano)(femto)(penta) second.

Yeah, and you wonder why I think some are absolute tools......

Yeah... not remembering the units is not a big deal - it's not like I don't make mistakes on this board.

I guess, though, when you go have a long history of going histrionic when others make a small error on this board then others become less likely give you some grace. Perhaps Lad was in the middle of something when he made the unforgivable error of confusion as to the handwritten notes and the typed ones. Perhaps I was as well when it was not immediately obvious to me.

And when you asked for clarification in a neutral tone, a neutral response was given.

And when it was given, you didnt throw it back on me how I should have done it sooner, either.

Quote:I don't think anybody wonders why you think some are absolute tools, Tanq. You haven't built a mystery in that regard. You've been very direct.

And you at times are the master of the smug and sublime in that regard.

(09-01-2020 12:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 01:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The lawyers with the typewritten notes are the Hennepin County prosecutors. That makes it far more impactful.

Second the handwritten notes are from a different session. The handwritten notes detail that 'Present were Matt Frank, David Voight, John Keller, Dionne Dodd, Beth Stark.' Further, in the handwritten notes they '[m]et w/ Dr Baker at AGO' (I presume Atty General's Office). And, the meeting is being described as occurring on June 1.

The typewritten notes state that the meeting being described occurred 'On May 31, 2020 at 7:30 PM'. The meeting that the typewritten notes came from include Dr Baker, 'Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Patrick Lofton and [the author, Amy Sweasy].' The meeting that the typewritten notes emanated from was done on Microsoft Teams and that 'All three of us were in different locations.'

The first two pages are notes from a meeting with the state AG Office attorneys. The typewritten notes are from a previous meeting with the Hennepin County DA office.

The issue of the handwritten notes and the typewritten notes is not one of a transcription error between the two.

As for 'why the change' --- that is a question for Dr Baker.

Thanks for the clarification there - this would have helped our back and forth get nipped in the bud much earlier. I misunderstood that the hand written document and the memo were from different lawyers since they were dated the same.

Not my problem you really didnt read it fully. The differences in the memos are plain as day, tbh. Im not the one leaping to false assumptions without fully looking at the link, let alone even noting where the direct quotes came from. Please dont pin your misunderstanding on me or my actions.

Oof - looks like I’ll just never admit my misunderstanding or mistakes again if you’re going to be a massive ******* about it.

lad, the point is you decided not to treat my direct quotes as such at the outset in the first place.

Then you kept making some very baseless comments about what apparently obviously happened.

And finally, while the dates confused you, you overlook that the actors, places, and means of meeting in the two portions of the linked document were at great variance with one another.

So yes, when you 'school' me that 'I should have pointed that out to you earlier' is a tad galling. Nothing kept you from charging willy nilly down whatever rabbit hole sounded good to you --- and when it turns out the basic facts in the two sections dont even match, you make a comment that I took as 'well dude, you shouldve pointed that out well before hand'.

Honestly, nothing prevented you from finding an exact quote. Instead you latched onto one that was similar and ran with that implying that *I* had changed the language.

Nothing stopped you then from going down the path that 'the lawyer changed the language' -- all with absolutely zero basis for that.

It was only *after* you ran down those rabbit holes that I could discern that you thought the typed portion was a redo of the handwritten notes. Sorry, none of those are really my problem with an error.

If you had said, 'you know, my bad' that would have been fine. Again, nothing prevented you from saying that without casting blame (at least in part) somewhere else.

Sorry, I read both portions, and noted that they were talking about two different events, with different people, different locations, and different ways of having a meeting. I am truly sorry that you did not. I am not chastened by that.

But, the portion where you cast *your* basic misunderstanding onto me and making it *my* responsibility kind of seemed a little churlish from this end.

I think you mistook what I typed there. I wasn't "schooling" you as you put it or trying to cast blame on you.

I can see how you could have taken it that way, but I was talking about the clarification in my understanding, and not in you making the clarification.

(09-01-2020 12:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 12:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 12:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 10:51 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Well... it was couched as an 11 mg dose (not 11 ng/ml concentration) which is funny because the person who made this error then made snarky comments to Lad to the effect of "in all your medical expertise".

And I told you (and this board) at the the time I was denoting issues from memory, something I had read about a day or two before, and from very 'communication' challenged area. I guess you skipped that portion.

The horror of denoting 11mg for 11 ng, or 11 pentagrams. The temerity of not remembering the absolute precise units 48 hours previous, after a 2 hour road trip to the outer rural areas, after 8 hours on a bobcat doing grading work, and ona cell connection that sputters at best.

And yes, when lad substitutes his point of view on a toxicology report and an opinion of the role of the results therein for a highly trained Medical Examiner -- I do think that rather stupid and ill informed. And when he opines that 'obviously' it was only a word change based solely at the lawyer end, with zero basis for that, I also think that in the same manner. The horrors of that.

The difference between your two examples above is strikingly massive, if you bother to stop and ponder it a micro (nano)(femto)(penta) second.

Yeah, and you wonder why I think some are absolute tools......

Yeah... not remembering the units is not a big deal - it's not like I don't make mistakes on this board.

I guess, though, when you go have a long history of going histrionic when others make a small error on this board then others become less likely give you some grace. Perhaps Lad was in the middle of something when he made the unforgivable error of confusion as to the handwritten notes and the typed ones. Perhaps I was as well when it was not immediately obvious to me.

And when you asked for clarification in a neutral tone, a neutral response was given.

And when it was given, you didnt throw it back on me how I should have done it sooner, either.

Quote:I don't think anybody wonders why you think some are absolute tools, Tanq. You haven't built a mystery in that regard. You've been very direct.

And you at times are the master of the smug and sublime in that regard.

You find me sublime? *blushing*

(09-01-2020 11:16 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I've probably typed five times that I can't put racism on Chauvin's actions.

Here is the problem 93... you have what seems to be a very reasonable position on the issue.... and quite frankly, IN ISOLATION, so too do Lad and others....

However...

Lad absolutely supports and I suspect that at least on some level, so do you... these peaceful protests (not the riots, but the protests) of things that are based on what you seem to be agreeing is at least sometimes a false pretense. Systemic racism may exist, but this isn't likely an example of it. Same with most/many of these events. When you look at the facts in these cases, only rarely (almost never?) are they the out-and-out drop-the-mic examples of a racist system that we are required to believe... in order to justify the PEACEFUL protest, much less the rioting and destruction.

I mean, Michelle Obama herself uses 'if they don't recognize me, they don't look me in the eye or they ignore me, cutting in line at the ice cream shop' as her example of racist actions. In addition to sounding a lot like a 'my black friend' anecdote that is routinely ridiculed, that's not anywhere on the same planet as being killed.

It is DEATH that warrants the angry protest that often devolves into destruction. Nobody would/should support such anger over someone cutting in line at the ice cream shop. It's wrong of course, and it COULD, but doesn't have to be racism... and it's not a 'system' of it nor is it reflective of anyone but that individual...

So why would you protest 'The Federal Building', much less throw molotovs at it because someone cut in front of you in a line and you think it's because you were black? How does that relate to 'Black lives NOT mattering'?