I see. It's easier just to Kill him - slowly.

You @BD66, are part of the problem!

The last offence on your list was 13 years ago.
None of the offences warranted a death penalty.

They had him in custody and under control.
He was no longer a threat.
He did not need to be killed.

He is not the first, or the last, and not even the latest.

Change had to come.
People who think like you do, are the problem.
Please...Fight Me! Or Block Me!
But most of all Stop Spewing Hate!!

Wow. Clear disrespect and disregard for our laws.

@brentan Nobody should die in police custody. That doesn't change the fact that George Floyd, a man with a long history of violent crime, made a lot of bad decisions that night.

1. He was on fentanyl.
2. He purchased cigarettes with a counterfeit $20 bill. (He may or may not have know that).
3. He refused to return the cigarettes when the clerk told him the bill was no good.
4. After his confrontation with the clerk, he sat outside the convenience store in his car for a long time so police could find him.
5. He resisted arrest for 4 minutes.

If he had not made bad decisions #3, #4, and #5, he would have never met Derek Chauvin, because Derek Chauvin was called in as backup for the two junior officers who were unable to arrest him and get him in to the squad car.

Derek Chauvin made 2 bad decisions:

1. He put George Floyd in such a stressful situation that it triggered a heart attack.
2. He did not recognize that George Floyd was suffering a heart attack and did nothing to help him.

Derek Chauvin deserves to be punished for those bad decisions because it was his responsibility to ensure George Floyd's safety, but George Floyd was not "innocent".

@MissKathleen I agree with you on Chauvin. The two junior officers who called for assistance are victims of Chauvin along with George Floyd. Up until Chauvin arrived, those two officers had done everything by the book. They were very patient with George Floyd. Then Chauvin showed up and demonstrated his "knee to the neck" technique, which triggered a heart attack. The two junior officers were suggesting that they move George Floyd into a different position, which was overruled by Chauvin. One of the junior officers called an ambulance and escalated the urgency, but by that time, the damage had already been done when Chauvin kept Floyd's head pinned down throughout his heart attack. They have lost their jobs, and now a large portion of the population is calling for their heads. Those two (and George Floyd) were extremely unlucky the backup that showed up was Derek Chauvin.

@BD66 You sir are an asshole!

@noworry28 The media has fed the public a completely false narrative over, and over again. They did this with Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and now George Floyd. Michael Brown and George Floyd were neither "Innocent men" nor "gentle giants". People feed off the false narrative, riot, and create billions of dollars of damage. I'm an asshole for pointing out the falsehoods in the narratives?

@BD66 You are also a dumbass idiot.

@noworry28 You can't debate the facts, so you are just name calling.

@BD66 i don't argue with idiots who thinks that fox News and Rush Limbaugh made up lies and talking points are facts.

@noworry28 I don't watch Fox News. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. I try to find the best information I can from a variety of sources. Here is the best video I can find on George Floyd's death. Watch this video and tell me what the two junior officers did wrong before Derek Chauvin arrived:

@BD66 What a Complete and Utter Dickhead YOU ARE . Carry Your Dumb Republiturd Ass elsewhere .

@GEGR Name calling, but you can't argue with the facts.

@BD66 Of course he was innocent. A person is innocent until proven guilty. As for resisting arrest, I believe he did resist being put in the car. Would you argue for killing people who resist arrest?

@brentan That's a ridiculous argument. You could use the same reasoning to say Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh, and Charles Manson, were "innocent" right up until the point where they were convicted of multiple murders. It's also not a consistent argument. Is he "innocent" of paying for cigarettes with a counterfeit bill, but "guilty" of resisting arrest? He hasn't (and never will be) convicted of either crime. If you put aside the silly "innocent until proven guilty" argument, hopefully we can agree:

1. It's extremely likely that he was under the influence of fentanyl because that was found in his system during the autopsy.
2. It's extremely likely that he was under the influence of methamphetamines because that was found in his system during the autopsy.
3. It's extremely likely that he used a fraudulent $20 bill to pay for cigarettes.
4. It's extremely likely he refused to return the cigarettes when the clerk told him the $20 bill was no good. Otherwise the store staff would not have called the police.
5. It's extremely likely he resisted arrest, because we have seen that with our own eyes on multiple videos.

The media has pushed these two big lies from day 1:

1. George Floyd was innocent.
2. George Floyd did not resist arrest.

The media needs to be confronted for spreading those lies that have led to multiple deaths, thousands of injuries, and billions of dollars of damages.

The focus going forward should be:

Derek Chauvin should be punished for the action that he took that caused George Floyd's death either from a heart attack, or from a prolonged lack of blood flow to his brain.

Yeah, so he deserved death without a judge or jury.......you are somewhat lacking in the concept of due process, aincha?

@AnneWimsey Are you even reading my posts? Look just above your comment:

The focus going forward should be:

Derek Chauvin should be punished for the action that he took that caused George Floyd's death either from a heart attack, or from a prolonged lack of blood flow to his brain.

@BD66 The right to the status of innocence until proven guilty was a right that is historically recent. I dread to think what would happen if it was taken away. So no, it's anything but silly. It's essential to maintain the concept handed down through the Christian heritage that man is made in the image of God and worthy of basic rights. The law has incorporated that idea and applies it as human right rather than a religious ideal. I think a brief look at the history of abuse of law over time should make the point for you.

@brentan Let's take your perverse logic one step further. Let's assume there is a situation where some lunatic has an automatic weapon and is spraying a crowd of people with bullets. Then someone (police officer or citizen) shoots the lunatic and ends his killing spree. By your definition, the person who killed the lunatic and stopped his killing spree has "killed an innocent man" because the lunatic has not yet been convicted in a court of law. Is that the stance you are taking?

@BD66 Only you, I hope, could equate those two situations. Crimes in progress must be stopped and there are still rules concerning how it's done. In Floyd's case, there was no evidence a crime had been committed.

@brentan The clerk had shown them the counterfeit bill. That bill would have had George Floyd's fingerprints on it. Do you believe the police had no right to take him to the police station to get his fingerprints?

@BD66 >You could use the same reasoning to say Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh, and Charles Manson, were "innocent" right up until the point where they were convicted of multiple murders.

In America, that's absolutely correct.

Our judicial system says "Innocent until proven guilty." In other countries you may have to prove your innocence.

Additionally, that means no matter what you've done previously it has no bearing on the CURRENT charges. You're not guilty because of previous jail time or previous convictions.

@BD66 I'm sure the police had every right to arrest him.

@WonderWartHog99 I'm not surprised you would wade into this issue. By your definition of "innocent", Every time a police officer makes an arrest, he has "arrested an innocent man". Every time a police officer uses force to break up a fight, he has "assaulted an innocent man" Every time a police officer writes a ticket, he has "ticketed an innocent man" In fact, using that definition of "innocent" every action a police officer takes to enforce the law is some sort of transgression against an "innocent" person.

You are relying on a legal policy "innocent until proven guilty" to justify the use of a word that is entirely opposite what the connotation is to most Americans.

Going up to the original post "It's horrible an innocent man was killed", if you want to apply your precise definition and say "It's horrible that a man (not yet convicted of two petty crimes) was killed" that's fine, but for most people "not yet convicted of a two petty crimes" and "innocent" have a far different meaning.

@brentan So you and I both agree that it was highly likely George Floyd had committed a petty crime, and that the police had a right to arrest him. We also agree that George Floyd resisted arrest for 4 minutes. Those are two crimes that he likely committed, and if Derek Chauvin had not come along and killed him, George Floyd would have either been convicted of those crimes or pled to a lessor charge. Therefore use of "innocent" does not apply to George Floyd, because that word is being used to deceive people into believing it was wrong for the police to use force to get him into the squad car.

@BD66 We agree the cops had a right to arrest him. Resisting arrest is a crime. We don’t agree he was guilty of a crime. He was suspected. That’s it. You’re assuming Floyd was guilty of the crime. He allegedly passed a fake twenty, that’s all we know. I haven’t heard anyone say it was wrong to put him in a cop car. It’s a normal part of the arresting process. What I see here is you trying to mitigate the murder of the man by jumping to conclusions about what lead to his arrest and the fact that he resisted. Even if resisting arrest was a capital offense, police don’t carry out executions – at least not legally.

@brentan What you see here is my protesting the way the incident was reported. Here are stories that flat out lie in an attempt to stir people up:

[cnn.com]

[insider.com]

[thecut.com]

[cbs58.com]

[mercurynews.com]

With respect to "innocence", it's clear George Floyd resisted arrest, and it's clear the police were justified in using force to get him into the squad car.

If they had said

"It's horrible a helpless man was killed" rather than "It's horrible an innocent man was killed", I would have no issue with it.

If the media had accurately reported George Floyd's lengthy criminal record rather than painting him to be a saint, and accurately reported that George Floyd resisted arrest for 4 minutes, it's likely there would not be 6 people killed, thousands injured, and billions of dollars in damages.

The US media has been flat out lying and grossly slanting their reporting for more than a decade on racial issues, this gets people stirred up, then when they cause riots all over the country with their grossly biased reporting, they profit from it, because people tune in to see all the violence and destruction. Many times this has led to death and billions of dollars of property damage. The people of the USA should not stand for it any more.

@BD66 There's no doubt the media is very partisan. I've been watching some CNN and some Fox and it's amazing how the same reality is presented in such different ways. Me, I'm concerned with the murder more than the representation of the surrounding details. If I was over there, I would be on the street too.

@brentan This is what happens. You can look at Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, and now George Floyd. A young black man is killed. The leftist media grossly distorts the characters involved and the events behind what happens. There is often rioting. The person/people involved in the killing are often overcharged for the crime. There is a trial. The person/people are acquitted, then we get another round of rioting.

@BD66 I think the most serious charges will involve all four police officers - the alleged killer and the other three alleged as complicit in his murder. It will be interesting to see what happens in court.

@brentan The huge unknowns are what is on the body cameras of the police officers. What they were saying and doing when George Floyd was being restrained and on the ground will have a huge impact on the case. We don't have that information, but the prosecutors do.

@BD66 > I'm not surprised you would wade into this issue.

Guess you read the part where it says "ah's evil."

>By your definition of "innocent", Every time a police officer makes an arrest, he has "arrested an innocent man".

It's not my definition. It how American law defines it.

. . . most people "not yet convicted of a two petty crimes" and "innocent" have a far different meaning.

Most people aren't lawyers. Most don't consider a cop a judge, executing people on a whim either. In a police state people are FORCED to agree with you.

and your words echo the usual narrative

Even killing guilty ones has to stop......one cop is Not judge, jury & executioner. The day that happens we are ALL doomed. Which is what the majority of demonstrators understands....you may notice a lot 9f them are white...?

But that 9/11 riot was blamed on terrorist action not civil unrest and used as an excuse to have America's longest lasting war.