The pattern: in the Floyd case and others, early propaganda vs. later evidence
It’s striking how often it happens. First there’s the inflammatory incident – hyped to the skies, completely dominating the MSM and the national discourse, sparking accusations and breast-beating and mea culpas, firings, arrests and charges, and of course demonstrations and riots.
And then slowly the truth comes out. It doesn’t usually reach most people who already have become convinced of the truth of the original story (or who wish to use that original story for their own purposes even if they know it’s false). But it reaches quite a few.
I’ve said these things before. But the reason I’m writing still another post on the subject is this: most of these cases reveal the truth quite early on. And yet it’s only people on the right who notice this and write about it. I’m certainly not the only one, but for example, when the Floyd case first happened, I never called it murder and from the start I knew that Floyd might have died of something like a heart attack. See this for my very first post about the death of George Floyd, written on May 28:
At this point, quite a bit of video has surfaced in the death of George Floyd, and the police’s actions look bad. It’s mostly one officer with his knee on Floyd’s neck for many minutes; they rest stand by. The four involved have been fired. My guess is that they are guilty of, at the very least, gross negligence. But I know from previous experience that it’s always best to wait for autopsies and more information before coming to firmer conclusions. But even if Floyd died of a heart attack or something of that sort, the police can be held responsible if they were acting wrongly.
In the ensuing weeks, I was amazed and astounded at how many people on the right rushed to judgment, calling the death of Floyd a murder, calling Chauvin a heartless coldblooded psychopathic murderer, saying that no one who wasn’t incredibly stupid or evil could watch that video or hear about the events on it and believe Chauvin and the police not guilty, and on and on and on. Even people I respected hopped right on that bandwagon.
But it was untrue. The autopsy was the first bit of doubt that surfaced, and the drug reports came next. On this blog, there were plenty of early comments about the strong possibility of a fentanyl OD; for example, see this by “expat”, which also points out that Scott Adams did a podcast on the topic of a possible (or even probable) overdose. And that was written on June 5.
Ever since the drug report on Floyd came out, it was clear that an OD was a very real possibility. And yet the media ignored it, and we don’t even have to ask why. It’s obvious why. In that way, they are partly complicit in the violence because their withholding of the facts encouraged the riots. It is a disgusting but not unfamiliar purposeful dereliction of duty on their part.
The Floyd transcript came out in early July, and it was almost universally ignored. I analyzed it here on July 18. The transcript made it more and more clear that the police actions were consistent with Minneapolis police protocol at the time for subduing a person under the influence of drugs, that they were concerned for his health and were actually trying to protect him and others while they waited for the ambulance to arrive, and that he probably died of a heart attack secondary to the drugs he had taken.
This was not a difficult call, either. It was obvious – or should have been – to anyone studying the record. And yet the myth goes on.
Now we learn something else that is quite disturbing, as if the rest wasn’t already disturbing enough:
But video that came out later showed that Floyd had been complaining of inability to breathe when he was standing up and walking around, long before he was on the street. And it emerged that the toxicology report associated with his autopsy found that he had at least double the dose of fentanyl in his blood that is normally considered lethal, along with other drugs. And shortness of breath is notoriously a symptom of fentanyl poisoning…
But now there is a new bombshell: on Tuesday, prosecutors who have charged Derek Chauvin with murder released a document that suggests that he had nothing to do with Floyd’s death, which in all likelihood resulted from a drug overdose. Not only that, prosecutors have known that fact for months. Former state and federal prosecutor George Parry has the story.
This is from the Parry article:
At 7:30 p.m. on May 31, 2020, prosecutors “met” online with Dr. Andrew Baker, Chief Medical Examiner of Hennepin County, to discuss Floyd’s toxicology report.
So there they were, staring at the just-received and damning toxicology report that blew to smithereens the whole prosecution theory that the police had killed Floyd. To their undoubted dismay, Dr. Baker, the chief medical examiner, had to concede that at 11 ng/mL, Floyd had “a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.” He also conceded that the fentanyl overdose “can cause pulmonary edema,” a frothy fluid build-up in the lungs that was evidenced by the finding at autopsy that Floyd’s lungs weighed two to three times normal weight.
This is consistent with Officer Kueng’s observation at the scene that Floyd was foaming at the mouth and, as found at autopsy, that his lungs were “diffusely congested and edematous.”
In other words, like a drowned man, Floyd’s lungs were filled with fluid. And that was the obvious and inescapable reason why Floyd kept shouting over and over again that he couldn’t breathe even when he was upright and mobile.
The memorandum ends with Dr. Baker’s devastating conclusion that “if Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he [Dr. Baker] would conclude that it was an overdose death.”
Parry goes on to ask the questions that probably occurred to you, as well: why did the prosecutor wait to release this information, when it might have helped quell the riots? Would it have even mattered to the mobs of protestors? And why didn’t prosecutors drop the charges? The answers to the first and last question probably boil down to a combination of fear and corruption. The answer to the second is probably “no.”
John Hinderaker doesn’t think Chauvin can get a fair trial. That’s my feeling, too, but I wonder. I thought the same for Darren Wilson, and a grand jury refused to indict him. I thought the same for George Zimmerman, and he was acquitted. Of course, those cases occurred in 2014 and 2013, which seems like ancient history now. The country feel a lot more damaged these days. But maybe, just maybe, more people have actually gotten fed up with propaganda and lies.
If you remember, when the UVA rape story printed by the Rolling Stone began to fall apart, a journalist commented that we shouldn’t let the facts get in the way of a good narrative. In other words, lying for a good cause is OK. If you are a lefty, all your causes are good.
Does anyone have any doubt about the level of unrest which would accompany an acquittal of Chauvin? Either he will be unfairly found guilty or he will receive a fair trial and be found not guilty and, since the verdict contradicts the preferred narrative, the subsequent rioting will exceed in ferocity and violence what we have already experienced in our summer of discontent; it is often speculated that this is precisely what the thoroughly mendacious and corrupt AG Ellison has planned for in his overcharging of the defendant.
Question: Where in the case of the police officers involved are we? I recall that they were all fired. Any idea when the issue will be ironed out?
It’s a pattern I see often. Whenever there is a “hate crime” charge, I wait to hear if it’s a self-perpetrated hoax, and very often, it is.
since the verdict contradicts the preferred narrative, the subsequent rioting will exceed in ferocity and violence what we have already experienced in our summer of discontent;
It will if that’s the policy of the local governments in greater Minneapolis. People riot because the police allow it. The police allow it because they don’t wish to take risks or because the politicians insist they allow it.
1. What John Leo said of reporters a generation ago is true of people in general, liberals especially: they think in templates.
2. Once people have taken a stance on something their pride’s invested in it. They’re very resistant to revisions derived from new information.
Neo: Yes, even conservative authors, in blogs and such magazines as City Journal, include the requisite throat-clearing caveats at the beginning of their articles to express their acknowledgment of the “horrible death at the hands of police officers,” or some such phrasing, before moving on to make their opposite points. Apparently the writers want to be credited with at least acknowledging their empathy for the victim. They should have waited. Or worked harder to craft a better caveat.
Examples:
Claremont Review of Books, summer 2020, “America, Cowering,” by Christopher Caldwell: “Donald Trump’s neighborhood has changed since since a cellphone video captured the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis Police….” (Otherwise a very good essay.)
City Journal, summer 2020, “In Prospect” (regular essay introducing the issue of the magazine): “No sooner had the Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns started to ease…when the second crisis of 2020 struck: the explosion of protests…sparked by the May 25 killing of George Floyd…by Minneapolis police during a botched arrest.”
See also “I must object” by Glenn C. Loury in the same issue.
Some of the caveats are somewhat more less directly phrased, acknowledging the death but avoiding an assignment of causation to a greater or lesser degree:
City Journal, summer 2020, “Everything Magnified” by Martin Gurri: “George Floyd’s death under the knee of a Minneapolis policeman….”
Same, “Conformity to a Lie” by Heather Mac Donald: “The lethal arrest of George Floyd in Minneapolis in late May….”
Same, “New York’s Department of Overcorrection” by Rafael A. Mangual: “The devestation that the novel coronavirus inflicted on New York[]…gave way to another crisis testing the city’s mettle this spring: its share of a nationwide wave of protests and riots sparked by the death of George Floyd, who died with his neck pinned under the knee of a police officer in Minneapolis.”
All of these really caught my eye, and stuck in my craw, when I first read the respective article.
Art Deco…”What John Leo said of reporters a generation ago is true of people in general, liberals especially: they think in templates.”
This is particularly true, I think, of people who want to be Intellectuals, such as academics and writers, but who are not particularly creative. They latch on to a system of categorization invented by somebody else and hold on to it tightly.
The above hypothesis was suggested by the French writer Andre Maurois many years ago; he referred to ‘people who are intelligent but in no way creative.’
It’s so much easier to destroy than it is to build…and the template for the left is of course, “destroy.” Nothing is ever built except over the bones of those who tried to prevent destruction.
John Guilfoyle (7:50 pm) said:
“It’s so much easier to destroy than it is to build…and the template for the left is of course, ‘destroy.’ Nothing is ever built except over the bones of those who tried to prevent destruction.”
Hey, whaddaya expect? “You didn’t build that”, quoth The Master Leftie [BHO].
Full context, for anyone interested:
BEGIN PASTE
We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president – because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”
END PASTE
https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/did-obama-say-if-youve-got-a-business-you-didnt-build-that
“Yes, even conservative authors, in blogs and such magazines as City Journal, include the requisite throat-clearing caveats at the beginning of their articles to express their acknowledgment of the “horrible death at the hands of police officers,” or some such phrasing, before moving on to make their opposite points. Apparently the writers want to be credited with at least acknowledging their empathy for the victim. They should have waited. Or worked harder to craft a better caveat. Watt [my emphasis]
Latest example:
“Kenosha devolved into anarchy because the authorities abandoned the people. Those in charge, from the governor on down, refused to enforce the law. They’ve stood back and watched Kenosha burn. Are we really surprised that looting and arson accelerated to murder?” Tucker Carlson
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/08/lefties_trying_to_get_tucker_carlson_fired_over_kenosha_commentary.html
MURDER? So far, ALL the evidence strongly indicates that Rittenhouse acted purely in self-defense. [my emphasis]
And of course the left wasted no time piling on Carlson accusing him of justifying murder and libeling Rittenhouse a “white supremacist domestic terrorist”… without any supporting evidence for that libel.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/08/lefty_media_and_pols_have_fallen_into_a_kyle_rittenhouse_trap.html
In today’s Leftist “justice” system, self-defense is MURDER if someone on the right justifiably kills someone on the left.
Rittenhouse has been charged with six felony counts which “include one count of first-degree intentional homicide; one count of first-degree reckless homicide; one count of attempted first-degree intentional homicide; two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment.”
“In the ensuing weeks, I was amazed and astounded at how many people on the right rushed to judgment, calling the death of Floyd a murder, . . .” [Neo]
It’s a Zeitgeist to which the majority of the population has become inured.
Chauvin found innocent in jury trial. Rioters assemble.
Walz/Durkan/Wheeler/Evers/DeBlasio/Lightfoot/Bowser rules no longer apply.
Police, Military and Rittenhouse types confront BLM/Antifa punks & punkettes.
Order is restored the old fashioned way.
A related topic, news to me but maybe not to all of y’all, where does fentanyl in the U.S. come from?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/12/09/china-deadliest-export-fentanyl-editorials-debates/2229428002/
There’s a shocker.
I was among those who, on day 1, were writing, “Based upon what we know now, this looks very bad.” A friend was like you from day 1 saying, “It was a drug overdose.” But, no matter how we slice it (and now I believe that Chauvin and his fellow officers are completely innocent of any crime), those approximately last two minutes when Floyd’s pulse was nil, look very bad. (Again, based upon what I now know, I believe that Chauvin and his fellow officers are completely innocent of any crime.)
If I remember correctly, the concern is that Chauvin might be convicted because of jurors’ fear of nationwide rioting and/or for their own personal safety. I prefer that such fears be cast aside, and we take the risk of riots. The personal safety of the jurors should, of course, be protected.
From your keyboard to G-d’s eyes.
Further to my comment above, in the first instance it’s up to the Minnesota prosecutors to man-up and drop the charges. Then, if there is a guilty verdict, it will be up to the trial judge and perhaps the appellate court to man-up.
Ira:
Judges cannot overturn so-called “jury nullification” verdicts. Neither can they overturn a jury verdict of guilty. A verdict is a verdict. Appeals are grounded in procedural errors, not material facts or misrepresentations thereof, to my non-legal understanding.
1. It proves the advantage of the old adage, “getting in front of the news”
2. It shows the true power of propaganda, and the political importance of having the majority of the media on your side, advocating your story. And it also shows how devastatingly dangerous it is not to have fair, bipartisan coverage of the political spectrum. Blame both parties for letting this happen.
3. It reinforces the old Mark Twain adage, “It’s easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they’ve been fooled”.
4. Question for the experts: If the blood levels were fatal, could George Floyd have been saved by the administration of a NarCan emergency dose? I know this is good for opiod OD’s, but fentanyl is derivative. Just curious.
Cicero, you have it right about jury nullification—if the verdict is “not guilty.” In fact, perhaps with a rare exception that I cannot think of at the moment, that is true of all “not guilty” verdicts. On the other hand, a trial judge can direct a verdict of not guilty (which is rarely done) or issue a judgment of “not guilty” notwithstanding a guilty verdict, and appellate judges can reverse guilty verdicts and order dismissal of charges. Stated another way, “not guilty” verdicts cannot be changed by judges, “guilty” verdicts can be.
Ira, you are truly an optimist; or at least have a higher opinion of the Minnesota prosecutors or judges than I.
I think Chauvin’s only hope is that following the election in November, the next Trump administration will raise the cost of rioting to a level that will strike fear into every thuggish heart. I ask myself two questions almost daily, “when did open insurrection become legal?”; and when the leaders of BLM and ANTIFA call on their stooges to go out and attack government facilities, and openly advocate overthrow, “how is that not insurrection?”. My hope is that in due time Trump will answer, “it is not” to the first; and to the second, “it is and the punishment is going to be swift and severe. Now, BLM and ANTIFA, it is your move.”
Part of the oath of every Federal Officer is to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. By the way the Governors of Washington and Oregon, among others, take the same oath in essence. The Governor of Minnesota oddly does not have to defend the Constitution but swears to support it. Time to hold feet to fire to live up to oaths.
Oldflyer, I agree with everything you wrote, except the first paragraph. I’m in no way expecting the prosecutors to, as I wrote above, man up. In my opinion, those in charge of the prosecution are corrupt – even more corrupt than the Duke lacrosse prosecutor Mike Nifong. I am a bit more optimistic that a judge or panel of judges might do the right thing, but I’m not to the point where I see that glass as half full.
As I just wrote, I otherwise completely agree with you.
For updated information from Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyers, see,
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/08/kyle-rittenhouse-working-lifeguard-kenosha-day-shooting-went-clean-vandalism-school-work/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons
I have written about this before. When watching the videos note how the EMTs showed no urgency about getting Floyd into the ambulance. If his heart had stopped they would have wanted him in the wagon quickly.
No one has said: did the EMTs find a pulse?
Without enforcement, there can be no law.
Consider: For whatever the cause a riot ensues in a given jurisdiction. It is a fundamental duty of the governmental authorities in that jurisdiction to quell that riot and re-establish law and order. However, until the riot is quelled and within the “riot zone” there can be no enforcement, and thus, there is no law. When it becomes every man for himself, there is only power and cunning, and without law, there can be no “crime.”
Civilization is but a thin veneer and is not to be taken for granted.
Aggie:
I don’t know if Floyd could have been saved that way, but when the cops asked him if he’d taken drugs, he denied it. That meant that although they continued to suspect that he had, they didn’t know for sure, they didn’t know what drug or drugs, and they didn’t know what amount. I think that handicapped them greatly.
“Civilization is but a thin veneer and is not to be taken for granted.” Cap’n Rusty
In their naivete, ignorance and willful blindness, they imagine that they can build a new, just civilization upon the ashes of the old.
Fools are far worse than criminals because they enable criminality and ultimately tyranny. Which is why the Left works so hard to grow and enlarge every generation’s crop of fools.
Free speech does not protect advocacy for totalitarian ideologies. They are a cancer in any society that cherishes liberty.
Why are there still charges pending? The prosecutors know that the officers did not kill Floyd, but still they wait for a trial.
And on another front, the NY Post has a story out that Jacob Blake’s warrant was for sexual assault and other related offenses, had a restraining order to stay away from that address and person, that person calling 911 when Blake showed up in violation. He fought with the cops, was twice tasered and had one officer in a “headlock”, all before the video of his shooting began.
https://nypost.com/2020/08/28/this-is-why-jacob-blake-had-a-warrant-out-for-his-arrest/?
The linked story has some graphic description of the sexual assault, quoted from the court documents.
The other side of the aisle picks some real winners for their causes.
I may have posted in an earlier thread that I sensed a restraining order in all this, but I am not gloating. Honest. For 25 years I dealt with this stuff all too frequently, I know the earmarks.
“Why are there still charges pending? The prosecutors know that the officers did not kill Floyd”
Because the “prosecutor” is Minnesota AG Keith Ellison, a former member of NOI who has no interest in justice but only in stoking his political narrative. In fact it is likely that he overcharged in the first place because he *wants* an acquittal knowing it will lead to more riots.
Again: The potential for riots exists in the event of police acquittals.
However: The riots seen thus far would have been quelled quickly if the civil authorities had acted appropriately. They did not.
The authorities have to fight fire (literally) with a very big stick.
Ira, thanks for update on Kyle Rittenhouse. There is no way he should be charged.
“Would it have even mattered to the mobs of protesters?” Of course not. Right away, some people were intentionally ignoring the autopsy reports, thinking they were covering up the murder. Six years later, people still push the original Michael Brown narrative, even though everyone should know by now that the officer acted in self-defense.
Not having read all of the comments, perhaps this point was already made: the great thing about our justice system is that trial by jury in criminal cases must result in a unanimous decision for a conviction and that the defense gets to participate in jury selection. This means all it takes is for the defense to be able to seat one unbiased juror to get, at the very least, a hung jury on a 1st degree murder charge.
The prosecutors will prosecute because that’s what prosecutors do… it’s what prosecutors are FOR.
What the jury will do is an entirely different matter.
Prosecution is ONLY valid when there is conclusive evidence of a crime. Self-defense is not a crime, regardless of how much leftist prosecutors wish to make it so.
This is political prosecution and it morally and objectively disqualifies any prosecutor from office who engages in it.
“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetuated in the name of the noblest causes.” Thomas Paine
“There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.” Baron de Montesquieu
“When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.” Thomas Jefferson
“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” Thomas Jefferson
“Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of “emergency”. It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. In the collectivist sweep over a dozen minor countries of Europe, it was the cry of men striving to get on horseback. And “emergency” became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains.” Herbert Hoover
And in Portland the rules imposed by a Circuit Judge for the “press” and LEOs have been stayed. Don’t come back from DC Antifa/BLM, the handcuffs may be off the Federal LEOs.
https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/08/29/9th-circuit-appeals-court-rejects-oregon-judges-tro-protecting-press-from-federal-agents-in-portland/
“But maybe, just maybe, more people have actually gotten fed up with propaganda and lies.”
I believe they have, but America is infested with thousands of police chiefs, sheriffs, mayors, prosecutors, governors, state and federal representatives and senators who owe their allegiance to George Soros and dozens of other billionaires who are funding the overthrow of our republic. Until they are stopped, the peoples’ wants are irrelevant.
This could be any city in America.
Today in Kenosha.
http://www.twitter.com/joshglancy/status/1299734436792197120
Truth and facts are meaningless this could be Anywhere USA.
Griffin:
Saint Skateboard of Kenosha may have a lot of company joining in his last pinhead dance.
See https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2020/08/29/antifa-rioting-in-kenosha-were-armed-and-spoiling-for-a-gunfight-and-they-found-one/
From Griffin’s tweet-link: “Spent the last 36 hours walking around Kenosha in a daze. Large swathes of the city are indistinguishable from a war zone.”
In April, when we didn’t open up for Easter (as it is now clear we could, and probably should, have done), I consoled myself and friends with the observation that, bad as things were for our economy and personal lives, at least we were not as bad off as places like the Middle East, because we didn’t have bombed out buildings and armies fighting in the streets.
This is all my fault.
Cap’n Rusty on August 29, 2020 at 12:02 am said:
Without enforcement, there can be no law. .. without law, there can be no “crime.”
* * *
There is a doctrine very like this in the Book of Mormon.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/9.25?lang=eng&clang=eng#p25
2 Nephi 9:25 “Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him.
26 For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them,…”
If there is no law against something in the first place, then there is no “crime” in doing it, and it would be unjust to condemn or punish that action.
But, the situation with these riots is that there ARE laws in place that are being broken; lack of enforcement is NOT the same as lack of law, and the action is still a crime even if it goes unpunished.
2 Nephi 9:27 “But wo unto him that has the law given, yea, that has all the commandments of God, like unto us, and that transgresseth them, and that wasteth the days of his probation, for awful is his state!”
Pingback:Facts emerging. What’s that narrative, again?