The EMT at the trial said he told Chauvin that Floyd no longer had a pulse. Chauvin remained on top of him for 2 more minutes before getting off.
shareOne would think the trial would’ve answered this question.
shareI always thought Chauvin wanted him kept down on the ground so he would not wander off in a drug-induced delirium. If Floyd ran into traffic and died, the officers would be blamed. Page 26 of the manual below shows the stress position that was taught to and used by Minneapolis police officers. It looked to me like he had his knee on his back and not necessarily his neck. Floyd was having problems breathing at the 7:50 mark of the body cam video before he was in a stress position. I still think he is on drugs and possibly about to overdose. Floyd had both fentanyl and meth in his system and he had covid.
https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12951-TKL/Exhibit67807072020.pdf
https://youtu.be/YPSwqp5fdIw *** Cannot breathe at the 7:50 mark of bodycam video ***
Thinking that he wanted to keep him down to protect the crowd, the police offers and Floyd makes sense. The only thing I would want to point out about it is that the paramedic told Chauvin that Floyd was without a pulse. He said during the trial this meant he was essentially dead.
https://youtu.be/k-ezpRkFe_s?t=410
At the at the 7:46 mark you see the medic tap Chauvin on the back to say it's time to get off of him.
He had to make sure he was dead. Do the job right
shareHe was distracted by the crowd, and Floyd's behavior (drugs-induced delirium, resisting arrest) made him feel he had to stay on top of him
shareIt couldn't have been his behavior because he was motionless. Didn't even have a pulse for 2 of the minutes he was on him. If he really felt he was in danger from the crowd I think he should have testified that lmao.
shareWell, according to the leftist, it's because he was black.
shareWho cares? He got rid of at least one welfare case.
shareSo everyone on welfare should be killed? Are you literally a nazi?
shareDid nazis hate welfare, or are you just one of those morons that incorrectly and overuse that word?
shareThe latter.
shareyes they did - as well as the Jews they had side missions with other groups deemed undesirable , like the disabled (bunch of scroungers!)
shareIt was a rhetorical question,
and you are laughably wrong. The nazis encouraged government dependency and started their own welfare program. It was called National Socialist People's Welfare, in case you actually want to educate yourself.
Nazi ideology was in principle unfavourable to the idea of social welfare.[2] Writing in Mein Kampf about his time spent among the poor in Vienna, Hitler expressed indignation against social welfare for helping the degenerate and the feeble.[3] The Nazis believed that the German race had to be strengthened through a process of natural selection, which required weeding out its weakest elements, so they condemned the goals of charity and philanthropy.[3] They opposed the extensive welfare system of the Weimar Republic for being wasteful, bureaucratic, and helping the wrong people, since it distributed welfare benefits indiscriminately without regard for race and often assisted people that the Nazis considered inferior
so "setting up their own" in this case means changing the existing system to fit Nazi ideals?
Yes. It's irrelevant to whom they were choosing to be recipients. You're still wrong.
shareNo its not , like Karl Askel explains better in his post below :
Scrapping a wide ranging benefits system and replacing it with "Only old people get anything"
can not be described as
"encouraged government dependency and started their own welfare program"
no matter how you spin it.
Nobody is saying their welfare system is right, but it definitely was encouraged for groups and existed. Stop already. You. Are. Wrong.
shareIt was a rhetorical question,
and you are laughably wrong. The nazis encouraged government dependency and started their own welfare program. It was called National Socialist People's Welfare, in case you actually want to educate yourself.
"National Socialism" means the state directs the economy. It doesn't pretend to redistribute income or nationalize all private enterprise. Corporations answer directly to the state. But the state doesn't seize their assets or prevent them from making a profit.
shareThis is true for any government form. The state directs the economy via legislation, and corporations answer directly to the state. That's why it's called "government", after all. Now, the specifics of the obligations and privileges that government places on/grants to corporations, that's what decides what kind of government it is.
shareWell the ideal of laissez-faire capitalism would be no government regulation of the economy.
Under national socialism a business owner will get direct instructions from the government on how to operate.
What sort of instructions do you have in mind?
shareProduce more guns and less butter.
Give us a list of all your Jewish employees.
Here's a good article on the topic:
Big Business and Private Property Under the Nazis
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2350401
Produce more guns and less butter.
That's not an instruction to corporations. A dairy which produces butter does not also produce weaponry, nor would it be equipped to. Rather, this would be a policy pertaining to subsidies, which would affect the budgets of corporations but not their business models.
Likewise, "give us a list of all your Jewish employees" does not interfere with how they run their business, but is an unrelated societal invasion.