"I see people I know who say, 'Chauvin is innocent', and I'm like, did we watch the same video?" This from the OP video https://youtu.be/0DRHn_Dz_js?t=384
How is claiming that Chauvin was framed different from these statements in any material way? They all tacitly assume Chauvin was justified, and explain it in some absurd way. Their narrative gets life from the same callous cruelty that let them watch that video with the motive to figure out a way to blame anyone but the obvious murderer. The summary is: "Yes, Chauvin killed the man, but he was justified. The facts were distorted by those with a political agenda in the media and in the justice system, and they got what they wanted, convicting an innocent man for murder." And that's no different than what I said.
It appears to me that I triggered someone on the internet by using a word they didn't like. It triggered them to pivot, ironically, to an unrelated warning about talking about people you don't know personally.
I'm disengaging, but I suggest you look up the word "irony". Or maybe it's "hypocrisy". I don't know. Either way, I will not stop calling out anyone, famous or not, who I know personally or not, who watch a LEO murder a man in cold blood, from the start of the murder to the end of the Floyd's life, and STILL defend the cop! It is outrageous, monsterous, and that's where your energy should be spent, not attacking someone who, in your opinion, used the wrong word to characterize this kind of inhuman reaction to a gross injustice.
Here is Tucker Carlson claiming the jury only convicted because they were scared to do otherwise. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/549435-tucker-carlson-sug...
"This was a trial about whether the media was powerful enough to create a simulation and decide upon a narrative absent any facts." Candice Owens on Tucker Carlson's show https://www.foxnews.com/politics/candace-owens-slams-democra...
How is claiming that Chauvin was framed different from these statements in any material way? They all tacitly assume Chauvin was justified, and explain it in some absurd way. Their narrative gets life from the same callous cruelty that let them watch that video with the motive to figure out a way to blame anyone but the obvious murderer. The summary is: "Yes, Chauvin killed the man, but he was justified. The facts were distorted by those with a political agenda in the media and in the justice system, and they got what they wanted, convicting an innocent man for murder." And that's no different than what I said.