That was all you had to say—it’s a rumor that was shown to be either baseless or not provable in court. You could have said it in a tactful way, like a god-damn gentleman. But here we are. You’ve gained—what, exactly?
2 Likes
Pointing out that somebody was wrong on the internet.
1 Like
Well give yourself a gold star for the day!
1 Like
Thanks for your response. But that only negates a personal encounter at the club (“bumped heads.”) I was referring to what I believed was a fact that the two had both worked in the same club, providing similar “security” work – but not at the same time. It is reasonable that Chauvin would know of this. Perhaps this will be come out in the civil trial. Is that still going through? Believe me, I want to set the record straight, and not provide bogus information. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, and will be sorry for the mistake.
ETA: @bonvivant
3 Likes
“Not at the same time” pretty much negates the possibility that there was any specific animus between Chauvin and Floyd. Heck, it pretty much negates the possibility that they ever even met.
Outside of this one guy’s long-since retracted story, no information has come forward to show that Floyd and Chauvin knew each other. If any evidence of it existed, the prosecution would have been all over it.
There will be no civil trial. The city announced the settlement ($29 million, IIRC) right after jury selection in Chauvin’s criminal trial.
2 Likes
Yes.
Chauvin moon-lighted for a long time – fifteen years, was it? – as a security guard for a night-club. His “job” was to sit outside in his car. He did this one day a week.
Floyd worked for the same club for a short time – a year, maybe? – and his job was situated inside the club. He did this job one day a week.
While there were nights when both men were there, I’m not aware of any evidence that they ever met, let alone tangled.
Nevertheless, some people hear a thing and it sticks and, instead of seeking out the available evidence, they ask others about it.
Yes, it’s tricky when the asking about the thing seems to carelessly assume the truth of the thing!
Me, too, but this was not that. It was a sort of question not accompanied by any visible attempt to deliberately insinuate.
2 Likes
It’s fair to distinguish between deliberate misinformation and mistaken disinformation. It is frustrating to me that even mistaken disinformation is raising its head again 10 months after it was debunked. I do not ascribe any of this dust-up to deliberate misinfo.
And honestly, what’s worse: Derek Chauvin choked the life out of George Floyd because he had a specific personal animus against him, or Derek Chauvin choked the life out of George Floyd because systemic, racist failings in our systems of policing either taught him that was fine or did not care that he thought it was fine?
1 Like
Thanks for the info about the civil trial. That settles that.
I think you provide good information (from press accounts) about their not having met. I think I have provided similarly sourced info that they operated “in a similar world” providing “security work” at the same local club. I still believe that personal animus can exist without personally “knowing” one another. It’s pretty easy, and we are pretty darn good at it here on this forum. And we make assumptions on others in the world all the time.
The real point I want to make is that when one is a racist, it makes it easier to find reasons to act on on one’s prejudices when one finds themself in closer interactions or circles or work roles, as your object of hate. It’s why there are strictly enacted segregations. In a melting pot (which I fully support) you find similarities, and even wonderful surprises and cultural enrichment (think jazz, blues, and cajun and creole food.) For some people, purity and segregation is sacrosanct.
I just cannot imagine eating white food (literally, white food – like lutefisk, with white potatoes and white milk gravy) like half of my Norwegian ancestors loved. By the way, some of them were racists and Nazis.
3 Likes
This is entirely true, particularly when the law empowers one to act on those prejudices. And in the big picture, it is far more important than whether Derek Chauvin might have ever met George Floyd before last Memorial Day.
2 Likes
You don’t have to be one to act like one. I’ve long since decided he’s just not worth the bother.
I see you’re playing the mental, moral and professional competence card again.
Well played!
Coming from a chief spreader of misinformation and overall baselessness, I’ll take that as a compliment.
1 Like
Thank you. I think we are completely in tune on this:
when one is a racist, it makes it easier to find reasons to act on on one’s prejudices when one finds themself in closer interactions or circles or work roles, as your object of hate. (my quote)
(your quote) This is entirely true, particularly when the law empowers one to act on those prejudices. (I might add other professions or roles to the law which can empower one to act on prejudices, like, money, education, religion, etc.)
(your quote) it is far more important than whether Derek Chauvin might have ever met George Floyd before last Memorial Day. (Yes, this is much less significant, and is probably unknowable as a personal motive in Chauvin’s belief system.)
3 Likes
That’s a pretty heinous comparison. Cornyn’s questions have clearly not been in good faith, and Matt’s clearly have been. The rumors from the initial reporting probably have a lot of people thinking that there was some personal contact between Chauvin and Floyd, so it’s not unreasonable for someone to ask a question about it. Answer the question and move on. The implications you made are completely out of line.
3 Likes
It is unreasonable to re-spread a thinly-sourced story about Ofc. Chauvin’s supposed personal animus against George Floyd that was retracted and debunked 10 months ago, particularly in the immediate aftermath of a jury verdict that affirmed Chauvin’s status as a murderer even in the absence of any personalized reason to have committed that murder. If I ponder out loud whether Hillary Clinton is the leader of a Satanic cult that consumes babies in order to keep their skin moist and wrinkle-free, it is not an excuse that I’m just asking a question.
ETA: And it’s a comparison, not an equivalency.
… as an asserted recollection of fact:
Unfortunate choice of words – but all clarified now.
Other things to do.
1 Like
Matt asked “Did we learn anymore about that?” The correct response is, “Yes, we learned that that was just a rumour that was debunked 10 months ago.” I suspect Matt would have then said, “Oh, ok, thanks.” We’re commenters on a blog. I don’t think someone asking a question that could easily be corrected should be treated like any person with a large microphone asking questions or saying things they know to be false.
Another weird analogy. No one on this blog would take a question or statement like that seriously or feel that it needed to be corrected because they would know it was snark.
3 Likes
Last week my impression of txlawyer was that he had some good legal perspectives and his perspective could be trusted in most cases. His extended rant in another thread “anti-racism, anti-barbecue” made me seriously reevaluate my valuing of his posts. He seemed like he was somehow wound up about something (perhaps tangential) behind the scenes and it was spilling out in a torrent of poorly evaluated words. May be it is just the ease there is to trash people on the internet, maybe a filter has slipped, a bad day/week.
Here (s)he seems to be reacting sooo harshly to a question that really doesn’t warrent it. It makes me wonder if there is something going on internally.
That was my impression as well, last week.
This week also.
1 Like
So you outright lie to a jury?
Can’t say I agree based on his sloppy legal musings and being paralyzed arguing incorrectly the meaning of OR, in the law. It was utterly bizarre to see an adult hold on to such a base error… then again Texas and lawyer, he’s already got two strikes.