The vast majority of these protesters are expressly non-violent. They camp to bring public attention to injustice. Some stay past curfew, deliberately practicing civil disobedience. They anticipate being gassed, maced, shoved, dragged, and otherwise abused by police -- and do so without retaliation.
Of course, there can be other actors with their own agendas. Some looting. Some rioting. However, it does us a disservice to blindly clump those practicing civil disobedience with those practicing violence, or to write about the former as if they were enacting violence, when the opposite is true.
Civil disobedience is a term that I don't equate to many of the violent actions that they are engaging in.
The protesters that are peaceful early in the evening are not the ones being arrested, pepper sprayed, etc...
The protesters that stay past midnight and assault the police are.
The notion that the "vast majority of protests are peaceful" is irrelevant, because the police actions we are talking about are against the violent protesters.
If group accountability is a thing, why only for one side?
e.g., https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/neo-nazi-proud-boys-groups-p...
If we replaced Floyd in that moment with a randomly sampled person from the adult population, what percentage would've died in that same situation? 1%? 5%? 30%? 100%?
For the sake of argument, suppose that we know that some action leads to a death 0.0001% of the time. In such a situation, murder would be an inappropriate charge, because a person shouldn't reasonably be expected to have known that their actions would lead to that death. For example, imagine that someone has a stress-induced heart attack as a consequence of a police encounter. Is that murder? Obviously not, even though in this example the police's existence was a necessary condition behind the cortisol spike which lead to that heart attack.
At the other end of the spectrum, if you shoot someone intentionally, you know that there's a ~50% chance that they'll die from that, so your intention to kill is implied from the act and murder is therefore appropriate.
I don't believe that 0.0001% is the correct figure for what Chauvin did to Floyd, it's certainly higher, but it's not an irrelevant question.
If Chauvin believed he was following MPD procedure (which he wasn't exactly, but it was fairly close to training materials), and that procedure leads to death only a very small % of the time, there's a plausible case for a lesser manslaughter charge there, or even no criminal charge at all in the general case where procedure was followed closely (which it wasn't here) and that procedure is generally safe.
If the defendant thinks that they're following official protocol correctly and their training told them that that protocol was safe, then they're not "evincing a depraved mind", and are therefore not guilty of third-degree murder. The belief states of the defendant are relevant in this particular charge.
"(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years."
He was alive before his interaction with the police.
The problem with fallacies is they are not always clear when and how to apply, which creates a whole new fallacy where people mis-apply fallacies to try and “win” quickly (is there a name for this? The fallacy fallacy?)
A good faith argument would at least call out one or two incorrect points here.
I'm also not familiar with any argument that a Gish gallop must make claims not supporting a single thesis, or that they must be hard to refute (as opposed to simply harder to refute than to state). Whatever it is, I don't subscribe to it, and I don't believe those are the traits which make the argument style inappropriate.
Gish gallop was invented to categorize the specific style of politicians and charlatans that will throw out myriad claims to dismantle and confuse conversations with too many directions, and to have many of the claims be hard to even refute as they are vague. The vagueness and multi-directionality is the usual marker of it.
I don’t see how these claims are meant to move in diverse directions, or how any isn't relevant, each is a pretty refutable small piece of evidence connected directly to determining the truth of the case here.
https://m.startribune.com/medical-examiner-who-did-autopsy-s...
Power. It being completely hypocritical means nothing to them. The romans conquered Europe, even though they were surely told that they wouldn't like it if they themselves were invaded.
It's Floyd's fault, he was minutes from death's door, wheezing and barely hanging on to life, when the police showed up and tried to extend his life by kneeling on his neck, but he was too ill and he passed away as if by coincidence