Cruel

The inverse is also true, but it’s still not particularly relevant to my point outside of the rough example i gave previously.

Yes, the inverse is also true. Which is why it was necessary to investigate it to see why he died, as it was not clear why.

You, however, just saw the video and assumed the cop's actions caused his death. It's unclear why considering his actions would not normally kill someone.

But unlike the bullet that killed Thompson, being knelt on like that would not kill most people.

irrelevant , A peanut wouldn’t kill most people.

Entirely relevant. If you saw a video of them feeding him a peanut butter sandwich and he died right afterward, you have no clear evidence without autopsy that he didn't have a heart attack or something. You can't just assume the cop's actions caused it.

Not an assumption, dictionary definition of killing.

How is it not an assumption to say the cop's actions caused his death prior to autopsy?

I'm an not talking about manslaughter, murder, none of that. I'm not talking about intent. I am talking about the same definition of killing that you are.

Unless he was going to drop dead in that moment of whatever it was that ended up killing him, the people involved in the actions that exacerbated or expedited the death, killed him.

I don't disagree with that. But you'd be operating with the unfounded assumption that he would NOT have died without the officer's pressure on him. Prior to an autopsy or expert analysis, you could not accurately claim that.

Certainly, before people knew all the drugs he was on, and how he was struggling to breathe while in the car, it's not an unreasonable assumption to think he was killed, as it looked like it. But unlike the bullet that killed Thompson, being knelt on like that would not kill most people. So calling it unequivocally a killing prior to additional evidence, like you are, is unreasonable.

You're proving the point on why it was hard to give him a fair trial, as everyone had seen it reported as a killing. Millions protested for justice against his killer.

He died on video while under the influence of multiple drugs. Someone dying does not mean they were killed. Some people still believe he wasn't killed, focusing on his fentanyl intoxication, though that runs a bit counter to the expert's interpretation which called it a homicide.

Now that they brought him back, there's going to be another wave of revenue loss. A political pincer movement lol.

I'm guessing we should divide FOSS into political camps? We can't code in open source projects with contributors that have political positions we oppose?

This seems to be the trend I'm seeing.

Their leaders align with the democratic plurality of the US?

WTF, I hate democracy now!

We didn't know if Floyd was killed though until autopsies, whereas we know Thompson was shot intentionally on camera.

They managed to with Derek Chauvin, and the public prejudice was much worse, even from public officials. Their mayor also called him a killer.

Nothing has to be run for profit.

And it's an irrelevant statement. A non-profit healthcare outfit would still be responsible for saving and taking life.

I'm a software engineer with only a little legal background.

I'm none of the other things you listed. Most the prisoners I help are not pedophiles. And I only manage my product's server cluster because I don't have money yet to hire anyone. I'm not good at devops or networking. 🤷

Both in this particular case, I'm doing it pro se. I can't legally represent anyone, so I represent myself when the need arises and provide assistance to others who cannot afford help, usually prisoners. I'm focusing on 8th amendment violations such as excessive force claims and poor prison conditions. It's a useful form of activism, even if a suit is not ultimately successful. It costs them either way.

It is difficult to prove willful violation of rights (required for a criminal case) which is why it doesn't happen often, even while people's rights are violated routinely.