[Townhall] An incredible documentary by Alpha News, titled “The Fall of Minneapolis,” was released last year, revealing what really happened in the death of George Floyd. Reporter Liz Collins, who produced the film and also wrote a bestselling book about it, interviewed key people involved, including police officers. Collins was fired afterwards from her longtime job at WCCO-TV, a CBS affiliate in Minneapolis/St. Paul, which she believes was due to her fair coverage of police incidents (she is married to the former president of the Minneapolis Police Officers Federation).
The documentary obtained bodycam footage from the officers who responded: Derek Chauvin, Alex Kueng, Thomas Lane, and Tou Thao. The mainstream media downplayed the fact that one of the officers was black and another was Asian. Kueng, who is black, arrested Floyd and spent more time with him than Chauvin, who arrived on the scene later. All four were sentenced to prison, with Chauvin receiving 22.5 years.
Floyd can be seen in the bodycam footage repeatedly disregarding the officers’ commands. Lane told him to get out of his car eight times. Floyd lied to the officers, said he wasn’t on any substances, and said he got shot the last time he was arrested, which wasn’t true. After he was placed in handcuffs, he continued resisting. He never stopped talking back to the officers and refused to get into the patrol vehicle. The officers tried to push him in. He can be seen kicking Lane.
Floyd forced his way out of the vehicle and ended up lying on the ground. Chauvin used the Maximal Restraint Technique (MRT) on him, which was approved by the Minneapolis Police Department. As Floyd continued to yell, Lane called for an ambulance. A firefighter who happened to be at the scene, off duty, testified during the trial against Chauvin that the medical team took a long time to respond, considering it was located only two blocks away. Bodycam footage revealed there was a miscommunication between the fire department and Emergency Medical Services.
One expert, after reviewing the bodycam footage, stated that she could see the paramedics failed to properly attach the oxygen to Floyd, “that’s a big mistake.” However, officials claimed that the paramedics did everything correctly.
The chief of the Minneapolis Police Department testified during the trial that Chauvin’s knee appeared to be on Floyd’s shoulder blade, not his neck. However, he claimed MRT wasn’t a trained technique. Chauvin’s mother showed Collins his training manuals, which included that technique. Other officers told Collins they were all trained on MRT. A black officer told Collins, almost in tears, that Chauvin was one of the top two or three recruits he ever trained.
However, Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill refused to allow evidence of MRT training to the jury. Cahill also refused to allow evidence of the miscommunication and Floyd’s drug arrests. Floyd had a lengthy criminal history, which included aggravated robbery with a firearm. The judge asked the jurors about their opinions of Black Lives Matter, and they had favorable responses.
Collins interviewed an officer who had arrested Floyd in a previous incident, who relayed that Floyd’s behavior was exactly the same, involving resistance to the officers.
#1
At least their is a documentary that no one will watch to preserve the actual facts.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/29/2025 9:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Democrats wanted riots that summer for no other reason than to make trouble for Trump and they were not about to let facts get in their way. I remember the repeated airing on TV of the two-second video with Chauvin restraining Floyd exactly the way the police department trained him to do. But the media kept calling it murder with no mention whatsoever of fentanyl. The way Minnesota officials rigged that trial was a masterpiece. The great mystery of it is how the jury did not have reasonable doubt about Chauvin's guilt after it was revealed that Floyd had fentanyl in his system. The media never called them on it. The result is that most Americans really do believe that Chauvin murdered Floyd. If you need any further evidence of American mainstream media's corruption, just study the George Floyd case.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
07/29/2025 13:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
If you need any further evidence of American mainstream media's corruption
#4
I am certain that the jury felt quite certain that anything but a guilty verdict would be dangerous for their own safety and a trigger, a la Rodney King, for ore widespread race rioting locally and even nationwide. Facts and truth be damned, the white cop had to be convicted.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Malek Dudakov
[REGNUM] The US and the EU waited until the very last minute, but ultimately managed to conclude a trade agreement before the deadline set by Donald Trump. Moreover, both sides - both the Americans and the Europeans - immediately called it their big victory.
Joyful statements from representatives of the Euro-Atlantic elite immediately began to be heard, considering what was happening as a de facto declaration of a truce in the conflict between Trump and Brussels. However, if you read the terms of the concluded deal, the objective reality turns out to be somewhat more complicated.
The trade negotiations between the Trump team and the European bureaucracy in Brussels have been very long and difficult for many months.
At certain moments it seemed that no agreement would be reached. To some extent, these fears were confirmed. After all, the current deal is essentially a framework. It describes only the general conditions within which further discussions will take place.
There are still a lot of contradictions, and the parties have chosen to simply bypass them.
The White House considers the agreement a victory based on the formal terms of the deal.
Europeans are putting up with 15% tariffs on their goods that enter the US on a general basis. However, exceptions will be made for certain categories - for example, the auto industry will receive quotas for a certain number of cars that can be supplied bypassing tariffs. The same applies to the aviation industry - duties do not apply to aircraft and components.
At the same time, Brussels does not plan to introduce retaliatory symmetrical tariffs on American products such as cars or agricultural goods. However, their access to the European market is mainly limited not by duties, but by regulations such as restrictions on the sale of GMO products.
Here, Trump's team has failed to force the Europeans to change their approach in any meaningful way. Brussels has not given up on implementing the "Digital Services Act," which increases pressure on US IT giants.
In turn, the Europeans promised to invest 600 billion dollars at once in the American economy, as well as to purchase energy resources and weapons in the United States for a total of 750 billion.
The figures look fantastic, and they are. In the current crisis-ridden European economy, there are nowhere near the same funds that could be invested in the US. All the major European countries - Britain, France, Poland - are currently suffering from an acute budget crisis.
Europe's total expenditure on oil and liquefied gas from the US is estimated at 60-80 billion dollars annually. Increasing it tenfold is simply impossible. America cannot supply so much, and Europe does not need so much.
The situation is similar with the arms market.
Yes, no one is stopping contracts worth hundreds of billions of dollars from being placed in the US. But the Europeans want to develop their domestic military-industrial complex now. And the American military giants are already overloaded with orders from all over the world, which they are unable to fulfill due to logistical problems. The same queue for new F-35 fighters or Patriot systems reaches five years.
Therefore, the current promises of the Europeans look more like an attempt to depict mythical golden mountains in front of Trump. Moreover, no one in the European Union will be in a hurry to fulfill these obligations.
The Euro-bureaucracy followed the example of the representatives of Japan and the Persian Gulf monarchies, who also drew fantastic investment figures for Trump in the hundreds of billions and even trillions of dollars. Although Japan is currently in the midst of an acute budget crisis, the yen rate is devalued, and debt markets are in turmoil. And the Middle Eastern monarchies, although they earn well, will not be able to fulfill their promises to Trump.
Moreover, all parties call the concluded deals their victory.
Brussels is celebrating the possibility of avoiding a “nuclear scenario” with the collapse of transatlantic trade worth $1.7 trillion annually, which would have happened if tariffs of 30-50% had been introduced.
The current tariff level of 15% will also be unpleasant for European businesses, which will have to put up with reduced profits. But it will not be fatal for the EU. The impact of the deal on European economic growth may well end up being minimal.
There is only one risk - it is associated with a strong split within the European Union.
Immediately after the deal was concluded, European capitals began to crawl away from it. France and Germany publicly expressed skepticism in the context of additional purchases of goods from the United States. Paris itself is the main lobbyist for investing in the development of its own military-industrial complex. And no one in Europe will refuse to purchase gas from Norway for the sake of American LNG. It is unlikely that we will see a refusal to buy liquefied gas from Russia or Qatar, which Europeans also actively use.
This makes it difficult for the Euro-bureaucracy to even formally pretend that it can actually comply with Trump's conditions. And it will be harder for the US president to sell the deal to the American electorate as his great triumph.
Especially against the backdrop of other issues like the scandal surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein case or the renewed support for Ukraine, which has already caused a strong split in Trump's MAGA electorate.
The White House still has other levers of pressure on the European Union, outside the framework of trade agreements.
Take, for example, the intensification of negotiations on reducing the US military presence in the Old World. By the end of the summer, the Pentagon will issue a corresponding report, which will recommend redeploying some US troops from Europe to other areas. To some extent, this process is already beginning to happen.
In particular, the 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions of the US Army, considered among the most elite, were withdrawn from Romania, where they had been conducting endless exercises, immediately after Trump's inauguration. Now American paratroopers have been transferred to the southern border of the US to fight migrants and drug cartels. There are also other priority areas - the Middle East and Asia.
Trump's team could well begin reducing the number of US troops in Europe to levels seen a decade ago as early as this fall. This would not mean a complete withdrawal of troops from the EU.
Key US bases like Ramstein in Germany and the naval hub in Sicily will continue to operate as usual. However, everything related to military logistics in Eastern Europe will be transferred to the control of other NATO countries.
Moreover, the decision to reduce the US presence in Europe may be made regardless of further progress within the Russian-American negotiating track.
Immediately after signing the deal with the European Union, Trump tried to cavalry charge to speed up the conclusion of an agreement in the context of Ukraine. Hence his threats to make a decision on introducing secondary tariffs on countries buying Russian oil as early as mid-August.
Trump's toughening rhetoric is also an attempt to put pressure on China and India, with whom the US is currently engaged in very difficult trade negotiations.
The American president is eager to secure meaningful deals with the world as quickly as possible, with fewer questions asked about the contentious terms of those agreements. But there is a risk that Beijing and New Delhi will not follow Brussels' example and help Trump save face.
Instead, they will follow the path of Brazil, which has already responded sharply to Trump's tariffs.
In the context of Trump's trade wars, we need to get used to the fact that he always tries to bluff in the negotiation process. This can and should be used. At the same time, the media image of his victory is much more important to him than its actual implementation in life.
Trump may well try to implement a similar scenario in the context of Ukraine. However, resolving this real conflict – as in the Middle East – will be much more difficult than “winning” virtual trade wars.
#1
I LIKE the Eurocucks a lot better now.
Instead of treating us with contempt, they're afraid of Trump.
That's how the entire world should be treating us.
I don't feel a permanent moral stain as an American because of them. It's extremely difficult to figure out how to defeat fanatics that don't care about the well-being of their civilians. Israel faces the same problem, though it hasn't been as inflexible in the US. Israel has not…
If Israel had taken the US route, it would have just firebombed Gaza from the air without any warnings, and Hamas combatants would have perished along with hundreds of thousands of civilians (and most of the hostages). So, no, 4/
If I were all-knowing and all-seeing, I could tell you precisely how Israel should have fought this war with less civilian suffering (NOT fighting, not an option, it would have meant the end of Israel). But I could also point to the US example and show you that in similar /6
last October. An additional spin on this from less anti-Israel people is that it's somehow Bibi's fault because he tried to reach a modus vivendi with Hamas by allowing Qatar's "humanitarian aid" into Gaza, which did something to alleviate civilian suffering, but also was an
Hamas wouldn't have stopped 10/7 and the resultant war, it might have just left Hamas slightly less well-equipped. The pathological Bibi-blaming is just a way for people to pretend that there was something that could have been done to resolve the situation before the tragic
Israel in to have a genocidal enemy on its borders, sworn to its destruction, and undeterred by massive losses to its military nor by mass civilian suffering of the people it governs. /end
#3
^What's so bizzare about concentrating the Gazans - that will significantly facilitate the collection of Gaza's children's blood for ritual purposes.
#4
I'm not sure repeating war crimes is the best move here.
And yes, both the firebombing and the A-bombs were both war crimes, as General LeMay admitted after the war.
SHould have used the Gazan solution on Japan: wall them off and let them wither on the vine.
The invasion would have cost a million US casualties, and for what? By 1945 Japan was a threat to nobody.
#6
Educate yourself. The Japanese did not recognize the Hague of Geneva Conventions. What they did in Manila in Feb 1944 was barbaric. There is an old adage in warfare - those who show no quarter should expect none in return.
#10
Japan didn't recognize the Geneva convention? So? War crimes are war crimes. We still hanged the Japanese leadership and a ton of their commanders, too. "I was just following orders" wasn't an excuse and still isn't today.
If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals.” Said by General Curtis LeMay, the unsmiling man who was the Paul Wolfowitz of the firebombing campaign.
And you don't prove that crimes in Manila are wrong by committing war crimes in Tokyo. One of the few good things the UN ever did was define crimes against humanity and declare they are wrong no matter who does them or who signs any treaty. Jews had a great hand in writing these new laws because "never again" was the postwar watchword. Milosevic didn't sign any Geneva convention and still went on trial at The Hague. I think they screwed up the trial and didn't get a conviction, but the point stands.
After JD Vance made the Europussies cry by formally ending the post-WW2 era at the Munich security conference, the halo has been dispersed and people are looking at the war without the restrictions that were in place for so long. If you follow history on YouTube like I do it's positively buzzing with new scholarship on parts of the war that were totally forgotten or forbidden to be mentioned due to postwar politics. I watched one recently about a battle between the USAAF and Thai air force where the narrator made a deadpan joke about "Thai fighters" while one swooped by and made the trademark rooooiii sound from Star Wars:P
#11
To use Marxist terms - rules of war are a white supremacy construct. Strange how it only comes from Western Civ. The old adage applies - if you don't follow them, don't expect others to follow them. That's four thousand years of human history.
#12
War itself is a crime. What? You think it's all gentlemen in neat uniforms on the field of honor? Of course there will be times you need to defend yourself and then, to hell with the Geneva Convention, you do whatever it takes to survive.
I don't believe that what Truman did to Japan was necessary for our survival. Their navy was in no condition to resist if we had simply blockaded them. I think it was in a book titled The Court of the Red Tsar where I read how Stalin believed Truman nuked Japan just to show him what would happen to Russia if the Red Army didn't stop after they reached Berlin.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
07/29/2025 14:08 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Watched the video I originally linked. The bomb, as identified in the surrender statement of the Emperor as their excuse, provided the means for the Japanese to save face and do the unthinkable. Otherwise, the casualty numbers of both sides, military and civilian, on a land invasion of the home islands would have dwarfed the lives lost in the bombings.
#14
Hirohito was responsible for as much death of military and civilians in Asia as Hitler was in Europe. And was too cowardly to kill himself, even though it was baked into Japanese culture. Instead he was willing to fight to the last school girl armed with a sharpened stick. Were it not for the Abomb, there'd have been Stalingrad level starvation, with moms cooking and eating their babies, and eventually the Soviets coming to occupy and enslave half the island like they did in Europe.
Posted by: Regular joe ||
07/29/2025 14:49 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I find it amusing that Italy always gets a pass, like they didn't try to sink Malta.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
