Chauvin: The Case Against the Mob

You are wrong again. You should be on your knees everyday thanking God the Roman Catholics brought Christianity to your godless land.

peace to you

 

When did Christianity first arrive in Britain?

 

They were Catholic, too.

Saint Alban (/ˈɔːlbən, ˈæl-/; Latin: Albanus) is venerated as the first-recorded British Christian martyr, for which reason he is considered to be the British protomartyr. Along with fellow Saints Julius and Aaron, Alban is one of three named martyrs recorded at an early date from Roman Britain ("Amphibalus" was the name given much later to the priest he was said to have been protecting). He is traditionally believed to have been beheaded in the Roman city of Verulamium (modern St Albans) sometime during the 3rd or 4th century, and his cult has been celebrated there since ancient times.​

"Another early text to mention Alban is the Vita Germani, or Life of St Germanus of Auxerre, written about 480 by Constantius of Lyon. The text only very briefly mentions Alban but is an important text concerning his nascent cult. According to the Vita, Germanus visited Alban's grave shortly after defeating the Pelagian heresy in Britain and petitioned Alban to give thanks to God on Germanus'a behalf. They once again call on him during their voyage home, and Alban is credited with providing smooth sailing for their voyage back to the continent."

- Saint Alban​

 

The Christianity that the English took to the US was not Roman Catholicism but solid Biblical Christianity. Whether we were Catholic before makes no difference

 

The difference between the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church in the 1600’s was the ability to divorce and replacing the Pope with the King as “defender of the Faith” ... so WHICH was really more Biblical?

(Both baptized infants and placed Cardinals and Bishops in authority over the local churches.)

That was why the Pilgrims had to flee to Holland and then New England.

 

The Christianity that was brought to your godless land by the Italian Roman Catholics laid the foundation for what followed.

Please be honest with yourself and thank God the Catholics brought Christianity to Britain, which was, according to your own words, a godless land.

Just admit it, so we can get back to the OP

peace to you

 

Your "history" is wrong! There were Christians in England centuries BEFORE the Romans came here, so they could NOT have brought it! Get your facts right. Also, admit that the English did not bring any false form of the Christian Faith, but what you follow and believe, as Reformed. Also note, that much earlier than Luther and the Reformation, in the 16th century, it was an English man, John Wycliffe, 200 years earlier, who actually started the Reformation, by his opposition to the Roman Catholic church! Can you admit these FACTS???

 

the Good LORD!

 

The MORMON solution ... Jesus visited the ancient Britons and here is another book to add to the Bible: The Book of SBG!

 

While true, it ignores the issue of everything that happened “in the middle”.

Having watched the videos, it seems clear that the Police had to use some level of force to restrain a clearly uncooperative Floyd that was fighting and refusing to get into the patrol car. So the initial force needed to restrain Floyd to the ground and establish control was clearly needed.

The real question is what should have happened after control was reestablished? Was maximum restraint face down on the street for 19 minutes “appropriate” or “excessive” force? The crowd and a jury have both viewed it as excessive. While not an expert, I am inclined to agree.

I only oppose the conviction for “murder” because I am not convinced “by a preponderance of the evidence” that the criminal actions (excessive force) were the cause of his death. The data on blood O2 does not seem to agree with the narrative on asphyxiation as the cause of death. Discovering such vital information at the end of the trial really warrants a mistrial.

Watching the video, I saw no real evidence that the police restraining Floyd ever gave any thought to First Aid prior to his having no pulse or immediately after. It was their attitude of clear indifference that raised the tensions in the crowd to the levels that required EMS to just load and run.

So while the statements are true about the crowd and EMS, the Lawyer is painting the result as the cause.

 

interesting article, Early British Christianity — EHR 11:417‑430 (1896)

 

The prosecution case admittedly relied solely on visual data with the added claim that there would be no permanent evidence of damage from the lack of oxygen and there was no bruising at all. Without such evidence, they are free to decide however they want, but it is a guess.

IIRC, the defense expert said that the cause of death should have been listed as undetermined. That is, while it could have been listed as homicide, there was no conclusive data for that. Conclusion: Reasonable Doubt (which is the standard, not "preponderance of the evidence").

 

The trial brought out some points that might warrant a different approach to such arrests. Chauvin could not see Floyd from the angle of the crowd or of the free officer. From his perspective and experience, perhaps he was making what he thought was the best decision.

But perhaps he should not have had an overriding say in the positioning. Did the department have a policy about who would be in the best position to ascertain the suspect's condition?

Still, not every expert agreed it was excessive force. Some prosecution witnesses denied Chauvin used a police restraint method, which seems preposterous given what his own trainer said. And no one demonstrated what the actual forces on Floyd were.

AFAIK, Tobin did not do a force diagram showing definitively how all of the forces would have been applied, nor how they would have affected Floyd's body. And any bona fide analysis would show a range of error.