Philosophy tells us that the two are not exclusively dichotomous. On a venn diagram - chaos and order intersect, and in the intersection there's government!

My approach to scepticism is based on the principle of sound reason known as Occam's Razor - which states that it is vain to do with more, that which can be done with fewer. Or, to put it another way, the simplest adequate explanation is the best. Scepticism violates these injunctions by disregarding what is apparent, to propose an explanation that raises more questions than it answers. While sceptical flights of fancy cannot be conclusively disproven; we may indeed, all be brains in jars - and this apparent reality merely an induced illusion, it's easier and more likely to accept that an objective reality exists, and we perceive it as it really is - albeit with limited sensory apparatus.

Defence cross:

Not a pathologist.
Police medical knowledge - no way near your expertise.
Physics is dynamic, agreed? Yes!
Biology similar - dynamic systems working in concert. Yes!
No-one measuring units of force at the scene.
All boiled down to averages. Yes!

More time spent watching videos than events took to happen.
Dies of low level of oxygen - caused both brain damage and heart.
Nuchal ligament - hard surface back of neck.
At times knee was on nuchal ligament? Yes
Hypopharynx - no damage autopsy.

If you can speak you can breathe - dangerous proposition.
Medically trained physicians have trouble with concept.
Mn Police LT - "if you can speak you can breathe"
Dynamic.

Based on assumptions.
"Not theoretical - based on direct measurement."
Measurements assume equal weight distribution left to right knee.
But weight is frequently redistributed? Yes!
EELV - premised upon healthy individual.

Person who is fat in prone position stomach compresses lungs more.
Floyd - 75-90% occlusion of ventricular artery. No!
History of hypertension - high blood pressure.
Had Covid - lot is unknown. Yes? No!
Every person is different.

Respiratory rate 22 - normal.
Toxicology - controlled substances in system
Smoker - changes lung function? In some people!
Fentanyl - respiratory depressant.
Meth-amphetamine - increase heart rate? Yes!
Rarely proscribed.

Adrenaline will increase heart rate.
Many causes of increased adrenaline.
Fight, fear, paraganglioma.

Wooden chest syndrome - increase in chest wall thickness due to fentanyl, impede lung function.
Report says 'peak effect within five mins of ingestion' of fentanyl.
Continuing afterwards.

Anoxic seizure 20:24:21 - kick of legs,
Lane holds leg down.
Last breath 20:25:16? Correct!
20:35:06 - ventilated 8 mins after ambulance arrival.
That time was crucial? Yes!

back in 5 mins.

Daniel Isenscmidt
MNS Labs 2011 - forensic toxicologist.
Masters biology 1982. Masters - pathology with specialism in forensic toxicology.

Samples for testing from HC.
Hospital blood - autopsy urine.
Standard procedures.
Notable findings - presence of fentanyl 11ng per ml.
Meth amphetamine - stimulant, 19 ng per ml - single proscribed dose. Low level.
Fentanyl - opioid analgesic more potent than morphine.

Individual tolerance to opiates - need more to get desired effect.
Nor fentanyl, broken down, 5.6ng.
Nicotine, caffeine, cannabinoids.
Morphine 86ng per ml, in urine - indicative of prior use.
Metabolites - below report limits.

Post mortem redistribution of drugs may increase concentrations in hospital blood.
Exh. 920 - graphs of fentanyl concentrations - show Floyds level was not necessarily fatal.
Below

... oh no, I fell asleep. How much did I miss?

Hours!

I'll keep watching, but I'm done taking notes.

Dr Martin Tobin.
critical and pulmonary care medicine.
Chicago, Il.
45 years a doctor.
Pulmonary - lungs.

Aware of pre-existing conditions? Yes, seen medical records, interviews, watched videos.
Have you formed an opinion with reasonable medical certainty? Yes.

Died of low level of oxygen.
Have you formed an opinion with reasonable medical certainty as cause of low level of oxygen?
Yes, shallow breathing - insufficient to provide oxygen, remove carbon dioxide.

Number of forces reducing size of breath.
1. prone
2. handcuffs.
3. knee - neck
4. knee - back, arm, side.

Exh. 949 - Illustration of officers positions.

Officers positions changed, position of Mr Floyd changed.

Handcuffs plus street.
Handcuffs - pushed in and up, and street - sandwiched Floyd.
Could not get air to left side of the lungs.

Two big muscles in breathing.
diaphragm - 70%
rib cage - 30%.
Expand chest to inhale.
diaphragm - bucket handle movement.
ribs - pump handle movement.

Exh. 944 - using knuckles to get air into right side of body
Exh. 938 - raising shoulder off street to get air into lungs.

Knee occlude air into passageway.

Exh. 935 and 937 - hypopharynx

(The hypopharynx is the longest of the 3 segments of the pharynx. It is wide superiorly and progressively narrows toward the level of the cricopharyngeal muscle. It is bounded anteriorly by the posterior face of the cricoid cartilage. The parts of the hypopharynx that lie partly to each side of the larynx form the pyriform sinuses or fossae.)

Vulnerable to occlusion from knee on neck. Relation between expansion of lungs and size of hypopharynx.

Exh. 941 - Floyd face down, and turned to side.
Face down to get air.

Can calculate force based on weight - and size of opening left for breathing.
Exh. 939 - 940.
940 - physiology experiment - 85% occlusion, 7 times more effort required to breathe.
939 - math of experiment.

Did knee cause narrowing of hypopharynx? Yes.

Exh. 947 - foot off floor, all weight on neck.
Exh. 943 - 91.5 lbs.

Oxygen level during first five minuets - enough to keep brain alive. Speaking - 4:51 secs.

Court break.

After 5:03 seconds - extending leg 24:21 - brain injury.
Myoclonic seizure.
First five minuets knee on neck virtually all time.

Prone position - lung volume.
Exh. 929 - lung function and tidal volume.
All adults - 400 cc tidal volume.

Exh. 930 - Floyd lung volume - age, sex, height.
EELV upright - 3840
residual 2300.
Arterial blood gas 89mm (typical 46 yo male)
Exh. 927 - Prone - lung volume reduced 24%.
proportional reduction in size of hypopharynx.

Exh. 932 - 43% reduction in EELV, oxygen reserves and size of hypopharynx.
Work of breathing increases.
19% knee - 24% prone.
3 fold increase in work of breathing.

Exh 922 - 926.
Shows difference between sat on sidewalk versus prone on breathing.
Shows reduction in hypopharynx.
Loss of consciousness - 20:20:53
Oxygen level at loss of consciousness - 36mm
Exh. 928 - all factors impacting on breathing of Mr Floyd.
20:25:16 - stops breathing.

Exh. 931 - level of oxygen to zero based on average consumption.
remained on neck for 3:22 seconds.

Dr Chan et al, San Diego - studies show weight on back not dangerous.
Highly misleading -
Exh. 948 - bound, prone man - 100 lbs on back, large surface area compared to knee.

Are you aware that Mr Floyd had pre-existing health conditions.
A healthy person would have died.

If you can speak you can breathe - is that true?
Yes, but misleading.
Speaking=exhaling.
Must have had air in - cannot speak without brain function.
Timing of speech important to analysis - could not have been total occlusion of neck, continue to speak for 4:21 seconds.

Brain needs a lot of oxygen.
Without oxygen 8 seconds - out cold.
Leg rising indicates anoxic seizure, lot of different terms.
Fatally low level of oxygen to brain.

Exh. 934, 936, 933.
MRI - vocal chords.
Can speak at 15% size trachea.

Rate of breathing - 22, video, normal. (after prolonged struggle???)
In terms of fentanyl - 40% reduction, expecting rate of 10.
Fentanyl - not effecting breathing.
Carbon dioxide (high) 89mm blood gas. Normal 35/45.
Airway inserted in ambulance 9 mins after last breath at 20:25:16.

Facial expressions - 20:24:53 - alive/dead.
Floyd struggling - police restraining struggle.
knee remains on neck for 3:27 secs after last breath -
2:44 secs after officers found no pulse.

Defence cross:

sidebar, lunch.

Waiting for the trial to start - discovered to my surprise that an old TV series, I always thought was real life, was actually fiction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Court_%28TV_series%29

All my life up until this present moment, I've known for sure that the UK televised court proceedings, but they didn't. Vinnie Politan is right. I am loathe to admit it - but the facts are the facts.

So your view is that the truth is necessarily the most useful in the long term, where falsehoods are not so. My view aligns with yours but why would this be true? — FlaccidDoor

Causality! There's a relationship between the validity of the knowledge bases of action, and the consequences of such action within a causal reality. Acting on falsity one naturally acts at a disparity to reality, that only increases with time, and or events. It may not seem, immediately - one suffers any ill-effects, but so long as the lie is maintained as truth, then the clock is ticking on the cuckoos coming home to roost. It's like in a sitcom, where someone tells a lie, then has to tell another lie to cover that, and so on and so on. It comes to be more trouble than it was worth in the first place. Truth is the best long term strategy.

Plastic recycling very simple does not work; only 10% of our plastic is recycled, If we are lucky. — maytham naei

In truth, all our waste could be recycled, if we had the energy to do so.

I'm not saying recycling would return 100% of the waste materials to use, but that if we had the energy we could process all our waste, and plastic is very recyclable. It's only such a low percentage of plastic is recycled, because it's not economically viable, given the price of energy, and if its fossil fuel energy, the carbon economics are not profitable either, i.e more energy is spent on recycling a bottle than making a new plastic bottle.

I've thought about this a lot, and my conclusion is that truth is useful in a far more fundamental and long term sense - whereas the lie is short term, and implies costs when falsified.

It's a shame that many respondants are splitting hairs about the way I asked the question rather than taking up what was clearly my main point. — Tim3003

My sympathies. That's what some people think philosophy is; hair splitting for hair splitting's sake.

Has the decline of newspapers and broadcast TV news, plus the rise of social media and the ability to choose among an ever wider selection of streaming or online 'news' providers resulted in people being more ignorant than say 10 or 20 years ago? — Tim3003

Define "people"

lol

Potentially, people live in a far more information rich environment than they did, even 20 years ago - but there's a hidden distinction between knowledge and understanding I've been quietly grinding about. Being able to whip out your iphone and google the name of the King of Sweden in 1444, doesn't require you know the first thing about history. Most of the people I know are pretty damn smart and quite well informed - so I find that statistic difficult to believe. I suspect it's just the media - justifying playing to the lowest common denominator by portraying people as stupid - and so lowering the bar on their unimaginative, low brow, cheap formats. That said, 50% of people (minus one person) are, by definition - below average intelligence. Now there's a statistic to keep you up at night!

I did. A moral foundry outside Sheffield. — Bartricks

Really? I thought norms and values came from the tears of angels, who look down upon us and despair!

Understood - Please forgive the rhetorical flourish. — Banno

I would, but I fear that were I to condescend to forgive so minor an infraction, I should place myself on an impossibly narrow ledge with regard to my own behaviours!

There's a bit of the logic that I think interesting, but that is in danger of being overlooked; and it is similar to, but I think distinct from, T H E's point. It's that moral judgements are inherently collective; and I don't mean that in the way that their conceptualisation is essentially a social enterprise like any other; but that they are judgements about what we, not I - should do.. — Banno

Agreed. Robinson Crusoe cannot behave immorally, alone on a desert island. Moral behaviour is behaviour toward others, also imbued with a moral sense.

SO my preference for gardening is about me, and while gardening may involve being social, is not inherently collective; it is a preference for what I might choose.

But a moral preference is a preference not just for me, but for others; if it is morally reprehensible to do such-and-such, that holds not just for me but for everyone, at least everyone in similar circumstances.

One does not suppose that because one has a preference for gardening, everyone ought also garden. This is not so for our moral preferences. We do expect others to follow them.

That seems to be a crucial part of the logic, or grammar, of moral thinking. — Banno

Right. But "everyone ought to garden" could be a moral imperative under certain conditions. "Dig for victory!" for example. I think that's explained by the fact that morality is a sense - that occurs in the context of the hunter-gatherer tribe, because as you say, that implies any particular moral proscription is post hoc. Post hoc to the facts of the circumstances.

You know London? Where does it come from? Where does London come from? — Bartricks

The past.

That's called a confused question that only a very confused person would ask. — Bartricks

The question you asked?!

Here's another:

"where do moral norms and values come from?" — Bartricks

I can explain where norms and values come from. The behavioural intellligence of hunter gatherer tribes - looking after each other to survive. Interestingly, it's why Nietzsche is wrong in his nihilism. He needn't have worried himself to death. Man in a state of nature could not have been an amoral, self serving brute - who was fooled by the weak. The human species could not have survived if primitive man were Nietzschian, and Jane Goodall et al., show that not even animals are animals!

Why can't you explain where your supposed norms and values come from?

↪Bartricks I did. You can't see it. That's how discussion with you goes.

Three rebuttals, each unmet:

From T H E, that morality is a social phenomena, not an individual one.

From @counterpunch, that Moral proscriptions are post hoc

From me, that morality is not "made of norms and values", but of acts.

Argue something, Bart. — Banno

Bravo, only - my argument is more that morality is fundamentally a sense formed in the pre-intellectual, behaviourally intelligent ancestors of homo sapiens. It does imply that moral proscriptions are post hoc, in theory, at conception, but not for long. They are soon woven into the social fabric - and tested and refined, and subject to adaptions - ideally beneficial, but regularly detrimental. Detrimental adaptions of morality occur because misunderstood, they have the authority of an objective order - as opposed to something more democratic.

I maintain that the sum of scientific knowledge is rightfully the objective order and morality is primarily subjective, but also inter-subjective, social, political - and so subject to social struggle to define. Our rightful place is the position Hume objects to; the bridge between the 'is' and the 'ought' - knowing what's objectively true, and feeling, and articulating what's morally right - on the basis of what's scientifically true.

You really don't. — Bartricks

Well okay then, let's go back to consider your assertion that:

Morality is made of norms and values. — Bartricks

Where do norms and values come from? Do they grow on trees? Are they mined from deep in the earth? Do they fall from the sky when its very, very cloudy? Like it is inside your head!

I have Cassandra Syndrome.

Well done for just ignoring the refutation and continuing to assert your theory. — Bartricks

What else can I do? Your "refutation" was direct contradiction offered without evidence. So I offered some evidence for my claim - that morality is fundamentally a sense, linking a video of a lower primate with what seems to be an innate knowledge of what getting screwed over looks like, and responding appropriately. I realise it's less than ideal - because the monkey is quite likely to be socialised with humans, but Jane Goodall reports similar morally oriented behaviours in chimpanzees in the wild; grooming, sharing food, and remembering who reciprocates and withholding such favours in future.

The theory you're asserting (not defending) is the metaethical theory known as 'individual subjectivism'. — Bartricks

Thanks for the attempted pigeonhole, but my philosophical understanding is formed in relation to a bunch of theories; one of which is evolution, and assuming evolution is very substantially correct - morality is premised in the behavioural intelligence of social animals, and this devolves in turn to physiological intelligence, and ultimately, to the cause and effect 'truth' relation between the organism and reality.

In short, morality is means of being 'correct' to reality for the social organism. Long before human intellectual intelligence occurred, looking out for each other, sharing food, grooming, fighting for the tribe - was behaviourally intelligent morality, in that it made the tribe better able to compete, and survive to breed to pass on their genetic predispositions to us.

From this fact based conclusion, it follows that morality pre-exists intellectual apprehension - and so it must be that we philosophers have spent thousands of years seeking to define morality which is primarily, sensed. Presumably, that's why, in all that time, we have been quite unable to arrive at a definitive definition of morality, because it's a sense, not an ideal or an order. And it's like - you can identity regularities in humour, you can identify regularities in aesthetics, but you cannot define what makes something funny, or define what makes something beautiful. It just is.

Similarly, you can identity what evokes the moral sense, and make a note "Thou shalt not do that again" - but that intellectualisation is not morality per se. It's a description of the workings of the moral sense, that is so uniform across peoples, it implies the existence of an objective moral order - without there actually being one.

I could go on, explaining how this conception of morality is the only one that makes sense in relation to a range of other facts and theories. I can explain how it plays into religion, politics and the development of civilisations. Philosophically, I could explain how this approach obviates nihilism, and promotes the moral good - while undermining moral crusaders. I can explain how it works in child development, psychology, law. You slap on a label and then attack what you think your label implies. You have no idea.

Thanks Banno - I could not/did not say it better myself!

You are conceptually confused. — Bartricks

You have no idea!

To 'feel' that x is wrong is to feel that it is proscribed. You are talking about the feeling, but the feeling isn't what morality is, for it is a feeling 'of' wrongness. The wrongness itself consists of the proscription, not the feeling that the act is proscribed. — Bartricks

When something is funny, you don't think it's funny, then laugh. You might say that, but you laugh automatically, because you have a sense of humour. (In theory) When something is funny -sometimes you have to try not to laugh, because other people have feelings.

I maintain you also have a sense of morality; that right and wrong are primarily a sense, and in much the same way you automatically experience right and wrong, and can't but think wrong is wrong. It's automatic because morality is a sense. Moral and ethical system are expressions of that moral sense. A sense that can be shown to exist in primates. They have a sensitivity to moral implication.

Here's a youtube video of a monkey kicking off after being cheated at cards:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube%2c+braniac%2c+hammond%2c+monkey%2c+cards%2c&docid=608028512895249690&mid=1123BC3CE3DEE1724BAE1123BC3CE3DEE1724BAE&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

Maybe the monkey is confused too!

Agent James Reyerson - cont.

Manilla envelope containing 2x$20 bills, pipe, cigarettes, card.
Exh. 198 - 2x$20 bills - one torn.
Glass multi coloured pipe. BCA for analysis.
Had vehicles towed to BCA HQ St Paul. MN. Crime scene garage.

May 27th - facilitated vehicle search with crime scene team.
Videos - cup foods, dragon wok. Established timer disparities.
Watched video, Exh 52: arrival of Floyd car at E38th timer 19:56:22
Morries out.

Floyd out - clearly intoxicated. Cross road with some care.
Enter cup foods.
Peterson acquired blood sample from Floyd, provided to lab.
Autopsy report - toxicology report.
Dec 2020 - request Merc SUV re-search for pill.

Chain of custody tape - intact. Yes!
Re-search squad 320 at BCA HQ
Seals not intact - searched.
Medical records Mr Floyd. HCMC.
Squad 320 hybrid.

Exh 127 Bodycam 20:19:17 Floyd prone.
Left knee on back of GF neck.
Right knee on GF back.
Does Floyd stop talking?
20:20:55 - Darnella Frazier video composite.
Exh. 1045, 46, 47, 48.
20:23:32 - 4 mins.
20:25:08 - Floyd stops moving? Yes!
Does it appear Mr Chauvin is using weight to hold GF down? Yes!
20:26:40 - 3 mins
20:27:18 - 20:27:40
Is there moment in Exh 127 better see knee placement? Yes.
20:28:43 - Chauvin stands up.

BCA extensive investigation.
Many officers conducted many interviews with many people - some relevant, some not? Yes!
Tried to speak to everyone in area at time.
Role of Agent Reyerson is to quarterback investigation 440 reports on the case.
Exhibits created - not as part of investigation.
Then all rolled into central investigation.
BCA follows up leads. Sometimes leads not relevant.
Investigation ongoing since 25 May 2020? Yes!

Second search Squad 320 - secure storage since May 2020.
Defence had no access without supervision.
Normal for defence to view evidence? Yes!
You do not suggest do you, that defence planted drugs? No, I do not.

Videos incl. Speedway. Cellphones, Videos and lots of stuff. Yes!
Initially limited information - despatch, normal critical incident process.
Secure scene secure evidence, interview witnesses.
This is unusual case - information known June may not have been available until December? Yes!

Exh. 127 - 20:28:32 Chauvins knee Floyd's arm/tricep.
In your review of footage did you hear Mr Floyd say I ate too many drugs? No!
Footage - did you hear Mr Floyd say I ate too many drugs? Yes!
Fluid from under vehicle - could have been urine from certain perspective? Yes!
Actually, condensation from running squad car. Yes? Yes!
Nothing further.

re-direct.

With hybrid - can aircon run on battery?
Asked about knee on back; did Floyd's shirt move? Yes.
Unusual case - does lead officer stick with case to trial? Yes!
Done some work for defence attorneys?
Not saying defence planted pill? No!

Are you car mechanic? No
Own a hybrid? No!
Know if car was running on battery or gas? No!

back in 10 mins!

Keung's bodycam - Lane's bodycam - discussion about drugs with Floyd.
Floyd: "I ain't done no drugs"
Video dragon wok
Exh 53, 54, 55 - offered, not published to correct mistake over Exh numbers.

Exh. 20:38:48 (inconsistent timestamp)
Morries out car - throws something.
Is that consistent with someone disposing of something they don't want police to find? Could be, yes!

Next witness:

MacKenzie Anderson - BCA - forensic science.
Bsc and Masters - forensic science. Oct 2009.
Forensic molecular biology (DNA)
DNA testing and identification of bodily fluids.
Crime scene team leader 2016. 2 teams.
On call 24/7. Accredited lab.
May 25th 2020 - received call from Agent Phil.
Self, tech, photographer - crime scene truck.
Arrived 01:15 26th - 03:15 ish.
Briefing from agent on scene - "employee of cup foods called police, responded, arrested Floyd, struggle, on ground, unresponsive, ambulance HCMC."
2 vehicles - Merc/Sqaud by Dragon Wok.
Walkthrough - didn't see much to process.

Made aware of Facebook video - saw portion.
Located scene. Squad moved to E38th.
Photos - Exh 129-135.
Rained.
Dry under both vehicles.

Did not see any blood.
Noted it rained.
No evidence collected from scene.

Vehicles to BCA - Left scene 03:30.
Agreed with Agent Reyerson to process vehicles May 27th.
09:00 start - self, team member and agent/photos.

Do you always know what will become item of evidence? No!
Knew vehicles would be kept by BCA.
Exh 137-149 - photos taken in search.
Merc SUV
Potentially some blood on either vehicle. Counterfeit money.
Possibly bleeding from nose/mouth.
Did you know if on drugs? No! Did not have that information at that time.

Faraday bag used for electronic devices, to prevent remote access.
Pill on central console.
Bills - stuffed between seat and console.
Exh 136. doors taped and sealed.
into secure storage.

2nd search. Dec 09 2020.
Reyerson told her of request from Attorney General's Office to collect additional items from vehicle.
told to look for bills, drugs, gum, luggage.
Exh. 143 Seals intact
Exh. 144 - item of evidence marked number 46
Exh 145 - close up of naloxone packet.
Item recovered.
Exh, 146 - number 47 - suboxone (unopened)
Exh 148 - two pills center console.
Did you take those two pills! (lol) Yes!
Sealed and sent to lab.

May 27th squad 320
Exh. 150 - photo squad 320
Exh 152-169.
152 photo of driver side door open.
153 photo driver side door pocket.
154 driver side floor well.
155 front passenger door pocket
156 front passegner seat.
157 rear driver side door open.
158 back seat driver side.
159 back seat passanger side.
160 - black strap, shoe.
161 right shoe.
Exh 162 - trunk 320.
No specific information still document this. Yes.

see any blood stains on vehicle? Yes!
168 - shoe removed, any blood on it? No!
169 - pill on floor, squad 320 right passenger side.

Main focus on blood.

Exh. 170-176.

Not sealed - back squad 320 driver side.
BCA 51 - rounded, rough, no visible markings, not whole any longer.

172 - close up of pill - taken for testing
Exh 174 - item 52 - flake of pill.
175 - item 53 portion of pill and 54 remnants of pills.
176 - item 53 to lab.
Did own DNA testing - 8 blood stains, bills, DNA.
Item 51 - DNA
52-54 - no DNA test, too small and fragile.
item 51 tested for amylase in spit. Positive. Tested for DNA.
Item 51 - DNA profile match Floyd.
Had known DNA profile for Floyd.

May 27th found blood rear passenger.
Exh. 177-82.
Exh 177 - items 12, 13, 14 potential blood stains. PH positive.
4 different blood stains - plus additional 4.
Exh 178 - item 10, blood, item 11 - blood on door frame.
Exh 179 rear pass seat bottom, item 14, 15 blood PH positive.
item 16 blood.
item 10 - positive blood - item 18, test not done too small.
8 samples tested proven GF blood.

BCA forensic scientist - Brieahna Giles.
Qualifications, training and associations.
Drug chemist.

glass pipe - visual, presumptive test - colour test, what substance could be.
scrape residue - charred residue, THC, but no marijuana.

item 48 - white round tablet with apparent pharma markings.
Markings - RP 10/325.
Agent Reyerson - test both pills.
weigh - look up markings, confirm substance.

RP 10/325. Oxycodon.
Do you know if fake pills are given legit markings? Yes!
Tablets were meth and fentanyl.

additional testing items 51, 52, 53.
51 meth - could not conclusively identify other substances.
52 - weigh, 0.019 meth, could not conclusively identify other substances.
53 - weigh, 0.01g meth, could not conclusively identify other substances.
54 - no test.


defence cross.

1st test marijuana pipe? Yes.
item 48 - 0.397g from center console of Merc Benz.
Back seat squad 320 - 51, 52, 53.

Susan Leith.

BMS labs, forensic chemist. 27 years. 15 as forensic chemist. GOP testing as manager. Quantitative analysis for biological samples. 7 years in Pharma. TFSC - drug analysis certification.

Quantitative analysis to determine how much of what drug is present.
Identification and confirmation; mass spectrometry!
3 pills for BCA - 2 pills plus bits.
Q analysis - 48 two pills. Console Merc.
Pills appeared consistent with eachother.
Photographed before grinding.
Exh 628 - report.
Item 48 - less than 1% fentanyl - meth 1.9%.
BCA 51 - rear passenger squad car, partial tablet - red staining.
Fentanyl less than 1% meth 2.9%
(Fent 1% typical)(meth - 90-100% content typical)

Court adjourned.

When people use the term capital T truth they generally mean Platonic Truth or the Ultimate Truth, not causality. — Tom Storm

What you said though, is that ...

science should not make proclamations about truth — Tom Storm

And I wonder, to what degree do you think science makes proclamations about truth amounting the Platonic ideal, or Ultimate Truth? Because in my view, based on every scientific paper I've ever read, scientists go out of their way to define the methodological and evidence based limitations of their truth claims. Given there are different conceptions of truth - do you maintain science doesn't qualify for any of them?

↪David Pearce Thank you for your time and expertise. — TaySan

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/519771

No one has ever thanked me for my time and expertise - and I look far more systematically to the potential benefits of science.

James Reyerson.

Currently - Use of Force Investigations Group. Officer for 13 years. Bsc Criminology. NYPD 2007. 4.5 years. Impact Officer - quality of life issues. DEA 2011. 2013 Corporate Investigations. Msc - Business. Dept of Commerce - white collar investigations. 201? BCA/DPS. Forensic Pathology Exam. 3 year doctoral student. Lead investigator of Floyd case - metro homicide, May 25 - now Use of Force Investigations Group.

Reyerson, Phil, Mueller - room 100 city hall. Arrival time: 22:10?
Critical incident - BCA jurisdiction.
Learned who involved officers were.
Critical Incident Protocols.
Photographs.
Exh 279: Chauvin.
140 lbs.
Belt/vest - 30-40lbs.

Bodycam and other videos:
CAD report - radio traffic.
Milestone video.
Audio 911 call.
Facebook video - saw portion.
Darnella Frazier.

Reyerson met Phil, Anderson at scene 3:00 am.
Crime scene team - 2 to 3 members, plus photographer.
Vehicles - blue MercBenz, squad car.
Parked South 38th.
Contents - 2x$20 bills in envelope in trunk.
Exh. 198 -

Lunch.

Sgt Jody Stiger from LA - cont.

I'm not recording the bought and paid for testimony of a black political police officer - who has elsewhere repeatedly expressed his support for Black Lives Matter. As impressive as his resume undoubtedly is - he is not testifying to anything new; and potentially, is acting politically.

Morality is made of norms and values. A moral norm is a prescription or proscription. If an action is right then its being so is its being prescribed; if an action is wrong then its being so is it's being proscribed. And if something is morally valuable, then it is morally good and if something is morally disvalued then it is morally bad. These are conceptual truths about morality and cannot seriously be disputed. — Bartricks

Still, one must try! I don't think morality is "made from" norms at all. Moral norms and values are intellectually derived from feelings - feelings experienced as a result of understanding circumstances in terms of the moral sense. In evolutionary terms, moral behaviours appear long before we had the ability to identify moral norms. What is morally wrong - feels wrong first; and the why is explained afterwards!

Waiting for the trial to start, watching Chanely Painter from yesterday - pretty as a peach orchard in Autumn - wondering what she'll be wearing today. After yesterday's splendour, something basic; maybe black or block colour is my guess. I know what the judge will be wearing! And Mr Chauvin. Something vaguely reminiscent of his uniform again I expect. I wonder if that's deliberate, or if it is just that all his shirts are blue? It occurs to me that George Floyd wasn't wearing a mask in his local store; even though he knew he had Covid! Maybe he feared wearing a mask might betray his criminal intent!

I think Banno nails it. Some atheists will argue that methodological naturalism is the most reliable tool we have for gaining knowledge about the world. But science should not make proclamations about truth and is simply the best we have based on the available evidence. Capital T truth being out of human range and perhaps not even possible. — Tom Storm

If you can show that A causes B, and can apply that principle to create technologies that use A to cause B at the press of a button, reliably and consistently, anytime you want, in what way is it not True (with a capital T) that A causes B?

I believe our civilization will not be advanced through science, discoveries or our ability to manipulate energy. — SteveMinjares

With all due respect, what a stupid thing to say... via iphone! Don't mind me; I'm emotionally unintelligent. I haven't advanced much since the days of the caveman, apparently!

Science is like breathing it come naturally, that was never an obstacle to us. — SteveMinjares

Never? Except for all of time up until 1634, when we get the first formal description of hypothetico-deductive scientific methodology in Galileo's "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" - a revelation, immediately banned by religion. It doesn't come naturally to us to doubt our beliefs.

Do you not see that to maintain your religious faith, you run down humankind - despite astonishing achievements in a very short time? And you run down science, despite the fact it must be true because it works! And you communicate these backward ideas using a computer created by the functional truth value of science - because you refuse to doubt your beliefs! One thing we can agree on is that your conscious mind is flawed!

I disagree Oliver. Not with the wishful thinking part, but your suggestion we can't fix climate change. We can, but it requires we transcend our ideological selves, and think scientifically. The nearest large source of energy is the heat energy of the earth itself. Harnessing that energy on an industrial scale does seem technologically feasible. Massive, constant base load clean energy could be used to extract carbon from the air and bury it, desalinate water to irrigate land, produce hydrogen fuel and recycle - and if we did all those things, we would not only produce far less GHG's daily, but actively reverse the damage done by technology applied by ideologues - with no regard to a scientific understanding of reality. For that, my friend - is the real cause of climate change! The misapplication of technology for ideological ends!

Everything is not a complex interplay of randomness. Entropy imposes order - energy, causality, and the consistent movement of energy from higher states to lower states, which is to say, from before to after the energy event.

Sure:

something
[ˈsʌmθɪŋ]
PRONOUN
a thing that is unspecified or unknown.
"we stopped for something to eat" ·
used in various expressions indicating that a description or amount being stated is not exact.
"a wry look, something between amusement and regret" ·

ADVERB
informal
used for emphasis with a following adjective functioning as an adverb.
"my back hurts something terrible" ·

Nicole MacKenzie:

MPD Police Officer (6 years) - Medical Support Coordinator.
Knows Derek Chauvin - attended training, worked with him.

First aid education, training for academy recruit and cadets, admin of narcam program.
EMR certifications - annual. (above and beyond POST certification)
Exh. 277-278 - CPR cards issued to Chauvin.
Dept. policy re rendering emergency first aid:
Exh. 111 - tactical combat casualty care, narcan update, CPR training.
AVPU - Alertness, Verbal stimulus, Painful stimulus, Unresponsive.
Unresponsive - ABC's - airways, breathing, circulation.
No pulse - immediately start CPR.

Do you train that if someone can speak, they can breathe?
"No! It's incomplete - may not be breathing adequately."

When to stop CPR?
They wake up
Medics take over.
It's not safe.

Defence cross:

CPR is lower level than EMT.
Teach about excited delirium? Yes. Narcan? Yes.
40 hour class plus refreshers every two years.

As soon as reasonably practical, after use of force, render medical aid.
Teach about when it's "reasonably practical and safe to do so."
Bystanders, traffic, circumstances - scene safety. Yes!
EMT do not attend until scene Code 4? Correct!

MPD Policy 7-350 - 'as soon as practical"
May be circumstances when not possible to call in EMS? Yes.

Agonal breathing is irregular gasps of air - close to death. Often occurs in overdoses.
Could officer mistake agonal breathing for effective breathing? Yes!

Use of narcan:
Exh. 1041 - naloxone/narcan training. Counters opioids including fentanyl.
Speedball - combination of upper and downer.
Rising use of fentanyl - 3mg deadly.
Excited delirium - bizarre behaviour from factors such as psycho-motor agitation, psychosis, drug use, hypothermia.
"Bystanders do occasionally attack EMT crews" - so "load and go."
Distraction may harm care of patient? Correct!

re-direct.
Are officers trained to render medical aid in less than ideal circumstances? Yes!
Do bystanders excuse officer from rendering medical aid? If they were violent, maybe! But no!
Excited delirium medical issue - needing treatment? Yes!
Excited delirium may make a person vulnerable? "Yes?" Not just violent? "No!"

Court break.

Sgt Jody Stiger from LA.

Retained as expert witness by state - in sum of $10,000 plus $2950 for trial.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/07/18/after-dallas-lapd-sergeant-shares-his-thoughts

Marine Corps, Police Dept, Undercover drugs. Gang unit. FBI task force. Training division from 2000. 6 years in-service tactics unit instructor. 4 day course - de-escalation, firearms manipulation. Promoted to Sgt - LAPD.

Court adjourned suddenly!

Waiting for the trial to re-start, and I'm wondering where the racism is? I haven't seen any evidence of racism. People keep saying this is about race, but nothing I've heard so far has suggested racism played any part in the events!

Court convened!

Maurice Hall via video link from prison. Invokes fifth amendment privilege against self incrimination in view of potential 3rd degree murder charge relating to supply of drugs that, defence argues killed George Floyd.

Ker Yang. Police officer 24 years. Crisis Intervention Co-ordinator. Psychology doctorate.

Teaches crisis de-escalation.
Have you arrested resisting suspects? Yes!
2016 Chauvin attended 40 hour crisis intervention program.
Scenario based training - professional actors.
Officers identify signs of crisis and respond appropriately.
Yang introduced critical decision making model to MPD.
Is it useful in the field? Yes! Practical? Yes!

Defence cross:

As a part of your role, do you train cadets and recruits - as well as experienced officers.
What differences are there between the two?
As part of critical thinking and de-escalation teach officers to:
take in entire scene
be aware of surroundings
bystanders, etc.
all premised upon whether safe and feasoble to do so, correct? Yessir!

Next witness:
John Mercil. MPD since 1996. Patrol Officer 3rd precinct. 2 years.
Community Response Team - 3 years. Mounted Patrol. Gang Team.
Use of force trainer from 2010.
Aware of departmental policy? Yes.
Exh. 126 - pamphlet on use of force.
Exh. 119 - power point presentation. (in service training for experienced officers) Fall 2018 -
*sanctity of life and protection of the public
*Clear and consistent force policies
*4th amendment reasonableness standard.

Taken training - seen slides? Yes!
Exh. 124 - sign in sheet.

Restraint is a use of force? Yes!
Must be reasonable? Yes!
Proportionality - if it's reasonable to believe that it's possible to contain a situation at a lower level of force...
Should de-escalate when possible.
Exh. 17 - is this a use of force? Yes!

Exh 119 p.49 - striking zones - probability of injury.
Areas of danger include neck? Yes!

Use of Neck restraints (56-311.) Definitions
Neck restraint -
Non deadly force - pressure on sides of neck; slowing blood flow to/from brain
Conscious - light to moderate pressure controlling technique
Unconscious - maximum pressure; need to control through unconsciousness.

Conscious neck restraint is OK on Actively Resistant Subjects

Unconscious neck restraint only applied under following circumstances:

On subjects who are exhibiting active aggression, or:
For life saving purposes; or
On subjects who are actively resisting in order to gain control.
Cannot be used against subjects passively resisting.

After care guidelines:
- keep under close observation until transfer of custody
- inform those receiving custody of use of neck restraint.

How soon would you release a person from maximum restraint?
"It depends on the circumstances of the situation you're facing; the surroundings..."
Recovery position as soon as is possible.

Court break.

Defence cross:

Mercil designed Ground Defence Program - using moves other than strikes to control suspects.
body-weight, joint manipulation.
10 seconds to render someone unconscious
Hold someone in neck restraint after unconscious
- circumstances effect decision making.
Can you envisage circumstances in which would not put suspect in recovery position? Yes?
Use knee on back/neck to handcuff suspect? Yes!
Would use prone position to keep control of suspect? Yes!

Exh. 56 - would you be able to take pulse if knee was on carotid artery? No sir!
Exh. 1045 - shin is on back? Yes - ish!
Exh. 1046 - similar! 20:26:40 Lane bodycam.
Exh. 1047 - 20:27:49 - would you agree knee is between shoulder blades? Yes!
Exh.1048 - 20:28:29 - knee between shoulders? Yes?
Is this neck restraint? No!

Consider totality of circumstances?
Have you ever been trained to say if a person can talk they can breathe?
(garbled) Yes!
If, hypothetically - officers decide to use hobble - then change their minds, that's re-evaluation of use of force as required by critical thinking model? Yes!
Restraint can be de-escalation in itself? Yes!
Difference of size a consideration? Yes.
CDMM - situational awareness extends beyond subject to numerous factors? Yes.

re-direct.
Use of force reasonable in the eyes of the officer? Yes!
Always subject to review? Yes!
Must always be reasonable? Yes!
People filming would not justify use of force on suspect, would it? No!

re-re-direct:
Exh 184: is the man in blue holding back the man in black (Williams)? Yes!

Lunch.

Transhumanists don’t advocate intracranial self-stimulation — David Pearce

You don't?

Neuralink? It’s just a foretaste. If all goes well, everyone will be able to enjoy “narrow” superintelligence on embedded neurochips – the mature successors to today’s crude prototypes. — David Pearce

For a start, uniform bliss wouldn’t be evolutionarily stable; — David Pearce

Longevity is not a stable evolutionary state either! I did not think that was a big deal for you:

biotech can liberate us from the obscene horrors and everyday squalor of Darwinian life. — David Pearce

Do you appeal to evolutionary stability - or seek to transcend it?

Transhumanists don’t advocate getting “blissed out”. — David Pearce

Alexander Graham Bell originally suggested 'ahoy' be adopted as the standard greeting when answering a telephone. Not many other people use it the way it was intended.

Information-sensitivity is critical to preserving critical insight, social responsibility and intellectual progress. — David Pearce

The problem I foresee is that, currently, people get 'blissed out' because they don't want to think; they want to be less sensitive to information - not more so.

But you seem to have missed my point. There are technologies we have available, we need to apply to survive as a species, we still don't apply. Where's the incentive to make immortals that are sublimely contented and wicked smart?

p.s. I know transhumanists don't advocate actual immortality.

There are no definitive definitions because morality is fundamentally a sense. You may as well ask what makes a joke funny? Or what makes a sunset beautiful? There are identifiable regularities - like the subversion of expectation, or the golden ratio, but they don't tell us anything about why something is funny, or why something is beautiful - and it's the same with morality. The most significant regularity to morality is honesty, but it's not an explanation, less yet a definition.

Is this a really clever joke about Roman numerals? I don't get it!

Dr Spok!

lol

Seems our comments on the other thread were considered extraneous! Surplus to requirements! Expendable inessentials! They were deleted.

I'm letting it go. I imagine the science officer on Kirk's Enterprise must have had a PhD, at least!

The book the passage is from - is about hereditary sin. It's not a physics book. It's not even philosophy. It's theology. K considers different concepts of time, not because he's trying to show how time works. His concern is:

the meaning of world history and the historical development of the individual thereby losing the concepts of conversion, atonement, and redemption). One gets the future not by itself, but in a simple continuity with the present (the concepts of resurrection and judgment being thereby laid in ruins). — Constance

...because of different concepts of time. The reason concepts of time were at issue around 1859 is that Darwin published Origin of Species that year, in turn based on a geological concept of time - that proposed a hugely ancient origin of the earth and lifeforms fossilized in rock layers.

In Leviathan, Hobbes describes a natural balance between degree of political oppression - and the costs of exercising such control, and it's those costs that, in my view - the Conservatives certainly, are not willing to pay.

Labour, under Corbyn - might have been a different story had he won in 2019, I think your fears would have been more credible. But I don't see a threat to essential freedoms even from Starmer, less yet from Boris.

Significant opposition from within the Conservatives, to draconian lockdown measures adopted in the short term, suggest a strong desire to get back to normal ASAP.