Police Chief Arradondo - cont.

EDP - emotionally disturbed person. (4500 EDP's.)

Officers role as first responders regarding medical care.
Most basic training first aid ABC's - airways, breathing, circulation.
Duty to render aid - in policy procedure manual
7-350 Emergency Medical Response.

The purpose of this policy is to lay out the roles and responsibilities of MPD employees in MPD incidents involving a medical emergency.

While awaiting EMS, MPD employees assisting an individual having an acute medical crisis shall provide any necessary first aid in accord with MPD training, as soon as practical.

Policy regarding proper use of force.
5-301

A. Sanctity of life and protection of the public shall be the cornerstone of MPD's use of force.

Implemented 2016. Has been imparted through training? Yes!

Policy defines force, among other things, as:

"Any restraint of the physical movement of another that is applied in a manner or under circumstances likely to produce an injury."

Objectively reasonable force.
Graham v. Connor statute.
Officers should consider:

*Severity of crime.
*Threat to public.
*Risk of flight.

Critical thinking model: Exh 276.

Have you reviewed Milestone CCTV, bystander video, bodycam footage? Yes.
Did Chauvin follow procedure regarding de-escalation? No!
Restraint violates departmental policy? Yes!
Force needs to be reasonable and proportional throughout. Is this proportional? No!
"The defendant violated our policy regarding when to render aid."

Defence cross:

Police chief last arrested suspect - many years ago.
Exh. 216: 5-301 - reasonableness of use of force - objectively reasonable in terms of the facts available to that officer at that time.
Can minor incidents snowball? Yes!
Is approaching a vehicle dangerous for police officer? Yes!

Policy may change to prohibit certain types of use of force? Yes!
10-15 years ago - training changed toward bodyweight takedowns. Policy or training? Training! Yes!
Policy may not specifically outlaw moves no longer taught in training? Agreed? Agreed!

"escalate to de-escalate" - i.e. drawing gun.
Procedures contain phrases like "as soon as possible, whenever practical, when safe and feasible"
Use of force can be de-escalation tactic? "I don't have experience."
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!

Witnessing use of force may cause third person a crisis. Yes.
Crowd may be upset with police interaction? Yes.
De-escalation could involve refusing to engage? Yes.

Exh. 1008 - 20:25:33 - bodycam. In reflection from squad car arrival of EMT Hansen.
"We've got an ambulance coming."

Court break.

Use of Neck Restraint policy.

MPD Policy 5-311.

Difference between neck restraint and choke hold.
Conscious neck restraint - versus unconscious neck restraint.
Both permitted by policy May 25th. Yes!
Neck restraint was employed? Yes!
This was a conscious neck restraint? Yes!

Part of critical decision making is taking in surroundings, other officers, members of the public? Yes!

Are you familiar with camera perspective bias? No!
Do you agree that from the perspective of Ms Frazer's camera Officer Chauvins knee appears to be on George Floyd's neck? Yes. Do you see that in Keung's bodycam footage, Officer Chauvin's knee is on the shoulder of George Floyd? Agreed!

Side recovery position "immediately." Positional asphyxia.
If you have me in a dangerous hold, can you maintain that hold because of what someone else is doing? No!

Katey Blackwell - Inspector 5th precinct. Former Commander of Training Division plus, plus, plus...
Expert Witness. Known Chauvin 20 years.
Exh. 203 - defendant's training records.
Chauvin selected as Field Training Officer.
Twice trained in proper use of force in 2018.
Side recovery position "as soon as possible." Positional asphyxia.
Exh. 17 photo DC knee neck GF.
Is this a technique you train?
It is not!

Defence cross:

multiple classes/ trainers during 8 hours. Correct!
30,000 pages of training manuals, correct?
Correct!

Court adjourned.

Discussion of the legal relevance and viability of potential exhibits.

Dr Langenfeld. Senior Resident. Hennepin County Medical Center. 1pm to 11 pm.
Cardiac arrest. 20:55pm.
"mentioned he was being detained at the time"
ACLS algorithm is to determine why someone is in cardiac arrest so you know how to treat them.
10-15% reduction in chances of survival, for every minuet CPR is not administered.
PEA - pulseless electrical activity. Floyd was in PEA.

H's+T's. Did you consider toxins? i.e. drugs.
That was a possibility.
Was the leading cause for Mr Floyd's death oxygen deficiency?
I thought oxygen deficiency the most likely explanation.

Court break.

Defence cross Dr Langenfeld:

Can fentanyl increase carbon dioxide in blood?
Yes. Reduces oxygen causing sleepiness.
Police did not report use of neloxone (anti-opiate medication)
No!
Elevated Co2 level? Yes. Exceptionally high? Yes.
Paramedics did not provide neloxone or narcam? No!
(on clarification: would not benefit someone in cardiac arrest.)
Paramedics did not administer narcam? No!
Co2 level weak evidence consistent with cardiac arrest.

Police chief: Arradondo
"Protect with courage - serve with compassion."
Investigator with property crimes unit.
Internal affairs unit.
Does that include use of force cases? Yes.

structure of police department in relation to everyday operations.
precinct map.
200,000 calls per year - plus police generated activity.

Commander of training division - Stacey Hawn. Last year Darcy? Blackwell.
Are you familiar with training provided? Yes.
FTO - field training program - recruit teamed up with police officer mentor.
Annual CPR training. Spend $8-10 million p.a. on training.
Does training impart policies? Yes.
Is training practical and useful? Yes.
Policy and procedure manual - important, public document.
Police officer required to be familiar with policies:
"MPD employees shall be provided instructions on how to access the online policy and procedure manual. Employees sign a receipt, acknowledging responsibility for knowing the contents of the manual."
Exh 274: receipt signed by Chauvin.

Exh 215: code of ethics

'As a Minnesota Law Enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent..."

Are there policies with regard to people filming police officers?
Yes. Individuals have absolute right to film - with exception, not to obstruct police officer.

Police officer may find it irritating to be filmed?
Yes.
Is that obstruction?
No!

De-escalation? Methods to achieve safe and peaceful outcome.
Part of using force - and also instead of using force.
De-escalation became policy around 1990's, with regard to mental health.
Key is communication - listening and verbal skills.
Currently has de-escalation policy Exh 219 - 5-304:
"Whenever reasonable MPD officers SHALL use de-escalation tactics."
"Attempt to slow down the situation, so that more time, options and resources become available."

Officers required to consider if a subjects lack of compliance is deliberate attempt to resist or an inability to comply based on factors including:
*Influence of drug or alcohol use.
*Mental health.
*Behavioural crisis i.e. if someone loses job, loses family, bad medical diagnosis - can trigger behavioural crisis.

Lunch.

Prior to the start of the trial, I'm listening to Chanley Painter and guests making Floyd out to be the victim of a "struggle with drugs." I have seen no evidence of a struggle with drugs. I saw someone already smashed out of his nut, willing to force fake bills on his local store to get more drugs, then violently resist arrest when - doped up, he fell asleep at the scene of the crime until police arrived.

Hi all. What do you think of moral realism? Does it have things going for it, or not? What do you think are arguments in favor or against it? — mcc1789

I think that morality is fundamentally a sense that human beings developed as a consequence of evolution in a tribal context. Proto-moral behaviours are evident in chimpanzees - in that they share food and groom each other, remember who reciprocates and withhold such favours accordingly in future. This is moral transactionalism - the root of morality and trade.

Subsequent events confuse the question of the nature of morality; firstly, the occurrence of intellectual intelligence, which is to say development of the language to express moral concepts, and also hunter gatherer tribes joining together to form multi-tribal social groups.

The latter is particularly relevant because that is where morality became objectivised; that is, attributed to an absolute authority i.e. God, as a common belief system that allowed the multi tribal social group common moral laws. It must have been quite difficult to achieve. There's around a 40,000 year gap between the occurrence of intellectual intelligence and the formation of the first civilisations - a mere 12-15,000 years ago.

Civilisation was made possible by morality attributed to an objective authority - and faith in the objective authority has been required. Consequently, when for example - Hume observes the imperceptible switch between is and ought - it is for him the last resort, but for me entirely natural that the individual infers ought from is.

The individual is imbued with an innate moral sense; a sensitivity to moral implication. A list of facts is not just a list of facts upon apprehension by us. Morality is from within; and objective to us as a consequence of civilisation. All that so; I do and do not agree with moral realism. I accept society must have laws - and therefore there will be values objective to me, but do not believe they are objective features of the world independent of subjective opinion. That said, morality is objectively premised in our evolutionary biology, so it's kind of chicken and egg! From us and unto us!

I think the obligation is upon you to say what you think the passage means, if you assert it is something other than what I say it means.

Explain, such that I understand how this is not, as it seems - powerfully evocative of Nietzsche, 20 years before Nietzsche. Nietzsche didn't just fall from the clear blue sky. This was the character of the thought of his age.

. 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

It is about a rational concept of time, as opposed to theological concepts of time. Is it not? Then what is it about?

No wait. I do see that the passage mentions Christianity and sin. I almost forgot. But these should be considered as merely incidental. The focus is time. It is an apriori analysis of time, its past, present and future structure. Kierkegaard is not just "a religious writer" as Heidegger called him, and I am certain K made significant contributions to his thinking, as with this analysis I provide in bold print. This eternal present encompasses past and future, says K. After all, when you are recalling or anticipating, is always IN the present, so how can an ontology of time e consider past or future without the present. Of course, the present is elusive, hence the discussion. — Constance

Could you not just take turns Constance? Only child were you? My goodness me!

I don't think the emphasis in this passage is on how time works, but rather how time must be perceived for the purposes of the religious civilisation of Kierkegaard's era. He imagines a more rational, scientific concept of time:

If the instant is posited but merely as a discrimen [division], then the future is the eternal. — Constance

...he imagines will be devastating to the values of civilisation.

If one doesn’t watch out for this, not a single concept can be saved from a heretical and treasonable admixture that annihilates the concept. — Constance

It's Nietzsche for beginners. But it's mistaken. Human beings are imbued with a moral sense by evolution, and in fact - religious values are expressions of that innate moral sense; adopted when hunter gatherer tribes joined together - to forge a social group under a common belief system.

Consequently, I would argue, civilisation is in no danger from realism. In some large part, the values of civilisation are from us, and unto us. That so, by knowing what's true and doing what's right in terms of what's true, rationally, we can turn and face reality and take it on and win. Our moral and rational sense are sufficient - insofar as they are manifested in civilisation. We did that. Imagine how much more we could do if we were confident enough in our decency and genius to be forward facing in our approach.

religion? How is this about religion? — Constance

How is this about religion?

This is clearly to be seen in the Greek, the Jewish, and the Christian views. The concept on which everything turns in Christianity, that which made all things new,* is the fullness of time,† but the fullness of time is the instant as the eternal, and yet this eternal is also the future and the past. If one doesn’t watch out for this, not a single concept can be saved from a heretical and treasonable admixture that annihilates the concept. — Constance

It's about the temporal orientation of civilisation; backward looking. Unsaid, is that we retreat, bowed from the presence of the Creator at the beginning of time, and so enter into the future blindly, and arse first!

In reality, we are not devolving from perfection in the past. We are evolving from animal ignorance into human knowledge over time. Hence, God is in the future - we grow to meet Him.

Edit: If all (perception and understanding of) reality is subjective then the burden of proof is not on the claimant but on the disagreer. Thoughts. — New2K2

There are subjectivist philosophies that go to the epistemological extremes; most notably, post modernism - but more generally, subjectivist philosophers do an end run around the burden of proof by asserting the - often cultural relativism of truth claims.

To my mind, it's somewhere between polite and cowardly, that in face of often quite delicate questions of race or religion - we do not bang on the objectively existing table about what we can prove, but retreat to a live and let live subjectivist relativism that has us pander to the lived experience of the least informed.

I think it's okay to tell people when they're wrong; why they're wrong, and why it must be some other way instead - but, on the other hand, even as an outspoken objectivist, I accept there is a burden of proof on me in doing so.

I wasn't think of you -- more the "super" theorists. — Bitter Crank

I am a lousy theorist, that's true - but I look to the most scientifically fundamental and beneficial application of technology as a matter of my "belief" in the transformative potential of technology, energy and entropy, page one - the greatest benefit, with least disruption at the least cost, and so I'm keen to understand David's rationale. I'm concerned that, while longevity, well being and intelligence are goods in themselves, the implications are not theoretically dealt with - most obviously, of people living longer. How would that work? Bliss chips that have super-brilliant people stood at a production line, doing a mind numbing job 20 hours a day with a broad grin? Happy is good!

Your example is a good one, and there are many more examples of technological leaders not executing more than token gestures (if that) to achieve reachable improvements in health, sustainable energy, food production, and so forth--never mind super-health.

We can't get large sections of the populations to wear masks, wait in line 6 feet apart, get vaccinated, stay home (for the good of all) and so on.

I have a feeling that somewhere in this scheme a large amount of force is lurking. — Bitter Crank

Not in my schemes, BC. I don't want to change anything. I want to change everything. I want to cooperate insofar as is necessary to attack the global climate and ecological crisis from the supply side - starting by harnessing massive clean energy. If used only for the specified purposes of extracting carbon, desalinating water and recycling, we could do a world of good.

Oops, sorry David. I do not mean to hijack your thread. Welcome to the Philosophy Forum.

I would ask, if you believe in the transformative potential of technology, why is that? Is it just that you love gadgets?

Seems a little far fetched when we can't get humans to apply available technologies for the benefit of humanity; not least, drill for limitless magma heat energy, to produce massive base load, clean electrical power, for carbon capture and sequestration, hydrogen fuel, desalination/irrigation and recycling, but a miracle chip in my neo-frontal cortex is going to usher in a subjective sense of paradise? Unless we get the utilities sorted out, your transhumanist paradise will be objectively unliveable - no matter how blissed out you are!

Religion occurs in an evolutionary context - and may well be pointing at something real; albeit in a culturally idiosyncratic manner. I don't know if God exists or not, but to my mind, God is in the future, and we grow to meet Him.

In evolutionary terms, all peoples adopted an objective authority as a basis for social law, and even if Creator worship is necessarily backward looking, creating an objective authority is a fundamentally correct relationship to reality. The tragedy is that, upon discovery of the method to systematically establish generalisable laws that govern Creation, we did not recognise that as the echoing word of God, and forge a sacred moral relationship with objective truth - such that, knowing what's true and doing what's right; applying technology in accord with rational and moral reason, we'd have made a paradise of the world, and it would have been proof of God's blessings.

We didn't do that; we branded science a heresy, and used it without regard to the understanding of reality it describes, and so failed to harness the rationalising influence and functional truth value inherent to a scientific understanding of reality to the benefit of human affairs. We developed and applied technologies with regard to motives supplied by pre-scientific - overlapping religious, political and economic justifications of authority; understandably perhaps, but consequently, here we are now, looking toward a disastrous future unto extinction, unless we adapt.

We are far from the ideal; and so should not be idealistic. We have to get there from here, and it is possible - given the virtually limitless energy of the earth's molten interior. Philosophically, we would be jumping the tracks - I accept that; but it has happened before, when hunter gatherers joined together to form multi-tribal societies, unto civilisations, they transcended themselves - as we must do now. They adopted God as an objective authority to make multi-tribal civilisation possible; as we must now adopt science if but in this regard alone; that acting accordingly, we claim the energy to overcome the climate and ecological crisis, and that I think would put us on the path to the path to God.

My pleasure. Thank you for affording me the opportunity to express my views.

Interesting subject; and I agree, death is not necessarily bad. It is a necessary aspect of evolution that previous generations make way for subsequent generations; personally, my prime concern is that dying doesn't hurt. My complaint is not with death per se - but rather with the extent of an average human life span. It's neither here nor there. I'm just about getting myself together psychologically, becoming a layered, complex individual who knows some stuff - and my body starts to fall apart. It's not fair.

We should be looking toward living much longer and healthier lives; even while that has enormous resource implications, and raises questions of inter-generational justice - it would be a very different world were we forced to solve that problem. I do think it is possible to solve it, and we would have to solve it were people longer lived.

As for immortality, no! Not if it were actual immortality - I would not want that. Some part of me finds it attractive, but I've run the numbers and they don't look good. A thousand years? Great. I'd love to live a thousand years. But eternity? Millions and billions? Even I'd get sick of me!

You're right; it is pretty cool.

Nice image. It shows exactly what I mean. There are physical differences between wavelengths of light detected by the eye - albeit only across the narrow band of visible light. This is a feature of reality - we can know exists objectively and consistently, because it performs an evolutionary function. The fruit turns red. It stands out - attracts attention to the fruit in order to spread its seed. Thus logic dictates that colour is a consistent physical reality the human organism has evolved in relation to - and that different terms used to describe colours by ancient peoples, must be less specific language - rather than differences of perception.

In my view, construing colour as subjective in nature is a product of the "subjectivism industry" that characterises most of philosophy, religion, politics, the humanities, literature, culture. It is overwhelmingly the dominant paradigm; that since Descartes, in service to the Church, has rejected the profane physical world and seeks to accentuate the spiritual, through to the subjective. It's another form of heliocentrism; man putting man at the centre of reality - and it's a mistake.

I would rather assume the reality I perceive exists - if the fact you see it too isn't sufficient proof for the philosophical mind; then I must assume what I naturally assume everyday, and on that basis - recognise that reality is consistent in nature, and obeys physical laws that can be understood, and manipulated to therefore achieve freedom from the oppression of reality.

Art proves the essential similarity of perception for all people; the artist could not convey literal information to other people, across time - if reality were subjectively constructed by the individual. Yet art exists, and could not exist unless it were assumed that perception were objective in character, and similar to subsequent observers. Art is impossible to explain if reality is subjectively constructed. How can there be art, or traffic lights, or colour coded electrical wires, or fruit that signals ripeness as a reproductive strategy.

Edwards. Police Sergeant. dogwatch shift third precinct. 20:30 hrs rollcall. Called by Sgt Pleoger shortly after. "At hospital with male - may not live." Sent Edwards to 38th/Chicago. Secure scene/canvass area/appropriate notifications. Arrived 38th/Chicago 21:35.

Kueng/Lane. Activate cameras. 21:50:17.
Lt Zimmerman on scene 22:06:49
Lane/Keung to city hall interview room. 22:14:00

Lt Zimmerman. 1990 Crack team. 1995 Homicide. Senior Officer.
21:56:16 - determined Lane/Keung were 'involved officers' - need to go to city hall.

Arrested person is arresting officer's responsibility.

Use of force continuum is policy; levels of force.
1. presence
2. verbal.
3. soft technique - escort
4. hard technique - handcuffed
5. deadly force.

"Handcuffed person in prone position should be put in recovery position ASAP."
"Obligation to provide medical care to person under arrest."
"Totally unnecessary"
"Uncalled for"
"I saw no reason officers thought they were in danger."

Defence cross:
Past 27 years in investigative role?
Experience of use of force primarily through training.
Tactics have changed over time. Agreed.
Change of practice from striking, batons - to bodyweight takedowns, correct? Not agreed.
Critical decision making model - constantly taking in information, changes way in which procedures are applied. Correct? Agreed.
Equipment changes - tasers, bodycams etc.
Information changes way officers apply use of force.

Officers not medics.
Responsible to keep scene safe.
Take what medical steps are reasonable in the moment.
Other factors taken in on ongoing basis. Agreed.

Allowed to use whatever force is reasonable and necessary, correct? Correct.
Use of force is dynamic process based on a lot of incoming information, correct? Correct.
Body camera does not show exactly what officers sees, correct? Correct.
Not within Lt Zimmerman's normal duties to do use of force analysis? Correct? Correct!

Did you see any need for Chauvin to improvise by putting his knee on Mr Floyd for 9:29 seconds?
No I did not!

Lunch. Court adjourned until Monday.

Friday. When court adjourns today it will resume Monday; the weekend a long break in the midst of such a trial. I imagine the judge, prosecution and defence could do with the time off. I'm exhausted just watching. But I wonder where we will be left hanging; not that it will have much effect on the 'noises off' - and nor that noises off should have any effect on the workings or the verdict of a trial, but still, as the resting point informs a billion column inches of ill informed and poorly reasoned opinion, I imagine prosecution and defence would both rather the ladder were left leaning against their shed!

I've read the Odyssey, and I'm fairly sure he speaks of the wine dark sea. But he also speaks of the gold and rosy fingers of dawn - which is an unerringly accurate description of colour. I think it's just poetic license; possibly describing the appearance of the Mediterranean ocean in moonlight, or maybe just evoking the idea of an ocean of wine. I don't think it literal; for while I was surprised to find the Odssey remains eminently readable 5,000 years after it was written, it is not literal. It's the grandfather of all sci-fi fantasy; magic and monsters on the high seas - 5,000 years ago, written as an epic poem.

Etymological evidence suggests the colour orange came into use quite recently; but I cannot therefore conclude that orange wavelengths of light were not reflected by orange things, before we agreed on a specific word for orange - and similarly I think "the wine dark sea" must have been a poetic phrase.

You haven't addressed at all the evolutionary argument I put forward; which is essentially that the organism has to be responsive and accurate to objective reality to survive. I think about fruit in the trees that goes red when it gets ripe. And it actually does. Fruit undergoes a chemical change, that then eliminates different wavelengths of light reflected from its surface - that signals to the organism that the fruit is ripe and ready to eat. Colour is not subjective - nor made possible by nomenclature. It exists in reality, as is then described in increasingly literal terms.

The sky is blue because other wavelengths of light are filtered out by the atmosphere. I think of the perception of colour as the elimination of other wavelengths of light. Looking at the colour wheel (top) the violet is blocked by the red but emphasised by the blue.

Considering light as reflected from objects at the wavelength of the reflecting surface - again, wavelengths of light have been eliminated to convey to the eye the colour of the surface.

So then when we consider the organism - evolving in relation to a causal reality, and requiring reliable sensory information about the environment as a basis to make survival decisions - lest faulty perception be eliminated by natural selection, I'm inclined to assume that perception bears a very strong relation to objective reality - that colour exists objectively, and the subjective experience is accurate to reality.

Otherwise - how could we explain the overwhelming uniformity of perceptions that we can speak meaningfully of a blue sky?

Smith. Paramedic. Arrived on scene.
I checked for a pulse. I checked Mr Floyd's pupils. Large. Dilated.
"In lay terms, I thought he was dead."
Inside ambulance.
Update fire/EMT to ***full arrest***

Norton - Captain fire dept. 21 years.
Responded to code 2 - updated en route.
Arrived on scene - no ambulance. Entered store.
Spoke with Hansen and police officer.
Went to 36th/Park - ambulance.

Court break.

Sgt. Pleoger. Police officer.
Force review report - (use of force report.)
Minneapolis Police Department Procedure Manual - 5-306.
Reporting req's for use of force:
"As soon as reasonably practical, determine if anyone was injured and render medical aid consistent with training and request Emergency Medical Services (EMS) if necessary."

5-316. Maximal restraint technique. Requires supervisor reporting.
A supervisor shall be called to the scene where a subject has been restrained using the MRT to evaluate manner in which MRT was applied and to evaluate ...... of transport.

MRT - safety.

1. As soon as reasonably possible, any person restrained using MRT who is in prone position shall be placed in the following positions based on the type of restraint used.
a. If the hobble device is used, person to be placed in recovery position.

Prosecution: Do you believe the restraint should have ended earlier?
Defence: Objection. Sidebar. Court break.
Sgt. Pleoger did not, and was not req to do use of force report - because critical incident. Goes direct to Internal Affairs.
Prosecution: "Based on your review of bodycam footage - do you have a view with regard to the restraint of Mr Floyd?"
Sgt. Pleoger: "It should have ended when Mr Floyd was handcuffed and no longer resisting arrest."
Defence: "Other relevant information - i.e. perceived threat of crowd, may modify application of procedures? Correct?"
Sgt. Pleoger: Correct!

Court adjourned.

Ross. Floyd's lover. Opiate addict. Floyd had proscription for back pain. Opiate medication.
"Played sports everyday. Lifting weights, running, biking!"
Defence exh. 1006 - photo of Maurice Hall.
Ross and Floyd bought drugs from Hall.
When not on proscription, bought other proscriptions, plus street drugs.
Floyd hospitalised March - overdose. 5 days. Stomach pain.

Court break.

Bravinda. Paramedic. Despatched code 2 (not critical. no lights/sirens.) Mouth injury. PD on scene.
One half minuets later - received note code 3. Upgraded lights/sirens.

Moved ambulance because of angry crowd - to focus on "running code."
Asystole - no heart beat.

Lunch.

Waiting for trial to start - not watching Court TV as they feature a procession of people calling for a guilty verdict whilst the trial is in progress, before the defence case has been heard. Personally, I'm remaining impartial and open minded - refusing to be swayed by emotional theatrics or the political/media circus, that might be better employed informing the public about the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and the general character of legal rationale - than granting air time to advocates of mob justice who don't want to hear the evidence before ...demanding a particular verdict of the court! There's something very wrong with that!

McMillian. Old man, outside cup foods. Exh. 39. CCTV. "You can't win!" (intervention counter-productive!)

Court break.

Police digital information officer. Exh. 42 - police arrive at cup foods. time stamp obscured. walk across E38th. Walk back into shot w Floyd.

Lane bodycam
20:08:48 arrives at cup foods
20:09:27 Arrives at Floyd's car.
20:17:50 - attempt to put Floyd in police car.
20:19:00 "Take him out!" (of the car)
Restrained.
Arrival of off-duty fire fighter/EMT Hansen on scene. Lane bodycam timestamp 20:25:35.
EMT present.
Chauvin stands up - 20:27:30
Kueng's bodycam timestamp different.
Tau bodycam- arrival on scene 20:17:10.
Immediately hear. "You can't win!" McMillian.
20:17:50 struggle to put Floyd in car begins
"Take him out!" (of the car.) 20:19:05.
20:19:3? - 20:26:34 Tau dealing with crowd.

Now 5 mins of Sergeant Someone out for a drive, earlier that day! Weird!
Read exhibits into evidence.
Chauvin lost camera.
Jury excused.
Defence question Lt Rugel - basically asking police digital data specialist how the CCTV video footage software package works.
Procedural issues.
Court adjourned.

Martin. Shop clerk - cup foods. Fake $20 bill.

Court break.

CCTV. Floyd buys cigarettes with fake $20 bill. Martin initially intends to put bill "on his tab." Martin is repeatedly encouraged by manager to pursue Floyd. Manager phoned police.

The largely irrelevant testimony of Mr Belfrey. Driver of red minivan parked behind Floyd. Moved vehicle. Exh. 36 - camera phone footage from cup foods side of E38th St.

Lunch.

08:26:29 - arrival of off-duty fire fighter/EMT Hansen on scene.

20:33(?) Fire fighter/EMT Hansen. time of call - electronic voice date stamp.

Exhibit 11 (estimated.) 08:20:47 removal of Mr Floyd from police car. CCTV timestamp.

20:19:05 bodycam footage. Exh. 39.

08:28:46 Mr Chauvin stands up. CCTV timestamp.

Judge annoyed by Hansen, directed her to answer succinctly. Court adjourned.

08:27:32 - arrival of paramedics. CCTV video camera timestamp.

Is this some kind of exercise in public relations? Or is the prosecution seeking to enter "emotional testimony" into the proceedings? What pertinent facts can a 10 year old child testify to a year after the event? None at all! It's absurd!

4 more "bystander" type witnesses to testify to what is almost certainly stipulated in large part by the defence; such that their testimony will add nothing. I don't see the point of this. Seems like a complete waste of time.

20:20:11 ems code for injury
20:21:35 ems code 3
20:31:12 metcom ems location park/36

20:34:10 ***full arrest***

20:34:44 phone call to Sergeant Pleoger.


In the afternoon, we saw defence cross examination of Jena Scurry, and prosecution testimony from a shop clerk - who took camera-phone footage, and a bystander. The bystander had knowledge of martial arts and said he expressed concern, and told Chauvin the restraint was a "blood hold" - that is, a hold designed to cut of circulation of blood at the neck. Court adjourned.

Before lunch today we saw the opening statements of the prosecution and defence, and prosecution examination of the telephone despatch operator, Jena Scurry. The key piece of evidence the prosecution revealed was that she, an experienced despatcher with access to live CCTV; acting in excess to her strict duties, phoned a police sergeant to express concern that something wasn't right at the scene. I should like to know the exact time of that call.

Is it ethical to comment whilst in progress?

Maybe not, eh?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56544239

Read this, and explain to me how he charts the course of energy development as key to the development of civilisation, but does not reach the conclusion that now, we need massively more energy to spend, as has accompanied every previous leap forward.

It's illegal.

How I imagine it, we commit to developing the energy resources to address climate change - using massive clean energy from magma to extract carbon, desalinate and irrigate, recycle, and so forth - while otherwise carrying on exactly as we are. In the deepest philosophical terms I can fathom, I think it's the right thing; not least because it explains the problem and solution in the same terms, but also because it is the one single thing we could do, that would do the most good, at the least cost and with least disruption to how things are.

I do not accept there is over-population, so I cannot answer your question, but I will say this: resources are a function of the energy available to produce them. The Malthusian, pessimistic view - and all its intellectual descendants are fundamentally mistaken. There are no limits to growth.

I rather rely on the influence of the thing I'm pointing at; whilst I hop about madly making hooting noises!

Over-population is not the problem. The mis-application of technology is the problem. Applying the right technologies, the world could support a large human population, at high levels of welfare - into the indefinite future. Limitless clean energy from magma, carbon capture and storage, desalination and irrigation, and recycling - are technologies that already exist, or could be easily developed, and scaled up would change the equation of sustainability. Problematising the very existence, and the needs and wants of people; rather than the application of technology - strikes me as profoundly wrong, and is unlikely to make for a prosperous, sustainable future. In scientific terms, the correct approach is to develop vast energy resources. In technological terms it is possible. In political terms it's obviously very difficult, and one would want to be satisfied that it would be beneficial in economic terms. But I think it would work.

In the future I envisage, a petroleum crisis does not occur because we harness limitless clean energy from magma, and use that energy to extract carbon from the atmosphere. That so, we do not need to quit fossil fuels right away, cold turkey, compounding loss of revenues with the cost of massive infrastructure changes.

We will have the energy to extract carbon in future, so the existing fossil fuel infrastructure can at least live out its natural life, insofar as we "plant a tree" - metaphorically speaking, by investing in the technology to harness limitless clean energy.

This allows for a supply side approach to sustainability, that gives us more time and more choice in how we proceed, and so makes a sustainable future politically possible; ultimately, because it is economically beneficial, and the least disruptive solution to a real and serious threat.

I think it must be very difficult for philosophers, politicians or scientists to express as ambitious a view as I have, for they operate within the bounds established by the ideological architecture of society. My hope is that, outside looking in - with a reputation none can damage further than I have damaged it myself, that I can ask the rude and stupid question professional people are too intelligent and polite to ask. If I can do that I will have done my duty.

So, I am asking what does it mean to say that one is a philosopher, and who are the 'real' philosophers? — Jack Cummins

I am a real philosopher; insofar as I seek to communicate an idea abut how the world is, and how it might be - if we believed something else, in my view - rather more reasonable. I am inadequate to the task of reconstructing 400 years of alternate history and thought; less yet - illustrating the world that would have resulted otherwise, had science been afforded its due. But it is nonetheless a vocation; a duty I feel relates to my very being, to point out - over and over again, that our relationship to scientific knowledge is mistaken; and the flip side of recognising that error, is key to a long and glorious future.

I appreciate the audacity of such a claim; and no doubt it weighs upon me, but humankind approaches upon a catastrophe - such that I have no choice but to speak out. If it were not possible to secure the future - I'd settle down and sail into the infinite sunset, largely content. But it is possible; and that is what I aim to point out. That accepting science is true and acting accordingly, man would harness magma energy on a monolithic scale, two three times current energy demand, capture carbon, desalinate water to irrigate land, recycle - and continue to grow into the future.