The inverse is also true, but it’s still not particularly relevant to my point outside of the rough example i gave previously.
Yes, the inverse is also true. Which is why it was necessary to investigate it to see why he died, as it was not clear why.
You, however, just saw the video and assumed the cop’s actions caused his death. It’s unclear why considering his actions would not normally kill someone.
But unlike the bullet that killed Thompson, being knelt on like that would not kill most people.
irrelevant , A peanut wouldn’t kill most people.
Entirely relevant. If you saw a video of them feeding him a peanut butter sandwich and he died right afterward, you have no clear evidence without autopsy that he didn’t have a heart attack or something. You can’t just assume the cop’s actions caused it.
Not an assumption, dictionary definition of killing.
How is it not an assumption to say the cop’s actions caused his death prior to autopsy?
I’m an not talking about manslaughter, murder, none of that. I’m not talking about intent. I am talking about the same definition of killing that you are.
Yes, the inverse is also true. Which is why it was necessary to investigate it to see why he died, as it was not clear why.
Agree, but cause of death is not the same as whether or not he was killed, i know you’re not seeing the distinction.
You, however, just saw the video and assumed the cop’s actions caused his death. It’s unclear why considering his actions would not normally kill someone.
I saw a video of someone not immediately dying, then a bunch of people restraining him, then he died.
It’s reasonable to assume if he was just standing there and they hadn’t interacted at all, he wouldn’t have died.
I’ll break it down into steps:
No interaction -> I’m assuming he isn’t just going to drop dead in that moment.
Interaction -> he died.
Therefore interaction led to death.
It is possible, though very unlikely he could have just dropped dead of his own accord, it’s not a reasonable assumption that he would though.
I’m not sure how why this is a difficult concept , but it’s certainly interesting to see.
Entirely relevant. If you saw a video of them feeding him a peanut butter sandwich and he died right afterward, you have no clear evidence without autopsy that he didn’t have a heart attack or something. You can’t just assume the cop’s actions caused it.
That’s some top tier mental gymnastics, but not entirely incorrect.
The same could be said that if someone was shot and bled out, you couldn’t be sure it wasn’t a heart attack that killed them, but you can be reasonable sure it was getting shot that led to the death.
Yes, i suppose you couldn’t be sure until the autopsy, but it’s reasonable to assume causation until proven otherwise.
Please note that i’m saying causation and not the legal qualifications for murder or manslaughter, because so far you seem to be conflating the two.
How is it not an assumption to say the cop’s actions caused his death prior to autopsy?
Hmm, you are right, that is my bad, it is an assumption, even after the autopsy.
I stand by it being a reasonable assumption though. ( of killing, not intent )
I’m an not talking about manslaughter, murder, none of that. I’m not talking about intent. I am talking about the same definition of killing that you are.
You are not, i’m talking about cause and effect you’re talking about media bias and fairness.
As i said, if they’d been having lunch and he’d been accidentally given a strong allergen, the conversation would be very different.
Still killing though.
Even if everyone knew, for a fact, that the death was caused by the actions of the police, that isn’t itself a bias take with regards to the trial/law.
That’s just cause and effect.
The law is couched in intention and context, otherwise there wouldn’t be a need for distinctions such as murder, manslaughter etc. There would be an autopsy and a conviction.
Yes, the inverse is also true. Which is why it was necessary to investigate it to see why he died, as it was not clear why.
You, however, just saw the video and assumed the cop’s actions caused his death. It’s unclear why considering his actions would not normally kill someone.
Entirely relevant. If you saw a video of them feeding him a peanut butter sandwich and he died right afterward, you have no clear evidence without autopsy that he didn’t have a heart attack or something. You can’t just assume the cop’s actions caused it.
How is it not an assumption to say the cop’s actions caused his death prior to autopsy?
I’m an not talking about manslaughter, murder, none of that. I’m not talking about intent. I am talking about the same definition of killing that you are.
Agree, but cause of death is not the same as whether or not he was killed, i know you’re not seeing the distinction.
I saw a video of someone not immediately dying, then a bunch of people restraining him, then he died.
It’s reasonable to assume if he was just standing there and they hadn’t interacted at all, he wouldn’t have died.
I’ll break it down into steps:
No interaction -> I’m assuming he isn’t just going to drop dead in that moment.
Interaction -> he died.
Therefore interaction led to death.
It is possible, though very unlikely he could have just dropped dead of his own accord, it’s not a reasonable assumption that he would though.
I’m not sure how why this is a difficult concept , but it’s certainly interesting to see.
That’s some top tier mental gymnastics, but not entirely incorrect.
The same could be said that if someone was shot and bled out, you couldn’t be sure it wasn’t a heart attack that killed them, but you can be reasonable sure it was getting shot that led to the death.
Yes, i suppose you couldn’t be sure until the autopsy, but it’s reasonable to assume causation until proven otherwise.
Please note that i’m saying causation and not the legal qualifications for murder or manslaughter, because so far you seem to be conflating the two.
Hmm, you are right, that is my bad, it is an assumption, even after the autopsy.
I stand by it being a reasonable assumption though. ( of killing, not intent )
You are not, i’m talking about cause and effect you’re talking about media bias and fairness.
As i said, if they’d been having lunch and he’d been accidentally given a strong allergen, the conversation would be very different.
Still killing though.
Even if everyone knew, for a fact, that the death was caused by the actions of the police, that isn’t itself a bias take with regards to the trial/law.
That’s just cause and effect.
The law is couched in intention and context, otherwise there wouldn’t be a need for distinctions such as murder, manslaughter etc. There would be an autopsy and a conviction.