George Floyd's Cause of Death

Conservative and Progressive Myths

Michael Huemer writes,

The truth, I believe, is something in between what the BLM activists say (that Chauvin deliberately murdered Floyd due to racial hate) and what the right-wing commentators say (that Chauvin is completely innocent). The truth is that Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd accidentally but culpably.

This morning I set out to write about religious defense systems of LDS missionaries, and in researching this topic I began reading more of Michael Huemer’s book Progressive Myths. Here are his opening lines.

I have written this book because I think truth matters. Society cannot be reliably improved through lies, exaggerations, and misleading stories; it requires knowledge of the real, factual situation we face, in whatever area we seek to improve matters. I also believe that contemporary progressive political ideology is a deeply misguided belief system that causes great harm to society.

Are all progressive positions completely misguided? Of course not; don't be ridiculous. Racism and sexism really are bad, gays should be allowed to get married, global warming is real, etc. But contemporary progressivism goes far beyond these well-known points. Progressivism as I understand it—at least, the kind of progressivism that I take issue with—sees contemporary America as a deeply unjust society, filled with prejudice and systematically designed to harm and oppress. I consider this view-point thoroughly out of touch with reality. For more, see the rest of this book.

To be clear, my problem is not that progressives have bad vales, nor is it that I don't like them or that they don't belong to my tribe. My problem is that they are factually mistaken. They hold beliefs that objectively conflict with the way the world is in many respects; they misunderstand the current state of society, the causes of social problems, and the effects of social policies. This leads them to advocate policies and behaviors that worsen society and even undermine their own values.

Does that seem accurate to you?

And here is his description of the “most sophisticated progressives.”

The most sophisticated progressives are not the ones who are the best at pursuing the truth or even at persuading third parties; they are the ones who are the best at protecting their belief system from falsification. Often, this involves constructing elaborate systems of mutually-reinforcing claims, none of which can be rebutted without taking on the whole rest of the system.

At least, that's how things look to me. So I've concluded that the best way to promote accurate political beliefs (or at least one way that's worth trying) is to stop people from adopting false ideologies to begin with, by intercepting common myths that might appeal to naïve readers who have not yet adopted a firm ideological orientation.

I agree with this approach. Let’s stop people from adopting false ideologies to begin with. What exactly is a false ideology? Huemer doesn’t have an index in this book, nor have I found an instance in this book where he defines ideology. What is ideology? And how does ideology differ from religion? In the First Amendment, would we be better off, replacing the word religion with ideology? For example:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of ideology, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

For today, let’s set those questions to the side and consider some slightly easier questions. In chapter 6, Huemer takes up three non-myths.

The preceding chapters might give the impression that there are no problems with police violence. This is not the case. Sometimes, the police use excessive force and wrongfully kill people, including black people. The correct conclusion is neither "Police are always in the right" nor "Police are always in the wrong." The correct conclusion is "One must examine the facts of each individual case." To add some balance, I mention in this chapter three wrongful police killings of black people.

Here he examines the killing of Eric Garner, Breonna Taylor and George Floyd. About Floyd’s death he writes,

We turn to the most notorious case of police violence in recent years. On May 25, 2020, a white police officer named Derek Chauvin killed a black man named George Floyd. Floyd was accused of using a counterfeit $20 bill at a store. The police decided to arrest him. They wrestled him to the ground, then Officer Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck for about nine minutes, while two other officers helped to restrain him and a fourth prevented bystanders from interfering. Floyd told the officers sixteen times that he couldn't breathe. Floyd stopped moving, then eventually went silent.

I wrote about this topic previously. After reading Huemer’s very thoughtful analysis of this case this morning, I reread my own post and feel that it holds up well. My focus is on Chauvin’s sentence of 22.5 years. Huemer asks more fundamental questions about the case. Let’s take a took at some highlights.

Question 1: Did Derek Chauvin Kill George Floyd at all?

The county medical examiner found that Floyd had a large amount of fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system and a preexisting heart condition.

Was Floyd overdosing? Would he have died even without the Chauvin’s excessive use of force?

Floyd first complained of difficulty breathing before the police put him on the ground and before anyone compressed his neck. Does this show that Chauvin didn’t kill him?

No. The simplest explanation is that the heart condition and the drugs put Floyd in a vulnerable condition, such that a restraint technique that would have left most people unharmed actually killed him. He was already having difficulty breathing, and Chauvin's aggressive restraint technique with compression of his airway pushed him over the edge.

The alternative theory is that George Floyd was about to die from independent causes and that, purely by coincidence, he just happened to die right when Derek Chauvin was kneeling on his neck. This strains credulity.

I agree with that.

Question 2: Was it intentional?

Surely not. Even if Chauvin was an evil racist just itching for a chance to kill a black man, why would he choose to commit his murder on camera, in broad daylight, in front of a crowd of witnesses? The most plausible account is that Chauvin killed Floyd by accident. He had used the same restraint technique before (as shown in video from his arrests of earlier suspects) without anyone dying. When Floyd became unresponsive, Chauvin probably assumed that Floyd was merely unconscious (which can result from restricted blood flow to the brain) and would soon recover.

I agree with that.

Question 3: Was Chauvin using an approved police technique?

No. Huemer explains why.

Question 4: Was Chauvin culpable for Floyd’s death?

Yes. To be culpable for someone's death, it is not necessary that one kill the person deliberately or knowingh. One may become culpable by taking actions that unreasonably risk causing death. That was the case with Chauvin and Floyd. Death was a somewhat improbable but not bizarre result of Chauvin's excess use of force. Given Floyd's complaints about difficulty breathing, plus his appearance of being under the influence of drugs, Chauvin could have anticipated that Floyd would be at elevated risk of cardiac arrest and/or asphyxia. Since there was no need to kneel on his neck for an extended period of time and this created a predictably elevated risk of death, Chauvin is to blame for George Floyd's death.

Question 4: Was it murder?

Yes. Huemer explains why.

Lessons

(1) Are the police angels or devils?

Some right-wing pundits appear to believe that all homicides by police are justified. Some left-wing pundits appear to believe that all homicides by police are unjustified. Both of these are foolish, dogmatic positions.

[…]

(2) Pundit us. Jury

[…]

(3) The role of race

[…]

In fact, the police kill far more whites than blacks. Here are some more unarmed people who were killed by police recently:

• Timothy Randall

• Tyler Woodburn

• Matthew Mitchell

• John Bomar

• Richard Poulin

• Joseph Nagle

• Jeffrie Glover

• Clesslynn Crawford

• Nicholas Rodin

Those are all just from the year 2022. I bet you don't know any of those names. Why not? Because they are all white people, so their deaths did not contribute to a progressive narrative about racism in America, and so they did not make the national news.

There is a problem of police using excessive force. But it isn't a racial problem. The appearance of a race-specific problem is an illusion created by media and activist indifference to non-black victims.

Please buy this book, read it and write about it.

Society cannot be reliably improved through lies, exaggerations, and misleading stories; it requires knowledge of the real, factual situation we face, in whatever area we seek to improve matters.