POTF 33 - Nominations

[Aexodus]

POTF is about recognising the very best posts, the best arguments and discourse in the D&D, and appropriately rewarding it.

You shall progressively earn these medals once you achieve enough wins, but first you must be nominated in threads such as this one. And it works like this.

Post of the Fortnight - Rules

-Each user can nominate up to 2 posts per round, and the only valid form of nomination is by quoting with a link as shown below the chosen post in the PotF thread designated for it.

Looking forward to getting this kicked off for real!

-Each 15 days there will be a new Nomination thread put up, and all the posts written during this period are considered eligible, if properly nominated. Exception are posts who are somewhat breaking the ToS; upon being acted by Moderation, they are always considered uneligible.

- Remember: It is possible to nominate up to 2 posts each round of the competition; it is also possible to change a nomination anytime before the actual round of nominations ends.

- There will be two competitions held every month, with a period for nominations followed by a period of voting. The submitted posts can be discussed in a dedicated space.

- Only posts that have not participated in a previous poll and that have been published in the current period of given time in any section of the D&D area may be nominated.

- The authors of the nominated post will be informed so they can withdraw the candidacy if that is their wish.

- The maximum number of participating posts in the final vote will be ten. If more than ten nominations are submitted, seconded nominations will take priority. After seconded nominations are considered, earliest nominations will take priority. If the number of posts submitted to the contest is less than ten, the organizing committee may nominate posts if it considers it appropriate.

-The members of the committee will never nominate a post belonging to one of them, but the rest of the users can nominate their posts (organizers posts), and vice versa.

-In the event of a tie, both posts will be awarded and both posters will receive rep and 1 competition point.

- Public or private messages asking for a vote for a candidate post are forbidden. Violators (and their posts) may not participate in the contest.

- People are expected to consider the quality and structure of the post itself, more than the content of the same. While it's certainly impossible to completely split the two aspects when making our own opinion on a post, it remains intended, as also explained in the Competition Commentary Thread, that commenting and discussing on the content rather than on the form/structure of the post is considered off-topic for the purpose of this competition. You are free to nominate and vote for whatever reason you want, but what happens in public has to strictly follow up with the competition rules.

A nominated post should:

1. Be focused and relevant to the topic(s) being discussed.
2. Demonstrate a well-developed, insightful and nuanced understanding of the topic(s) it is discussing.
3. Be logically coherent, well organized and communicate its points effectively.
4. Support its contentions with verifiable evidence, either in the form of links or references.
5. Not be deliberately vexatious to other users.

Good luck everyone!

[Flinn]

from an interesting debate, back and forth

Do you have an idea of why the author’s line of thinking is married to that specific time frame?

The short answer would be that he accepts the academic consensus (which I’ll return to), but one might wonder why a Southern Baptist seeking publication in a Catholic theological journal would feel the need to adhere to historical-critical methodology which a priori excludes supernatural explanations. In my experience, this is typical despite most biblical scholars self-identifying as religious Christians. I’m used to working with these texts as historical documents, because I work as an archaeologist at southern Levantine sites from the biblical period. One of the excavations I work on is cosponsored by the theology department at Heidelberg University, and their faculty and students work with us, as do many from among the clergy of various denominations who maintain a presence in Jerusalem. So I have some sense of their outlook, and it revolves around a layered approach to exegesis that seeks to disentangle history from allegory using the historical method. For example, the actions of a historical person may simply be a product of free will, whereas the actions of a fictional (or fictionalized) character may be meant to convey a specific moral message. Some maintain the view that revelation can exist within a text distinct from the conscious intent of the person who wrote it, so that revelation exists as a layer upon the historical explanation.

Regarding the reason for the academic consensus, the Book of Daniel is set in the Sixth Century BCE, but is believed to have been mostly written in early Second Century BCE. One reason, is because the author isn’t particularly familiar with the Sixth Century BCE. I’m going to resort to quoting the Wikipedia, because I’m kind of short on time this week:

The story of Belshazzar's feast is historical fiction, and several details are not consistent with historical facts.[6][7] Belshazzar is portrayed as the king of Babylon and "son" of Nebuchadnezzar, though he was actually the son of Nabonidus—one of Nebuchadnezzar's successors—and he never became king in his own right. In the story, the conqueror who inherits Babylon is Darius the Mede, but no such individual is known to history, and the invaders were actually Persians.[7] This is typical of the "tale of court contest" in which historical accuracy is not an essential element.[21]

Belshazzar

Another reason is historical linguistic. Several of the chapters are written in Aramaic that appears to be younger than the Aramaic in the Book of Ezra. The Book of Daniel also contains Persian and Greek loanwords. Persian loanwords are unlikely to appear in texts before the Achaemenid period, and Greek loanwords are unlikely to appear before Alexanders conquests.

More from the Book of Daniel entry:

Historical Background

The visions of chapters 7–12 reflect the crisis which took place in Judea in 167–164 BC when Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Greek king of the Seleucid Empire, threatened to destroy traditional Jewish worship in Jerusalem.[24] When Antiochus came to the throne in 175 BC the Jews were largely pro-Seleucid. The High Priestly family was split by rivalry, and one member, Jason, offered the king a large sum to be made High Priest. Jason also asked—or more accurately, paid—to be allowed to make Jerusalem a polis, or Greek city. This meant, among other things, that city government would be in the hands of the citizens, which meant in turn that citizenship would be a valuable commodity, to be purchased from Jason. None of this threatened the Jewish religion, and the reforms were widely welcomed, especially among the Jerusalem aristocracy and the leading priests. Three years later Jason was deposed when another priest, Menelaus, offered Antiochus an even larger sum for the post of High Priest.[25]

Antiochus invaded Egypt twice, in 169 BC with success, but on the second incursion, in late 168 BC, he was forced to withdraw by the Romans.[26] Jason, hearing a rumour that Antiochus was dead, attacked Menelaus to take back the High Priesthood.[26] Antiochus drove Jason out of Jerusalem, plundered the Temple, and introduced measures to pacify his Egyptian border by imposing complete Hellenisation: the Jewish Book of the Law was prohibited and on 15 December 167 BC an "abomination of desolation", probably a Greek altar, was introduced into the Temple.[27] With the Jewish religion now clearly under threat a resistance movement sprang up, led by the Maccabee brothers, and over the next three years it won sufficient victories over Antiochus to take back and purify the Temple.[26]

The crisis which the author of Daniel addresses is the defilement of the altar in Jerusalem in 167 BC (first introduced in chapter 8:11): the daily offering which used to take place twice a day, at morning and evening, stopped, and the phrase "evenings and mornings" recurs through the following chapters as a reminder of the missed sacrifices.[28] But whereas the events leading up to the sacking of the Temple in 167 BC and the immediate aftermath are remarkably accurate, the predicted war between the Syrians and the Egyptians (11:40–43) never took place, and the prophecy that Antiochus would die in Palestine (11:44–45) was inaccurate (he died in Persia).[29] The obvious conclusion is that the account must have been completed near the end of the reign of Antiochus but before his death in December 164 BC, or at least before news of it reached Jerusalem, and the consensus of modern scholarship is accordingly that the book dates to the period 167–163 BCE.[30][31]

Composition

Development

It is generally accepted that Daniel originated as a collection of Aramaic court tales later expanded by the Hebrew revelations.[32] The court tales may have originally circulated independently, but the edited collection was probably composed in the third or early second century BC.[33] Chapter 1 was composed (in Aramaic) at this time as a brief introduction of to provide historical context, introduce the characters of the tales, and explain how Daniel and his friends came to Babylon.[34] The visions of chapters 7–12 were added and chapter 1 translated into Hebrew at the third stage when the final book was being drawn together.[34]

Authorship

Daniel is one of a large number of Jewish apocalypses, all of them pseudonymous.[35] The stories of the first half are considered legendary in origin, and the visions of the second the product of anonymous authors in the Maccabean period (2nd century BC).[5]

Although the entire book is traditionally ascribed to Daniel the seer, chapters 1–6 are in the voice of an anonymous narrator, except for chapter 4 which is in the form of a letter from king Nebuchadnezzar; only the second half (chapters 7–12) is presented by Daniel himself, introduced by the anonymous narrator in chapters 7 and 10.[36] The real author/editor of Daniel was probably an educated Jew, knowledgeable in Greek learning, and of high standing in his own community. The book is a product of "Wisdom" circles, but the type of wisdom is mantic (the discovery of heavenly secrets from earthly signs) rather than the wisdom of learning—the main source of wisdom in Daniel is God's revelation.[37][38]

It is possible that the name of Daniel was chosen for the hero of the book because of his reputation as a wise seer in Hebrew tradition.[39] Ezekiel, who lived during the Babylonian exile, mentioned him in association with Noah and Job (Ezekiel 14:14) as a figure of legendary wisdom (28:3), and a hero named Daniel (more accurately Dan'el, but the spelling is close enough for the two to be regarded as identical) features in a late 2nd millennium myth from Ugarit.[40] "The legendary Daniel, known from long ago but still remembered as an exemplary character ... serves as the principal human 'hero' in the biblical book that now bears his name"; Daniel is the wise and righteous intermediary who is able to interpret dreams and thus convey the will of God to humans, the recipient of visions from on high that are interpreted to him by heavenly intermediaries.[41]

Dating

The prophecies of Daniel are accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author seems to know about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BC), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he seems to know nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or about the actual circumstances of Antiochus' death in late 164 BC. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BC. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again.[42]

Further evidence of the book's date is in the fact that Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BC, and the Wisdom of Sirach, a work dating from around 180 BC, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted in a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran at much the same time, suggesting that it was known from the middle of that century.[43]

You will find that with each of these points, some picking can be done at them, so that the earlier date could seem plausible. For example, one could argue that some of the historical mistakes were due to later editing or argue that maybe the loanwords were acquired from Greek merchants who traveled to Babylon. Although the bulk of the evidence points in the direction the academic consensus has arrived at.

&

Regarding the reason for the academic consensus, the Book of Daniel is set in the Sixth Century BCE, but is believed to have been mostly written in early Second Century BCE. One reason, is because the author isn’t particularly familiar with the Sixth Century BCE. I’m going to resort to quoting the Wikipedia, because I’m kind of short on time this week:

The story of Belshazzar's feast is historical fiction, and several details are not consistent with historical facts.[6][7] Belshazzar is portrayed as the king of Babylon and "son" of Nebuchadnezzar, though he was actually the son of Nabonidus—one of Nebuchadnezzar's successors—and he never became king in his own right. In the story, the conqueror who inherits Babylon is Darius the Mede, but no such individual is known to history, and the invaders were actually Persians.[7] This is typical of the "tale of court contest" in which historical accuracy is not an essential element.[21]

It doesn't appear the traditional interpretation is married to perceived inconsitencies. I found a couple examples of a Christian theological approximation of the timeline based on the text that has Nabonidus appointing his son Belshazzar co-regent of Babylonia. Daniel interprets the writing on the wall some time after that, prior to the overthrow of the Babylonians by the Medo-Persians.

http://biblepgs.com/Daniel%20Timeline.pdf
http://www.granbychurchofchrist.org/...e/timeline.htm
https://4truthministry.com/future/da...onological.php

The prophecies of Daniel are accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author seems to know about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BC), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he seems to know nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or about the actual circumstances of Antiochus' death in late 164 BC. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BC. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again.[42]

Further evidence of the book's date is in the fact that Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BC, and the Wisdom of Sirach, a work dating from around 180 BC, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted in a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran at much the same time, suggesting that it was known from the middle of that century.[43]

It seems universally acknowledged that the text doesn't quite fit with Antiochus IV. I understand secular perspectives are trying to find where the text fits consensus, not the other way around. However, I'm unsure why a Christian theological perspective would do this under the assumption that the Bible is divinely inspired and authoritative. Jesus was known to discuss prophecy, and referenced Daniel directly in the context of the coming destruction of the Temple and his own role in the great controversy.

Mark 13

And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! 2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled? 5 And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you: 6 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 7 And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet. 8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows. 9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them. 10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations. 11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost. 12 Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death. 13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: 15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: 16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. 17 But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 18 And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter. 19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. 20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days. 21 And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not: 22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. 23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. 24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, 25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. 26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. 28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: 29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. 30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. 31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. 32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. 33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is. 34 For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. 35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: 36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. 37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.

Jesus is here recorded as reminding his audience to recall the writings of Daniel, which his audience presumably would be aware of. He clearly indicates these events had not taken place yet (Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another...) The reference is also quite specific, and the same speech is recorded in Matthew Chapter 24.

But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: ) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

1 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

This "abomination that maketh desolate" seems to be the same words in all three places in Daniel, שִׁקּוּץשָׁמֵם .

The Greek words equated to "abomination" and "desolation" are the same in all five examples here: abomination- βδέλυγμα , desolation - ερημώσεως .

Again, for the sake of clarity, I'm relying on Strong's Concordance. Do you know of additional context with this phrase?

[Akar]

I think this touches on something in christian thinking that I've never been quite able to logically reconcile. To give an example, in the middle ages protestants and catholics persecuted and murdered each other in the name of Christ. If someone were to try that today, this would undoubtably be characterized as a grave sin. So, how can a church handle such a discrepancy? If the church today were to say of the medieval church that they were grievous sinners, then the implication is that no christian today can be safe in following the church's teachings either, because at some point in the future, the church might decide those teachings were wrong. In general one might ask is how the church can be ' right ' today, if it's built on a tradition of wrongness?

If I am not mistaken, what you suggest is that there should be no 'evolving understanding' or tradition in a church at all, but each of us should at any time refer to the bible directly and make the best judgement we can about how it applies to the world of today, without regard for what other people have, in the past, done in similar circumstances. And yet, even then you cannot fully detach yourself from tradition, even if it is not a church tradition like the Catholics have. No one can come into contact with the bible without preconceptions. Are you sure what you believe is totally not influenced by anyone at all? How about the fact that you decided to pick up the bible and not, e.g. the Koran? Is that not a product of the environment you grew up in? Do you not ever go to bible study groups, hear sermons, or read what other people think on how to interpret the bible in today's world? Because if you do you're not that different from a catholic following church traditions.

It may turn out less mangificent than you had hoped, given that I strongly disagree with basics' neo-Calvinist convictions of predestination as a Catholic, but here is an answer from someone considering themselves a Christian:

The self-sacrifice on the cross erased that very original sin basics speaks about for everyone. It is not predetermined that only a small number will be saved. The free will granted to humans furnishes everyone with the capacity to not sin or to repent once they have sinned.
Humans are fallible and imperfect beings, but the divine grace and mercy is in every aspect greater than the human capacity to sin. (cf. the Augsburg Join Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, wherein the Catholic and Lutheran churches agreed that salvation is based on divine grace alone and that is sufficient.)
Hell is not an eternal torment but the self-chosen aversion from God, which in a Christian point of view is bad enough as it is for (self inflicted) punishment. This state may last arbitrarily long (given free will), but not eternally, because ultimately divine grace overcomes human obstinacy. (If you want to discuss the difference between arbitrarily long and eternal, i.e. mathematically speaking the difference between arbitrarily large numbers and infinity, we should do so separately in the Athenaeum.)

In short, dead babies go to heaven.

Amen, urbi et orbi, deus lo vult, or whatever you would be expecting Catholics to say.

[Aexodus]

A conflict have been brewing in the eastern Mediterranean sea for a while now. Currently, we have Greek, Turkish and French warships in the region. First the timeline:

Back in July Turkey started talks about sending Oruç Reis to eastern Mediterranean to conduct research for natural resources. The area in question is to the south of Turkish coast of Antalya:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

After what was speculated to be a phone conversation between Erdoğan and Merkel, Turkey opted from sending the ship to the location above.

Then something strange happened and Greece signed an EEZ boundary agreement with Egypt. What especially made it strange was the fact that the agreement did not cover the entire line Greece normally claims. In the below map, while the bold green line marks the agreement between Greece and Egypt the bold white line is missing as Greece claims it as well. Did Greece seriously forfeited from its claim?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Anyhow, Turkey saw this as a provocation and opted to send Oruç Reis research ship to the previous area anyways. As Greece turned to EU for help, France ran to its aid and decided to send two fighter jets and a frigate to the area. At the time 5 Turkey ships were accompanying the research vessel:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As the area gets crowded a Turkish and Greek warship suffered a mini-collision as a the Greek Limnos tried to cut off Turkish Kemal Reis from escorting the research vessel.

The two countries, perhaps as well as the French, never came this close to having a major incident since 1996s of Kardak crisis. What Greece likely fails to grasp is that EU support is not because of EU brotherhood but mostly because EU sees the natural resources as its own, rather than sovereign property of Greece. Macron, on the other hand, seems to be making a bad situation worse due to his vendetta from his conflict with Turkey over Libya. There is real chance that this conflict can turn bad really quickly.

There is a lot of sides to this conflict. First and foremost, there is the issue of legality between Greece and Turkey. Who owns which area? Who has the drilling rights? What's the right path to resolving the conflict? Then there is the issue of French involvement. Let's ignore the specifics of the Libyan conflict and who supports who and how with respect to Libya. Is Macron simply trying to create a presence for him? Does his position have merit? Discuss.

I am not sure I can say my full opinion with what the Greek side should have done to the invading navy ships because it is probably promoting illegal activities.
Let's just say that I think the Greek navy and armed forces should have tried to stop the Turkish ships by all means necessary. At some point we should stop running to Europe and defend what is ours.

Some measures we could use would be to go up in TV and all media and proclaim to the world that "if the Turkish ship is still within Greek EEZ in X hours, our navy would move to arrest them and do what needs to be done to protect the interests of the Greek state."
The Israelis have landed on a Turkish ships carrying civilians and aid for Palestine in international waters, did way worse than "Try to arrest" and nothing happened.

Now, I don't expect that our leaders would have the @@ to do what needs to be done. And so far I have been proven correct.


I apologize if I come of strongly, but this is an important issue for me. Whether you agree or disagree with me and consider me a blinded nationalist or not, I feel humiliated by the enemy NATO allied ships criss-crossing in what is our EEZ.

I want to assure you all, I am not trying to provoke strong reactions here, nor start a shouting match or a pissing contest.
I am just sad we don't have @@.
Please, take that as me venting my concerns in an international audience and not screams for war.


Ι also will take this rare opportunity to thank PoVG for the OP because even though I disagree with Turkish aggression and I think the OP leaves a few things out... it is a balanced, neutral post. Far more neutral than I would make it.

[Lord Thesaurian]

It is also possible (and I think more likely) that the cashier noticed that the bill was counterfeit during the exchange (it is typical to check notes immediately before putting them in the till) and requested that Floyd return the cigarettes. That would explain why the police were called. If we hear the 911 call during the trial we may get some more information.



Why Floyd was using drugs is irrelevant. What matters is the way that they affected his behaviour and the extent to which they compromised him physiologically. Floyd has to take responsibility for abusing illicit substances whilst suffering from serious cardiopulmonary conditions. He also has to take responsibility for compelling the police to subdue him on the street. There is a strong possibility that these facts alone will create a reasonable doubt that the police are criminally culpable for Floyd's death, particularly with regard to the murder charge.



Floyd died of a cardiac arrest, not a heart attack. The police did not wait 9 minutes until calling for medical assistance.



Floyd's distress does not prove that the police used unreasonable force during the arrest. The officers - particularly Chauvin - are likely guilty of gross negligence for keeping Floyd pinned down after his heart had stopped (they should have performed CPR immediately) but that doesn't mean that they are culpable for his death.



Chauvin isn't being charged with premeditated murder. He's being charged with Murder in the Second Degree (ie. felony murder).