"The Death of George Floyd, Enlightenment!"

[Author: He Yongqi]

Hello everyone, today we are going to study the public protests and demonstrations caused by the death of George Floyd, a black American man.

The place of the incident is the city of Houston, USA. The American police, when arresting George Floyd, a black man, used the methods used by the police to lead to the death of George Floyd. The death of George Floyd, a black man, caused indignation and protests among the American people.

The public believes that the U.S. government is exculpating the murderous police. The U.S. government, the holder of rights, is above the law, and interference in rights will lead to the loss of justice in the law.

The American people believe that the policeman who knelt down to Floyd was a murderer. When he enforced the law, he used methods that led to Freud's death. The American police officer was responsible for Floyd's death.

Because of the injustice of the court's verdict on the murderous policeman, the American people, on their own, began to vindicate George Floyd's grievances. The methods they use to redress grievances are protests and marches.

The people demanded that the U.S. government retry and arrest George Floyd, the policemen. In the eyes of the American people, the court had previously convicted the police officers who had killed George Floyd for being too light! The hall only gave the police officers a warning and detained them. After all, George Floyd died, died at the hands of the policeman. Therefore, the people think that the policeman is a murderer, and the court should prosecute the policeman on the charge of murder. Otherwise, the court's trial will be unfair! This is shielding the murderous policeman, and the American people cannot bear it. If the law is interfered with by rights, it will lose its justice, and if the law cannot be implemented justly, then the law will be useless. Then just throw away the law, who made your court unfair? This is blasphemy against the law.

And the policeman who knelt on the black man, George Floyd's neck, the people asked the court to convict him of homicide. According to U.S. law, the police officer is sentenced to at least 25 years in prison.

The court of law enforcement, the trial of those policemen, came down and. The judge gave the verdict of the police involved, which was very minor! Just a warning, detention, and a few days of detention. Later, the policemen were released after paying the bail.

It can be seen that the court's verdict on the policeman who killed Floyd was very light, which is connivance with the policeman to legally kill. The American public became angry and protested against the government's interference in the justice of the law. The people said, "There is no peace without justice!" They demanded that the U.S. government try the policeman anew.

It is equivalent to saying that the court held that "the law enforcement actions of several Houston police officers were lawful," and that they were not responsible for the death of George Floyd, a black man. - And so Freud died in vain.

To put it bluntly: several police officers were not at fault in the process of arresting George Floyd. Although, George Floyd, a black man, is dead! But this is not the fault of the police.

The verdict of the court aroused strong anger among the American people, who began to march in the streets, shouting, saying: There is no peace without justice, I can't breathe, I am about to suffocate. There is no righteous judgment that prevents me from living.

What the American people see is that once the law is opened, it will become "a tool used by the authorities to commit crimes legally." The people, in the face of the state apparatus, are vulnerable. Fortunately, the American people have guns in their hands, otherwise they have no choice but to let others slaughter the "machine."

There is a question here, since the way the police arrested him legally, who was responsible for George Floyd's death?

Black George Floyd, is he responsible for his own death??—— this is trampling on life, an ordinary person, just died in a daze. Dying in vain can't make a ripple! It's worse than a leek.

The key point is: the police were there, and in the process of apprehending the suspect, the suspect died. So, does the police count as a crime?

Let's put it this way, just like the Nanjing Peng Yu case; Peng Yu, do you need to bear the law and compensate for the old lady who fell down? ?

Peng Yu helped up the old lady who fell down from the bus. As a result, the old man and his son took Peng Yu to court. Peng Yu was asked to compensate the elderly for treatment expenses, lost work expenses and all expenses, totaling 130,000 yuan.

In court, Peng Yu stated: I did not push down the old man. As I was passing by, I saw an old man get off the bus and fall and get hurt. So I picked up the old man and sent him to the hospital! I have no obligation or responsibility to compensate the old man.

The judge interrogated Peng Yu: You said that you did not push down the old man, so how did she hurt her head? Since you did not push her down, why did you send her to the hospital?

Eventually, the court held that neither party was at fault in the accident. In accordance with the principle of fairness, the party Peng Yu should give appropriate compensation to the victim Xu Moulan's losses. Therefore, the court ruled that Peng Yu should pay 40% of the victim's losses, totaling 45,876.6 yuan.

In the Peng Yu case, there is a question: That is, "Does he have the responsibility to compensate for helping the old lady who has fallen to her feet?" To put it mildly, do you have to bear the legal consequences for doing good deeds?

According to Peng Yu, "He saw that the old man had fallen and was still bleeding, so he sent her to the hospital." "Moreover, there were other people present at the time. That is to say, the surrounding masses have seen it! They can testify for Peng Yu.

Now, the core question is: Did Peng Yu knock the old man down? Later, he didn't have a good conscience, so he sent the old man to the hospital?

The old man who fell and his family demanded that Peng Yu pay 130,000 yuan in compensation. Peng Yu refused to pay compensation and was eventually taken to court.

The court demanded 130,000 yuan in compensation on the basis that both parties were not at fault and did not support the plaintiff. In accordance with the principle of fairness, in the end: the court sentenced Peng Yu to pay the old man 45,786.6 yuan in compensation.

It's a bit ridiculous here, since both sides are not responsible, then why did Peng Yu be sentenced to pay the old man 45,000 yuan?

Since Peng Yu was not at fault, why did he still pay money to the old man who fell? What is the nature of this money? Love or compensation?

The verdict of the Peng Yu case in Nanjing has caused an uproar! This lawsuit has also set off a controversy in legal circles. What ?—— do good deeds, do you need to do legal responsibilities?

Judging from the trial results of the Nanjing Peng Yu case, it is necessary to bear the liability for compensation for helping the elderly who have fallen.

Because, the court sentenced Peng Yu to pay the old man 45,000 yuan. This indicates that Peng Yu was liable for compensation for the incident of helping the fallen old man and going to the hospital. That is to say: Peng Yu can't prove that he didn't knock down the old man. And the old man insisted that he hit it, which was unclear in the court.

Here, another question arises: Is it justice if you don't save yourself when you die?

Or: When you see an old man who has been hit by a car and is in danger, this question is a test of people's hearts.

If you choose to save her, then you are wrong! Why did you save her? She was hit by a car, her face was covered in blood, and her life or death had nothing to do with you! Why did you want to save her? No, there was no reason to save her. Stripped here, there is "love" in human nature.

If you don't save when you die, it has nothing to do with you, and you don't owe anyone anything;

She was seriously injured and died slowly! You should watch a horror movie! This is originally justice, and you have no responsibility or obligation to save it. Can you find a reason for yourself to be "saved"?

See? This is the turmoil caused by the Peng Yu case. Since then, morality has degenerated, and the feelings between people have become indifferent......

When you see a disabled person sitting on the ground and can't get up, you don't dare to help her. Otherwise, you will have to bear more than 100,000 yuan in compensation. smashing the pot and selling iron is not enough to compensate her.

If you really can't bear to watch her moaning in pain, do you have to help her? Remember! Find someone to help you testify, and then take pictures and videos to prove that you helped her up out of "love"! Not because you hit her.

Looking at the black Americans, George Floyd's death, during the police arrest, the method of kneeling on his neck was adopted, which led to George Floyd, who suffocated to death.

The court ruled that the arrest by the Ston police was lawful and that there was no need to bear the penalty for George Floyd's death. On the contrary, the American people believe that "the methods used by the police to arrest George Floyd, a black man, led to his death!" ”

Attitudes of the population: The policeman who killed Floyd was a murderer, and the people asked the court to punish the policeman for the murder.

The U.S. government believes that the police's method of enforcing the law is lawful and should not be subject to criminal judgment.

The result of the court's decision: it is basically in line with the government's viewpoint, and a compromise approach has been adopted. The police officer was detained, a bond was paid, and he was released.

Focus: George Floyd, a black man, died in vain! This is not an injustice, but an innocent person who gave his life. On the contrary, the policeman who killed Floyd was unharmed. Is the trial fair???

Then why did George Floyd die in vain, and the policeman who killed him was not held criminally responsible?

Moreover, George Floyd, when he was kneeling on the neck of the police, he still shouted for help! At that time, the police did not pay attention to George Floyd's cries for help! Here, the police obviously had intention.

Attention: George Floyd, whether he committed a crime or not, he did not deserve death. Moreover, there is no death penalty in the United States, and the policeman's kneeling on his neck was the direct cause of George Floyd's death.

Therefore, the policeman who knelt down on George Floyd should be tried for homage. That is: the policeman who knelt on George Floyd will be sentenced by law to 25 years in prison.

Note: This is the opinion and appeal of the American people! The American people believe that the policeman is a murderer, and he should bear criminal responsibility for George Floyd's death. - Is that right??

Guys, you can think about it for a moment and look at the American people's point of view, right? Their accusation against that policeman is "to sentence him for murder." Otherwise, George Floyd would have died in his hands in vain.

First, the policeman's kneeling on the neck did lead to George Floyd's death. Second, George Floyd, a black man, was still shouting "help" when he was kneeling down! The police ignored George Floyd's cries for help. The question is: Is the policeman who knelt on George Floyd's neck guilty?

The U.S. government believes that the police department is a government department, and the methods used by the police in the process of arresting black people, George Floyd, are legal. So, the police do not need to be tried for the death of George Floyd.

The U.S. government's point of view is that George Floyd, a black man, "deserves to die", and he can only be blamed for being too unlucky. He is responsible for his own death.

Is the U.S. government right in its view? Attributing George Floyd's death to his "bad luck." It has nothing to do with the police, kneeling on the neck,—— right?Answer: No.

First of all, the police only have the right to arrest criminals, not to execute criminals. Unless the suspect is armed and threatens the police, the police have no right to execute the arrested criminal.

Look at the black George Floyd, not to mention whether he committed a crime or not, the police have already thrown him to the ground and have controlled him. George Floyd could no longer have caused physical harm to the police! But at this time, George Floyd died.

Who is responsible for his death? The appraisal agency determined that the death of George Floyd, a black man, was caused by suffocation caused by kneeling on his neck. Frankly, the policeman who knelt on his neck! He was fully responsible for George Floyd's death.

Whether he did it intentionally or not, it was he who knelt down, George Floyd's neck. This is the direct cause of death that led to George Floyd's death by asphyxiation.

In other words, George Floyd would not have died without the policeman's kneeling "neck". At least, not from suffocation. Therefore, the policeman should be sentenced for the crime of murder. Causing death is a "felony" in any country, whether intentionally or unintentionally. But, very strangely, the police in Houston, in the process of arresting George Floyd, led to his death, but the enforcers who represented the rights of the government were "not guilty".

Didn't George Floyd die in vain??—— American people said: Today it is George Floyd, and tomorrow, it will be our turn immediately.

The "opening" of the law cannot be opened, but once it is opened, it will become the norm! In this way, the law has become a "tool for lawful killing."

When people accept this fact, they are sending themselves to the guillotine. So, the American people demanded a court, a just trial, for the policeman who killed Floyd. - Is that right??

If you don't value the rights you have, one day, it will no longer belong to you.

It is now clear that the policeman who knelt on his neck was the murderer of George Floyd. Whether the policeman was intentional or not, George Floyd's death was directly related to the policeman. This policeman should be punished for George Floyd's death! He should be sentenced for homage.

(This is the point of view of the American people, obviously!)

Looking at the U.S. government, the U.S. government believes that "the police are the law enforcement officers of the government, and in the process of arresting George Floyd, a black man, he did not commit a crime." "The government has made it clear that the police are not guilty and that the police involved should not be tried and convicted. - Is that right??

Note that the U.S. government is exculpating the police, which means "the police are not guilty." George Floyd, dead in vain.

The people of the United States are defending George Floyd's grievances and shouting! The people accuse the policeman who knelt down on George Floyd and was a murderer. Ask the court to judge him justly. Otherwise, Freud's death would be worthless. Because, is that a life—— a life, and does it need to be respected?

This shows that the emphasis of the US Government and the American people is different.

The U.S. government, exonerating the police, named George Floyd "deserve to die."

The people, in defense of George Floyd, went to the streets to protest and march because the court trial was "unfair".

Floyd, the black man, must not die in vain, because it is a life. Everyone's life is the same, today, it was Freud who died in vain, and tomorrow there will be many more. Life is the same!

Notice that you see:

Group A U.S. government said: police are not guilty;

Group B Americans said: "The police are murderers".

The position of the population "the police are murderers" VS "the police are not guilty" the position of the US government.

On both sides, in the identification of the police involved, "not guilty" and "murderer", this is the core contradiction.

The U.S. government stands that the death of a black man is nothing.

The American people stand that the law must be judged justly, otherwise George Floyd will die in vain.

This characterization is deeply divided, and it is incompatible. It's just that the U.S. government has the power in its hands, and it is strong. On the part of the people, they are individuals and belong to the disadvantaged groups.

In fact, the holder of the power, the U.S. government, is exculpating the police. The American people, as a vulnerable group, are defending the black George Floyd!

Both sides are very firm and uncompromising.

People held up signs and shouted in the streets——There is no peace without justice! In the face of the injustice of the trial, they shouted: I... No... I'm about to suffocate.

The American people, together with the black George Floyd, are a community with a shared future. George Floyd faced the police, and the American people faced "unjust trials."

In fact, the encounter is the same, the injustice of the trial, and the law is treated as child's play. Who will protect the lives of other people??—— the law is regarded as a child's play! Then the people can only use the spear in their hands to defend the justice of life.

It is equivalent to saying that the government has shielded the murderous police. The American people are trying their best to avenge George Floyd, the black man! They are demanding that the court of law must be tried justly for the police officer who caused the death. Otherwise, George Floyd, the black man, died in vain.

The people are crying out for a righteous trial, after all, George Floyd is indeed dead.

Life cannot die in vain, no matter who dies, and those who kill must be judged justly, which is the demand of the American people.

The people demanded that the judge judge should try the policeman who killed George Floyd according to the law of justice, and that he must be sentenced.

Excuse me: Justice, is it needed, exalted??

Beggars can't kill indiscriminately??

The U.S. government, on the side of the police, said: Yes, as long as the goal can be achieved, the law is bullshit, and I am the law. This is the attitude of the state apparatus, what is a George Floyd? 100 million is not a thing! The machine will only devour the weak in the face of the weak.

Then the people are weak, compared to machines, which one is tough??

The life of a beggar cannot be counted as a life, and the life of a pariah is not the same as that of the people. The death of a pariah is like the death of an animal, because he has no contribution to society.

A living life, just like that, died for no reason. The murderer of George Floyd, the policeman, was not punished by the law.

What kind of law is this?—— what kind of law cannot protect the people, and life and property will not be violated! What is the use of this law?

If the law is useless, frankly speaking: the law has become a "legal tool for killing" the right.

Summary: The law, once lost, is justly judged, then it becomes a tool for the holders of power, for robbing the people. Those who have the power can kill people legally by means of the law.

That's... The people will lose the righteousness of judgment, for you do not cherish it. Justice will be swallowed up by power, and eventually there will be no justice.

-- In the face of injustice, we will only be silent! Silence is also equivalent to doing evil. What does the "righteousness" of the law have to do with us?

Life is not one's own, property is not one's own, judgment is lost, and justice is lost, like that... In the future, there will be no one that belongs to you.

Thanks for reading, welcome to follow!

Author: He Yongqi