In my original document about George Floyd, I pointed out that we were missing the most important portion of the video. Specifically, the portion of video that showed how Floyd ended up lying down in the street with a policeman on his neck. The Daily Mail released that portion of the video, but the journalist is pretending not to see it!

That portion of the video clearly answers the question I asked, which is how Floyd ended up lying down in the street. The video shows that Floyd was standing up on the sidewalk, and several officers were trying to push him into the back seat of the police car. Another officer walked over to the other side of the car, opened up the door, and tried to help get Floyd in the car by pulling on Floyd. So there were officers on the sidewalk trying to push him into the car, and another officer on the other side of the car (in the street) trying to pull him into the car.

Eventually they got Floyd into the back seat, but instead of remaining there, Floyd crawled along the seat towards the officer in the street. Floyd was too large, strong, and heavy for that officer to stop him from crawling out of the car, but since Floyd's hands were cuffed behind him, he ended up falling down onto the street. He struggled with that officer, and the other officers ran around the car and into the street to help control Floyd. They grabbed his legs and knelled on his neck.

Although the video clearly shows Floyd crawling out of the car, the journalist refuses to acknowledge this obvious fact. Instead, the journalist tries to convince us that it is still a mystery as to how Floyd ended up in the street. The journalist writes:


How did Floyd end up "suddenly" on the sidewalk? The journalist claims that he does not know because it is "not clear from the video":


Note that the journalist says that Floyd "comes out" of the door, rather than "crawls out", or "crawls out by pushing his head into the officer who was trying to hold him in the car". The journalist implies that some fluke of nature caused Floyd to be expelled from the car, as if the car was giving birth.

The journalist also says that Floyd came out of the car while "still struggling", as if the struggling was an unconscious reaction that Floyd had no control over.

Throughout the article, the journalist tries to make it appear as if Floyd is an innocent victim of brutal policemen. For example, three remarks in which the journalist mentions the "terror" Floyd suffered from:

Years ago George Floyd was arrested for armed burglary in which he was accused of pointing a gun at a pregnant woman. I would say that when a group of criminals breaks into a person's home and points a gun at him, he will become much more terrified than when a policeman points a gun at him.

The reason is because everybody knows that a policeman will not shoot at us unless we are a threat to somebody's life. This lack of fear of being shot by policemen is why criminals are so willing to fight with, and run away from, the police.

Floyd had no reason to be afraid of the police. By comparison, we have a very good reason to be frightened when men break into our homes and point guns at us since many of their victims end up raped, dead, paralyzed, blinded, brain-damaged, kidnapped, or beaten.

I would say that George Floyd terrorized that woman with his gun, but the police did not terrorize Floyd.

The journalist also emphasizes that Floyd begged not to be shot. One remark:

The journalist implies that the police were on the verge of shooting him, and that Floyd was afraid for his life, but there is no evidence that any of the policemen were going to shoot him.

How deceptive, dishonest, abusive, and disgusting do journalists have to be before some nation decides to do something about the abuse?

Imagine a man has just purchased some items at Costco, and the employee at the exit asks to see his receipt, and the man starts begging:

Imagine a journalist writing a news article about the incident:

We also allow lawyers to make deceptive remarks. For example, Ben Crump, the attorney for Floyd's family, said that the video shows that the police officers really are racist. He claimed:

That accusation is senseless. The policemen did not point their guns at the passengers of the car, or any of the other black people that were wandering around the area.

Policemen often point their guns at white criminals. Imagine if a lawyer announced that the reason a policeman pointed his gun at a particular white criminal was because he was white. Or how about if a policeman points his gun at a man who has green eyes, and the lawyer accuses the policeman of pointing his gun at his client simply because he had green eyes.

How absurd, deceptive, and disgusting can lawyers be before we decide that we have had enough of their abuse, and we raise standards for lawyers?

The video appears to be from somebody who used his cell phone to record the video as it was playing on somebody else's cell phone or tablet. It is not the original police video. Why are the police continuing to hide the video?

The police may claim that they are hiding the video in order to prevent potential jurors from becoming biased, but that makes no sense because there are thousands of journalists, government officials, professors, Hollywood celebrities, and other people who are struggling to manipulate the public into hating the policemen and regarding George Floyd as one of the finest black Americans to have ever lived. By hiding the video, the police are aiding and abetting those deceptive people.

Their hiding of the video is more evidence that at least some of the police are involved with trying to instigate racial fights, which brings up the question of why they are involved.

The arrest of Weinstein, Epstein, and Maxwell must be causing a lot of VIPs (Very Important Pedophiles) to worry that they are losing their influence over the American police and courts.

This might be causing a lot of the VIPs to increase their efforts to get control of the nation by instigating racial fights and hatred of the police, which they hope will allow them to "defund the police" so that they can alter the police departments as they please.

A couple months ago, in June 2020, a journalist at the Guardian brought up an incident in 2007 in which the US military killed some journalists in Baghdad. Why did he remind us of that? Is it to create more anger towards the US military, and/or pity for journalists?

Have you noticed that journalists want us to "never forget" certain events, while they ignore or minimize certain other events? 

If you know anybody in the military, help them understand that our enemy is not in Baghdad or some caves in Afghanistan.

The enemy is living among us, and many are in leadership positions. Help the military understand that they have been tricked into attacking the wrong people.

I suggest you consider how much nicer the world would be if all militaries would attack our real enemies.