Lawrence G

I am certainly not telling you what to write or when it, but perhaps your piece might have been more persuasive or credible if written after the trial was completed.

Apologies for not reading your piece more thoroughly, most writers are grateful for someone at least perusing their writing rather than not reading it all. That said, your clarifications do not change my view that your hypothesis was unsupported - because it was based on incomplete testimony.

Done here, thanks for you piece and response.

"Derek Chauvin’s Lawyer Said That He Did What He Was Trained to Do. That’s The Problem."

You conveniently fail to mention that this assertion was refuted and rebutted over and over again in testimony by various members of the MPD.

Are you willing to concede it could be a bad cop doing very bad things? Itself an issue that must always be addressed?

Your statement "If Chauvin’s attorney is telling the truth, American policing is radicalizing its own abolitionists far better than any march or movement ever could" is nothing more than an unsupported hypothesis. But it feeds a narrative many are more than happy to embrace without examining facts and drilling deeper into root causes - a proven method of problem solving.