The George Floyd Trial Verdict Was Systemic Racism Against White Men

I took to Grok the other day to once again go over evidence in the trial of Derek Chauvin found guilty by jury of the homicide of George Floyd. 

This notoriously political trial sparked the BLM riots across activist run states and cities of America where criminals were tacitly permitted by their governments to set light to many US cities, violently intimidate peaceful people and loot their property in 'largely peaceful protests' we're told by the 'news'. It set in motion the system racism against white men, we now observe rampant and being set in concrete into the law of most western nations.

I'd say an overwhelming majority of people believe Floyd was murdered by a cop. But how does this majority decide how it chooses to believe in anything? We cannot exclude politicians, lawmakers and the intelligentsia from this question because they rely on what they see on the TV too, just like a stupid and pliant congregation. The only smart class of people who seem to remain, are the working class and curiously, the underclass, for it is they who carry most of the load from the systemic corruption and must be constantly alert to the consequences to survive. 

Grok can only tell us about what it has been taught. It is not conscious of itself and cannot reason. 

Full disclosure: my general view is there's an unconscious battle between 2 sides: 1) those who want to destroy the West and 2) those who want to save it. I've been observing this collective battle for over 20 years and have plenty of primary evidence. Particularly the strange behaviour of people I know and have met many times directly. 

For example, for the simple reason I do not call Trump a fascist, I must be a fascist. Even though I'm openly opposed to much of his policy. This particular example is well documented now as a form of mental disease known as Trump Derangement Syndrome. Or because I do not blindly support anthropocentric climate change I must be a climate denier to be hated with impunity by all 'the virtuous ones'. And so on, and so on. Similarly for Brexit, Ukraine, Palestine etc etc etc... And topically, being called a racist for pointing out how the immigrants are definitely going to be obscenely exploited by the state if open boarders are allowed to proceed.

The above are all relevant because they are inversionary in nature - they all point to a form of collective mental illness where war is peace for example. Here is what I found about the trial from my interaction with Grok:

1. Expert witnesses speculated, yet gave no proof, that neck compression was the final cause of death.
2. The coroner gave absolute proof with blood tests, that Floyd had 3 times the legal dose of fentanyl in his bloodstream.
3. The judge rendered inadmissible, alternative video footage showing far more clearly than in 1) that neck compression was not the final cause of death. 

Remember, that death from fentanyl overdose is from suffocation, with no doubt about it medically.

My questions to Grok were definitely leading questions. I wanted it to arrive at a conclusion that told me Floyd was NOT murdered and died of a drugs overdose. And that the force used during the arrest contributed only on the margin. This was a tactical choice given that Grok cannot reason for itself, to bring out as much as possible about what it has been taught to learn about it. That is, in what proportion has Grok been taught that Floyd was murdered compared to it being death by overdose. If it swung in one direction only and got stuck there, that would be a strong signal for the bias it had been given to learn.

The response was that Grok was entirely unable to show me the evidence for point 1) above was compelling, or that point 3) could have reasonably contributed in the jury's verdict, in spite of repeated attempts to point out its bias.

Now then. I'm not a court of law, nor am I an officer of the court. I'm not even resident in the local jurisdiction of the trial. And we know that the media, in any shape or form, can no longer be relied on to tell us about what has actually happened any more. So all I have is just more unreliable information. And I've spent many days in the high court of London in the public gallery observing expert witnesses talk utter drivel, yet commit good people to bankruptcy, while the judge, knowing this, looks on. It's an adversarial system after all - the side which wins is the side which tells the best story under the circumstances in that time and place. (I've not observed in the criminal courts enough yet to cross check that). It is justice in name only and we have to accept that is the best we will get in this world.

So which unreliable information have you been using to determine what might have happened. Because yours is no better than mine and people only listen to the news stories which deliver them the answer they want to hear anyway, including me? And we've seen how famous cases (OJ Simpson), also involving the race card as the lever for conviction have worked in the past, where there should have been a motion to dismiss, and no one really denies it happens any more. This renders systemic racism against white men very real, in the law.

If you object to any of this, I'm happy to start a dialogue on it. It will always start by asking "How do you choose what you believe in?"