1. I want to address this podcast by @ApologiaStudios regarding the Chauvin case. There's an important strawman here that Durbin constructs and then formulates the rest of his take based upon that strawman. It's the same strawman that the woke often use.

2. I am not saying Durbin is woke mind you, just that he's making the same gaffe they do. The strawman is that Chauvin "executed Floyd in the street" for using a fake $20 and/or being on drugs and that this is unjust. Now I suppose there is a chance that Chauvin thought "you know

3. ...today's the day that George Floyd dies for using fake money & being an addict." The fact that he had a body cam on and KNEW there were bystanders filming him makes this idea frankly absurd on its face. But that's the narrative Durbin goes with. That he killed him merely

4. for these petty crimes. It's the same argument we heard for Eric Garner (killed for selling cigarettes) and Alton Sterling (killed for selling CD's) and ignores the other facts in play. I can't imagine why you would call for EMS if your intent was to kill Floyd. In fact even

5. the state did not accuse Chauvin of intentionally killing Floyd. They would have charged him with 1st degree murder if that was the case. Durbin implies that Chauvin ought to be executed if we are going to follow God's law because he was found guilty of murder, and well murder

6. carries a death penalty in God's law. This podcast reveals that Durbin did not take the time to fully examine Minnesota's definition of 2nd and 3rd degree murder and compare those definitions with the biblical definitions of murder. I am not a theonomist and will gladly

7. cede that Durbin knows more than me about theonomy, but even a rudimentary understanding of both theonomy and Minnesota law and how the two overlap would make it clear that Chauvin was not convicted (or even tried) of the kind of murder he's talking about. I will agree with

8. Durbin that Chauvin erred in not rendering Floyd aid. I'm sure Chauvin would agree. Durbin plays a video of how cops SHOULD treat someone who is OD'ing on fentanyl and the video shows a guy that is basically already lifeless and unconscious. It's a terrible, and frankly

9. dishonest comparison, as George Floyd was anything but unconscious when police were trying to get him in the car, and even while they were taking him to the ground. Not sure if Durbin watched the trial (my guess is no) but the body cam videos clearly show Floyd attempting to

10. kick the knees of officers as they are putting him on the ground. Durbin says the officers had no potential victims, but he's clearly never been kicked by a handcuffed suspect (I have) and if they get you in the leg just right it can cause serious injury. Once Chauvin's knee

11. is on Floyd he mitigates most of the risk that Floyd presents. He mentions that Floyd is saying he can't breathe, but he was saying that the whole time that he was fighting officers too, long before he was on the ground. As defense attorney Nelson pointed out, if someone is

12. saying something but doing something else which are we to believe? Now, there did come a point where Floyd became completely unresponsive that is true, and it was Chauvin's duty to recognize this, but the fact that an angry crowd has gathered and that the other officers

13. on scene are fresh out of the academy means Chauvin has a lot of different things vying for his attention other than just Floyd's condition. We can't know if Chauvin was legitimately distracted by these things to the point that he lost sight of Floyd's condition or if he

14. truly was just being reckless in the situation and didn't much care about Floyd's condition. Again I think it's unlikely that he'd do something that he knew would be likely to kill Floyd right in front of all of those cameras but reasonable minds can disagree on that.

15. the point is that Durbin accuses Chauvin of executing him for passing a fake bill and being an addict and that simply isn't what happened. Even Durbin said that on the testimony of 2-3 witnesses (or lines of evidence) a man can be brought to trial. That's what Chauvin was

16. trying to do was to bring him to trial, but Floyd didn't want to go. What does the Bible say about that? If a man doesn't want to go to trial then what? It was also disappointing that little was said about a city of refuge when clearly Chauvin was not going to get a fair

17. trial in Minnesota. They briefly touched on Waters and Pelosi's comments but made no mention of a city of refuge. I realize that the Bible has a lot to say about accidental killings as well, and that wasn't mentioned, I suppose because Durbin isn't allowing for the

18. possibility that this was an accidental killing. I'll stop now, but these strawmen arguments of "he was executed for simply doing x" have to stop. Durbin asked us to think reasonably and biblically about this topic, I hope that he will do the same, because from where I sit

19. he hasn't done so, and I'd say that even if I WAS a theonomist.

The end.

@KrashOmnis