Okay, finally got a minute to check out the video... which is more a treatise on recognizing specious arguments than a roster of proofs.
That's not to say the arguments presented aren't compelling to a certain extent but there's a common thread of assumptive-conjecture-therefore-deity running through them -as was spotlighted, reinforced at the end of the video with a citation of the "trust me, bro" argument. I guess the easiest way to sum up the difference between speculation/conjecture and proof is that speculation and conjecture require assumptive leaps while proof requires neither and is demonstrable via testing.
So we're in agreement that it only takes, relatively speaking, a handful of criminals to ruin it for a group, that the aforementioned criminals were appropriately charged, convicted for crimes committed, aren't political prisoners and that Derrick Chauvin was operating outside the law when he dragged a non-resisting, handcuffed suspect in his custody from the back of a police vehicle and murdered said suspect in the street?
