It seems clear when you selectively edit the transcript the way you did. But add a little more context:
> Right, same as a police officer who asks if they can "look around" or "ask a few questions". ...But in general you'd be a fool to do so, and you also may say "no"
So? Just because one person professes to have no trouble understanding something doesn't mean it was clear. Maybe you have unusual powers of comprehension. Maybe you understood it because the tacit assumptions happened to align with your prejudices. Maybe you are rewriting the past [1] to save face. Your testimony in this regard doesn't really inform the discussion.
I thought it was clear what I meant, but could see how there might be ambiguity.
To be perfectly clear I do not think qualified immunity should exist and that courts are too quick to rubber stamp warrants. Also most non-violent crimes shouldn’t be crimes IMO. That said, in many year of following the topic I don’t know of anyone being killed while refusing a search in a Terry Stop or an officer requesting entry to a home. Most police killings conform to a few narrow sets of common circumstances, that deserve a LOT of scrutiny but never seem to involve a warrantless search.
The prejudice that it's unlikely that an HN poster doesn't know George Floyd's story? Not only should you have that prejudice too, but simply assuming good faith would have helped you as well.
