are you seeing the same thing I'm seeing? There are more white people protesting this latest event than there are black people, I think by a lot. How do you feel if you're Black Lives Matter and you show up and you think it's you against, I don't know, white people? Who do you think is on the other side? Who's on the other side? Because you look around and the people who are supporting you are all white people.

I think this is the point when there's sort of a recognition that this was more a problem about the press, how they whip us into hysteria, how they frame things, and the police need some help. Now they may need some help no matter who they're stopping. This doesn't mean they need some help racially specifically, but it does mean that maybe they need a little extra work on making sure that this doesn't happen no matter who gets stopped.

But I think there's something magical about the fact that there's this weird coincidence built into the story. I mean it's a really weird coincidence that a knee, which is so powerful in our minds, you know the way we think of knees, it has to do with submission. It has to do with somebody having power over another one. It's just that every bad image is sort of baked into knees.

So because this is so powerful and because I think the entire country is on the same side — did you see that there were protesters who went to the White House? The president was completely on their side from the jump. There was no hesitation. He was always on the side of the protesters. And in fact the Department of Justice is acting on it. So who's on the other side? Who's on the other side? There's nobody on the other side.

And I think that maybe Kaepernick is the big winner in a weird way. The big winner, because he looks right.

Now here's the part where I'll get in trouble, but I can't get cancelled so you're going to do it anyway. As we're trying to figure out what really happened there, I like to build a grid so I can see, I can work through my own thinking about it. So this has more to do with a way of thinking of things. So if the only thing you got out of it is, oh that's a good way to think of a complicated thing, I might use that myself.

And what I do is I just put the three possible explanations and then I figure out what we know, which of course is changing by the minute so that this of course would have to be updated every five minutes because we're still in the fog of war. But in terms of how you would look at it, this is a good start.

So was it something like murder? I guess third-degree murder is exactly what he's been charged with in addition to manslaughter. And third-degree murder is defined as this in Minnesota, so it's different by state: causing death of a person, and here's the money part, quote, "by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for life, and without intent to kill."

So it could still be murder even if he didn't mean it, but it would be worse than manslaughter if I understand this correctly. I could have some of the legalities wrong, but I think manslaughter would be you're just being, it's just an accident that you should have known better. Whereas the third-degree murder is a little worse than that, meaning that not only should it not have happened, not only should you have known better, but there was something about your attitude or your intentions that seemed like you didn't even try.

With manslaughter it's a little bit more like an accident that you should have known better. Whereas this one is it's not an accident necessarily. It's just you didn't care or you just didn't even do the minimum you needed to keep somebody from dying.

All right, so here's all we know. Did the police follow procedures? You would say no, right? Wouldn't you say no? I think you might be surprised if it goes to trial. I think you might be surprised that it's closer to yes. And the only reason I can say that is that the autopsy at least