Henry Nowak…….an absolute tragedy.

Pure cold rage can be worse as it often seeks vengeance later.

The definition of cold rage is a highly controlled suppressed form of intense anger, instead of a loud explosive outburst, it manifests as calm, detached and calculated.

What does pure cold rage mean in the context of Digwa murdering Henry?

For me it was the judge's meticulous summing up at the end of the trial. No stone left unturned.

surfsup

Lemonjam

LemonJam

surfsup
Lemonjam

No Hate Crime Conviction: Minnesota prosecutors, including Attorney General Keith Ellison, publicly stated that there was no explicit or overt statement of motive to prove Chauvin committed a hateful crime driven by racial bias
Surfsup- There is clear evidence of Chauvin's repeated pattern of behaviour, ie. his use of excessive force against black men- see some detail in post above.

Of course you believe you know better than the attorney general.

Back to suiting your own bias again.

I don't know better that Attorney General- he is well able to speak for himself. We have him to thank for securing Chauvin's conviction when it looked like Chauvin was going to get away with his actions.

Google “It looked like Chauvin would get away with it: Minnesota’s top attorney on how we won justice for George Floyd’s family”. He has also published a book.

When seeing Derek Chauvin in court for the first time, Keith Ellison references “the banality of evil”, a phrase coined by writer and philosopher Hannah Arendt when covering the trial of Adolf Eichmann, one of the architects of the Holocaust.
“The point of the whole book is that Nazis were not these big, scary people that your imagination conjures. They’re ordinary, they’re plain, they’re very regular and they’re a lot less than you assume they would be and that’s how I felt about Derek Chauvin. He looked like a relatively small man – I bet he didn’t weigh 140lb. Here’s this guy who acted so monstrously: it’s just a man, not a very big one.”

The prosecution was directed by Ellison, who led every meeting, assigned duties to the team and sat in court every day scribbling observations in old notebooks from his 12-year spell in the House of Representatives. When those were full, a friend at a law firm gave him more.

The notes were invaluable to prosecutors as the trial unfolded and served as raw material for Ellison’s published book, Break the Wheel: Ending the Cycle of Police Violence, which offers a blow-by-blow account of the case and spotlights a culture in which the training manual often receives lip service and complaints about “bad cops” are too easily ignored. It asks what role prosecutors, defendants, heads of police unions, judges, activists, legislators, politicians and media figures can play in reforming a criminal justice system that fails people of colour

The book begins when Ellison, attorney general of Minnesota, was woken by his phone at 4.45am by an urgent message. He watched a mobile phone video that showed Floyd, trapped under Chauvin’s knee, shouting “Mamma! Mamma! I’m through!” and, repeatedly, “I can’t breathe!” Ellison could not believe how long the torment continued. Ellison recalls: “Even though I have been working on police accountability and brutality issues for years, I was still shocked. I was still blown away by the inhumanity of what I saw.” The side of every police car in Minneapolis displays the words: “To protect with courage, to serve with compassion.” The first statement from the city police department about Floyd was entitled Man Dies After Medical Incident During Police Interaction and made no mention of officers restraining him on the ground with a knee on his neck.

The state attorney general comments: “I did not expect to see basically a whitewashing of what happened to George Floyd. It said he died of a medical emergency – sounds like a heart attack or a stroke. It does not sound like positional asphyxia with a knee on the neck and so I found that dumbfounding as well.” A murder conviction of a police officer for an on-duty death is uncommon. The officers accused of beating Rodney King in Los Angeles in 1991 were acquitted, while Breonna Taylor, Mike Brown and Eric Garner’s cases never made it past the grand jury. “History was on Derek Chauvin’s side,” Ellison says. “It looked a lot more like Chauvin would get away with it than not.”

The jury found Chauvin guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. Ellison felt a rush of relief but took no joy at the sight of a man whose life had changed forever.

On the faces of the Floyd family he saw “validation” and “vindication”, he recalls. More than anything else, their brother was treated like human trash and the verdict said, no, he’s a human being worthy of respect like anyone. To them, it was extremely emotional – tears – and then they were surprisingly calm. They’re a very dignified family, very dignified people. They were clearly relieved: they didn’t know what the jury was going to decide

V3ra

^The definition of cold rage is a highly controlled suppressed form of intense anger, instead of a loud explosive outburst, it manifests as calm, detached and calculated.^

What does pure cold rage mean in the context of Digwa murdering Henry?

For me it was the judge's meticulous summing up at the end of the trial. No stone left unturned.

In terms of words the Judges sentencing remarks typified this I agree.

In terms of action pure cold rage describes Chauvin's controlled, suppressed intense anger and the 9 and half minute duration of his calculated, detached and calm kneeling on Floyd to the point of brutally murdering him by asphyxiation- assisted by other officers holding him down.

What worries me is that Farage made a direct call to the British public to respond to Henry's murder with pure, cold rage

Is Farage hoping for the public to respond with "words* or by way of pure cold rage actions

He didnt warn or counsel the public not to react physically with pure, cold rage and has not condemned the violence that broke out in Southampton- so I guess that significantly informs us of Farage's motivation and intentions.

AGAA4

Pure cold rage can be worse as it often seeks vengeance later.

To me, the phrase is an oxymoron.

"Pure" and "cold" suggest something calculated and deliberate, ie not something decided in the heat of the moment.

On the other hand "rage" suggests something heated, inflamed and out of control.

It's actually very typical of the kind of phrase which Goebbels used to write into Hitler's speeches. It can be analysed and is essentially meaningless, but carries profound meaning to those tuned in to understand and will be interpreted in different ways. If a speaker is called to defend a phrase like it, it can always be claimed that it was misinterpreted.

Farage is a master of that kind of language. He knew exactly what he was doing when he said it. It's a text book use of a dog whistle. He can walk away from riots and say "not me, guv".

By all accounts, Farage admired Hitler whilst in secondary school!

Lemonjam

I stand by my previous comments and fact in full rather than just the couple of sentences you have extracted to support your erroneous statement my facts are biased:

Nothing erroneous in my previous statement. Please stop with your gaslighting.

This article written by an ex high ranking officer who resigned from the force because of the doctrine of both political parties.

mol.im/a/15879673

petra

This article written by an ex high ranking officer who resigned from the force because of the doctrine of both political parties.

mol.im/a/15879673

Would you be able to give us some idea of what this officer said, petra? I'm afraid I have no desire at all to subscribe to the Daily Mail in order to read it..

Same MaizieD or perhaps his/her name please petra

MaizieD

petra

This article written by an ex high ranking officer who resigned from the force because of the doctrine of both political parties.

mol.im/a/15879673

Would you be able to give us some idea of what this officer said, petra? I'm afraid I have no desire at all to subscribe to the Daily Mail in order to read it..

I'm not going to subscribe to the Daily Mail either, but the link allowed me to see that the article is written by Paul Birch, whose name I recognised. He's a former counter-terrorism officer, who now makes his money by writing about "wokeness". I suspect this www.spiked-online.com/2026/06/02/henry-nowaks-death-reveals-a-police-force-corrupted-by-wokeness/ has the same content as the DM article.

He evidently has definite views and is entitled to his opinion, but it is no more than an opinion.

Thank you twaddle

LemonJam

surfsup

Lemonjam

LemonJam

surfsup
Lemonjam

No Hate Crime Conviction: Minnesota prosecutors, including Attorney General Keith Ellison, publicly stated that there was no explicit or overt statement of motive to prove Chauvin committed a hateful crime driven by racial bias
Surfsup- There is clear evidence of Chauvin's repeated pattern of behaviour, ie. his use of excessive force against black men- see some detail in post above.

Of course you believe you know better than the attorney general.

Back to suiting your own bias again.

I stand by my previous comments and fact in full rather than just the couple of sentences you have extracted to support your erroneous statement my facts are biased:

There was no overt or explicit statement made by the Attorney General or prosecutors of motive in George Floyd's trial to prove Chauvin's committed Floyd's murder because of racial bias that is because the murder trial did not focus or gather any evidence about motive so such a statement could not be made The trial in fact focussed solely and entirely on Chauvin's actions and whether they met the legal standard for murder which they did. That is the trial focus specifically on on his brutal, excessive use of force which was found proved.

However, in context of his motivation and whether he was in fact racially biased, following the trial, the State and Federal investigations into the Minneapolis Police Department. A statement was then made and concluded that Chauvin operated within a department that exhibited widespread, systemic racial bias. As set out in DOJ finding on Police Culture 2023, and 2022 State Investigation by Minnesota Department of Human Rights.



You seemingly do not accept the evidence of Chauvin's pattern of racially motivated misconduct history and the pattern of his behaviour. Or at least you have chosen not to comment on the fact that Chauvin had 15 previous misconduct findings against him prior to Floyd's death e.g. involving his racial bias and racial misconduct. Some of his racially biassed misconduct attracted significant financial settlements e.g. the City of Minneapolis reached a nearly $ 9 million settlement regarding 2 lawsuits brought against Chauvin by 2 Black residents who accused him of excessive force and racial misconduct in 2017

You seek to deny there is irrefutable evidence of Chauvin's repeated pattern of racial bias and associated racial misconduct also of his history of using excessive force against black men. There is no evidence of similar behaviour against white persons he has arrested. But you wish to ignore this evidence to suit your narrative.

You stated the Attorney General Keith Ellison, publicly stated that there was no explicit or overt statement of motive to prove Chauvin committed a hateful crime driven by racial bias" Your bias seemingly leads you to believe the *lack of an explicit or overt statement is evidence that Chauvin was not racially biased. You seemingly have not applied any critical thinking to why such a statement was not made at murder trial stage.

So be it.

I have just read your 19.28 post yesterday Surfsup- in which you an accuse me of gaslighting- on top of your perception/accusation? that I know better than Attorney General Keith Ellison and am biased.

I have addressed your concern that I know better than AG Keith Ellison by clarifying I do not as he speaks for himself. I posted clarification for you yesterday at 14.43- quoting Ellison directly. Thus I post not my bias- his views and words and experience of the trial and seeing Floyd's family in court and his fear the trial would be "white washed".

Your accusation that I am biased I can live with. However I remain of the belief your accusation is erroneous and without foundation.

Your accusation that I am gaslighting you however is serious. Gaslighting is a form of psychological and emotional abuse. On what basis you make such a serious accusation you have not made clear.

I've looked again at my post above and others and can not find any examples of me gaslighting you.

Have you asked Gransnet moderators to address your serious concern?

Lemonjam

I have just read your 19.28 post yesterday Surfsup- in which you an accuse me of gaslighting- on top of your perception/accusation? that I know better than Attorney General Keith Ellison and am biased.

I have addressed your concern that I know better than AG Keith Ellison by clarifying I do not as he speaks for himself. I posted clarification for you yesterday at 14.43- quoting Ellison directly. Thus I post not my bias- his views and words and experience of the trial and seeing Floyd's family in court and his fear the trial would be "white washed".

Your accusation that I am biased I can live with. However I remain of the belief your accusation is erroneous and without foundation.

Your accusation that I am gaslighting you however is serious. Gaslighting is a form of psychological and emotional abuse. On what basis you make such a serious accusation you have not made clear.

I've looked again at my post above and others and can not find any examples of me gaslighting you.

Have you asked Gransnet moderators to address your serious concern?

I can’t take you seriously, I really can’t.

And before you gripe because I haven’t copied and pasted your post in its entirety it’s because it’s not necessary to keep taking up half a page with every post. You’ll soon be up to a full page if you carry on.

OP here

For transparency I have asked for this thread to be removed.

I feel it has now run its course, I have been very interested to read all your opinions, it has been food for thought.

Unfortunately the thread has now become a slanging match and is becoming too personal.

Even if this is not removed, I will not be returning to the thread.

Thank you all for contributing to such an interesting thread.

Not a slanging match.

A showing off.

Oh surfsup your last sentence did make me laugh! 🤣🤣

twaddle

MaizieD

petra

This article written by an ex high ranking officer who resigned from the force because of the doctrine of both political parties.

mol.im/a/15879673

Would you be able to give us some idea of what this officer said, petra? I'm afraid I have no desire at all to subscribe to the Daily Mail in order to read it..

I'm not going to subscribe to the Daily Mail either, but the link allowed me to see that the article is written by Paul Birch, whose name I recognised. He's a former counter-terrorism officer, who now makes his money by writing about "wokeness". I suspect this www.spiked-online.com/2026/06/02/henry-nowaks-death-reveals-a-police-force-corrupted-by-wokeness/ has the same content as the DM article.

He evidently has definite views and is entitled to his opinion, but it is no more than an opinion.

Obviously Paul Birch knows more about it than you or I.

Now Rick Prior, former Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation has also spoken out in a similar vein. There will be more true accounts given no doubt.

No doubt you will dismiss him too because it doesn’t suit your agenda. 🤔

Thanks LemonJam for your research and post correcting the error that Floyd was arrested and treated that way because he was a 'criminal'.

Thanks Maremia- I appreciate your feedback 💐

Primrose53

twaddle

MaizieD

petra

This article written by an ex high ranking officer who resigned from the force because of the doctrine of both political parties.

mol.im/a/15879673

Would you be able to give us some idea of what this officer said, petra? I'm afraid I have no desire at all to subscribe to the Daily Mail in order to read it..

I'm not going to subscribe to the Daily Mail either, but the link allowed me to see that the article is written by Paul Birch, whose name I recognised. He's a former counter-terrorism officer, who now makes his money by writing about "wokeness". I suspect this www.spiked-online.com/2026/06/02/henry-nowaks-death-reveals-a-police-force-corrupted-by-wokeness/ has the same content as the DM article.

He evidently has definite views and is entitled to his opinion, but it is no more than an opinion.

Obviously Paul Birch knows more about it than you or I.

Now Rick Prior, former Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation has also spoken out in a similar vein. There will be more true accounts given no doubt.

No doubt you will dismiss him too because it doesn’t suit your agenda. 🤔

No, I won't dismiss them. I don't operate like that. I actually try to be objective and draw my own conclusions.

Nevertheless, people such as Paul Birch most certainly do have an agenda, which he pushes in various right-wing media. He's "anti-woke" and somebody who doesn't accept change easily. There are thousands of people like that. Their opinions are always valuable, but unfortunately they sometimes have quite entrenched views.

Anybody who is reasonably articulate and has had a couple of decades of experience in something or other could set themselves up as an "expert". Their sole expertise is their experience, but it doesn't mean that they are good at analysis nor that they are objective and unbiassed.

What occurs it is not hard to find a few ex police or ideologues to decry recent policy.

Needless to say, an opposing g view will be held my others.

However this ‘harking back to better times just doesn’t wash with me. The levels of sexism and racism not just in the police but the fire service too was totally unacceptable and well documented.

Training isnt just about dealing with the public, it’s also a matter of ‘cleaning your own house up’.

Terrible mistakes have always been made, and undoubtedly a major one was the failure to believe in women coming forward with rape complaints as in the race field, incidents like Stephen Laurence and other well documented cases of BAME people not being ‘heard’ or worse.

It’s not desirable to ‘go backwards’: instead, find best ways of going forward.

Excellent post, Wyllow.

It’s true.
People do have agendas and are entrenched in their views and support them adamantly whatever views those are and whatever the subject is. It makes for interesting discussions.

Primrose53

Oh surfsup your last sentence did make me laugh! 🤣🤣

Always good to know I’ve put a smile on someone’s face Primrose