1. This piece was written on the first day of the trial after opening statements and before anyone on the MPD had testified for either the prosecution or the defense, something that I make clear in the piece and that you could’ve verified by checking the dateline. I can’t fail, conveniently or otherwise, to mention something that hadn’t happened yet.
2. It’s not a concession I’m willing to concede. It’s an assertion that I actively made. Did you not see the paragraph where I wrote:

Now, I have my doubts that even the most gung-ho police department specifically trains its officers to kneel on the neck of an unarmed and handcuffed suspect to the point of death, especially when said suspect is outnumbered 4 to 1... For my money, Derek Chauvin, a man with nearly as many complaints of misconduct and excessive force as he had years on the job, went below the call of duty and beyond the pale in his actions the night he killed George Floyd, and is responsible for his own actions in failing to either serve or protect.

Or did you think I was lying?

3. Another proven method of problem solving is reading something carefully before writing a rebuttal. Do that, and maybe next time I’ll be more interested in hearing what anyone has to say about my supposedly unsupported hypotheses or what narratives you think I’m happily embracing.