And he followed it with..........................
After that comment, Kirk listed a series of accusations about Floyd's background,
criminal history and cause of death — all
with varying degrees of legitimacy. The Associated Press, reporting on the event,
described that section of the speech as
"an avalanche of aspersions and debunked claims about Floyd."
CK calls him a scumbag and then spews forth a bunch of bs to support his stance. (maybe racist?)
yeah not really sure this counts as an "avalanche of aspersions and debunked claims". There are 9 arrests, they have 2 semantic arguments they try to make, and on gotcha that the lady he held a gun on wasn't pregnant. I don't think that should change anyone's opinion on Floyd. I wouldn't call it a "bunch of bs", at worst one part of it was bs.
"In brief, the alleged crimes and time periods are mostly accurate, with the caveat that Floyd was convicted of theft in 1998, not armed robbery. But the following information makes other aspects of the post misleading

1) Not all the crimes resulted in prison time, but rather jail sentences; (2) no evidence suggests a woman involved in the 2007 charge was pregnant; (3)it's an exaggeration of toxicology results to claim Floyd "was high on meth" when he was choked by a cop, and there's no proof that Floyd was (4)"getting ready to drive a car" before his fatal encounter with police other than the fact that officers say they approached him as he sat in the (4)driver's seat of a vehicle."
(1) semantics. he did serve some prison time, and was actually sentenced, their "gotcha" here is that he was in prison for worse crimes so they let him out on the lesser crimes without serving specific time for those crimes.
(2) true, nothing says she was pregnant.
(3) again semantics, he did have meth and fentanyl in his body. enough amounts to make one high. they are claiming its bs that he was actually high because there is no way to actually test that on a dead person."methamphetamines found in Floyd's bloodstream (19 ng/mL or .019 mg/L) is "within the range" of some patients' "therapeutic or prescribed use" of the drug."
(4) I tagged 4 twice because unfortunately sitting in the drivers seat with the car turned off IS enough to get a DUI in TN. I know its a different state, but he had keys and was sitting in the drivers seat, thats enough to plausibly be intent to drive which is where they got those statements from the cops. its enough plausibility that it actually held up in court, so I don't see how Snopes can claim its false.
the rest of it is a fluff piece acting like his hard life or time playing sports in school made a difference in the crimes he committed.