Can a politician be banned for criticizing the legal system?

Look, I can handle the Ban—I’ll survive a day or two without my corner of the internet—but I seriously need to get this one crucial point off my chest. We’re living through a massive historical moment here.

Unfortunately, I can't check my DMs, and I didn't save the deleted post where I basically argued that in a "George Floyd situation," we shouldn't start the hunt before the facts are actually in. Basically—and I mean this—we shouldn't be calling for a public lynching of someone who might not even be the sole person responsible for George Floyd's death, especially when you look at the autopsy reports regarding the victim's self-intoxication and those supposed COVID complications.
It’s all pretty standard stuff under our legal system—innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Even a total layman knows that various physical factors can play a huge role in these kinds of medical cases, but let's set that aside for a second and just ask the real question: why are we so selective about who gets sanctioned? Why do we have this habit of using double standards?
Why am I being punished just for fighting for the truth?

Pretty much every autopsy ends up pointing to police conduct as at least one contributing factor... For some, it’s the primary cause, and for others, it’s just part of the picture. But honestly, that's secondary, because we've already gone over why Chauvin is undeniably guilty—whether he actually gets convicted based on the indictment is a different kind of legal mess entirely—and there really isn't any room here to "defend" a psychopath like that or try to downplay what he did...

On top of that, like people have already mentioned in this thread, those conspiracy theories on Politics are getting old, especially when they make zero sense (like that stuff about the other person in jail)

"Basically every autopsy lists police conduct as one of the contributing factors—for some, it’s the primary cause, for others, just one part of the puzzle."

When exactly did I deny that?
Look at my quote: "...meaning we shouldn't 'call for a [public] lynching of a man who might not be (the sole) culprit in George Floyd's death..."
Don't try to tell me that saying "Derek Chauvin isn't responsible for George Floyd's death" is the same thing as saying "Derek Chauvin might not be (the sole) culprit in George Floyd's death."
If that was your reason for the ban, you're full of it—and you know it.

"And besides, that's secondary, since it's been explained multiple times why Chauvin is undeniably guilty (whether he gets convicted based on the indictment is a different story, just legal technicalities...)"

No, that's the main point.
In this whole situation, like I said, it's not that it hasn't been proven to be a racially motivated murder, but it also hasn't been proven that Derek Chauvin is the only single culprit.
The fact that he ignored the suffering and pleas is definitely part of the story and needs to be detailed—he's obviously guilty—but claiming those points are just "technicalities" is as wrong as it is dangerous, and it leads straight into totalitarian thinking.
The video exists, and the excessive force and brutal behavior are clear, but neither you nor anyone else is going to convince me there's any equality between being 'guilty' and being 'charged.'

"There really is no room for 'defending' a psychopath like that or relativizing what he did (and didn't) do."

I am defending nothing but the concept of a democratic judicial process.
You, me, and the mob in the streets aren't stakeholders in that—all we've done is accept the concept as legal and legitimate. There's no room for emotions here, especially not selective ones.
And likewise, court experts will determine whether psychopathy, temporary insanity, or whatever exists.
It's redundant to say, but you, me, and the crowd out on the street aren't qualified to make those kinds of judgments.

"Plus, as noted in the thread, conspiracy theories aren't welcome here, especially when they make zero sense (regarding another person in jail)."

That was just an observation on my end, without any affirmative or biased stance. In fact, I even said I disagreed with it—I think it was just a sensationalist way of saying "I'm not taking the bait."
If this is considered an extended opinion, which it totally is, I don't see why it can't be handled factually. And if you're sanctioning me for that too, it would be nice if you actually warned me in the penalty notice.