It in fact does, but this fact appears outside your sphere of interest in defending.

> suspected that Floyd had used a counterfeit $20 bill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd#Murder

Floyd was never charged, let alone convicted, for stealing $20, and we're talking about federal crimes here.

How is this the bridge you're hiding under?

You are simultaneously arguing for 'moral' subjectivity while utilizing the strawman of 'moral obligation'. Who would enforce this 'obliging' if the subject of morality is still up for debate?

You are tying yourself in embarrassing knots over someone spreading their wealth, unsolicited, to people who helped them achieve it? Why? What's the end goal?

Go argue with someone about the morality of environmental impacts of tech... or something...