I doubt if anyone is conflating you with them. They're far more extreme than you. They're also completely raving. You're coherent.
Derek Chauvin murder trial (Police officer who arrested George Floyd)
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
- Status
I doubt if anyone is conflating you with them. They're far more extreme than you. They're also completely raving. You're coherent.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,752
- Location
- Welling, London
Hopefully the mods will take action when they see it. You can’t abuse someone like he has without repercussions
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,341
rare i report non-spambots but this is one of those times
Crossed it on a rocket to another time zone!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,752
- Location
- Welling, London
Perhaps he’s illiterate and he actually meant you like taking part in a mass debate over black men being murdered
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,752
- Location
- Welling, London
The illiteracy in that sentence is off the chart. He must have been hammering his Fisher Price keyboard in a blind rage
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,391
- Location
- ST4
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 1,033
- Location
- Norwich, UK
I'm not implying that, I acknowledge that there's different levels of restraint but that any specific individual is either sufficiently restrained or they're not. If it required 3 people to hold him down which is not at all unusual for someone of his size and build, then you can't just let go and rely on hopes and prayers that he'll continue to comply.
Someone who is unconscious does not need a knee on the neck no. However in the real world where perpetrators sometimes feign compliance so that arresting officers are more lenient on them use this as an opportunity to fight back, to flee, destroy evidence etc. In a real world scenario it's much harder to asses if someone is genuinely unconscious, or having a heart attack or whatever, especially if it's unusual for that kind of thing to happen. This is kind of privileged position from someone in a comfy chair watching a video recording with 2020 perfect hindsight that he ended up dead and couldof-shouldof-wouldof all day long. That's just not how arrests happen in real life, people fight dirty, they bite, spit, they go into fight or flight mode, adrenalin kicks in and people are temporarily much stronger, they might have hidden weapons or handcuf keys, they can become extremely aggressive, hostile and unpredictable and law enforcement are taught to not take any chances. If a level of force was required to subdue him then it was maintained until backup arrived. That's both sensible and consistent.
You could kneel on someones legs and if there was a broken piece of glass or another sharp object under that persons legs you could force it into their leg and sever an artery killing them. There's always risk of harm and death with any physical altercation. Hell, people tackled to the ground can crack their heads open and died in minutes. The question isn't about perfectly 100% safe methods it's about methods that meet some reasonable level of standard of safety. These kind of choke holds aren't killing a lot of people, their deadlyness is way overblown and so again it's nothing at all to do with the method it's just the emotional reaction that people have when they see a white man with his knee on a black mans neck.
It's not about statistical tests per se, it's about data analysis. You can't always just compare 2 data sets side by side, sometimes you need to control for relevant factors. So for example maybe you want to look at Corona deaths in the UK vs the US, ok well the countries have different sized populations so you'd expect different death counts, in which case you control for population size, and a number of other factors if your analysis is sophistocated. And if you want to compare say arrest rates of 2 different populations you'd control for criminality, maybe one neighbourhood has more or less criminals than another neighbourhood so you'd expect more crime there and thus more arrests.
Controlling the US crime statistics for race is really easy because there's good data on it and it's all made publicly available. It's also relatively non controversial among the professionals who do such things, such as experts in law enforcement and criminology. But again the people that push this stuff and whip up the nation into a frenzy over racism do not care one iota about the actual data on this, no one REALLY cares about how deadly choke holds are, that's justification AFTER the fact. That's them getting emotional about one thing they've had shoved in their face over and over and over again, and then justifying their unique and specific anger post-hoc. And you can tell this easily because you mention something else that's significantly more deadly and they don't care at all.
Some obvious flaws here - firstly just because someone died here doesn't mean the knee on neck was necessarily the issue given we know about the other complications.
Secondly that the knee on neck poses risks to people it is used on doesn't negate that it can be used (likewise tasers and batons can post a risk to life when used even if generally considered to be non-lethal).
That's naive, I'd say people putting across that view are both suffering from confirmation bias via the media reporting focusing on those sorts of case and just basic innumeracy re: the stats. For any anecdotes re: black people being killed by the police or dying while being arrested by the police you'll find egregious examples of white people being killed too. The figures aren't particularly skewed to any given group if you look at actual crime rates or consider police encounters.
Simply citing a couple of cherry-picked examples that have received coverage doesn't make for the strong argument you seem to think it does, it's emotive nonsense that doesn't stand up to reason.
Semantics. We can do that if you like - you're not "pretty sure" if you're basing a claim on vague recollections of what you've read or at least it's a silly position to take. And it isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis, you don't understand what a theory is.
There we go, that was constructive. Though to get back on topic, you're wrong. It's not some side job unconnected with the police department, they were working as uniformed police officers hired off duty complete with the cop car etc.. Floyd worked as a bouncer inside the club, Chauvin was uniformed police outside the club and/or sat in a patrol car, they are different roles. Some accounts do claim they knew each other, the footage itself doesn't give any indication.
I think that's pretty clear and I suspect the people making arguments about the fact this was in their training wasn't a defence wouldn't advocate that police should say avoid using tasers entirely even if issued and authorised to use them in some circumstances or ponder that perhaps tasers themselves are somehow illegal.
It's also pretty clear why this case got the hype and media attention it got - the symbolism isn't great, the knee on the neck which might well have been a fairly mild amount of force is being taken as the thing that definitely caused the death here when simply being restrained on the ground (for his own safety) without a knee on his neck while they waited for an ambulance + the drugs + his obvious anxiety/panic could have lead to the same result regardless.
You seem to be unaware that that is a racist/antisemitic slur you're using there btw...
The medical examiner hasn't claimed they've used excessive force, better to stick to facts he concluded:
"cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression"
If they can justify the use of the (apparently, approved) restraint then Chauvin might well get a not guilty verdict.
Last edited:
I disagree. The guy was handcuffed, lost consciousness (something which Deuse bizarrely denys, but his posting is erratic and confused at best), and there's a 9 minute video of him crying out for help as Police officers kill him, whilst said police officers are told by bystanders they are being unnecessarily rough and harming him. The optics are horrendous. The video is why it got the attention it did. Its practically a snuff video and is very difficult and upsetting for most to watch a helpless man slowly killed by police officers who are supposed to protect him.
Breanna Taylor was a much worse scenario and didn't get as much attention, because there wasn't video.
Well yes, the video is what I'm referring to and the emotive reaction to it. It doesn't take 9 minutes to lose consciousness if you actually can't breathe, people who go into cardiac arrest also stop breathing. Note again he was complaining about not being able to breathe well before he was put onto the ground that he continued to do so when on the ground doesn't mean that being on the ground was the cause - they'd already tried to put him in a patrol car once and he started those complaints, started dropping to the floor himself etc..
Part of the outcry is that only select bits were initially released and without context - the conclusion being that it was solely the restraint causing his outcry and his eventual death when that isn't necessarily the correct conclusion here - it might well have contributed but the point here, re the trial, is that there is obviously reasonable doubt given that we now know about the presence of drugs, we know that the "I can't breathe" cries were made before he was even on the ground - those things aren't really as clear cut as they might have initially appeared in people's minds when viewing the first selected clips available.
A statement which provides nothing to back up ones ability to understand and apply statistical tests. What's the working title of your thesis?
I've read the entire thread, I must have missed it. And I can't find anything on the internet beyond these two autopsies.
Where is this other dodgy autopsy?
You might want to cite papers before you go round disparaging social scientists.
Also showing something can be explained by another factor is not the same as proving no bias no systemic social disadvantage related to the factor you believe is irrelevant. The correlation itself is important.
Life isn't about performing statistical tests and taking those as answers. Social science is about using that information and thinking about what it actually means in a logical manner.
But I wouldnt expect a computer scientist to understand that. Life is just Maths right? Imagine if the government or social apparutus operated that way.
Last edited:
Actually yes, your bank balance and credit score say a lot about you and determine your eligibility for all kinds of government and social interventions.
- Status