Freddie Gray dies a week after being injured during arrest

[Derec]

Where are the older Black men in Baltimore?



http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/02/us/lord-of-the-flies-baltimore/index.html

I asked 28-year-old Zachary Lewis about the absence of older men. He stood by a makeshift memorial placed at the spot where Freddie Gray, the man whose death ignited the riots, was arrested.

"This is old here," he said, pointing to himself. "There ain't no more 'Old Heads' anymore, where you been? They got big numbers or they in pine boxes." In street syntax, that meant long prison sentences or death.

We hear about the absence of black men from families, but what happens when they disappear from an entire community? West Baltimore delivered the answer to that question this week.

And who is responsible for that? Surely people who commit crimes that put them at risk of long prison sentences and death themselves.

Also, the article doesn't state how many "older" black men are missing from the community. It rather gives the impression that it's almost all but that's unrealistic. 10-20% is more likely, which still leaves 80-90% there.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It does if you are weighted down, you'll pivot forward, then back... you know, like when stopping quickly in a car with your seatbelts on. You'll shift forward, but then back.

Seriously? You're an engineer and you're going to argue braking can throw someone against the back of a vehicle?

Back when I went to school they still taught "a body in motion tends to stay in motion". If Freddie is inside frictionless van and Freddie and van are both traveling forward at 30 mph when van brakes Freddie will still tend to be moving forward until acted on by front wall of van.

Exactly what is it that you think happens after they break? Do you think people are claiming that they're just stopping or maybe that the van then accelerates quickly, thus throwing him backwards? The point is to bounce him around all over the place and move him in different directions.

 

[ksen]

It does if you are weighted down, you'll pivot forward, then back... you know, like when stopping quickly in a car with your seatbelts on. You'll shift forward, but then back.

Seriously? You're an engineer and you're going to argue braking can throw someone against the back of a vehicle?

Back when I went to school they still taught "a body in motion tends to stay in motion". If Freddie is inside frictionless van and Freddie and van are both traveling forward at 30 mph when van brakes Freddie will still tend to be moving forward until acted on by front wall of van.

Police vans are frictionless?

That sounds needlessly dangerous.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, the article doesn't state how many "older" black men are missing from the community. It rather gives the impression that it's almost all but that's unrealistic. 10-20% is more likely, which still leaves 80-90% there.

Does your ass hurt from pulling those numbers out of it?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It does if you are weighted down, you'll pivot forward, then back... you know, like when stopping quickly in a car with your seatbelts on. You'll shift forward, but then back.

Seriously? You're an engineer and you're going to argue braking can throw someone against the back of a vehicle?

Back when I went to school they still taught "a body in motion tends to stay in motion". If Freddie is inside frictionless van and Freddie and van are both traveling forward at 30 mph when van brakes Freddie will still tend to be moving forward until acted on by front wall of van.

This is presuming he can't hold onto anything. If he keeps his position during a stop, his head will whiplash after into the back door.

What I find funny is that we know what happened and we still have people arguing it didn't happen.

 

[Derec]

And drivers (deputy overseers) on the plantation were black.

In this case not only the deputy overseers but also many higher up overseers (higher ranked police officers), chief overseer himself (police commissioner) and the head of plantation (mayor) are black.

What's your point?

That accusations of racism in the Freddie Grey case do not seem to have any merit. Also that the history of slavery is being used as a crutch by some black people. Just look at you comparing Baltimore police with plantation overseers!

- - - Updated - - -

Does your ass hurt from pulling those numbers out of it?

I didn't pull anything out of anywhere. I lamented the article not providing actual numbers and making a highly unrealistic implication. I never pretended I know actual numbers. Do you?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In this case not only the deputy overseers but also many higher up overseers (higher ranked police officers), chief overseer himself (police commissioner) and the head of plantation (mayor) are black.

What's your point?

That accusations of racism in the Freddie Grey case do not seem to have any merit. Also that the history of slavery is being used as a crutch by some black people. Just look at you comparing Baltimore police with plantation overseers!

Well, I'm glad that we've moved from, 'he tried to hurt himself' to 'this isn't about race'. That is progress to me.

 

[Derec]

Well, I'm glad that we've moved from, 'he tried to hurt himself' to 'this isn't about race'. That is progress to me.

That's an entirely different issue, don't you think?

 

[dismal]

Seriously? You're an engineer and you're going to argue braking can throw someone against the back of a vehicle?

Back when I went to school they still taught "a body in motion tends to stay in motion". If Freddie is inside frictionless van and Freddie and van are both traveling forward at 30 mph when van brakes Freddie will still tend to be moving forward until acted on by front wall of van.

Exactly what is it that you think happens after they break? Do you think people are claiming that they're just stopping or maybe that the van then accelerates quickly, thus throwing him backwards? The point is to bounce him around all over the place and move him in different directions.

Arguing acceleration would cause him to the back of the van is consistent with the laws of physics. Note however that arguing that braking would cause him to hit the back of the van is inconsistent with the laws of physics.

The fact first one is true does not make the second one true. Indeed it continues to be the opposite of true. Hence it should not be argued by people who want to be taken seriously.

As for "bouncing around" again you seem a bit confused as to how physics works. A body in motion tends to stay in motion in the direction it is traveling. The only way for a van driver to get a body in motion toward the back wall of a van is forward acceleration (or braking while in reverse).

Bouncing does not do it unless one assumes the human hitting the walls has a high degree of elasticity. Which, given humans are generally big bags of water and bone would be quite a surprise. And not something I would wish to have to argue in court if my standard was "beyond a reasonable doubt". Indeed it's the fact that the kinetic energy from a human-wall collision tends to be absorbed by the human that causes injuries.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Exactly what is it that you think happens after they break? Do you think people are claiming that they're just stopping or maybe that the van then accelerates quickly, thus throwing him backwards? The point is to bounce him around all over the place and move him in different directions.

Arguing acceleration would cause him to the back of the van is consistent with the laws of physics. Note however that arguing that braking would cause him to hit the back of the van is inconsistent with the laws of physics.

The fact first one is true does not make the second one true. Indeed it continues to be the opposite of true. Hence it should not be argued by people who want to be taken seriously.

As for "bouncing around" again you seem a bit confused as to how physics works. A body in motion tends to stay in motion in the direction it is traveling. The only way for a van driver to get a body in motion toward the back wall of a van is forward acceleration (or braking while in reverse).

Bouncing does not do it unless one assumes the human hitting the walls has a high degree of elasticity. Which, given humans are generally big bags of water and bone would be quite a surprise. And not something I would wish to have to argue in court if my standard was "beyond a reasonable doubt". Indeed it's the fact that the kinetic energy from a human-wall collision tends to be absorbed by the human that causes injuries.

What? What exactly is it that you think these nickel rides are? Are you seriously ignoring the entire concept simply to focus on someone's usage of the word "breaking"? I get that you want to obfuscate the matter by moving the focus of the discussion to trivial irrelevancies, but don't you think that you're overdoing it a little bit in this case?

 

[dismal]

Police vans are frictionless?

That sounds needlessly dangerous.

Oh good, ksen's here to make irrelevant points.

The part you did get correct is that friction would be Freddie's friend. It would in all cases and in all directions work against a hypothetical van driver trying to make him hit walls*. But it would not and could not make him hit the back wall by braking.

*Assuming laws of physics apply. For some this appears to be to optional.

 

[Sarpedon]

Has anyone on this thread ever been to Baltimore? I have. I did my Master's Architecture thesis there. I am very familiar with the physical conditions of the buildings and infrastructure there. The streets in many parts of the city are in very poor condition. A vehicle going at speed over one of these areas would generate considerable, random bouncing.

But please dismal, feel free to lecture us about what Baltimore is like. I found your wise remarks about Minneapolis very enlightening.

 

[dismal]

Seriously? You're an engineer and you're going to argue braking can throw someone against the back of a vehicle?

Back when I went to school they still taught "a body in motion tends to stay in motion". If Freddie is inside frictionless van and Freddie and van are both traveling forward at 30 mph when van brakes Freddie will still tend to be moving forward until acted on by front wall of van.

This is presuming he can't hold onto anything. If he keeps his position during a stop, his head will whiplash after into the back door.

What I find funny is that we know what happened and we still have people arguing it didn't happen.

If you are bracing yourself against a deceleration you may sway back a little when the deceleration stops. I would be surprising if you braced yourself with sufficient force to throw yourself backward in the opposite direction with enough energy to fracture bones.

 

[dismal]

Arguing acceleration would cause him to the back of the van is consistent with the laws of physics. Note however that arguing that braking would cause him to hit the back of the van is inconsistent with the laws of physics.

The fact first one is true does not make the second one true. Indeed it continues to be the opposite of true. Hence it should not be argued by people who want to be taken seriously.

As for "bouncing around" again you seem a bit confused as to how physics works. A body in motion tends to stay in motion in the direction it is traveling. The only way for a van driver to get a body in motion toward the back wall of a van is forward acceleration (or braking while in reverse).

Bouncing does not do it unless one assumes the human hitting the walls has a high degree of elasticity. Which, given humans are generally big bags of water and bone would be quite a surprise. And not something I would wish to have to argue in court if my standard was "beyond a reasonable doubt". Indeed it's the fact that the kinetic energy from a human-wall collision tends to be absorbed by the human that causes injuries.

What? What exactly is it that you think these nickel rides are? Are you seriously ignoring the entire concept simply to focus on someone's usage of the word "breaking"? I get that you want to obfuscate the matter by moving the focus of the discussion to trivial irrelevancies, but don't you think that you're overdoing it a little bit in this case?

I'm not saying it's not possible to make someone hit walls in general. You throw someone in the back seat handcuffed behind their back and slam on the brakes they are going to smash their face into the front partition. You take a turn on two wheels they can slide across and hit a side wall. The laws of physics are entirely consistent with these actions. But the only way to make someone hit the back wall is acceleration. If you have to prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt that the van driver acted recklessly or intended to kill or injure the passenger you have to deal with this.

 

[PyramidHead]

I realize government-issued vehicles may be woefully behind the times, but my car has a gearshift mechanism; with the flick of my wrist, I can actually cause my car to accelerate in reverse. Not sure if this feature was included on whatever junker these patriots were forced to accept from their bureaucratic overlords.

 

[ksen]

This is presuming he can't hold onto anything. If he keeps his position during a stop, his head will whiplash after into the back door.

What I find funny is that we know what happened and we still have people arguing it didn't happen.

If you are bracing yourself against a deceleration you may sway back a little when the deceleration stops. I would be surprising if you braced yourself with sufficient force to throw yourself backward in the opposite direction with enough energy to fracture bones.

And during the sway back the van accelerates and you . . .?

 

[ksen]

But the only way to make someone hit the back wall is acceleration. If you have to prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt that the van driver acted recklessly or intended to kill or injure the passenger you have to deal with this.

You mean something like a door bolt shaped injury on the back of the corpse's head?

 

[dismal]

If you are bracing yourself against a deceleration you may sway back a little when the deceleration stops. I would be surprising if you braced yourself with sufficient force to throw yourself backward in the opposite direction with enough energy to fracture bones.

And during the sway back the van accelerates and you . . .?

I have mentioned twice before he could have been standing up and fallen backward into the back wall during a modest acceleration. I am happy to keep repeating it if it helps.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

nm

 

[dismal]

But the only way to make someone hit the back wall is acceleration. If you have to prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt that the van driver acted recklessly or intended to kill or injure the passenger you have to deal with this.

You mean something like a door bolt shaped injury on the back of the corpse's head?

Recall this particular 2nd degree murder charge requires the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt what was going on in the driver's heart and soul.

 

[Sarpedon]

Not really, failure to follow proper procedures, resulting in a death, should be sufficient for negligent homicide.

That's the trouble with established safety procedures. No telepathy required.