Forgery suspect killed by cop restricting his airway

[Deepak]

It isn't surprising, it isn't astounding, it isn't even unexpected that 40% of the population think that Chauvin didn't do anything wrong.

Where does this come from ?

They accept this behavior and encourage it and wish that the incident would just go away as it has for the past couple hundred years.

Not from the footage I've seen on TV. The condemnation and demands for change through protests have pretty much been world wide.

I think that's referring to America specifically. The percentage might not be exact, but there's no question it's in the ballpark.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/video-shows-white-men-n-j-mocking-george-floyd-s-n1229051

If you present it in slightly less absolute terms, like say modifying nothing wrong to allow for minimization of his actions, or add an easement for people to say he may have done something wrong but is being treated unfairly to the point of being a victim himself and that number likely shoots up.

The floor is much greater than zero

 

[TSwizzle]

I think that's referring to America specifically. The percentage might not be exact, but there's no question it's in the ballpark.

Actually there is a question about it being in the ballpark. Where does the figure of 40% of the US population think Chauvin did nothing wrong come from ? Was there a poll ?

 

[Deepak]

I think that's referring to America specifically. The percentage might not be exact, but there's no question it's in the ballpark.

Actually there is a question about it being in the ballpark. Where does the figure of 40% of the US population think Chauvin did nothing wrong come from ? Was there a poll ?

How does someone actually read my post then ask whether there was some supporting poll?

My whole point is that the wording of the question is going to swing the exact response. If you recast in less absolute terms, then there is some number that's non-zero. Taking that further, I estimate the density of people who have at some point said what the cop did was a serious thing, and the density of bullshitters spewing facile nonsense like medical school acceptance rates, and 'if you can talk you can breathe' arguments.

Another proxy is the floor for Trump's support, or polls on people who deludedly believe that police hold bad actors accountable within their ranks. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/09/29/the-racial-confidence-gap-in-police-performance/

I'd say 25% on the low end and 35% on the high end thing he didn't do any serious wrong which would deserve prison time.

I'm aware it's not based on a poll, my question is do you have a better number given the way I'm framing my estimate? I wouldn't count people who think he did something wrong, and that something is occupying a roadway outside of a crosswalk or some excessive force nonsense that should be a disciplinary action that's handled by IA.

Do you have a better estimate? I'd love to be proven wrong here. That said, my natural follow-up would be what sort of moral depravity does it take to still support Trump knowing how badly he's handled this situation (https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?11245-A-day-without-stupid&p=798905&viewfull=1#post798905)

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I think that's referring to America specifically. The percentage might not be exact, but there's no question it's in the ballpark.

Actually there is a question about it being in the ballpark. Where does the figure of 40% of the US population think Chauvin did nothing wrong come from ? Was there a poll ?

Well, T.G.G. didn't say "US population" he just said "population." As to the ballpark, there is this from YouGov that has 33% of Republicans either affirming Chauvin should not be arrested or otherwise "don't know" (which is the same as affirming he should not be arrested). Among Independents, there is a total of 25% saying he should not be arrested and/or "don't know," which can be pretty much split down the middle between left-leaning and right-leaning (as most independents are split), so that's roughly an additional 12% added onto the Republican side for around 45% right-leaning people affirming that Chauvin should not be arrested?

So, yeah, ballpark.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think that's referring to America specifically. The percentage might not be exact, but there's no question it's in the ballpark.

Actually there is a question about it being in the ballpark. Where does the figure of 40% of the US population think Chauvin did nothing wrong come from ? Was there a poll ?

How does someone actually read my post then ask whether there was some supporting poll?

My whole point is that the wording of the question is going to swing the exact response. If you recast in less absolute terms, then there is some number that's non-zero. Taking that further, I estimate the density of people who have at some point said what the cop did was a serious thing, and the density of bullshitters spewing facile nonsense like medical school acceptance rates, and 'if you can talk you can breathe' arguments.

Another proxy is the floor for Trump's support, or polls on people who deludedly believe that police hold bad actors accountable within their ranks. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/09/29/the-racial-confidence-gap-in-police-performance/

I'd say 25% on the low end and 35% on the high end thing he didn't do any serious wrong which would deserve prison time.

I'm aware it's not based on a poll, my question is do you have a better number given the way I'm framing my estimate? I wouldn't count people who think he did something wrong, and that something is occupying a roadway outside of a crosswalk or some excessive force nonsense that should be a disciplinary action that's handled by IA.

Do you have a better estimate? I'd love to be proven wrong here. That said, my natural follow-up would be what sort of moral depravity does it take to still support Trump knowing how badly he's handled this situation (https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?11245-A-day-without-stupid&p=798905&viewfull=1#post798905)

He's par, maybe even birdie. If he comes up with a conspiracy theory about the incident like Trumpo did with Gugino that's eagle.

 

[TSwizzle]

How does someone actually read my post then ask whether there was some supporting poll?

The assertion that 40% of the US population think Chauvin did nothing wrong is just idle speculation.

 

[blastula]

I think that's referring to America specifically. The percentage might not be exact, but there's no question it's in the ballpark.

Actually there is a question about it being in the ballpark. Where does the figure of 40% of the US population think Chauvin did nothing wrong come from ? Was there a poll ?

Well, T.G.G. didn't say "US population" he just said "population." As to the ballpark, there is this from YouGov that has 33% of Republicans either affirming Chauvin should not be arrested or otherwise "don't know" (which is the same as affirming he should not be arrested). Among Independents, there is a total of 25% saying he should not be arrested and/or "don't know," which can be pretty much split down the middle between left-leaning and right-leaning (as most independents are split), so that's roughly an additional 12% added onto the Republican side for around 45% right-leaning people affirming that Chauvin should not be arrested?

So, yeah, ballpark.

What kind of math is that? You can't mix and match different samples like that. Besides, your own link already gives the full population result, which is what TGG is talking about. Only 6% of everyone said he should not be arrested, with 16% saying "don't know." And no, "don't know" is not the same as "should not be arrested."

 

[Deepak]

How does someone actually read my post then ask whether there was some supporting poll?

The assertion that 40% of the US population think Chauvin did nothing wrong is just idle speculation.

Did I imply it was hard data? Do you have actual data? Or do you think I should simply suspend all judgement in all scenarios unless I have an exact measurement?

Should I always pack clothing to survive sub-zero to boiling temperatures if I don't have an exact reading from a calibrated thermocouple? That's a lot of baggage to ask people to carry.

I provided my rationale

You don't have to accept my assessment, and you're certainly entitled to your radical skepticism on the matter, but you haven't done anything other than tell my I don't have an exact number. And I admitted as much when I made the statement.

 

[TSwizzle]

Did I imply it was hard data?

No but you said it was "in the ballpark". I don't know what you are basing that on. Neither do you is seems.

 

[Jarhyn]

Did I imply it was hard data?

No but you said it was "in the ballpark". I don't know what you are basing that on. Neither do you is seems.

The ballpark for this is anywhere from 10-40%, and it would still be within the range of "way the fuck too many". Of course, I don't think that most would argue that Chauvin did nothing wrong directly. Rather, they would spend all their time instead talking about "those awful looters", and "cops have a hard time", and "George Floyd was on drugs". They can't really bring themselves to say it outright, because there is too much evidence.

Do you, TSwizzle, believe that Chauvin murdered George Floyd?

 

[Deepak]

Did I imply it was hard data?

No but you said it was "in the ballpark". I don't know what you are basing that on. Neither do you is seems.

This is clearly absurd to anyone who is capable of reading. You don't have to accept what I'm basing it on, again as I admitted this isn't hard data, but I clearly provided what I'm basing it on.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/ballpark-figure.asp

What Is a Ballpark Figure?
A ballpark figure is a rough numerical estimate or approximation of the value of something that is otherwise unknown. Ballpark figures are commonly used by accountants, salespersons, and other professionals to estimate current or future results. A stockbroker could use a ballpark figure to estimate how much money a client might have at some point in the future, given a certain rate of growth. A salesperson could use a ballpark figure to estimate how long a product a customer was thinking about buying might be viable.

Which is to say, I admitted that the exact figure is not known, I provided the proxies that I'm using (again because it's not directly known), and what the potential range is - ipso fatso I've satisfied the conditions of knowing what I'm basing it on. I've certainly worked with sales people who have made their ballpark estimates with less.

This might seem like some remarkable rhetorical flourish you've used to bamboozle everyone, but you're just playing pretend. Again, feel free to provide some better way of estimating it, or provide some hard data, if you have it, but let's at least agree that the English language is deserving of justice.

 

[TSwizzle]

You don't have to accept what I'm basing it on, {snip}

At least you got that right. I guess we are done.

 

[Deepak]

You don't have to accept what I'm basing it on, {snip}

At least you got that right. I guess we are done.

 

[TSwizzle]

The ballpark for this is anywhere from 10-40%,

Based on what ?

Of course, I don't think that most would argue that Chauvin did nothing wrong directly. Rather, they would spend all their time instead talking about "those awful looters", and "cops have a hard time", and "George Floyd was on drugs". They can't really bring themselves to say it outright, because there is too much evidence.

You have quite the imagination.

 

[Jarhyn]

The ballpark for this is anywhere from 10-40%,

Based on what ?

Of course, I don't think that most would argue that Chauvin did nothing wrong directly. Rather, they would spend all their time instead talking about "those awful looters", and "cops have a hard time", and "George Floyd was on drugs". They can't really bring themselves to say it outright, because there is too much evidence.

You have quite the imagination.

Yet here you are...

Don't suppose you care to answer my question?

Do you, TSwizzle, accept that Chauvin murdered George Floyd?

 

[ruby sparks]

How is this not a religion?

Because of the mountain of robust evidence that it is the case, much of which has been presented in various threads over several years.

Ok, perhaps it is not primarily the cause. It is at least clearly and obviously a somewhat important relevant factor. That is something that is not even viably disputable by reasonable, intelligent and informed people.

Racism denialists/minimisers like you and Loren might be another matter however. You are essentially an integral part of what is wrong with attitudes in your society, and imo I think you should be ashamed of yourselves. Really. And personally I don’t think you have much if anything useful to contribute on any forum that seeks to promote rational thinking on these important topics.

I see what’s happening in America and then I see your responses to it and it literally makes me feel sick, and indeed angry.

The problem is you have a mountain of quicksand.

The vast majority of the "evidence" for discrimination fails to adequately control for differences in the populations. Strangely enough the evidence tends to wither when better controls are used. Off the top of my head:

1) Inferior medical treatment for blacks? Nope--inferior medical treatment in inner city medical facilities which are overloaded and underfunded (because so many patients don't pay at all.) Same facility, the "discrimination" vanishes.

2) Race matters in schooling? Not once you control adequately for the parents. Note that one of these factors is the age when they had their first child.

If there is better evidence why do we keep seeing crap evidence? It's like the creationists--the pile of crap they use to prove their position basically proves they don't have real evidence.

Bollocks Loren. You are doing your usual of minimising racism. We have been through all of those and several other specific issues in detail before and they do not in fact tend to pan out under scrutiny (and when all contributing factors are taken into proper account) as you try to describe them. You just refuse to see that there is often also a non-insignificant, often systemic, racial bias component in there to go along with the socioeconomic one. You are just demonstrably and clearly skewed in your (incomplete) analysis and as such your views are a good example of what is problematic with so-called colour blind approaches, in which racial bias issues get conveniently swept under the carpet. The large body of evidence is robust and the results repeatable. It is your brain that is quicksand.

And to add to that, you seem to think that if there is a current socioeconomic factor, as there often is, and indeed a significant one, it just happened, as if naturally, to turn out that one part of the American demographic finds itself mostly at the lower end. That is bordering on an insult, because whatever the issues around African Americans needing to do more for themselves (which I agree they do) it again conveniently sweeps under the carpet many of the previous racial unfairnesses that at least partly explain why so many poor, disadvantaged African Americans have ended up there. And before you mention the counter-example of Asian Americans, they and the background to their circumstances are by and large a very different kettle of fish, as can be amply demonstrated by evidence and data, so to a significant extent can't be compared. That said, they have done more for themselves also, but they haven't had to face the same obstacles.

 

[lpetrich]

Albright: Trump The Most Un-American, Undemocratic, President In U.S. History | Morning Joe | MSNBC - YouTube - Secretary of State during the Clinton years. Her memoirs are on the way, and she talked about a public square near the White House and all the variety of people who show up.

Steve Schmidt Calls Trump ‘The Second President Of The Confederacy’ | Deadline | MSNBC - YouTube - "Trump continuing to throw fuel on the fire as the fight against racial injustice wages on, forces Republicans to face their political reality."

Mentioned this article:
Trump May Compare Himself to Nixon in 1968, but He Really Resembles Wallace - The New York Times

The president has employed the same kind of inflammatory language as George Wallace did in the 1968 campaign. Richard Nixon ran that year seeking the middle between the Alabama governor and Hubert Humphrey.

...
That sort of approach goes way beyond the 1968 campaign when in fact Nixon ran in the middle between Wallace on the right and Vice President Hubert Humphrey, the Democratic nominee, on the left. While Nixon spoke out strongly for law and order, he also spoke in favor of civil rights and preached the need for unity under a campaign slogan of “Bring Us Together.” While he condemned riots and student protesters, he marched in the funeral of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and lectured suburban audiences on their obligations to help the underprivileged.

“Nixon, a really shrewd political strategist, believed that the way to victory was through the suburbs where Wallace’s raw and often violent rhetoric alienated moderate Republicans,” said Dan T. Carter, a professor emeritus at the University of South Carolina and a Wallace biographer. “He sought to carefully balance his rhetoric between supporting law and order and condemning violent protests and riots while expressing concern about the conditions of black Americans and supporting peaceful protests.”

 

[lpetrich]

"Second President of the Confederacy" - like what George Wallace had been, a very divisive President. Then about how the Republican Party has become the party of Jefferson Davis (my assessment), the party that defends symbols of the Confederacy.

Ocasio-Cortez: Trump tweet on 75-year-old protester a 'reprehensible act' | TheHill

"It was horrendous and horrific," Ocasio-Cortez said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "The president targeted a 75-year-old, justice-loving man who wanted to stand up for his neighbors and wanted to stand up for his fellow black Americans in making sure that everyone is treated equally in the eyes of the law."

"To target him when everyone saw on video exactly what happened is just such a reprehensible act," she added. "It just goes to show how far we have to go in the fight for justice in this country."

Good Morning America on Twitter: "Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaks out in an @ABC News exclusive interview about President Donald Trump’s tweet about a protester and why she supports calls to defund police. @AOC @GStephanopoulos (links)" / Twitter
She also explained "defunding the police" as referring more to the sort of militarization that some police departments have. She pointed to the priorities of upper-middle-class communities, and she wanted NYC to have similar priorities.

Linked to Trump tweets conspiracy theory about Buffalo protester police officers knocked to ground | GMA

 

[lpetrich]

‘What I saw was just absolutely wrong’: National Guardsmen struggle with their role in controlling protests - POLITICO

POLITICO spoke to 10 National Guardsmen who have taken part in the protest response across the country since the killing of George Floyd while in police custody. Many Guardsmen said they felt uncomfortable with the way they were used to handle the unrest because demonstrators lumped them in with the police. They felt that while they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, their presence at times intimidated Americans from expressing their opinions and even escalated the tension.

...
And in the case of Guardsmen involved in the Lafayette incident, some felt used.

“As a military officer, what I saw was more or less really f---ed up,” said one D.C. Guardsman who was deployed to Lafayette Square last Monday and who, like some others, spoke on condition of anonymity to speak freely. The official line from the White House that the protesters had turned violent, he said, is false.

“The crowd was loud but peaceful, and at no point did I feel in danger, and I was standing right there in the front of the line,” he said. “A lot of us are still struggling to process this, but in a lot of ways, I believe I saw civil rights being violated in order for a photo op.

“I’m here to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and what I just saw goes against my oath and to see everyone try to cover up what really happened,” the Guardsman continued. “What I saw was just absolutely wrong.”

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well, T.G.G. didn't say "US population" he just said "population." As to the ballpark, there is this from YouGov that has 33% of Republicans either affirming Chauvin should not be arrested or otherwise "don't know" (which is the same as affirming he should not be arrested). Among Independents, there is a total of 25% saying he should not be arrested and/or "don't know," which can be pretty much split down the middle between left-leaning and right-leaning (as most independents are split), so that's roughly an additional 12% added onto the Republican side for around 45% right-leaning people affirming that Chauvin should not be arrested?

So, yeah, ballpark.

What kind of math is that?

Ballpark.

You can't mix and match different samples like that.

Of course you can. We know from multiple sources (e.g., PEW) that Independents are essentially split down the middle--right-leaning and left-leaning--and almost always vote accordingly. So in a loose, ballpark estimation, you can most certainly add the right-leaning portion to the Republican portion to give a ballpark on how the right-leaning population thinks.

As to equating "don't know" with "should not be arrested," wrong metric. T.G.G. was estimating the percentage of people who thought Chauvin had done nothing wrong. Had you bothered to click on the source, this is the question the YouGov poll asked (emphasis mine):

Based on what you have read, seen, or heard about the death of George Floyd in a police-involved incident, do you think the officer responsible for his death should or should not be arrested?

So the respondents are specifically being asked a question based on their existing knowledge of the situation that includes affirmation language (the officer responsible for his death), not just some question in a vacuum that they know nothing about. Which, again, in a ballpark estimation, would argue that anyone choosing "don't know" is at least tacitly affirming that he should not be arrested. It certainly isn't affirming (tacitly or otherwise) that he should be arrested.

Again, we're talking about a cop keeping his knee on a man's neck for almost ten minutes resulting in that man's death, which is affirmed by the question being asked. This cop IS responsible for Floyd's death. Should he be arrested? Choosing, "don't know" to that question is certainly akin--i.e., in the same ballpark--to affirming that the cop did nothing wrong. After all, logic dictates that if they did, in fact, think that Chauvin had done something wrong--after being told he IS responsible for Floyd's death in the question--then they would affirm "should be arrested."

Here, just break it down:

He's responsible for his death, so he should be arrested.

He's responsible for his death, but he shouldn't be arrested.

He's responsible for his death, but I don't know if should be arrested.​

Well, then, somehow, in spite of the fact that you're agreeing that he's responsible for his death, you must think he did nothing wrong for him not to also be arrested for that responsible act.

So, yeah, in a ballpark estimation of what people are thinking about a given situation, that is sufficient, especially when you give it the haircut I gave it.

Regardless, all one would have to do is add up the percentages of just those who positively affirmed that they thought Chauvin should not be arrested and you get 29% of respondents, which is only 11% off of T.G.G.'s 40% and is therefore, likewise, in the ballpark.