Forgery suspect killed by cop restricting his airway

[Worldtraveller]

Funny how hospital personnel routinely have to treat rude, combative, and even violent patients and don't beat them up.

Also, Loren is flat out lying here. There are dozens of videos (George Floyd comes to mind) of people (usually of color) not resisting in any way, shape, or form, that then show those people beaten, often killed, at the hands of the thugs he glorifies. If those are all the ones that get caught on video, just imagine how many more there are that we don't see.

The video, as almost always, doesn't show the whole incident. People start recording when they notice something going on but that's normally after the trigger--the trigger doesn't get recorded other than by always-on cameras.

So you're still defending extra-judicial killing.

What, pray tell, could the video show that would make it ok for the police to kill someone after they had been detained and stopped resisting.

Show your fucking work.

 

[blastula]

Yep.



I'll repeat:

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.

Since we ALSO know that the total US voting bloc is made up almost equally of Republicans, Democrats and Independents--and we know that Independents are essentially split down the middle right and left-leaning and that they vote accordingly--the Independent percentages can be applied to Republicans and Democrats accordingly.

So, to make your sample survey analogous it would read:

One survey sample showed 12 out of a total of 100 right-leaning people said that 1 plus 1 makes 3, and another sample showed 33 different people out of the same group of 100 right-leaning people said that 1 plus 1 makes 3, so the total number of right-leaning people who said 1 plus 1 makes 3 would be 45.

NO.

The Republican sample and the Independent sample are SEPARATE groups.

DUH.

 

[laughing dog]

Note that you're not addressing the reason I posted it--the lowering of standards. I find Lott tends to make unsupported leaps based on the data, but his data itself has always seemed solid.

Google hit 2: https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-g...roblems/affirmative-action-a-tool-for-justice

To hire more racial minorities and women, police organizations have recruited more aggressively, revised entrance requirements, and set quotas.

Hint: "revised" = "lowered".

I'm not sure why you're citing that one, when it says:

"There is simply no credible evidence that police departments have lowered standards to recruit qualified women and racial minority police officers."

I misread it--I thought that was part of the arguments against. Still, however, they start out saying that it does. I guess that one is just nuts.

Google hit 3: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=67882

SOME AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICIES HAVE RESULTED IN A LOWERING OF THE EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR POLICE OFFICERS AND THUS OF POLICE QUALITY.

I can't access more than the abstract there but I note that the abstract makes your point, yes.

I can't, either--that's why I said quote=abstract.

The point is that one simple Google search shows multiple sources that support what I was saying. It's not exactly a hidden thing outside the AA echo chamber.

THen you ought to be able to produce something that is not 40+ years old and from a respected journal, not some police mouthpiece.

 

[laughing dog]

Funny how hospital personnel routinely have to treat rude, combative, and even violent patients and don't beat them up.

Also, Loren is flat out lying here. There are dozens of videos (George Floyd comes to mind) of people (usually of color) not resisting in any way, shape, or form, that then show those people beaten, often killed, at the hands of the thugs he glorifies. If those are all the ones that get caught on video, just imagine how many more there are that we don't see.

The video, as almost always, doesn't show the whole incident. People start recording when they notice something going on but that's normally after the trigger--the trigger doesn't get recorded other than by always-on cameras.

There are damn few "triggers" that justify the brutal treatment/killing of unarmed and handcuffed suspects. And in this case, the Minneapolis police have body cameras.

 

[laughing dog]

Floyd may have initially resisted officers, but that doesn't even slightly excuse how he was treated after he was subdued.

I agree it shouldn't have happened. The point is that it does. Fighting back is liable to get you hurt, don't do it! They don't like being used as punching bags, they're human. Retaliation happens.

I think we all agree that force was excessive after he was subdued. But it’s nothing to do with systemic or institutional police brutality. Heck, we know these guys were already aquatinted and didn’t like each other. That’s a more obvious explanation for what happened than invisible power structures.

How does their previous acquaintance explain the actions (or lack thereof) of the other 3 officers?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

ThoE Republican sample and the Independent sample are SEPARATE groups.

NO SHIT

I, however, want a ballpark estimate of a NEW REPRESENTATIVE GROUP. I want to find out--using the data in the poll--what ALL RESPONDENTS WITH A RIGHT-LEANING BENT think.

To do that, you take the responses of Independents and simply cut them in half and apply that half to the Republican responses and you have your ballpark estimate of what all respondents with a right-leaning bent think.

 

[Trausti]

I think we all agree that force was excessive after he was subdued. But it’s nothing to do with systemic or institutional police brutality. Heck, we know these guys were already aquatinted and didn’t like each other. That’s a more obvious explanation for what happened than invisible power structures.

How does their previous acquaintance explain the actions (or lack thereof) of the other 3 officers?

This is just evidence that an officer had personal animus. That the other three officers did not stop it does not evidence systemic racism. Otherwise, the death of Tony Timpa would also be evidence of systemic racism. Yet, no one says it is.

 

[ruby sparks]

The point is that one simple Google search shows multiple sources that support what I was saying. It's not exactly a hidden thing outside the AA echo chamber.

To be exact you found (a) one that is considered dodgy (and I would agree, even looking at the methodology and lack of controls) and that other studies contradict, (b) another that contradicted itself and (c) an older one from a Police Magazine (that we can't even read in full).

All in all, I'm not sure the case that minority police hiring causes problems because of lower standards is established.

But I will say that I do think that lowering standards is not a good idea of itself and I guess I would not be surprised if, were there to have been a lowering of entrance standards (which I imagine there has been at least some of), that there might be at least some adverse effects on policing and certainly the risk of this. My guess is that diversity hiring may have at the same time brought some benefits. I might expect a bit of both. But lowering entrance standards is not the way to go, imo, except perhaps temporarily in cases of solving very severe or urgent problems, where the benefits might outweigh the shortcomings. Increased diversity without lowering standards would be much better and in theory it ought to be possible to increase diversity without lowering entrance standards.

 

[lpetrich]

St. Paul man wore stolen police gear after helping to torch 3rd Precinct, charges say – Twin Cities - the looter I mentioned earlier, Brandon Michael Wolfe, 23, with blond hair and blue eyes.

A Menards employee called police after Wolfe tried to enter the store later that day wearing stolen body armor and a law enforcement duty belt and carrying a police baton, according to a complaint filed Monday in U.S. District Court.

St. Paul police found him in a vehicle several miles from the store, still wearing the body armor and duty belt, which was affixed with handcuffs, a baton, a knife and an ear piece. His name was handwritten on duct tape attached to the back of the body armor, according to the complaint.

He reportedly admitted to helping stoke the 3rd Precinct police-building fire.

Police searched Wolfe’s St. Paul apartment and found several items belonging to Minneapolis police, including a riot helmet, 9 mm magazine, police radio and police drug overdose kit, charges say.

The 23-year-old security guard appears in court for burning down the Minneapolis police has some pictures of him when he was arrested.

I went to shopping.google.com and looked for prices on civilian versions of these items, like motorcycle helmets (a few hundred $) and CB radios ($50 - $100), body armor (a few hundred $), etc. I'd say that he stole at least $500 worth of stuff.

 

[lpetrich]

Samantha Bee on Instagram: “Legislating Healing and Justice with Ayanna Pressley

Sam sat down with fearless leader and Congresswomen @ayannapressley to discuss how to make the rest of America feel as safe and secure without police as the suburbs do!”
Nice interview. I like when AP claimed that Trump had never read the Bible.

Samantha Bee (@fullfrontalsamb) • Instagram photos and videos - has some "defund the police" stuff in it.


BTW, I cringed a bit when AP referred to "tanks". Those were armored vans, not the gun turrets mounted on continuous treads.

 

[ruby sparks]

Samantha Bee on Instagram: “Legislating Healing and Justice with Ayanna Pressley

Sam sat down with fearless leader and Congresswomen @ayannapressley to discuss how to make the rest of America feel as safe and secure without police as the suburbs do!”
Nice interview. I like when AP claimed that Trump had never read the Bible.

Samantha Bee (@fullfrontalsamb) • Instagram photos and videos - has some "defund the police" stuff in it.


BTW, I cringed a bit when AP referred to "tanks". Those were armored vans, not the gun turrets mounted on continuous treads.

Can I just say Lpetrich, that although I may not respond to your posts, I enjoy reading them and find them useful and informative. Thanks for all the excellent posting.

 

[Emily Lake]

ThoE Republican sample and the Independent sample are SEPARATE groups.

NO SHIT

I, however, want a ballpark estimate of a NEW REPRESENTATIVE GROUP. I want to find out--using the data in the poll--what ALL RESPONDENTS WITH A RIGHT-LEANING BENT think.

To do that, you take the responses of Independents and simply cut them in half and apply that half to the Republican responses and you have your ballpark estimate of what all respondents with a right-leaning bent think.

I don't think that's a good approach. You're assuming that half of independents hold the same view as republicans on any and all issues. That's not a good assumption, because it doesn't provide you any actual information. All you've done is assume that your assumption is true.

 

[lpetrich]

Trump's views on race have been remarkably consistent for decades

For someone who’s been prone to deliver mixed messages on policy and take multiple positions on issues, President Trump has almost always been on the same consistent side when it comes to race.

This week alone, he defended military bases named after Confederate generals, and he announced he would restart his campaign rallies in Tulsa — the site of a 1921 massacre of black citizens by a white mob — on Juneteenth.

As Public Opinion Shifts on Racism, Trump Digs In - The New York Times

Whether it is suggesting shooting protesters or siccing dogs on them, pre-emptively defending the Confederate names of military installations or arguing that his supporters “love the black people,” Mr. Trump increasingly sounds like a cultural relic, detached from not just the left-leaning protesters in the streets but also the country’s political middle and even some Republican allies and his own military leaders.

While Mr. Trump has a long history of making insensitive and tone-deaf comments on race, including remarks widely seen as racist, he has never appeared more isolated on a dominant social and political moment in the country, hunkered down at the White House tweeting conspiracy theories about injured protesters and describing demonstrators as “THUGS.”

He regularly uses harsh and violent language that no other American leader employs, vocally supporting the views of white nationalists and even defenders of white supremacy rather than the views expressed by majorities of Americans in polls.

“He’s talking as if this is a country in the 1950s and not 2020,” said Levar Stoney, the mayor of Richmond, Va., where a multiracial group of protesters has prompted the city and state to take down Confederate statues.

Though he's devoid of empathy, he's good at negative campaigning, and he brags like crazy. "Yet when the moment calls for neither pugilism nor promotion, he has little to say."

Congressional Republicans are now starting to address racial issues.

Yet nearly five years since Mr. Trump announced his presidential campaign with the inflammatory accusation that Mexico was sending rapist migrants across the border, he is still conducting himself as if there’s a vast audience for a hard-line tone on race. And it’s wearing on even some of his most steadfast allies.

The protesters have been remarkably multiracial and multiethnic.

Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents Washington, D.C., in Congress and was active in the 1960s civil rights movement, said she had been struck by how many of the protesters in her hometown have been white.

“So many white people have taken this to heart,” Ms. Holmes Norton said.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think we all agree that force was excessive after he was subdued. But it’s nothing to do with systemic or institutional police brutality. Heck, we know these guys were already aquatinted and didn’t like each other. That’s a more obvious explanation for what happened than invisible power structures.

How does their previous acquaintance explain the actions (or lack thereof) of the other 3 officers?

This is just evidence that an officer had personal animus. That the other three officers did not stop it does not evidence systemic racism. Otherwise, the death of Tony Timpa would also be evidence of systemic racism. Yet, no one says it is.

Do you even logic, bruh?

Let's try this differently... A woman didn't get hired for an executive position but that doesn't make it evidence of systemic sexism. Otherwise, the fact that this other man didn't get hired for an executive position would also be evidence of systemic sexism.

Or maybe it needs to be more blatant... A left-handed person can't find a pair of scissors that works for them, but that's not evidence that right-hand bias exists int he world. Otherwise, the fact that this right-handed person couldn't find a pair of scissors that worked for them would also be evidence of right-hand bias...

 

[lpetrich]

The Latino community is finally coming to grips with its own racism.

Last Monday, in a landmark Miami Herald op-ed, more than 40 organizations, activists, and journalists acknowledged the Latino community’s omissions in combating racism. “We have failed to grapple with anti-blackness that exists in our own community,” the authors write. “We have been raised in families who refer to blackness in the diminutive (morenita, negrita, prietita). We have remained silent when our tías have encouraged us to partner with people who have lighter skin than we do so we can mejorar la raza.”

Over the past few days, other voices have argued that Latinos should reflect on their own identity. In a piece for NBC News, Ana Sanz, a young Afro-Latinx protester, told reporter Nicole Acevedo that “white-presenting Latinos should use this time to ‘reconcile with the privilege’ their light skin gives them in systems tainted with white supremacy.” Jasmine Haywood, an Afro-Latina scholar who has specialized in anti-black Latino racism, told Acevedo that Latinos must begin by acknowledging the common struggle they historically share with the black community. “What Latinos need to realize is that our oppression is bound up and intertwined with the oppression of the black community,” she said.

A common kind of racial prejudice among Latin Americans is "colorism", thinking that light-skinned people are more worthy than dark-skinned ones, whatever their detailed ancestry. Associated with it is "pelo bueno" vs. "pelo malo", "good hair" (straight) vs. "bad hair" (tightly curled).

 

[Trausti]

This is just evidence that an officer had personal animus. That the other three officers did not stop it does not evidence systemic racism. Otherwise, the death of Tony Timpa would also be evidence of systemic racism. Yet, no one says it is.

Do you even logic, bruh?

Let's try this differently... A woman didn't get hired for an executive position but that doesn't make it evidence of systemic sexism. Otherwise, the fact that this other man didn't get hired for an executive position would also be evidence of systemic sexism.

Or maybe it needs to be more blatant... A left-handed person can't find a pair of scissors that works for them, but that's not evidence that right-hand bias exists int he world. Otherwise, the fact that this right-handed person couldn't find a pair of scissors that worked for them would also be evidence of right-hand bias...

So the death of Tony Timpa is evidence of systemic racism against white men? Just trying to understand the double standard when the facts are the same.

 

[blastula]

ThoE Republican sample and the Independent sample are SEPARATE groups.

NO SHIT

Oh good, quadrupling down on being wrong. Or, just another day in the forum life of Koy.

Because you didn't agree with that when you said the exact opposite in the post I was replying to here.

So, to make your sample survey analogous it would read:

One survey sample showed 12 out of a total of 100 right-leaning people said that 1 plus 1 makes 3, and another sample showed 33 different people out of the same group of 100 right-leaning people said that 1 plus 1 makes 3, so the total number of right-leaning people who said 1 plus 1 makes 3 would be 45.

See the bolded part. You were treating them as the same population, but the actual poll didn't. You got it wrong, get over it.

I, however, want a ballpark estimate of a NEW REPRESENTATIVE GROUP. I want to find out--using the data in the poll--what ALL RESPONDENTS WITH A RIGHT-LEANING BENT think.

To do that, you take the responses of Independents and simply cut them in half and apply that half to the Republican responses and you have your ballpark estimate of what all respondents with a right-leaning bent think.

This is also revisionist, since you got that wrong from the beginning as well. You took Deepak's "ballpark" as meaning only people on the right. He never said. That's your invention. See,

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.

Can't wait to see you quintuple* down. What fun.



*for Koy, that means 5 times.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Oh good, quadrupling down on being wrong.

Irony. Big fan.

Because you didn't agree with that when you said the exact opposite in the post I was replying to here.

So, to make your sample survey analogous it would read:

One survey sample showed 12 out of a total of 100 right-leaning people said that 1 plus 1 makes 3, and another sample showed 33 different people out of the same group of 100 right-leaning people said that 1 plus 1 makes 3, so the total number of right-leaning people who said 1 plus 1 makes 3 would be 45.​

See the bolded part. You were treating them as the same population, but the actual poll didn't.

So, you mean I was doing this:

I, however, want a ballpark estimate of a NEW REPRESENTATIVE GROUP. I want to find out--using the data in the poll--what ALL RESPONDENTS WITH A RIGHT-LEANING BENT think.

So, to make YOUR sample survey analogous to what I was doing, it would read:

One survey sample showed 12 out of a total of 100 right-leaning people said that 1 plus 1 makes 3, and another sample showed 33 different people out of the same group of 100 right-leaning people said that 1 plus 1 makes 3, so the total number of right-leaning people who said 1 plus 1 makes 3 would be 45.

Crystal fucking clear now?

You took Deepak's "ballpark" as meaning only people on the right.

Incorrect. It is Deepak and TSwizzle that assumed T.G.G. was referring to all of America. Which is why I simply first pointed out:

Well, T.G.G. didn't say "US population" he just said "population."

A simple statement of fact. THEN, a separate point designated by the opening phrase:

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.

I took T.G.G.'s post as he posted it. I then--try to follow along--took the data from the YouGov poll in regard to Deepak's "ballpark" support of T.G.G.'s comment (in spite of the fact that T.G.G. did not actually specify the entire "US population" just "population) to see if I could determine a ballpark estimate of what all right-leaning representative respondents thought--made up of 100% Republicans and 50% Independents, based upon the fact that Independents are generally split down the middle right/left leaning and vote either Republican or Democrat accordingly--and the country is more or less likewise split down the middle Republican and Democrat (or, right-leaning and left-leaning).

And lo and behold, from the data in the YouGov poll I was able to construct a NEW GROUP of ALL RESPONDENTS WITH A RIGHT LEANING BENT, showing that some 45% (more or less) at least tacitly affirming that Chauvin did nothing wrong.

Give that a haircut (because the total right-leaning US population is less than the total left-leaning US population) and we have BALLPARK SUPPORT of T.G.G. originally making the claim:

40% of the population think that Chauvin didn't do anything wrong.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I don't think that's a good approach.

For a ballpark estimate?

You're assuming that half of independents hold the same view as republicans on any and all issues. That's not a good assumption

Well, I'm assuming that the right-leaning half of Independents hold the same view as Republicans, but you're right. It would actually likely be higher, since 25% of Independents tacitly affirming Chauvin did nothing wrong probably represent JUST the right-leaning Independent thoughts on the matter, but, again, because it is a ballpark estimate, we can keep it stet and still affirm T.G.G.'s claim of 40% of the population thinking that Chauvin didn't do anything wrong to be in the ballpark.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Roughly 1/3 of the population are each Republican, Democrat, and Independent. The statistics vary each year with self-identification and registration. One year, you might see 25% of one of the 3 groups in some small poll or another poll may give 40%. The numbers are 33% each with surrounding variance and polling error. So, let's start with that.

Now what exactly is the proposition? 40% of the population think X? But you've gotten so far 33% of Republicans, which are 1/3 of 1/3 of the population or 11%. Then, on top of that, you have 25% of independents, which is about 1/4 of 1/3...i.e. 1/12 of the population or 8.3%. So in total, that's ballpark 20% of the population. If you want 40% of the population to think X, then the Democrats must make up the difference, like 60% of Democrats must also think X. Then, you will have .6*.33 ~= 20% more. That doesn't seem reasonable.

Next. Is the proposition that 40% of conservatives think X? Okay, you already have 33% of Republicans. Just stop there, say you were close and move on to more important things. Go outside. Get some fresh air. While wearing a face mask and appropriately social distancing.

Okay, assuming you still want to argue over nothing... you have to assume that half of independents are Republicans but also that the 25% are only conservative independents. Assume 0% of liberal independents think X. Still, you've now got 50% of conservative independents thinking X...which is unreasonable since only 33% of Republicans think X. So with these unreasonable assumptions you can get to ~40% of "Republicans."

But it was never necessary to pull out unreasonable assumptions in the first place.