Forgery suspect killed by cop restricting his airway

[lpetrich]

POLICE OFFICER TELLS PROUD BOYS TO HIDE INSIDE BUILDING BECAUSE THEY'RE ABOUT TO TEAR GAS PROTESTERS. THE OFFICER SAID HE WAS WARNING THEM "DISCREETLY" BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT PROTESTERS TO SEE POLICE "PLAY FAVORITES."

The Weimar Republic again.

If Republicans Are Ever Going To Turn On Trump, This Might Be The Moment | FiveThirtyEight

While the past few days have felt unprecedented in almost all respects, they’ve been familiar in at least one way: President Trump has once again done something widely viewed as outrageous. In this case, his administration had law enforcement officials clear a path for Trump to visit a nearby church, leading to protesters being tear gassed outside the White House.

And, as has often been the case when Trump draws criticism, many GOP senators have evaded questions about the violence and Trump’s role in it. “I don’t have any reaction to it. I haven’t seen footage.” “I didn’t follow, I’m sorry.” And even, “He has moments. But I mean, as you know, it lasts generally as long as the next tweet.”

Author Lee Drutman argues that Republican politicians' support is likely to end quickly, though he does not expect to predict or identify the triggering event for doing so. All that has to happen is enough of them doing so, and the rest will follow.

If Republicans Ever Turn On Trump, It’ll Happen All At Once | FiveThirtyEight

Let’s use political scientist Timur Kuran’s classic work, “Private Truth, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification,” as a guide to understanding major political transformations. He argues that political regimes can persist despite being unpopular, which is why a government overthrow, when it does come, can often seem so sudden.

...
Kuran argues in his book that protests need a critical mass of supporters in order to force change. The logic is that there’s safety in numbers, so if multiple citizens rise up in protest of a regime, it signals that it’s OK to protest — which can cause decades-old regimes to collapse all at once.

 

[laughing dog]

8. Identity Politics.

I have decided to leave out climate change and environmental concerns. Those factors might well start featuring more and more and more, and have huge and wide impacts on all the above (and other) issues, but they do not seem to be strong features of the current unrest (although they might be implicitly informing the responses of some progressive protesters, who may have in the past supported things such as Occupy Wall Street, or Extinction Rebellion, etc etc).

Identity politics is the late 2010's / early 2020's right-wing version of PC. It only exists in the imagination of the right-wing. They use it to hand wave away questions about allowing certain things solely because of inertia.

I respectfully disagree. Identity politics is okay when it advantages white people which is why Trump or conservatives or their dupes in promote it: they just refuse to admit that it just as much "identity politics" as when nonwhites or women promote it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

8. Identity Politics.

I have decided to leave out climate change and environmental concerns. Those factors might well start featuring more and more and more, and have huge and wide impacts on all the above (and other) issues, but they do not seem to be strong features of the current unrest (although they might be implicitly informing the responses of some progressive protesters, who may have in the past supported things such as Occupy Wall Street, or Extinction Rebellion, etc etc).

Identity politics is the late 2010's / early 2020's right-wing version of PC. It only exists in the imagination of the right-wing. They use it to hand wave away questions about allowing certain things solely because of inertia.

I respectfully disagree. Identity politics is okay when it advantages white people which is why Trump or conservatives or their dupes in promote it: they just refuse to admit that it just as much "identity politics" as when nonwhites or women promote it.

Touche.

 

[lpetrich]

How Much Can History Teach Us About These Protests? | FiveThirtyEight - a podcast. Nice comparison of the present with past protests. Like noting that there were plenty of white people involved in later phases of the civil-rights movement, just as there are plenty of white people nowadays involved. Also that Rosa Parks was essentially someone who got prominent for doing what she did -- she wasn't the first.

Anti-lynching bill: Emotional debate erupts as Cory Booker and Kamala Harris speak out against Rand Paul amendment - CNNPolitics

In an emotional exchange on the Senate floor, Democratic Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California spoke out Thursday against an amendment that GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was trying to add to anti-lynching legislation.

As the memorial service for George Floyd was beginning in Minnesota, Paul, who has been holding up popular bipartisan legislation to make lynching a federal crime, came to the Senate floor in Washington to add an amendment to the anti-lynching legislation and then pass it. He argued the bill as written is overly broad and said that his amendment "would apply the criminal penalties for lynching only and not for other crimes." The GOP senator then asked for unanimous consent to pass the bill with that amendment. However, both Harris and Booker spoke against the effort and Booker formally objected.

 

[Emily Lake]

Calling arrest data "already suspect" is begging the question, but in any case my view was not informed by arrest data in the first place.

For consideration... the rate of arrests isn't necessarily indicative of the rate of crimes committed.

As an analogy, red vehicles get speeding tickets more often than any other color. If that's the only piece of information you have, you might assume that the drivers of red vehicles speed more often than the drivers of other colored vehicles. Turns out this isn't the case though. In actuality, red vehicles are more noticeable, they stand out more, so they catch the attention of cops. Drivers of all colors of cars speed at roughly the same rate, but the red cars get noticed and pulled over a lot more often, which results in a higher rate of ticketing for red vehicles.

There's a similar dynamic when it comes to arrests and convictions for black people. They get pulled over more often than white people do, they get stopped and come under scrutiny more often than white people do, and they're given the benefit of the doubt less often than white people. So for roughly equivalent crimes, black people are more likely to be arrested, charged, and convicted... while white people are more likely to get a warning.

By the way, women get far more warnings than men do for equivalent misbehavior. Women get the benefit of the doubt very regularly. Women commit violent crimes at a lower per capita rate than men do, but even with that being considered, their arrests are less frequent and their sentences are lower. Women commit nonviolent and petty crimes at about the same rate as men, but are arrested and sentences quite a bit less often than men.

Justice in the US isn't blind.

 

[thebeave]

Calling arrest data "already suspect" is begging the question, but in any case my view was not informed by arrest data in the first place.

For consideration... the rate of arrests isn't necessarily indicative of the rate of crimes committed.

As an analogy, red vehicles get speeding tickets more often than any other color. If that's the only piece of information you have, you might assume that the drivers of red vehicles speed more often than the drivers of other colored vehicles. Turns out this isn't the case though. In actuality, red vehicles are more noticeable, they stand out more, so they catch the attention of cops. Drivers of all colors of cars speed at roughly the same rate, but the red cars get noticed and pulled over a lot more often, which results in a higher rate of ticketing for red vehicles.

There's a similar dynamic when it comes to arrests and convictions for black people. They get pulled over more often than white people do, they get stopped and come under scrutiny more often than white people do, and they're given the benefit of the doubt less often than white people. So for roughly equivalent crimes, black people are more likely to be arrested, charged, and convicted... while white people are more likely to get a warning.

By the way, women get far more warnings than men do for equivalent misbehavior. Women get the benefit of the doubt very regularly. Women commit violent crimes at a lower per capita rate than men do, but even with that being considered, their arrests are less frequent and their sentences are lower. Women commit nonviolent and petty crimes at about the same rate as men, but are arrested and sentences quite a bit less often than men.

Justice in the US isn't blind.

Sounds like the patriarchy is slacking off. We'll have to do something about that...

 

[ruby sparks]

I respectfully disagree. Identity politics is okay when it advantages white people which is why Trump or conservatives or their dupes in promote it: they just refuse to admit that it just as much "identity politics" as when nonwhites or women promote it.

Touche.

My guess is that you’re both right. And also that there are other aspects to it. It seems to have its critics and its supporters, its pros and cons. It’s complex.

 

[Jarhyn]

Had to scroll back a ways with how fast this thread has been growing to find Metaphor's latest attempt to disregard the fact that not even his own studies actually support the conclusions that he makes, and to warp.what was a fairly simple and reasonable request (to accept studies only insofar as he cannot find reasonable, rational fault with them), and to submit evidence for his views that does not itself succumb to reasonable and rational review.

Accepting the validity of arrest statistics begs the question of whether there is arrest bias, and we know for a fact there is such a bias, and this bias stems from three well documented sources: racial bias (cops arrest blacks more often than whites for the same crimes, and judges or juries tend towards harsher sentences and higher conviction rates against black defendants for the same crime), format bias (white drug dealers deal drugs in different ways rather than in open air formats, leading to more arrests of black drug dealers), and socioeconomic factors (black people are on average less wealthy; a poor black person lighting a trash can on fire gets 8 years, and a wealthy white person raping their own prepubescent daughter gets 'time served'). So obviously, that data is tainted. And then he wants to use victimization surveys as if that data is not also unrepresentative of who commits crimes; it tells only who has crimes committed against them.

But that's all he's got: bad data. He won't commit to not holding a view on bad data, he won't even commit to accepting a view based on better data assuming that he doesn't find similar fault with that better data as I have found with his.

There are two potential null hypotheses here:

That people are pretty much the same; or

That people within a similar socioeconomic bracket commit similar amounts of crime.

He refuses to vacate an opinion held with bad data.

He refuses to make a commitment to changing his view based on good data (essentially, through his distortion by omission of my stated condition that the data I provide be good).

Why should I attempt to reason someone out of a view that they did not reason themselves into? That which is believes without evidence (or on stuff that is not evidentiary of the belief), can be dismissed without evidence (or by showing how the literature does not evidence the belief).

 

[jab]

Even if the autopsy shows this man died from something like intoxication, the man was clearly in a lot of distress screaming about how he was having difficulty breathing.

He would not be able to talk, much less scream if his airway was obstructed.

Also, suspects about to be arrested are frequently malingering in an attempt to avoid jail. It is therefore not surprising that police show skepticism toward such pronouncements. It may look callous from outside, but it's really a "boy who cried 'I can't breathe'" situation.

in retrospect how ignorant and unprescient these early posts by Derec look

 

[Toni]

Well here's my response to that claim: Why are Black people crowded in the cities and poorer than Whites on average? The reasons are historic and modern racism. So, if one wants to claim that the proximal cause and differences are due to economics, I will counter that those ALLEGED proximal causes are due to racism as the ROOT cause. And so, it's still racism in that hypothetical that economics is the current variable at play.

Yes, that WAS my point !
When people cite crime rates based on race, they make it racist. When it is actually socioeconomic factors.
Blacks are not more violent and crime prone. Poorer people are. Blacks happen to be poorer than the other races.

And the reason there is more crime in the lower socioeconomic strata is not because poor people are evil. Its because they have far fewer options.

It's because they are policed differently. And they do not receive equal treatment at the hands of the police or any of the judicial system.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Calling arrest data "already suspect" is begging the question, but in any case my view was not informed by arrest data in the first place.

For consideration... the rate of arrests isn't necessarily indicative of the rate of crimes committed.

As an analogy, red vehicles get speeding tickets more often than any other color. If that's the only piece of information you have, you might assume that the drivers of red vehicles speed more often than the drivers of other colored vehicles. Turns out this isn't the case though. In actuality, red vehicles are more noticeable, they stand out more, so they catch the attention of cops. Drivers of all colors of cars speed at roughly the same rate, but the red cars get noticed and pulled over a lot more often, which results in a higher rate of ticketing for red vehicles.

There's a similar dynamic when it comes to arrests and convictions for black people. They get pulled over more often than white people do, they get stopped and come under scrutiny more often than white people do, and they're given the benefit of the doubt less often than white people. So for roughly equivalent crimes, black people are more likely to be arrested, charged, and convicted... while white people are more likely to get a warning.

By the way, women get far more warnings than men do for equivalent misbehavior. Women get the benefit of the doubt very regularly. Women commit violent crimes at a lower per capita rate than men do, but even with that being considered, their arrests are less frequent and their sentences are lower. Women commit nonviolent and petty crimes at about the same rate as men, but are arrested and sentences quite a bit less often than men.

Justice in the US isn't blind.

Sounds like the patriarchy is slacking off. We'll have to do something about that...

Patriarchy isn't slacking off. Men are mostly the ones in charge and they are hoping they can get the opportunity to hump the women they merely give warnings to. This then increases the rate of births of these powerful males in charge of the authority. Also, if you are one of the good ole boys, you will get arrested less, too. It's the poorer out of power males that have issues in most hierarchical structures like patriarchy. The females have less legal rights to their own bodies, but this is a separate issue. This is a reason that many times before I discuss patriarchy in the context of men's rights but so far denial and hooting from the usual suspects...

 

[Toni]

I respectfully disagree. Identity politics is okay when it advantages white people which is why Trump or conservatives or their dupes in promote it: they just refuse to admit that it just as much "identity politics" as when nonwhites or women promote it.

Touche.

My guess is that you’re both right. And also that there are other aspects to it. It seems to have its critics and its supporters, its pros and cons. It’s complex.

No. It's pretty simple. LD is correct.

 

[jab]

You have no evidence that the mayor is behind the sacking.

It is a reasonable assumption. The chief has no motive to throw his own people under the bus before any sort of investigation has been done. That is horrible for the morale of the rank and file, and thus he is either an idiot who doesn't see that or else he's been pressured by the mayor. I think the latter is far more likely, especially when the mayor utters idiotic platitudes such as "being black in America should not be a death sentence".

Or he wants to send a message to the rank and file that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable--also the kneeling cop, it turns out had a record of bad professional behaviour, well known to the rank and file.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well here's my response to that claim: Why are Black people crowded in the cities and poorer than Whites on average? The reasons are historic and modern racism. So, if one wants to claim that the proximal cause and differences are due to economics, I will counter that those ALLEGED proximal causes are due to racism as the ROOT cause. And so, it's still racism in that hypothetical that economics is the current variable at play.

Yes, that WAS my point !
When people cite crime rates based on race, they make it racist. When it is actually socioeconomic factors.
Blacks are not more violent and crime prone. Poorer people are. Blacks happen to be poorer than the other races.

And the reason there is more crime in the lower socioeconomic strata is not because poor people are evil. Its because they have far fewer options.

It's because they are policed differently. And they do not receive equal treatment at the hands of the police or any of the judicial system.

For instance, if three black people (in Georgia... or any state) in two vehicles corral a white guy who ends up getting shot multiple times to death and there is a video of it available immediately for the police, we aren't reading in the newspaper two months plus after the fact about a possible investigation into the shooting.

 

[ruby sparks]

My guess is that you’re both right. And also that there are other aspects to it. It seems to have its critics and its supporters, its pros and cons. It’s complex.

No. It's pretty simple. LD is correct.

I’m confused. Are you saying you think Jimmy wasn’t?

 

[lpetrich]

READ: The Full Statement From Jim Mattis : NPR - it's all there.

I'm a Minneapolis City Council Member. We Must Disband the Police—Here's What Could Come Next | Time
I'm concerned about the Animal Farm effect, as it may be called.

he weight of that history was especially heavy when we learned of George Floyd’s murder. The accumulated grief and anger from years of police violence was brought to the surface, and thousands of people abandoned social distancing to take to the streets and demand justice. Minneapolis Police had an opportunity to distance themselves from Derek Chauvin, to express sympathy, to be a calming presence. Instead, they deployed tear gas and rubber bullets, effectively escalating the situation from protest to pitched conflict. By the next day, it was clear that people on Lake Street were rallying for much more than the prosecution of four officers. They were demonstrating their anger at decades of harassment and racialized violence and calling for it to end.

Then lack of success in reforms.

My assessment of what is now necessary is shaped by the failure of the reforms we’ve attempted, in the face of opposition from the department and the Police Federation. We have a talented, thoughtful police chief who has attempted some important steps. He has fired officers for significant abuses only to have his decisions overturned and those officers reinstated by arbitrators. Mayor Frey has met fierce resistance from the Federation to implement even minor policy changes.

There is another reason reform can be daunting, even scary. My reform advocacy, incremental though it has been, has prompted intense political attacks from police and their allies, who up to now have been confident that their support for police expansion was a mainstream point of view. And they do not limit their attacks to politics. Politicians who oppose the department’s wishes find slowdowns in their wards. After we cut money from the proposed police budget, I heard from constituents whose 9-1-1 calls took forever to get a response, and I heard about officers telling business owners to call their councilman about why it took so long. Since I’ve started talking publicly about this, elected officials from several cities and towns around the country have contacted me to tell me I am not alone in this experience.

What a scam.

 

[lpetrich]

Alexis Ohanian Sr. on Twitter: "I've resigned as a member of the reddit board, I have urged them to fill my seat with a black candidate, + I will use future gains on my Reddit stock to serve the black community, chiefly to curb racial hate, and I’m starting with a pledge of $1M to @kaepernick7’s @yourrightscamp" / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Wow.
This is a courageous example of the kind of material actions and commitments allies can make - shout out for walking the walk, @alexisohanian." / Twitter

Democrats push to rein in Trump after threat to deploy troops - POLITICO - "The House effort is matched in the Senate by a handful of Democrats led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)."

Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, along with CPC whip Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, announced Thursday that they will introduce legislation "in the coming days" that would require congressional approval before troops can be deployed.

"Even President Trump’s own Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, opposes deploying troops to silence the protests," Omar, Jayapal and Pocan said in a statement.

Good.

 

[blastula]

They need to ban those, saw more than one person had their eye shot out.

Agreed.

Here's another eye shot victim.

https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1268942603254456321

That link is part of a very long thread documenting police brutality incidents. Scroll up to see more.

 

[ZiprHead]

They need to ban those, saw more than one person had their eye shot out.

Agreed.

Here's another eye shot victim.

https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1268942603254456321

That link is part of a very long thread documenting police brutality incidents. Scroll up to see more.

One of the comments, "The amount of police brutality at the anti-police brutality protests is proving a lot of points."

 

[Worldtraveller]

POLICE OFFICER TELLS PROUD BOYS TO HIDE INSIDE BUILDING BECAUSE THEY'RE ABOUT TO TEAR GAS PROTESTERS. THE OFFICER SAID HE WAS WARNING THEM "DISCREETLY" BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT PROTESTERS TO SEE POLICE "PLAY FAVORITES."

Yeah, he wanted to play favorites, he just didn't want to be seen doing it.

Anyone who still thinks cops aren't basically scraping the bottom of the IQ barrel....well, not sure they can be helped. At this point, in all these protests, they should just assume they are being recorded. Lots of them just don't care because they still think they will not face any consequences.