Forgery suspect killed by cop restricting his airway

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

And when retaliation happens beyond the actions necessary to free oneself from the situation, that's called aggravated assault. And then, we already discussed the requirements for a conviction of 3rd degree murder. How long are we going to be chasing this tail?

 

[Trausti]

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.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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.

And so does being held responsible for your retaliation, particularly when it is excessive and you have been specifically trained NOT to retaliate in such situations. Imagine if I killed your child because he wouldn't stop kicking my airplane seat and I said, "Hey, I'm human" as my defense.

It's true. I am human. And I certainly don't like it when some child uses my airplane seat as a punching bag. Retaliation happens.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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.

So you are affirming that Chauvin murdered Floyd.

That’s a more obvious explanation for what happened than invisible power structures.

And the actions of the other three officers who assisted in Chavin's murder?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Also, if you're going to cite something, in this case an article from some newspaper or other, could you please just provide a link, because it could have been a good article, or it could have not been a good article. Also, imo you have a habit of pulling stuff out of your arse a bit too often so I'm never sure whether what you say is from a good source or even sourced at all.

I have had basically zero luck with searching for old articles in our newspaper and it's probably paywalled if I did find it.

On which note, did you get back to me yet regarding evidence or a case for your claim that AA hiring had resulted in lower police standards? If you did, I must have missed it. If you didn't, do you see my problem with some of your claims?

Google hit 1 (admittedly, Lott isn't the best of sources): https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1175&context=law_and_economics

Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. cities for 1987, 1990,and 1993, I find that more black and minority police officersincrease crime rates. This arises because lower hiring standardsinvolved in recruiting more minority officers reduces the quality ofboth new minority and new nonminority officers.

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".

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.

Pretending that AA is cost-free is a major delusion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thanx, ZiprHead. That shows the sort of thing that policing should be reserved for -- and it shows how gently the suspect is being treated by some standards. He's handcuffed but not being beaten up or worse.

Don't resist, you're unlikely to be beaten. Cause trouble for the cops and they're prone to administering a bit of punishment right there.

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

Funny how many cases of abuse there are of such patients. Retaliation is human nature, the problem with the police is that cops are afraid to report it.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

The trigger here got recorded from multiple angles. Though not from DC's angle. That motherfucker wasn't wearing his bodycam.

At any rate, when you don't have bodycam footage, I think the default position should be to not believe the officer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Strangely, the research that finds the racial bias almost inevitably fails to check if race is a proxy for socioeconomic ones. This is inexcusable. The prevalence of research making this mistake says they can't find the racism if they control properly.

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.

You fail to understand--of course the socioeconomic bias is a legacy of past racial bias. Keyword: "past". You can't fix it with antidiscrimination measures because you don't have a time machine. You have to address the real problem and that's not so easy as blaming discrimination and making the supposed bad guys pay.

 

[lpetrich]

Trump To Address 'Disparities' At Dallas Event : NPR

President Trump on Thursday will meet with pastors, law enforcement officials and small business owners at a church in Dallas and is expected to discuss plans for a national "holistic revitalization and recovery," a White House official said.

In his latest response to protests over police brutality, sparked by the May 25 killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis, Trump is expected to discuss ways to address "historic economic, health and justice disparities in American communities" at the event, the official said. This comes as demonstrators and officials across the country have called for additional visibility to the social and economic hardships faced by many racial minorities in the country.

Let's see if he's capable of that. Given his track record, he'd brag about being the best listener and the most empathetic person in the world.

Republicans equate police lives with black lives after George Floyd’s brother’s testimony - Vox - "Republicans equated police lives with black lives at a House hearing Wednesday." - blue lives and black lives.

About midway through the question-and-answer period of the hearing — which was about a Democratic bill proposing several key policing reforms, including a ban on using chokeholds and creating a national database of officers who are fired for misconduct — Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL) asked George Floyd’s brother Philonise Floyd a question. She asked him to speak about the pain he’s felt over the past two weeks since his brother was killed after a Minneapolis, Minnesota, officer pinned him by the neck with his knee for several minutes, and what he hoped to see from Congress.

In his response, Floyd made a very simple, moving statement: that black lives matter because “all life is precious.” But some Republicans on the committee took that phrase as an opportunity to “both sides” the issue.

...
Some Republicans seemed more worried about protecting law enforcement than addressing police brutality

Amid discussion of specific policy proposals and their various merits and shortcomings, several Republican lawmakers instead took stands against concepts like “abolish the police” or “defund the police.” (The bill that prompted the hearing included neither.)

Other GOP members of the committee seemed committed to equating black lives and police lives.

 

[lpetrich]

Rep. Nydia Velazquez on Twitter: "Today's police forces look more like armies equipped with weapons of war. A fed'l program from the 1990s sends surplus military equipment to NYPD & other police. Today, I've introduced legislation to end this initiative once and for all. #BlackLivesMatter #EndPoliceViolence 1/3 https://t.co/wLmYY6MnH6" / Twitter

Rep. Nydia Velazquez on Twitter: "When police are equipped like an occupying army, they act like one, treating Americans as enemy combatants. This deadly policy results in more violence - especially against Black people. 2/3" / Twitter

Rep. Nydia Velazquez on Twitter: "My thanks to @ACLU @CAIRNewYork @demandprogress @DrugPolicyOrg for endorsing this critical measure. 3/3" / Twitter


Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Today, I joined @RepMarkTakano and @RepChuyGarcia in proposing a bill that would ban law enforcement from using chemical weapons, including tear gas. (links)" / Twitter
Proposed bill: untitled - OCASNY_077_xml.pdf

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Tear gas is banned by the Geneva Protocol, yet this indiscriminate weapon is used on peaceful protestors and reporters. Doctors believe that tear gas contributes to COVID-19 spread and that there can be other serious long-term health effects. https://t.co/E6q9516rAQ" / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

That looter I mentioned earlier, he was standing, and he did not look outwardly injured, and the visible parts of his clothes were undamaged. He was caught for stealing police supplies, like a police helmet. I looked at the price of a motorcycle helmet, and it's typically $150 - $200. So he stole well over 10 times the face value of George Floyd's counterfeit $20 bill.

Opinion | Washington, D.C., Deserves Statehood - The New York Times - "Washington is the only national capital in the democratic world whose citizens lack equal voting rights."

An often overlooked piece of the justice agenda was cast into stark relief last week, when President Trump ordered heavily armed federal forces into the District of Columbia against the will of Mayor Muriel Bowser. Largely because Washington lacks statehood, Mr. Trump had the authority to line city streets with military Humvees, to fly Black Hawk helicopters dangerously low to terrorize protesters, to fill the steps of the Lincoln Memorial with military personnel and to deploy thousands of federal forces, many unidentifiable with no discernible chain of command, like Russian “Little Green Men,” to intimidate residents.

Most shockingly, after threatening to federalize the Metropolitan Police, Attorney General William Barr unleashed federal forces who violently dispersed journalists and peaceful protesters using tear gas, rubber bullets, pepper spray, horses, shields and batons. All for a presidential photo-op.

For one long week, Mr. Trump transformed my hometown into a war zone to burnish his “law and order” credentials. Without statehood, Washington was virtually powerless to prevent Mr. Trump from using the capital as a petri dish to intimidate protesters, divide Americans and goad activists into ugly street battles to galvanize elements of his base.

Trump has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to send troops to other US cities, but some high-level military officials convinced him to back off. Susan Rice then made a case for DC statehood. I'll revive the DC-statehood thread for more details on that.

 

[blastula]

Milley should be out of a job soon.

Mark Milley: Top general apologizes for appearing in photo-op with Trump after forceful removal of protesters - CNNPolitics

 

[ruby sparks]

Google hit 1 (admittedly, Lott isn't the best of sources): https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1175&context=law_and_economics

Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. cities for 1987, 1990,and 1993, I find that more black and minority police officersincrease crime rates. This arises because lower hiring standardsinvolved in recruiting more minority officers reduces the quality ofboth new minority and new nonminority officers.

Yes, Lott does not necessarily seem to be the best of sources:

"Given the substantial concerns about the data, statistical tests, and data analysis in Lott (2000) it would not be safe to conclude, with Lott, that enhanced minority recruitment increases crime rates. The balance of evidence supports the conclusion of the Lovrich and Steel (1983) and McCrary (2008) studies, that enhanced minority recruitment is neutral in its effect on crime rates".

https://whatworks.college.police.uk/Research/Systematic_Review_Series/Documents/Diversity_SR.pdf

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."

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.

 

[blastula]

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.

Nope. Go open up a junior high math book. Or, here's an easy problem for you to work on.

One survey sample showed 12/100 said that 1 plus 1 makes 3, and another sample showed 33/100 said that 1 plus 1 makes 3. If you combine both samples, what's the percentage in the combined samples that said that 1 plus 1 makes 3?

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.

No, the ones who said "don't know" could simply not know enough about it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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.

Well, it may have made his point forty years ago when that article was published in Police Product News, but that's hardly compelling.

 

[Jarhyn]

Nope. Go open up a junior high math book. Or, here's an easy problem for you to work on.

One survey sample showed 12/100 said that 1 plus 1 makes 3, and another sample showed 33/100 said that 1 plus 1 makes 3. If you combine both samples, what's the percentage in the combined samples that said that 1 plus 1 makes 3?

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.

No, the ones who said "don't know" could simply not know enough about it.

The answer is "quite likely around 30%", assuming the right leaning source said 12%.

But even if it was 12%, the answer is "too goddamn many".

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Nope.

Yep.

One survey sample...*snip* non-analogous sample

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.

IOW, in a loose, ballpark estimation, you can most certainly add the right-leaning Independent portion to the Republican portion to give a ballpark on how the total right-leaning population thinks.

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.

No, the ones who said "don't know" could simply not know enough about it.

I'll repeat. The respondents are specifically being asked a question based on their existing knowledge (from what they have read, seen or heard), whether or not the officer responsible for Floyd's death should be arrested.

Once again, THIS was the question:

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?

Do you think the officer responsible for his death should or should not be arrested? Iow:

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 he should be arrested.​

​

For that third response, 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, once again, in a ballpark estimation of what people are thinking, where, as T.G.G. put it, 40% don't think Chauvin did anything wrong, that is sufficient, especially when you give it the haircut I gave it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, Lott does not necessarily seem to be the best of sources:

"Given the substantial concerns about the data, statistical tests, and data analysis in Lott (2000) it would not be safe to conclude, with Lott, that enhanced minority recruitment increases crime rates. The balance of evidence supports the conclusion of the Lovrich and Steel (1983) and McCrary (2008) studies, that enhanced minority recruitment is neutral in its effect on crime rates".

https://whatworks.college.police.uk/Research/Systematic_Review_Series/Documents/Diversity_SR.pdf

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.