Forgery suspect killed by cop restricting his airway

[lpetrich]

H.R.7120 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Justice in Policing Act of 2020 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Its summary:

This bill addresses a wide range of policies and issues regarding policing practices and law enforcement accountability. It includes measures to increase accountability for law enforcement misconduct, to enhance transparency and data collection, and to eliminate discriminatory policing practices.

The bill facilitates federal enforcement of constitutional violations (e.g., excessive use of force) by state and local law enforcement. Among other things, it does the following:

• lowers the criminal intent standard—from willful to knowing or reckless—to convict a law enforcement officer for misconduct in a federal prosecution,
• limits qualified immunity as a defense to liability in a private civil action against a law enforcement officer or state correctional officer, and
• authorizes the Department of Justice to issue subpoenas in investigations of police departments for a pattern or practice of discrimination.

The bill also creates a national registry—the National Police Misconduct Registry—to compile data on complaints and records of police misconduct.

It establishes a framework to prohibit racial profiling at the federal, state, and local levels.

The bill establishes new requirements for law enforcement officers and agencies, including to report data on use-of-force incidents, to obtain training on implicit bias and racial profiling, and to wear body cameras.

The bill was introduced on June 8, and it had 165 original cosponsors. It now has 213 cosponsors, with the additional 48 signing on on June 11. AOC was among them. Nearly every Democrat in the House has now signed on to it -- the House now has 233 Democrats. Though DC's delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton cannot vote on bills, she nevertheless cosponsored this one, as she has many others.

 

[lpetrich]

H.R.7135 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): To amend the Insurrection Act to curtail violations against the civil liberties of the people of the United States, and for other purposes. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Introduced by Ilhan Omar, with 21 cosponsors, 14 original.

H.R.7143 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): To repeal the military surplus program under title 10, United States Code. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Introduced by Nydia Velazquez, with 11 cosponsors, 7 original.
Her district is NY-07, in Brooklyn, NYC

No text officially received for either bill.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I'm not justifying it, I'm explaining why it happens and how to avoid it. You can try to avoid things that shouldn't exist in the first place!

 

[lpetrich]

Mark Treyger on Twitter: "@elizashapiro In 2015, the Council passed a law requiring NYPD to report on metal detectors & scanners in schools. They refused to comply. Last year, we pushed for principals to evaluate school safety performance. I’m told it never happened. Nothing short of big, structural change will cut it." / Twitter
then
Errol Louis on Twitter: "Many, many laws are simply ignored by the NYPD, and endlessly excused by @NYCMayor. It starts with @placardabuse and goes from there. Even simple tasks like social distance enforcement turned into illegal profiling. It's a huge part of why people are marching in the streets." / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "This is the issue w/ many “reforms”: yes, you can pass certain laws, but the problem is police *breaking the law.*
Murder is already illegal, but the officers who killed Breonna Taylor STILL haven’t been arrested.
Taking on that abuse of power often takes major political risk." / Twitter


POLITICO Playbook: Trump’s latest zigzag - POLITICO
then
POLITICO on Twitter: "Donald Trump is torn. Torn between the impulse to speak and cater to his base, and the demands of governing a multiracial country in the throes of unprecedented turmoil and upheaval. https://t.co/9y9RVUUtIM" / Twitter
then

Steadman™ on Twitter: "Notice the raceless one side, "his base" is juxtaposed to a "multiracial country." An unnecessary contortion meant to avoid clarifying the former is white" / Twitter

Looking at the quality of Trump's "leadership", I'm sure that he will go down in history as one of the worst presidents in history, if not *the* worst.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The point is hits 1, 2 and 3 all supported my position. Zero supported yours. Going past 3 was wandering off.

 

[blastula]

Okay, another round of this farce. I'd understand if the mods may want to split off this back and forth going on here.

Irony. Big fan.

You do exemplify it.

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?

It's clear you're an incoherent mess. Remember when you said "No Shit?" That deluded reply was to me saying that the Republican sample and the Independent sample are separate groups in that poll result. Apparently you agreed with that then, but then you saw something shiny, because once again, you are going back to treating them as the same group.

Even if we go by the assumptions that half of Independents are right leaning, and the very weak assumption that "don't know" is same as "not arrest," and including the unstated assumption that the sample sizes are the same, you still have it wrong. I tried to help you out with the very easy problem I set up, but you are proving helpless.

If we make the assumptions just stated, where we have two equal sized samples with 33% and 12% giving the same answer, then the percentage of Republicans and right leaners who gave that answer overall is not 45%, it's 23%. You got it wrong every which way.

One more time, using my example.

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?

The answer should be obviously = (12+33)/(100+100) = .23

Or, you could just get there by (.12 + .23)/2

This is not even debatable what the answer is. It's baby math.

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:

It doesn't matter if it's instead TGG saying it, since he wasn't talking about Republicans or conservatives alone neither. "The population" means everyone, not a subgroup.

So when you said, "yeah, ballpark," you were wrong both about your 45 number, even given your assumptions, and you were also wrong about what ballpark they were both referring to.

I was going to end right here, but I just looked again at another of your posts, and oh my.

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.

LOL. You got that 29% from looking at this poll result.



So you think to get the total percent for who said "not arrest," you need to add up the separate sample numbers of 3, 9, 7, 2, 8. Incredible.

Good job Koy on at least adding up the numbers correctly, but it's still wrong. The percent of everyone saying "not arrest" is sitting there plainly under the "All" column, and it is 6%, as I pointed out in my first reply to you.

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."

Everything I said there still holds, while you just keep making yourself look worse. Your big problem, of many, is that you don't know how to read poll numbers. An "All" column stumps you.

Can't wait for you to sextuple down.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

I'm not justifying it, I'm explaining why it happens and how to avoid it. You can try to avoid things that shouldn't exist in the first place!

It might be true that in a lot of cases, resisting arrest does make matters worse, yes.

But at the same time there’s more to it than that. Blacks do not, for example, get disproportionately pulled over by police so often for resisting. Nor, it seems, are they necessarily treated well if they are passive. Nor is a brutal police reaction necessarily justified even if there is some resistance. For example in the Floyd case, the police response seems out of proportion.

So all in all, dwelling so much on that aspect of this incident does seem a lot like victim blaming.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

The point is hits 1, 2 and 3 all supported my position.

Except hit 1 was a source even you discredit. Hit 2 - a Cliff Notes (not a research paper) stated

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

which rebuts your position. Hit 3 is 40 years old from a police magazine. After that, even you admitted everything else veered off point.

In other words, the point is you have got nothing of value to show. My position was clearly stated - Then you ought to be able to produce something that is not 40+ years old and from a respected journal, not some police mouthpiece.there

Seems to me you have to produce anything that is not 40+ years old and from a respected journal that supports your claim.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

There are 100 people consisting of 33 Republicans, 33 Democrats, 33 Independents and 1 Other. We want to find out how many right-leaning people there are in that group, so, splitting the Indies down the middle (and rounding up, because we’re doing a ballpark estimate), there are a total of 50 right-leaning people in the sample.

So, based on the data in the YouGov poll, give us a ballpark estimation of what percentage of right-leaning people think that Chauvin did nothing wrong.

Assuming “don’t arrest” and “don’t know” indicate “did nothing wrong,” we have 11 total Republicans (33%) and 8 total Independents (25%) whose responses indicate they think Chauvin “did nothing wrong,” but, again, we’re splitting Indies down the middle (even though we probably shouldn’t, since it’s more likely that only the right-leaning respondents would think that way), so an estimated 15 out of 50 right leaning people think Chauvin did nothing wrong. That’s 30% of the total amount of right-leaning respondents, which, once again, is in the ballpark of T.G.G.’s 40%.

And if we assume—again, for the purposes of a ballpark estimate—that only the right-leaning respondents would be in the “don’t arrest” and “don’t know” group, then that’s a total of 19 right leaners out of 50, or 38%. Definitely within the ballpark of T.G.G.’s 40%.

T.G.G. did NOT specify “US population;” he said only “population.” Here’s what he posted:

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. And even if that 40% do mouth a few compassionate words, the fact remains of their fake indignance. 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.

“Population” could mean “US population”—as some took it to mean—or it could mean people that think in the manner he described (i.e., right-leaning population). If the latter, then 40% is definitely in the ballpark.

If the former, then, yes, I should have said add the “don’t arrest” and “don’t know” in the YouGov poll (not just the “don’t arrest”) and that gives you 22% of the total population thinking that Chauvin did nothing wrong. Which is a smaller ballpark, but still a way too significant one.

 

[atrib]

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.

I'm not justifying it, I'm explaining why it happens and how to avoid it. You can try to avoid things that shouldn't exist in the first place!

The world saw a helpless man lying on the ground getting killed by the police in cold blood, and people came out to protest on the streets despite a raging pandemic. All over the world. And you are here telling us that this could have been the victim's fault, that the victim could have done something to prevent his death, that we should expect our police to act with brutality and violence, and take steps to avoid it the best we can. You express no outrage at the conduct of the police officers involved in this killing, dismissing it casually as something that police do. Instead, you blame the victim. Wow.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

I'm not justifying it, I'm explaining why it happens and how to avoid it. You can try to avoid things that shouldn't exist in the first place!

Okay, let's test that proposition.

Suppose you are a black man.

You are laying on the ground.

A policeman who hates you has his knee in your neck, choking you. And your body is subdued.

His comrades are next to him, covering for him.

You pled with him that you are having difficulty breathing.

The situation that shouldn't exist--your death--is rapidly approaching.

Now, you claimed that people are capable of avoiding that death that is coming.

So other than a few more I can't breathes or calls to a dead mother, what would you do differently?

Say my lawyer's going to sue you with your last breath?

Or are you saying that being choked out for 8 minutes in broad daylight with 20 eyewitnesses and a video recording was SO REASONABLY PREDICTABLE an outcome that George Floyd should have tried to run from the cop who hated him 10 minutes prior?

And not be shot...which by the way you always justify?

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not justifying it, I'm explaining why it happens and how to avoid it. You can try to avoid things that shouldn't exist in the first place!

Okay, let's test that proposition.

Suppose you are a black man.

You are laying on the ground.

A policeman who hates you has his knee in your neck, choking you. And your body is subdued.

His comrades are next to him, covering for him.

You pled with him that you are having difficulty breathing.

The situation that shouldn't exist--your death--is rapidly approaching.

Now, you claimed that people are capable of avoiding that death that is coming.

So other than a few more I can't breathes or calls to a dead mother, what would you do differently?

Say my lawyer's going to sue you with your last breath?

Or are you saying that being choked out for 8 minutes in broad daylight with 20 eyewitnesses and a video recording was SO REASONABLY PREDICTABLE an outcome that George Floyd should have tried to run from the cop who hated him 10 minutes prior?

And not be shot...which by the way you always justify?

Don, you have it all wrong. LP is saying you should avoid being black and anywhere near the police.

 

[Derec]

The world saw a helpless man lying on the ground getting killed by the police in cold blood,

"In cold blood" implies premeditation, which is not given here. There wasn't even intent, as what Chauvin did only turned deadly because of Floyd's medical condition and acute meth and fentanyl intoxication.

 

[DBT]

Kneeling on his neck sure didn't help his medical condition. He most likely would have lived had the police not pressed down on his neck and torso. He was no threat at that point. The action they took was inexcusable.

 

[Toni]

The world saw a helpless man lying on the ground getting killed by the police in cold blood,

"In cold blood" implies premeditation, which is not given here. There wasn't even intent, as what Chauvin did only turned deadly because of Floyd's medical condition and acute meth and fentanyl intoxication.

First of all, there was no acute meth and/or fentanyl intoxication.

Secondly, sufficient numbers of people have died being restrained by having an officer's knee on their neck that the practice was widely discouraged or outright banned.

Secondly, as a sworn officer, Chauvin had knowledge or a duty to be informed about the dangers of such a maneuver, particularly when the restrained person was laying prone on his back, quiet, with his hands cuffed behind him and 3 other officers near by, sometimes also on top of Floyd. He know or should have known that what he was doing could very well kill Floyd. Even if he is stupid. I mean, hell, we ALL know know that it can kill someone, has killed multiple people and has been discussed on this very forum.

You're not stupid so please don't pretend that you are. And don't expect anyone here to be persuaded by such biased, disingenuous 'arguments.'

 

[repoman]

Yeah, if an officer needs to put a knee on the neck for a few seconds for a non handcuffed suspect with a possible weapon, that is a totally different story.

I will play a hypothetical here - I do NOT think this is what happened, but go along for now -----

We don't know how much weight that Chauvin was putting on the neck of Floyd. Even if the weight was not enough to make him pass out and it was the fentanyl that did it, it looks so bad.

So why would Chauvin have been dumb and callous enough to do something that looks like it probably killed Floyd?

What should have happened was for the three officers to life up and push or baton him into the cruiser which would have required active violence rather than passive.

 

[TV and credit cards]

The world saw a helpless man lying on the ground getting killed by the police in cold blood,

"In cold blood" implies premeditation, which is not given here. There wasn't even intent, as what Chauvin did only turned deadly because of Floyd's medical condition and acute meth and fentanyl intoxication.

I thought it implies without regard for life. Particularly callous.

 

[Jarhyn]

"Cold blood" here implies "without emotional agitation". "Hot blood" is tempers flaring, adrenaline pumping, high blood pressure, making decisions without thinking about them.

Cold blood implies making a decision to kill outside of any situation which would imply being goaded into it by your emotional state. It means you weren't in fight or flight. It implies killing without a real or even perceived need to kill. It implies killing because you decided you wanted to do it.

 

[thebeave]

Yeah, if an officer needs to put a knee on the neck for a few seconds for a non handcuffed suspect with a possible weapon, that is a totally different story.

I will play a hypothetical here - I do NOT think this is what happened, but go along for now -----

We don't know how much weight that Chauvin was putting on the neck of Floyd. Even if the weight was not enough to make him pass out and it was the fentanyl that did it, it looks so bad.

So why would Chauvin have been dumb and callous enough to do something that looks like it probably killed Floyd?

What should have happened was for the three officers to life up and push or baton him into the cruiser which would have required active violence rather than passive.

From what I understand about the knee on the neck is that it sometimes results in the person passing out. I suspect Chauvin thought that was what was happening with Floyd, so when people were screaming that it was killing him, he just calmly brushed them off thinking that Floyd was just passing out...not dying. He probably thought that Floyd would come to in a few minutes after he let up, and he could show those bystanders that they were getting all riled up for nothing. It wouldn't surprise me if Chauvin used that as his defense during his upcoming trial, in an attempt to get a lighter sentence.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

From what I understand about the knee on the neck is that it sometimes results in the person passing out.

*FULL STOP* punching someone in the head also sometime results in a person passing out. Punching them 240 times in the head while they are subdued is reasonably going to kill them. The more you punch them in the head while they are down on the ground the greater the chance of death.

Likewise, holding someone's vein in the neck for 20 seconds will make them pass out. Sticking your knee in their neck for 8 minutes closing off circulation and breathing will kill them.