George Floyd/ Derek Chauvin Thread

[SupersonicMax]

Maybe proportionaly they are up to no good more so than the whites.......

That is a really hard one to prove.  If you use evidence from police arrests, one could easily argue that the difference in arrests between black/white is due to a systemic race bias. 

 

[brihard]

Do you happen to know what race is responsible for the most shootings of cops in the US? I wasn't able to find any stats on it.

Washington Post has it as black offenders slightly more frequently than white. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/09/are-black-or-white-offenders-more-likely-to-kill-police/ What I don't have at hand as a denominator is how frequently police interact with any given race, which would be necessary statistical context on that one.

 

[Jarnhamar]

That is a really hard one to prove.  If you use evidence from police arrests, one could easily argue that the difference in arrests between black/white is due to a systemic race bias.

That's true.

I believe Hispanics have larger numbers in the US than African Americans. 52 million compared to 37 million so.

It looks like Hispanics are shot by police about half as much as African Americans.  In 2019 it looks like it was 158 to 235.

Would that suggest the systemic racism in the US is more anti-black than anti-nonwhite?

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Brihard] What I don't have at hand as a denominator is how frequently police interact with any given race, which would be necessary statistical context on that one.
[/quote]

Thanks, good point.

 

[daftandbarmy]

FWIW, one thing I recall from my Criminology courses was that crime rates are generally falling, because the population is aging was one main reasons, and that public perceptions of crime are often at odds with the statistics. I assume that social- and other - media can fan those flames at will:

5 facts about crime in the U.S.

Public perceptions about crime in the U.S. often don’t align with the data. Opinion surveys regularly find that Americans believe crime is up nationally, even when the data shows it is down. In 18 of 22 Gallup surveys conducted between 1993 and 2018, at least six-in-ten Americans said there was more crime in the U.S. compared with the year before, despite the generally downward trend in national violent and property crime rates during most of that period.

Pew Research Center surveys have found a similar pattern. In a survey in late 2016, for instance, 57% of registered voters said crime in the U.S. had gotten worse since 2008, even though FBI and BJS data shows that violent and property crime rates declined by double-digit percentages during that span.

While perceptions of rising crime at the national level are common, fewer Americans tend to say crime is up when asked about the local level. In all 21 Gallup surveys that have included the question since 1996, no more than about half of Americans have said crime is up in their area compared with the year before.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/17/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/

 

[Eaglelord17]

That is a really hard one to prove.  If you use evidence from police arrests, one could easily argue that the difference in arrests between black/white is due to a systemic race bias.

The difference in violent crime wouldn't be due to race bias...

 

[Donald H]

2.  Amply?  In any detail?  Proportional? Absolute?  Just what it appears media covers?

:cheers:

No Good3Golf, I was referring to the video that was offered up by Eagleford in comment #26 which shows the protracted reluctance by the officer to use deadly force, and that cost him his life. The stark contrast is in how black people aren't given the opportunity to do any bargaining with a police officer. This is to explain my comment of 'Amply'.

One factor that hasn't been discussed here on this thread yet is: America has created a situation in which inequitable treatment of black people has created a deep and apparently unsolvable problem. (this is a proposal from me to invite rational discussion)

If I may, I will equate that problem to Canada's perceived problem with our First Nations people. Many choose to blame them, as opposed to accepting our blame for government historically creating the problem.

Please keep in mind that is my opinion and it's likely a more leftist opinion than is usually voiced. As with so many people who are under the opinion that America's black people are to blame, the parallel is drawn with Canada's First Nations people.

:cheers:

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Everyone is given a chance to bargain....some chose to and some dont

 

[Blackadder1916]

The difference in violent crime wouldn't be due to race bias...

But the difference in police contact (frequency, intensity) may be due to race bias. 

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

Risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States by age, race–ethnicity, and sex

Abstract
We use data on police-involved deaths to estimate how the risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States varies across social groups. We estimate the lifetime and age-specific risks of being killed by police by race and sex. We also provide estimates of the proportion of all deaths accounted for by police use of force. We find that African American men and women, American Indian/Alaska Native men and women, and Latino men face higher lifetime risk of being killed by police than do their white peers. We find that Latina women and Asian/Pacific Islander men and women face lower risk of being killed by police than do their white peers. Risk is highest for black men, who (at current levels of risk) face about a 1 in 1,000 chance of being killed by police over the life course. The average lifetime odds of being killed by police are about 1 in 2,000 for men and about 1 in 33,000 for women. Risk peaks between the ages of 20 y and 35 y for all groups. For young men of color, police use of force is among the leading causes of death.

. . .

 

[Good2Golf]

If I may, I will equate that problem to Canada's perceived problem with our First Nations people. Many choose to blame them, as opposed to accepting our blame for government historically creating the problem.

This is a good point, DonaldH, but then the follow-up needs to be addressed as well, ie.  'so what do we (society) do about it, to resolve the issue?'

Regards

 

[Donald H]

Everyone is given a chance to bargain....some chose to and some dont

I hear your opinion Bruce but I have to disagree. Not true for black people who are murdered on the streets of America and not true for Canada's First Nations people who were dealt with unfairly. And I must add, Canada's problem is less severe than America's problem.

Both of course in my opinion.

:cheers:

 

[Donald H]

But the difference in police contact (frequency, intensity) may be due to race bias. 

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

Can I assume that the 'abstract' you posted was to demonstrate that you are in agreement with my opinion re. the historical bad treatment of black people in America?

That is a sincere and honest question blackadder. See G2G's comment that followed.

 

[Donald H]

This is a good point, DonaldH, but then the follow-up needs to be addressed as well, ie.  'so what do we (society) do about it, to resolve the issue?'

Regards

Yes of course G2G. It can't be left hanging, and so:

The exact opposite of the correct approach is Trump's approach, which I see as fascism under the cover of appealing to the American people that are suffering due to huge income inequality. But let's not go there and instead focus on the positive.

America must come to accept the black population as equals in every way. Affirmative action has been tried and may have helped in some instances. Perhaps a new and more focused emphasis on affirmative action to rectify the income inequality between blacks and whites.

You ask an enormously big question and it's not one I can answer fully in the limited time I have available. Considering that I've been rightfully accused of ignoring some people's comments. I'm going to attempt to fix that.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Can I assume that the 'abstract' you posted was to demonstrate that you are in agreement with my opinion re. the historical bad treatment of black people in America?

That is a sincere and honest question blackadder. See G2G's comment that followed.

Why?  Are you feeling lonely?  Do you need a hug?  Well, call your mommy.  I don't do validation.  Quite frankly, since you initiated this, I don't follow your posts and barely read them, partly due to disinterest and partly due to the often poor quality of your arguments.  Half a century ago, when I was in the debate club (not for the nerd points, but for the sake of spirited argument), the best advice I received was "don't present opinions, present evidence and when your opponent gives his opinion, pounce on him and tear him to shreds with facts - make the little bastard cry".  We took debate seriously.

The only thing that you can assume is that, for some reason, I took exception to the comment in the post I quoted and referred to one particular study as a means to suggest that there were other elements to the question.

 

[Haggis]

I hear your opinion Bruce but I have to disagree.

The degree of bargaining a subject can expect with the police is most often dependent on the nature of the interaction (proactive, reactive, cordial or confrontational) subject's behaviour and the seriousness of their offence.

Not true for black people who are murdered on the streets of America...

Your frequent inferences that every Black person who dies in an officer involved shooting has been murdered is becoming tiresome.

 

[Kirkhill]

The degree of bargaining a subject can expect with the police is most often dependent on the nature of the interaction (proactive, reactive, cordial or confrontational) subject's behaviour and the seriousness of their offence.

Your frequent inferences that every Black person who dies in an officer involved shooting has been murdered is becoming tiresome.

Chicago - Year to date

2882 people shot
2391 of the people shot wounded
491 of the people shot killed

13 of the people shot shot by police
8 of the people shot by police wounded
5 of the people shot by police killed

10 of the people shot were police officers

https://heyjackass.com/

And for the record - 45 people killed by means other than firearms.

 

[ballz]

The lawyer's claim that the technique is shown in their training is some kind of silver bullet is just hilarious stupid. Shooting someone is also part of their training, I don't think that means they can go around shooting people with impunity.

I've never seen the problem with this "knee on the neck" technique and it'll be a god damn shame if yet another non-lethal technique is taken away from the officers due to the politicization of this.

Where I had a problem was when Chauvin clearly went well-beyond it's intended use given that his handcuffed suspect was unconscious, and it seemed to be purely out of malice and being high on authority.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vksEJR9EPQ8&bpctr=1599440319

Interesting footage. It shows Floyd may have been in medical distress very early on (which may actually impact "reasonable doubt"), it also shows that Floyd was fairly compliant, but did resist getting into the car (allegedly due to claustraphobia) and was complaining about not being able to breathe early on, before Chauvin was even on the scene.

Perhaps what's most damning is that they actually got him into the back of the car, with cuffs on, and Chauvin pulled him out through the other side..... pretty ******* hard to make a case that you needed to use that technique when you personally pulled him out of the car instead of shutting the door.

EDIT: Also, that he was in medical distress early on, if it (or any other reason) ends up getting Chauvin acquitted... the campaign of riots afterward will be something to watch.

 

[Donald H]

Why?  Are you feeling lonely?  Do you need a hug?  Well, call your mommy.  I don't do validation.  Quite frankly, since you initiated this, I don't follow your posts and barely read them, partly due to disinterest and partly due to the often poor quality of your arguments.  Half a century ago, when I was in the debate club (not for the nerd points, but for the sake of spirited argument), the best advice I received was "don't present opinions, present evidence and when your opponent gives his opinion, pounce on him and tear him to shreds with facts - make the little ******* cry".  We took debate seriously.

The only thing that you can assume is that, for some reason, I took exception to the comment in the post I quoted and referred to one particular study as a means to suggest that there were other elements to the question.

I have a lot of trouble believing you every debated. Your fuse is too short for that.

Presenting an opinion is a proper debating technique in this modern world and especially on an internet debate forum. Any idiot can supply proof with a dozen links and then go and find another dozen that refutes the first dozen.

Likewise, I'll be ignoring you most of the time. Your problem is that you have a different opinion than mine on many issues and you are unable to accept differing opinions.

Work up a case to have me eliminated from the forum or sue me. I'm not going to be intimidated into agreeing with you.

 

[Haggis]

The lawyer's claim that the technique is shown in their training is some kind of silver bullet is just hilarious stupid. Shooting someone is also part of their training, I don't think that means they can go around shooting people with impunity.

My agency teaches a lot of techniques with the expectation that we will execute them as correctly as the situation allows and in accordance with our training.

I've never seen the problem with this "knee on the neck" technique and it'll be a god damn shame if yet another non-lethal technique is taken away from the officers due to the politicization of this.

There is no such thing as a "non-lethal" technique except for, maybe, verbal judo (aka Officer Communication).  Any use of force has the potential to cause death through unintentional consequences.  You OC a subject and they go into respiratory distress and die.  You strike a subject with a baton and that causes internal bleeding which kills them.  You TASER a subject and they fall over and fracture their skull.

Where I had a problem was when Chauvin clearly went well-beyond it's intended use given that his handcuffed suspect was unconscious, and it seemed to be purely out of malice and being high on authority.

  As I stated several posts ago, near the beginning of this thread, the defense will have to prove that the technique was applied as correctly as the situation allowed, for the appropriate amount of time to gain and maintain control of Mr. Floyd.  That, IMO, will be a big order to fill.

 

[ballz]

There is no such thing as a "non-lethal" technique except for, maybe, verbal judo (aka Officer Communication).  Any use of force has the potential to cause death through unintentional consequences.

Kinda picking pepper from fly crap here aren't we? Maybe I miss the point on why this nuance is even worth debating. You can yell at someone in the right away and give them a heart attack. On a use-of-force continuum, there are certain things that are explicitly considered "lethal/deadly force," so that would imply it's appropriate to call everything else non-lethal.