White Teen Beaten To Death By 15 Black Teens...

[Cow Poke]

The problem is he was claiming the inability to breathe before he was subdued.

Understood, and that should have been a red flag.

He claims it is due to claustrophobia early on but later he starts complaining about his neck. The camera angle makes it hard to tell but it looks like he is between the recovery position and lying flat on his stomach.

*Supposedly a study suggests the recovery position can interrupt proper breathing.

Perhaps, but the optics, alone, of staying there so long with a knee on his neck are downright horrible.

It's absolutely terrible and deserves at least manslaughter for sure but the video doesn't suggest anything beyond that. Catastrophizing the issue beyond what it was doesn't help anyone.

OK, you done it! I'm going to have to get my speech therapist* to help me pronounce this word!



*I used to be a profound stutterer -- still am when around somebody who stutters.
I could not, for the life of me, say "Grand Ole Opry", until my speech therapist taught me - "don't try to say 'Grand Ole Opry' --- try to say, instead 'Grando Lopry'" --- it worked!!!
(I still can't say 'salt and pepper shakers" )

[Cerebrum123]

Understood, and that should have been a red flag.

In hindsight, yes. In the moment it was happening it could easily appear as an excuse to fight back more. It's not right that people who legitimately have such issues can and are seen as "fakers" but dishonest people abuse knowledge of such conditions all of the time. In such a situation it can be nearly impossible to differentiate the two.

Given my previous link that could be the problem. Improperly putting someone in such a position can make something worse. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Perhaps, but the optics, alone, of staying there so long with a knee on his neck are downright horrible.

Absolutely. I don't think the heavy use of the end of the clip rather than the entire situation was done by accident. I've seen way too much to believe otherwise.

OK, you done it! I'm going to have to get my speech therapist* to help me pronounce this word!

It's definitely not a common term.

*I used to be a profound stutterer -- still am when around somebody who stutters.
I could not, for the life of me, say "Grand Ole Opry", until my speech therapist taught me - "don't try to say 'Grand Ole Opry' --- try to say, instead 'Grando Lopry'" --- it worked!!!
(I still can't say 'salt and pepper shakers" )

I don't stutter that often but I tend to mix words a lot and sometimes to hilarious results. My brain moves faster than my mouth by a significant margin. When I'm not mixing words together I speak very clearly. Well, the words themselves are clear even if the meaning isn't clear to others. Even when I was really little, like 2-3 years old, I was talking in full sentences. I didn't learn this until a couple of years ago, but extremely high verbal abilities and problems with speaking* are often connected to autism. Of course, they can be caused by other issues too, but in my case, that is likely the source of my mouthed mix-ups.

*Stuttering, having a lisp, or even being completely non-verbal can be linked to it. I'm still finding out new things that are linked to the issue. Most of them are things I never would have even thought to connect to ASD.

[seanD]

It's not a selective edit — if I had intended it to be so, I wouldn't be so stupid as to have linked to the autopsy report. As explained earlier, the coroner found that Floyd's death was primarily attributable to the method of restraint and neck compression applied by Chauvin. That the report goes on to list other ancillary or complicating factors does not change the top-line finding of cause of death. Floyd did not overdose, as you claim, nor would he have died absent the actions of the officers.

-Sam

Assuming drug intoxication had nothing whatsoever to do with his death, a more accurate way to phrase the bolded would be he wouldn't have died had he not tried to pass off a counterfeit bill and then freaked out and tried to resist when he was taken into custody, contrary to the lie that he was strangled by white cops because they were racist.

[Sam]

Assuming drug intoxication had nothing whatsoever to do with his death, a more accurate way to phrase the bolded would be he wouldn't have died had he not tried to pass off a counterfeit bill and then freaked out and tried to resist when he was taken into custody, contrary to the lie that he was strangled by white cops because they were racist.

No one argued that drug use (or any of the other listed items) were not contributing factors to Floyd's death. What you argued was that Floyd overdosed, which is not true. And, no — Floyd didn't die because he "tried to pass off a counterfeit bill and then freaked out and tried to resist". What caused Floyd's death — the one thing that directly led to him dying — is listed as the top-line of the autopsy. And that comes from the coroner's office; not, as you claimed, from a private examiner.

-Sam

[seanD]

No one argued that drug use (or any of the other listed items) were not contributing factors to Floyd's death. What you argued was that Floyd overdosed, which is not true. And, no — Floyd didn't die because he "tried to pass off a counterfeit bill and then freaked out and tried to resist". What caused Floyd's death — the one thing that directly led to him dying — is listed as the top-line of the autopsy. And that comes from the coroner's office; not, as you claimed, from a private examiner.

-Sam

He died because he committed an illegal act and then freaked out and resisted. Why do you deny this? It makes you appear irrational, and though you're definitely biased politically, you seem pretty rational. The court determined that the cops were negligent and that's fine (though we all know there wasn't a chance on God's blue earth they were going to face a fair trial). But that doesn't change the fact he put himself in that situation and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the BLM lie that the cops strangled him because they were racist, period.

[Sam]

He died because he committed an illegal act and then freaked out and resisted. Why do you deny this? It makes you appear irrational, and though you're definitely biased politically, you seem pretty rational. The court determined that the cops were negligent and that's fine (though we all know there wasn't a chance on God's blue earth they were going to face a fair trial). But that doesn't change the fact he put himself in that situation and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the BLM lie that the cops strangled him because they were racist, period.

A jury determined that Floyd was murdered (second degree homicide, not first degree as I believe someone had suggested). And while you're trying to make this into something of a "if he had only complied, he wouldn't have died" sort of thing, the principle cause of death was due to police actions that violated both the law and their training. Your argument — that Floyd is principally responsible for his death because "he put himself in that situation" — imagines up a paradigm where police can use excessive, even illegal, force to injure or kill people they detain and, just so long as there's a predicate for that encounter, face no criminal repercussion.

Now that'd be intolerable to any rational person. But the truth is that many police officers and departments do use excessive force and get away with it. And that use of excessive force is directed toward Black people in America much more often than it is toward white people. And that's the systemic racism of police brutality that was highlighted in the Floyd murder, not some conjured-up scene where Chauvin killed Floyd out of racial animus.

-Sam

[seanD]

A jury determined that Floyd was murdered (second degree homicide, not first degree as I believe someone had suggested). And while you're trying to make this into something of a "if he had only complied, he wouldn't have died" sort of thing, the principle cause of death was due to police actions that violated both the law and their training. Your argument — that Floyd is principally responsible for his death because "he put himself in that situation" — imagines up a paradigm where police can use excessive, even illegal, force to injure or kill people they detain and, just so long as there's a predicate for that encounter, face no criminal repercussion.

Now that'd be intolerable to any rational person. But the truth is that many police officers and departments do use excessive force and get away with it. And that use of excessive force is directed toward Black people in America much more often than it is toward white people. And that's the systemic racism of police brutality that was highlighted in the Floyd murder, not some conjured-up scene where Chauvin killed Floyd out of racial animus.

-Sam

Nice strawman. Nothing I said suggested cops "can use excessive, even illegal, force to injure or kill people they detain and, just so long as there's a predicate for that encounter, face no criminal repercussion." You can do better than that. They were apparently in a situation that required greater force than normal, but not THAT much force. Perhaps they should have tased him, though I doubt the results would have been much different, maybe even worse. And I didn't just only say had he not freaked out and resisted he wouldn't have died, I also said had he not committed an illegal act. That's just a fact, but by all means it's certainly your prerogative to deny facts. I would imagine the odds are extremely low in regards to suspect deaths via cop negligence when they don't commit criminal acts and don't freak out and resist, regardless of what race they are.

[Sam]

Nice strawman. Nothing I said suggested cops "can use excessive, even illegal, force to injure or kill people they detain and, just so long as there's a predicate for that encounter, face no criminal repercussion." You can do better than that. They were apparently in a situation that required greater force than normal, but not THAT much force. Perhaps they should have tased him, though I doubt the results would have been much different, maybe even worse. And I didn't just only say had he not freaked out and resisted he wouldn't have died, I also said had he not committed an illegal act. That's just a fact, but by all means it's certainly your prerogative to deny facts. I would imagine the odds are extremely low in regards to suspect deaths via cop negligence when they don't commit criminal acts and don't freak out and resist, regardless of what race they are.

You are falsely attributing Floyd's death to an overdose and refusing to acknowledge that the principle cause of death was the illegal actions taken by Chauvin and others, as stated on the official autopsy. That is suggesting that police are not legally responsible for harm or death resulting from such actions.

You simply have a confused understanding of causality, specifically the distinction between direct and indirect cause. If an improperly-tied scaffolding falls down around you as you walk under it and kills you, that's the direct cause of death; it doesn't much matter that one indirect cause of death was that you accidentally walked down the wrong side street on your way to work that day.

Police don't (well, shouldn't) get to use excessive force without consequence because someone commits an illegal act and I cannot believe that people would knowingly argue such in good faith. So, again, we land at confusion.

-Sam

[seanD]

You are falsely attributing Floyd's death to an overdose and refusing to acknowledge that the principle cause of death was the illegal actions taken by Chauvin and others, as stated on the official autopsy. That is suggesting that police are not legally responsible for harm or death resulting from such actions.

You simply have a confused understanding of causality, specifically the distinction between direct and indirect cause. If an improperly-tied scaffolding falls down around you as you walk under it and kills you, that's the direct cause of death; it doesn't much matter that one indirect cause of death was that you accidentally walked down the wrong side street on your way to work that day.

Police don't (well, shouldn't) get to use excessive force without consequence because someone commits an illegal act and I cannot believe that people would knowingly argue such in good faith. So, again, we land at confusion.

-Sam

I never said anything about Floyd's overdose in that post you quoted.

Your example sucks. A better example would be if I illegally jaywalked and was hit by a vehicle illegally speeding. Nothing takes away from either fact we were both committing negligent acts, but also doesn't change the fact that had I not illegally jaywalked, I probably wouldn't have gotten hit and that's irrelevant of my race. That's just a fact that you keep bizarrely trying to deny. That would be a far different scenario had the vehicle been speeding and intentionally trying to hit me because of my race, which is the lie BLM propagated and is what caused so much societal devastation and turmoil, and that's what I'm mostly concerned about as a Christian and an American for that matter.

[Sam]

I never said anything about Floyd's overdose in that post you quoted.

Your example sucks. A better example would be if I illegally jaywalked and was hit by a vehicle illegally speeding. Nothing takes away from either fact we were both committing negligent acts, but also doesn't change the fact that had I not illegally jaywalked, I probably wouldn't have gotten hit and that's irrelevant of my race. That's just a fact that you keep bizarrely trying to deny. That would be a far different scenario had the vehicle been speeding and intentionally trying to hit me because of my race, which is the lie BLM propagated and is what caused so much societal devastation and turmoil, and that lie is what I'm mostly concerned about as a Christian.

You have not retracted your claim that Floyd overdosed and you have not acknowledged Chauvin et al.'s actions as the principle cause of death. I don't have to limit myself to some Memento-like behavior of responding to only the most recent post.

In your hypothetical, I, as the excessively-speeding driver, could be criminally charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide (depending on jurisdiction) and would likely be convicted of such. You confuse direct and indirect cause even in your own scenario (assuming the counterfactual that, had I not been speeding, I could have avoided running over you).

You assert that a racial disparity of excessive police force is "the lie BLM propagated" when it is, in fact, an empirically-tested and confirmed allegation:

Source: What the data say about police brutality and racial bias — and which reforms might work. Lynne Peeples. Nature. 2020.06.19

And although researchers are encouraged by the momentum for change, some are also concerned that, without ample evidence to support new policies, leaders might miss the mark. Many have been arguing for years about the need for better data on the use of force by the police in the United States, and for rigorous studies that test interventions such as training on how to de-escalate tense interactions or mandating the use of body-worn cameras by officers. Those data and studies have begun to materialize, spurred by protests in 2014 after the deadly shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and the death by chokehold of Eric Garner in New York City.

Government officials, academic researchers and media outlets launched data-collection projects around that time to better understand the frequency of police violence and the risk factors that contribute to it. From these growing data sets come some disturbing findings. About 1,000 civilians are killed each year by law-enforcement officers in the United States. By one estimate, Black men are 2.5 times more likely than white men to be killed by police during their lifetime. And in another study, Black people who were fatally shot by police seemed to be twice as likely as white people to be unarmed.

“We have enough evidence that tells us that action needs to be taken,” says Justin Nix, a criminologist at the University of Nebraska Omaha. “One thousand deaths a year does not have to be normal.” Since Nature reported last September on what the data say about racial bias and police killings, new evidence has continued to support a link. Data from California show that police stopped and used force against Black people disproportionately, compared with other racial groups, in 2018 (see go.nature.com/2bgfrah). A December 2019 paper reported that bias in police administrative records results in many studies underestimating levels of racial bias in policing, or even masking discrimination entirely.

*Internal citations omitted

© Copyright Original Source

Well, that, or you're still clinging to the idea that protests surrounding Floyd's murder were generally alleging that Floyd was specifically targeted for murder by Chauvin et al. out of racial animus, which remains as inaccurate now as it was the first time it was addressed tonight.

-Sam

[oxmixmudd]

He's consistently used the "power+prejudice=racism" definition.

Consistently Used? Ive acknowledged that as a common definition which has merit, but I dont regularly trot it out, and I'm not using it here.

One that has been thoroughly researched and refuted by PSA Sitch on YouTube among many others.

Sure it has. That's why even though it's a common definition used in university classrooms, it's flawed. Because it has been thoroughly researched and refuted by some guy on the internet. Got it

[seanD]

You have not retracted your claim that Floyd overdosed and you have not acknowledged Chauvin et al.'s actions as the principle cause of death. I don't have to limit myself to some Memento-like behavior of responding to only the most recent post.

In your hypothetical, I, as the excessively-speeding driver, could be criminally charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide (depending on jurisdiction) and would likely be convicted of such. You confuse direct and indirect cause even in your own scenario (assuming the counterfactual that, had I not been speeding, I could have avoided running over you).

You assert that a racial disparity of excessive police force is "the lie BLM propagated" when it is, in fact, an empirically-tested and confirmed allegation:

Source: What the data say about police brutality and racial bias — and which reforms might work. Lynne Peeples. Nature. 2020.06.19

And although researchers are encouraged by the momentum for change, some are also concerned that, without ample evidence to support new policies, leaders might miss the mark. Many have been arguing for years about the need for better data on the use of force by the police in the United States, and for rigorous studies that test interventions such as training on how to de-escalate tense interactions or mandating the use of body-worn cameras by officers. Those data and studies have begun to materialize, spurred by protests in 2014 after the deadly shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and the death by chokehold of Eric Garner in New York City.

Government officials, academic researchers and media outlets launched data-collection projects around that time to better understand the frequency of police violence and the risk factors that contribute to it. From these growing data sets come some disturbing findings. About 1,000 civilians are killed each year by law-enforcement officers in the United States. By one estimate, Black men are 2.5 times more likely than white men to be killed by police during their lifetime. And in another study, Black people who were fatally shot by police seemed to be twice as likely as white people to be unarmed.

“We have enough evidence that tells us that action needs to be taken,” says Justin Nix, a criminologist at the University of Nebraska Omaha. “One thousand deaths a year does not have to be normal.” Since Nature reported last September on what the data say about racial bias and police killings, new evidence has continued to support a link. Data from California show that police stopped and used force against Black people disproportionately, compared with other racial groups, in 2018 (see go.nature.com/2bgfrah). A December 2019 paper reported that bias in police administrative records results in many studies underestimating levels of racial bias in policing, or even masking discrimination entirely.

*Internal citations omitted

© Copyright Original Source

Well, that, or you're still clinging to the idea that protests surrounding Floyd's murder were generally alleging that Floyd was specifically targeted for murder by Chauvin et al. out of racial animus, which remains as inaccurate now as it was the first time it was addressed tonight.

-Sam

The fact that if you don't commit a criminal act and don't act erratic and try to resist if you do, chances of death due to police negligence are probably near zero regardless of your race. That's a fact, and I find it hilarious you keep dancing around that fact.

Do you deny there are statistics that show black men disproportionately committing more violent crime than other races (I know you probably think stats are racist, but it is what it is)? If you don't deny this, would that not disproportionately affect police interaction with black men? That's what happens when you cherry-pick data. Would you suggest police treat violent black criminals with less excessive responses than violent criminals of other races to get the numbers even?

[Cow Poke]

The fact that if you don't commit a criminal act and don't act erratic and try to resist if you do, chances of death due to police negligence are probably near zero regardless of your race. That's a fact, and I find it hilarious you keep dancing around that fact.

Do you deny there are statistics that show black men disproportionately committing more violent crime than other races (I know you probably think stats are racist, but it is what it is)? If you don't deny this, would that not disproportionately affect police interaction with black men? That's what happens when you cherry-pick data. Would you suggest police treat violent black criminals with less excessive responses than violent criminals of other races to get the numbers even?

“Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We’ve got to face that. And we’ve got to do something about our moral standards” - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to a congregation in 1961.

[Diogenes]

“Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We’ve got to face that. And we’ve got to do something about our moral standards” - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to a congregation in 1961.

The Left's solution is de facto decriminalization, instantly less official crime.

[Cow Poke]

The Left's solution is de facto decriminalization, instantly less official crime.

No doubt I'm a racist and a gaslighter for quoting MLK.