|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 31 2020 23:53 travis wrote:
People need to realize that if they see something in the media, it's part of a political agenda.
For those of you who have researched this a lot from multiple news sources, let me ask you: Don't you have many unanswered questions about conflicting narratives and strange events?
Piles of bricks in the streets, possible evidence of agent provocateurs. Create a problem to justify the solution and split society, yes, one of the oldest political tricks in the world.
The most successful rebels in the US are probably the Amish. Because they don't polarize while not subscribing to a dictated way of life.
|
On May 31 2020 23:57 Furikawari wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2020 23:54 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:47 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:31 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:21 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:11 puppykiller wrote:
Black Lives Matter most (over property). How is that evidence I'm far right?
I see a lot of people talking about being critical who seem to really cherish an articulate discussion. I have mapped out my arguments one step at a time, responded to all your criticisms, and I think I've touched a nerve. If you want to talk quality arguments give a quality careful response. All I see is two people who are trying to defer. Ok I'll recap my stance (given the issues are quite the same in France, even though Francce is a less violent country and we have a decent social protection making our poorest less poor by comparison) : - There are lot of problems stemming from racism - Many actions were taken to peacefully solve the problem, mostly ignored - It has solved nothing - Victims eventually melt down after an emotional event Sure the state has to take actions against rioters but more importantly it has to take care of the issues which lead to those events. We're not saying they're acting well, nor that those riots will solve the problems. We're saying we've seen it coming and that it's time to address the real issues. Ok I will respond to this by saying that I agree with absolutely every single thing you wrote. Based on what you wrote I would wager we agree on a lot more. I don't think it addresses the core of what I've been saying though. My stance is, if destruction is the way to solve this, and black lives matter more than property, and those that lament the destruction of property "must not care enough about black lives". Why isn't anyone destroying their own property to aid the cause. Not their neighbors, their own. It were spontaneous gatherings, filled with anger. Then humans being humans. I doubt even a tenth of the protesters participated in the lootings. It should not be the focus of those events, nor shall it be entirely ignored. Sounds like we agree again. I might not have any issue with your perspective. The people I disagree with are the ones thinking that: 1: The looting/arson is the pathway of change we should be actively pursuing, 2: That this looting/arson is commendable so long as it is being done by or on the behalf of oppressed minorities 3: Those who oppose it don't value black lives enough From your first post thet I noticed 3 or 4 pages ago I was going to remind people about Bourdieu and social lift (ascenceur social in french) and how the luckiest one that can benefit of the broken lift are the harder to defend the system. You're such a perfect example of this.
Survivorship bias is such a common aspect of minority success stories that it’s kind of disgusting.
Pascal Siakam and the NBA tried to push the idea that anyone can be as successful as him through pure hard work. Yes he worked hard but it’s actually quite insulting to suggest hard work will bring someone from Africa out of poverty when Pascal Siakam hit the gene jackpot required to play in the NBA.
On June 01 2020 00:03 puppykiller wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2020 23:56 StalkerTL wrote:On May 31 2020 23:31 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:21 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:11 puppykiller wrote:
Black Lives Matter most (over property). How is that evidence I'm far right?
I see a lot of people talking about being critical who seem to really cherish an articulate discussion. I have mapped out my arguments one step at a time, responded to all your criticisms, and I think I've touched a nerve. If you want to talk quality arguments give a quality careful response. All I see is two people who are trying to defer. Ok I'll recap my stance (given the issues are quite the same in France, even though Francce is a less violent country and we have a decent social protection making our poorest less poor by comparison) : - There are lot of problems stemming from racism - Many actions were taken to peacefully solve the problem, mostly ignored - It has solved nothing - Victims eventually melt down after an emotional event Sure the state has to take actions against rioters but more importantly it has to take care of the issues which lead to those events. We're not saying they're acting well, nor that those riots will solve the problems. We're saying we've seen it coming and that it's time to address the real issues. Ok I will respond to this by saying that I agree with absolutely every single thing you wrote. Based on what you wrote I would wager we agree on a lot more. I don't think it addresses the core of what I've been saying though. My stance is, if destruction is the way to solve this, and black lives matter more than property, and those that lament the destruction of property "must not care enough about black lives". Why isn't anyone destroying their own property to aid the cause. Not their neighbors, their own. We’ve been through this already. Destruction of property during riots are always of their own urban environments. It is because the people participating in the riots feel no collective ownership of the environment they live in. You have to them ask yourself why people might feel this way and feel such a disconnect from their community, surrounding urban environment and public infrastructure. If you can answer you, you know damn well why they’re not setting fire to their own houses and property. A lot of people aren't setting fire to their literal own business, but instead their neighbors business. Maybe not next door, but another person within a few miles, who is perhaps oppressed by the system or perhaps not, and has just as much right to their property as anyone else. Thus people riot for change, but who they destroy for change, and how they choose them is very unjust. Maybe it doesn't feel unjust in the heat of a moment. But it is. I have to go to bed, I have been up all night.
Yes and you have to again ask yourself why people would be OK with setting fire to some other guy’s business in the same urban environment as them. A few miles away is still pretty much the same city if not the same electorate.
Because they don’t care. You have to ask yourself why they don’t care. The solution to riots was to deal with the causes long ago.
|
On June 01 2020 00:03 puppykiller wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2020 23:56 StalkerTL wrote:On May 31 2020 23:31 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:21 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:11 puppykiller wrote:
Black Lives Matter most (over property). How is that evidence I'm far right?
I see a lot of people talking about being critical who seem to really cherish an articulate discussion. I have mapped out my arguments one step at a time, responded to all your criticisms, and I think I've touched a nerve. If you want to talk quality arguments give a quality careful response. All I see is two people who are trying to defer. Ok I'll recap my stance (given the issues are quite the same in France, even though Francce is a less violent country and we have a decent social protection making our poorest less poor by comparison) : - There are lot of problems stemming from racism - Many actions were taken to peacefully solve the problem, mostly ignored - It has solved nothing - Victims eventually melt down after an emotional event Sure the state has to take actions against rioters but more importantly it has to take care of the issues which lead to those events. We're not saying they're acting well, nor that those riots will solve the problems. We're saying we've seen it coming and that it's time to address the real issues. Ok I will respond to this by saying that I agree with absolutely every single thing you wrote. Based on what you wrote I would wager we agree on a lot more. I don't think it addresses the core of what I've been saying though. My stance is, if destruction is the way to solve this, and black lives matter more than property, and those that lament the destruction of property "must not care enough about black lives". Why isn't anyone destroying their own property to aid the cause. Not their neighbors, their own. We’ve been through this already. Destruction of property during riots are always of their own urban environments. It is because the people participating in the riots feel no collective ownership of the environment they live in. You have to them ask yourself why people might feel this way and feel such a disconnect from their community, surrounding urban environment and public infrastructure. If you can answer you, you know damn well why they’re not setting fire to their own houses and property. A lot of people aren't setting fire to their literal own business, but instead their neighbors business. Maybe not next door, but another person within a few miles, who is perhaps oppressed by the system or perhaps not, and has just as much right to their property as anyone else. Thus people riot for change, but who they destroy for change, and how they choose them is very unjust. Maybe it doesn't feel unjust in the heat of a moment. But it is. I have to go to bed, I have been up all night.
Who the police destroy for the status quo, and how they go about doing so is very unjust. It feels unjust every second of every day, because it is.
|
On May 31 2020 23:57 Furikawari wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2020 23:54 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:47 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:31 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:21 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:11 puppykiller wrote:
Black Lives Matter most (over property). How is that evidence I'm far right?
I see a lot of people talking about being critical who seem to really cherish an articulate discussion. I have mapped out my arguments one step at a time, responded to all your criticisms, and I think I've touched a nerve. If you want to talk quality arguments give a quality careful response. All I see is two people who are trying to defer. Ok I'll recap my stance (given the issues are quite the same in France, even though Francce is a less violent country and we have a decent social protection making our poorest less poor by comparison) : - There are lot of problems stemming from racism - Many actions were taken to peacefully solve the problem, mostly ignored - It has solved nothing - Victims eventually melt down after an emotional event Sure the state has to take actions against rioters but more importantly it has to take care of the issues which lead to those events. We're not saying they're acting well, nor that those riots will solve the problems. We're saying we've seen it coming and that it's time to address the real issues. Ok I will respond to this by saying that I agree with absolutely every single thing you wrote. Based on what you wrote I would wager we agree on a lot more. I don't think it addresses the core of what I've been saying though. My stance is, if destruction is the way to solve this, and black lives matter more than property, and those that lament the destruction of property "must not care enough about black lives". Why isn't anyone destroying their own property to aid the cause. Not their neighbors, their own. It were spontaneous gatherings, filled with anger. Then humans being humans. I doubt even a tenth of the protesters participated in the lootings. It should not be the focus of those events, nor shall it be entirely ignored. Sounds like we agree again. I might not have any issue with your perspective. The people I disagree with are the ones thinking that: 1: The looting/arson is the pathway of change we should be actively pursuing, 2: That this looting/arson is commendable so long as it is being done by or on the behalf of oppressed minorities 3: Those who oppose it don't value black lives enough From your first post thet I noticed 3 or 4 pages ago I was going to remind people about Bourdieu and social lift (ascenceur social in french) and how the luckiest one that can benefit of the broken lift are the harder to defend the system. You're such a perfect example of this.
0 addressing of my argument. All reference to who you imagine me to be. (Basically what 80% of people responding to me do).
|
On May 31 2020 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I just learned about this... apparently, the medical examiner is trying to cover up George Floyd's murder by saying that Floyd actually died from his own health problems and drugs, and not from the police officers. Now the Floyd family needs to literally hire an independent medical examiner. Even people like Meghan McCain are outraged at this crap. Show nested quote +George Floyd Autopsy Draws Outrage For 'Victim Blaming' And Absolving Police Officer
The report's mention of "potential intoxicants" has many skeptical.
A "Statement of Probable Cause" of the death of George Floyd has been released by the City of Minneapolis, and it concludes that Floyd's death was due to underlying health conditions, not strangulation.
"The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation," the statement reads, according to CNN.
"Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death."
According to the statement, "Defendant [Officer Derek Chauvin] had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. 2 minutes and 53 seconds of that was after Mr. Floyd was non-responsive."
The statement also details Floyd's final moments. Read the full statement, below: [in twitter posts] https://www.bet.com/news/national/2020/05/29/george-floyd-autopsy-claims-no-findings-of--traumatic-asphyxia-o.html
As a medical professional and a scientist, this is the one thing that gets me.
What is wrong with this report?
This report doesn't seem to be biased and it doesn't seem to try to blame George Floyd for dying.
The reality is that the maneuver that the cop did on Floyd most likely wouldn't strangulate him. You have to push REALLY hard on the back of someone's neck to somehow strangle him from there. It makes sense that there are no physical findings consistent with strangulation. The cops also said something to the effect of "you are talking, so you can breathe". While that is incorrect, what the cops are hinting at is that Floyd's airway was open, and if he was being strangulated, it wouldn't have been, which would have meant that he couldn't talk.
What did seem to happen is exactly what the report said; "The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death."
This means that without the cop pinning him down like that, death wouldn't have occurred. This doesn't release the cop of culpability. If you want to talk about working within the system to gain justice, this is what the evidence shows and this is why he received a 3rd degree murder charge.
|
On June 01 2020 00:09 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 00:03 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:56 StalkerTL wrote:On May 31 2020 23:31 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:21 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:11 puppykiller wrote:
Black Lives Matter most (over property). How is that evidence I'm far right?
I see a lot of people talking about being critical who seem to really cherish an articulate discussion. I have mapped out my arguments one step at a time, responded to all your criticisms, and I think I've touched a nerve. If you want to talk quality arguments give a quality careful response. All I see is two people who are trying to defer. Ok I'll recap my stance (given the issues are quite the same in France, even though Francce is a less violent country and we have a decent social protection making our poorest less poor by comparison) : - There are lot of problems stemming from racism - Many actions were taken to peacefully solve the problem, mostly ignored - It has solved nothing - Victims eventually melt down after an emotional event Sure the state has to take actions against rioters but more importantly it has to take care of the issues which lead to those events. We're not saying they're acting well, nor that those riots will solve the problems. We're saying we've seen it coming and that it's time to address the real issues. Ok I will respond to this by saying that I agree with absolutely every single thing you wrote. Based on what you wrote I would wager we agree on a lot more. I don't think it addresses the core of what I've been saying though. My stance is, if destruction is the way to solve this, and black lives matter more than property, and those that lament the destruction of property "must not care enough about black lives". Why isn't anyone destroying their own property to aid the cause. Not their neighbors, their own. We’ve been through this already. Destruction of property during riots are always of their own urban environments. It is because the people participating in the riots feel no collective ownership of the environment they live in. You have to them ask yourself why people might feel this way and feel such a disconnect from their community, surrounding urban environment and public infrastructure. If you can answer you, you know damn well why they’re not setting fire to their own houses and property. A lot of people aren't setting fire to their literal own business, but instead their neighbors business. Maybe not next door, but another person within a few miles, who is perhaps oppressed by the system or perhaps not, and has just as much right to their property as anyone else. Thus people riot for change, but who they destroy for change, and how they choose them is very unjust. Maybe it doesn't feel unjust in the heat of a moment. But it is. I have to go to bed, I have been up all night. Who the police destroy for the status quo, and how they go about doing so is very unjust. It feels unjust every second of every day, because it is.
"It's ok to destroy people who are not the police because the police destroy us"
|
On June 01 2020 00:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2020 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I just learned about this... apparently, the medical examiner is trying to cover up George Floyd's murder by saying that Floyd actually died from his own health problems and drugs, and not from the police officers. Now the Floyd family needs to literally hire an independent medical examiner. Even people like Meghan McCain are outraged at this crap. George Floyd Autopsy Draws Outrage For 'Victim Blaming' And Absolving Police Officer
The report's mention of "potential intoxicants" has many skeptical.
A "Statement of Probable Cause" of the death of George Floyd has been released by the City of Minneapolis, and it concludes that Floyd's death was due to underlying health conditions, not strangulation.
"The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation," the statement reads, according to CNN.
"Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death."
According to the statement, "Defendant [Officer Derek Chauvin] had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. 2 minutes and 53 seconds of that was after Mr. Floyd was non-responsive."
The statement also details Floyd's final moments. Read the full statement, below: [in twitter posts] https://www.bet.com/news/national/2020/05/29/george-floyd-autopsy-claims-no-findings-of--traumatic-asphyxia-o.html As a medical professional and a scientist, this is the one thing that gets me. What is wrong with this report? This report doesn't seem to be biased and it doesn't seem to try to blame George Floyd for dying. The reality is that the maneuver that the cop did on Floyd most likely wouldn't strangulate him. You have to push REALLY hard on the back of someone's neck to somehow strangle him from there. It makes sense that there are no physical findings consistent with strangulation. The cops also said something to the effect of "you are talking, so you can breathe". While that is incorrect, what the cops are hinting at is that Floyd's airway was open, and if he was being strangulated, it wouldn't have been, which would have meant that he couldn't talk. What did seem to happen is exactly what the report said; "The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death." This means that without the cop pinning him down like that, death wouldn't have occurred. This doesn't release the cop of culpability. If you want to talk about working within the system to gain justice, this is what the evidence shows and this is why he received a 3rd degree murder charge.
I believe this is accurate, and I will see if I can corroborate that belief by asking my pa. He cuts up dead people in a big city and he'll prolly know 
|
On June 01 2020 00:05 StalkerTL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2020 23:57 Furikawari wrote:On May 31 2020 23:54 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:47 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:31 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:21 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:11 puppykiller wrote:
Black Lives Matter most (over property). How is that evidence I'm far right?
I see a lot of people talking about being critical who seem to really cherish an articulate discussion. I have mapped out my arguments one step at a time, responded to all your criticisms, and I think I've touched a nerve. If you want to talk quality arguments give a quality careful response. All I see is two people who are trying to defer. Ok I'll recap my stance (given the issues are quite the same in France, even though Francce is a less violent country and we have a decent social protection making our poorest less poor by comparison) : - There are lot of problems stemming from racism - Many actions were taken to peacefully solve the problem, mostly ignored - It has solved nothing - Victims eventually melt down after an emotional event Sure the state has to take actions against rioters but more importantly it has to take care of the issues which lead to those events. We're not saying they're acting well, nor that those riots will solve the problems. We're saying we've seen it coming and that it's time to address the real issues. Ok I will respond to this by saying that I agree with absolutely every single thing you wrote. Based on what you wrote I would wager we agree on a lot more. I don't think it addresses the core of what I've been saying though. My stance is, if destruction is the way to solve this, and black lives matter more than property, and those that lament the destruction of property "must not care enough about black lives". Why isn't anyone destroying their own property to aid the cause. Not their neighbors, their own. It were spontaneous gatherings, filled with anger. Then humans being humans. I doubt even a tenth of the protesters participated in the lootings. It should not be the focus of those events, nor shall it be entirely ignored. Sounds like we agree again. I might not have any issue with your perspective. The people I disagree with are the ones thinking that: 1: The looting/arson is the pathway of change we should be actively pursuing, 2: That this looting/arson is commendable so long as it is being done by or on the behalf of oppressed minorities 3: Those who oppose it don't value black lives enough From your first post thet I noticed 3 or 4 pages ago I was going to remind people about Bourdieu and social lift (ascenceur social in french) and how the luckiest one that can benefit of the broken lift are the harder to defend the system. You're such a perfect example of this. Survivorship bias is such a common aspect of minority success stories that it’s kind of disgusting. Pascal Siakam and the NBA tried to push the idea that anyone can be as successful as him through pure hard work. Yes he worked hard but it’s actually quite insulting to suggest hard work will bring someone from Africa out of poverty when Pascal Siakam hit the gene jackpot required to play in the NBA. Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 00:03 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:56 StalkerTL wrote:On May 31 2020 23:31 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:21 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:11 puppykiller wrote:
Black Lives Matter most (over property). How is that evidence I'm far right?
I see a lot of people talking about being critical who seem to really cherish an articulate discussion. I have mapped out my arguments one step at a time, responded to all your criticisms, and I think I've touched a nerve. If you want to talk quality arguments give a quality careful response. All I see is two people who are trying to defer. Ok I'll recap my stance (given the issues are quite the same in France, even though Francce is a less violent country and we have a decent social protection making our poorest less poor by comparison) : - There are lot of problems stemming from racism - Many actions were taken to peacefully solve the problem, mostly ignored - It has solved nothing - Victims eventually melt down after an emotional event Sure the state has to take actions against rioters but more importantly it has to take care of the issues which lead to those events. We're not saying they're acting well, nor that those riots will solve the problems. We're saying we've seen it coming and that it's time to address the real issues. Ok I will respond to this by saying that I agree with absolutely every single thing you wrote. Based on what you wrote I would wager we agree on a lot more. I don't think it addresses the core of what I've been saying though. My stance is, if destruction is the way to solve this, and black lives matter more than property, and those that lament the destruction of property "must not care enough about black lives". Why isn't anyone destroying their own property to aid the cause. Not their neighbors, their own. We’ve been through this already. Destruction of property during riots are always of their own urban environments. It is because the people participating in the riots feel no collective ownership of the environment they live in. You have to them ask yourself why people might feel this way and feel such a disconnect from their community, surrounding urban environment and public infrastructure. If you can answer you, you know damn well why they’re not setting fire to their own houses and property. A lot of people aren't setting fire to their literal own business, but instead their neighbors business. Maybe not next door, but another person within a few miles, who is perhaps oppressed by the system or perhaps not, and has just as much right to their property as anyone else. Thus people riot for change, but who they destroy for change, and how they choose them is very unjust. Maybe it doesn't feel unjust in the heat of a moment. But it is. I have to go to bed, I have been up all night. Yes and you have to again ask yourself why people would be OK with setting fire to some other guy’s business in the same urban environment as them. A few miles away is still pretty much the same city if not the same electorate. Because they don’t care. You have to ask yourself why they don’t care. The solution to riots was to deal with the causes long ago.
"The action is ok because the people doing it believe it is ok"
|
On June 01 2020 00:13 puppykiller wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 00:05 StalkerTL wrote:On May 31 2020 23:57 Furikawari wrote:On May 31 2020 23:54 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:47 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:31 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:21 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:11 puppykiller wrote:
Black Lives Matter most (over property). How is that evidence I'm far right?
I see a lot of people talking about being critical who seem to really cherish an articulate discussion. I have mapped out my arguments one step at a time, responded to all your criticisms, and I think I've touched a nerve. If you want to talk quality arguments give a quality careful response. All I see is two people who are trying to defer. Ok I'll recap my stance (given the issues are quite the same in France, even though Francce is a less violent country and we have a decent social protection making our poorest less poor by comparison) : - There are lot of problems stemming from racism - Many actions were taken to peacefully solve the problem, mostly ignored - It has solved nothing - Victims eventually melt down after an emotional event Sure the state has to take actions against rioters but more importantly it has to take care of the issues which lead to those events. We're not saying they're acting well, nor that those riots will solve the problems. We're saying we've seen it coming and that it's time to address the real issues. Ok I will respond to this by saying that I agree with absolutely every single thing you wrote. Based on what you wrote I would wager we agree on a lot more. I don't think it addresses the core of what I've been saying though. My stance is, if destruction is the way to solve this, and black lives matter more than property, and those that lament the destruction of property "must not care enough about black lives". Why isn't anyone destroying their own property to aid the cause. Not their neighbors, their own. It were spontaneous gatherings, filled with anger. Then humans being humans. I doubt even a tenth of the protesters participated in the lootings. It should not be the focus of those events, nor shall it be entirely ignored. Sounds like we agree again. I might not have any issue with your perspective. The people I disagree with are the ones thinking that: 1: The looting/arson is the pathway of change we should be actively pursuing, 2: That this looting/arson is commendable so long as it is being done by or on the behalf of oppressed minorities 3: Those who oppose it don't value black lives enough From your first post thet I noticed 3 or 4 pages ago I was going to remind people about Bourdieu and social lift (ascenceur social in french) and how the luckiest one that can benefit of the broken lift are the harder to defend the system. You're such a perfect example of this. Survivorship bias is such a common aspect of minority success stories that it’s kind of disgusting. Pascal Siakam and the NBA tried to push the idea that anyone can be as successful as him through pure hard work. Yes he worked hard but it’s actually quite insulting to suggest hard work will bring someone from Africa out of poverty when Pascal Siakam hit the gene jackpot required to play in the NBA. On June 01 2020 00:03 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:56 StalkerTL wrote:On May 31 2020 23:31 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:21 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:11 puppykiller wrote:
Black Lives Matter most (over property). How is that evidence I'm far right?
I see a lot of people talking about being critical who seem to really cherish an articulate discussion. I have mapped out my arguments one step at a time, responded to all your criticisms, and I think I've touched a nerve. If you want to talk quality arguments give a quality careful response. All I see is two people who are trying to defer. Ok I'll recap my stance (given the issues are quite the same in France, even though Francce is a less violent country and we have a decent social protection making our poorest less poor by comparison) : - There are lot of problems stemming from racism - Many actions were taken to peacefully solve the problem, mostly ignored - It has solved nothing - Victims eventually melt down after an emotional event Sure the state has to take actions against rioters but more importantly it has to take care of the issues which lead to those events. We're not saying they're acting well, nor that those riots will solve the problems. We're saying we've seen it coming and that it's time to address the real issues. Ok I will respond to this by saying that I agree with absolutely every single thing you wrote. Based on what you wrote I would wager we agree on a lot more. I don't think it addresses the core of what I've been saying though. My stance is, if destruction is the way to solve this, and black lives matter more than property, and those that lament the destruction of property "must not care enough about black lives". Why isn't anyone destroying their own property to aid the cause. Not their neighbors, their own. We’ve been through this already. Destruction of property during riots are always of their own urban environments. It is because the people participating in the riots feel no collective ownership of the environment they live in. You have to them ask yourself why people might feel this way and feel such a disconnect from their community, surrounding urban environment and public infrastructure. If you can answer you, you know damn well why they’re not setting fire to their own houses and property. A lot of people aren't setting fire to their literal own business, but instead their neighbors business. Maybe not next door, but another person within a few miles, who is perhaps oppressed by the system or perhaps not, and has just as much right to their property as anyone else. Thus people riot for change, but who they destroy for change, and how they choose them is very unjust. Maybe it doesn't feel unjust in the heat of a moment. But it is. I have to go to bed, I have been up all night. Yes and you have to again ask yourself why people would be OK with setting fire to some other guy’s business in the same urban environment as them. A few miles away is still pretty much the same city if not the same electorate. Because they don’t care. You have to ask yourself why they don’t care. The solution to riots was to deal with the causes long ago. "The action is ok because the people doing it believe it is ok"
How about you ask why people might feel OK about these actions rather than being obsessed with property and SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.
It is actually very important to ask yourself why people feel OK about burning down some guy’s property.
|
On June 01 2020 00:12 puppykiller wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 00:09 Gahlo wrote:On June 01 2020 00:03 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:56 StalkerTL wrote:On May 31 2020 23:31 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:21 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:11 puppykiller wrote:
Black Lives Matter most (over property). How is that evidence I'm far right?
I see a lot of people talking about being critical who seem to really cherish an articulate discussion. I have mapped out my arguments one step at a time, responded to all your criticisms, and I think I've touched a nerve. If you want to talk quality arguments give a quality careful response. All I see is two people who are trying to defer. Ok I'll recap my stance (given the issues are quite the same in France, even though Francce is a less violent country and we have a decent social protection making our poorest less poor by comparison) : - There are lot of problems stemming from racism - Many actions were taken to peacefully solve the problem, mostly ignored - It has solved nothing - Victims eventually melt down after an emotional event Sure the state has to take actions against rioters but more importantly it has to take care of the issues which lead to those events. We're not saying they're acting well, nor that those riots will solve the problems. We're saying we've seen it coming and that it's time to address the real issues. Ok I will respond to this by saying that I agree with absolutely every single thing you wrote. Based on what you wrote I would wager we agree on a lot more. I don't think it addresses the core of what I've been saying though. My stance is, if destruction is the way to solve this, and black lives matter more than property, and those that lament the destruction of property "must not care enough about black lives". Why isn't anyone destroying their own property to aid the cause. Not their neighbors, their own. We’ve been through this already. Destruction of property during riots are always of their own urban environments. It is because the people participating in the riots feel no collective ownership of the environment they live in. You have to them ask yourself why people might feel this way and feel such a disconnect from their community, surrounding urban environment and public infrastructure. If you can answer you, you know damn well why they’re not setting fire to their own houses and property. A lot of people aren't setting fire to their literal own business, but instead their neighbors business. Maybe not next door, but another person within a few miles, who is perhaps oppressed by the system or perhaps not, and has just as much right to their property as anyone else. Thus people riot for change, but who they destroy for change, and how they choose them is very unjust. Maybe it doesn't feel unjust in the heat of a moment. But it is. I have to go to bed, I have been up all night. Who the police destroy for the status quo, and how they go about doing so is very unjust. It feels unjust every second of every day, because it is. "It's ok to destroy people who are not the police because the police destroy us"
I can do stupid strawmen too. "People should get tear gassed and beaten for protesting for their right to stay alive."
Rioters and people that support/approve of their actions value the lives more than the property. If you don't, you value the property more than the lives. The riot is the final bargaining chip of desperate people.
|
On June 01 2020 00:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2020 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I just learned about this... apparently, the medical examiner is trying to cover up George Floyd's murder by saying that Floyd actually died from his own health problems and drugs, and not from the police officers. Now the Floyd family needs to literally hire an independent medical examiner. Even people like Meghan McCain are outraged at this crap. George Floyd Autopsy Draws Outrage For 'Victim Blaming' And Absolving Police Officer
The report's mention of "potential intoxicants" has many skeptical.
A "Statement of Probable Cause" of the death of George Floyd has been released by the City of Minneapolis, and it concludes that Floyd's death was due to underlying health conditions, not strangulation.
"The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation," the statement reads, according to CNN.
"Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death."
According to the statement, "Defendant [Officer Derek Chauvin] had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. 2 minutes and 53 seconds of that was after Mr. Floyd was non-responsive."
The statement also details Floyd's final moments. Read the full statement, below: [in twitter posts] https://www.bet.com/news/national/2020/05/29/george-floyd-autopsy-claims-no-findings-of--traumatic-asphyxia-o.html As a medical professional and a scientist, this is the one thing that gets me. What is wrong with this report? This report doesn't seem to be biased and it doesn't seem to try to blame George Floyd for dying. The reality is that the maneuver that the cop did on Floyd most likely wouldn't strangulate him. You have to push REALLY hard on the back of someone's neck to somehow strangle him from there. It makes sense that there are no physical findings consistent with strangulation. The cops also said something to the effect of "you are talking, so you can breathe". While that is incorrect, what the cops are hinting at is that Floyd's airway was open, and if he was being strangulated, it wouldn't have been, which would have meant that he couldn't talk. What did seem to happen is exactly what the report said; "The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death." This means that without the cop pinning him down like that, death wouldn't have occurred. This doesn't release the cop of culpability. If you want to talk about working within the system to gain justice, this is what the evidence shows and this is why he received a 3rd degree murder charge.
As a medical professional you should also know that the airway isn't as essential as the blood supply through carotids and vertebral arteries.
People who get hanged lose consciousness in less than half a minute because the blood supply is interrupted. You don't lose consciousness for holding your breath for a minute.
|
On June 01 2020 00:12 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 00:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 31 2020 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I just learned about this... apparently, the medical examiner is trying to cover up George Floyd's murder by saying that Floyd actually died from his own health problems and drugs, and not from the police officers. Now the Floyd family needs to literally hire an independent medical examiner. Even people like Meghan McCain are outraged at this crap. George Floyd Autopsy Draws Outrage For 'Victim Blaming' And Absolving Police Officer
The report's mention of "potential intoxicants" has many skeptical.
A "Statement of Probable Cause" of the death of George Floyd has been released by the City of Minneapolis, and it concludes that Floyd's death was due to underlying health conditions, not strangulation.
"The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation," the statement reads, according to CNN.
"Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death."
According to the statement, "Defendant [Officer Derek Chauvin] had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. 2 minutes and 53 seconds of that was after Mr. Floyd was non-responsive."
The statement also details Floyd's final moments. Read the full statement, below: [in twitter posts] https://www.bet.com/news/national/2020/05/29/george-floyd-autopsy-claims-no-findings-of--traumatic-asphyxia-o.html As a medical professional and a scientist, this is the one thing that gets me. What is wrong with this report? This report doesn't seem to be biased and it doesn't seem to try to blame George Floyd for dying. The reality is that the maneuver that the cop did on Floyd most likely wouldn't strangulate him. You have to push REALLY hard on the back of someone's neck to somehow strangle him from there. It makes sense that there are no physical findings consistent with strangulation. The cops also said something to the effect of "you are talking, so you can breathe". While that is incorrect, what the cops are hinting at is that Floyd's airway was open, and if he was being strangulated, it wouldn't have been, which would have meant that he couldn't talk. What did seem to happen is exactly what the report said; "The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death." This means that without the cop pinning him down like that, death wouldn't have occurred. This doesn't release the cop of culpability. If you want to talk about working within the system to gain justice, this is what the evidence shows and this is why he received a 3rd degree murder charge. I believe this is accurate, and I will see if I can corroborate that belief by asking my pa. He cuts up dead people in a big city and he'll prolly know
I've seen this way too much on my social media. As much as I've been supporting the protests, if you want to talk about obtaining justice within the current system, there simply isn't proper evidence to win a conviction of 1st or 2nd degree murder against Chauvin, and there isn't sufficient evidence to charge the other three officers with any murder charge.
You can have a conversation about what the law should be, but that opens up a whole different can of worms. There is a good reason that there are different degrees of murder and manslaughter. Justice shouldn't be conflated with revenge.
As a medical professional you should also know that the airway isn't as essential as the blood supply through carotids and vertebral arteries.
People who get hanged lose consciousness in less than half a minute because the blood supply is interrupted. You don't lose consciousness for holding your breath for a minute.
This is completely irrelevant to the report and his means of death.
His primary cause of death clearly isn't blood loss to the brain. First off, a knee to the back of the neck won't cut off blood circulation; your carotid arteries are towards the anterior portion of the neck. Second, Floyd was conscious for a long time while restrained (something like 6 minutes?), meaning that cutting off blood supply was almost definitely not the key factor.
What is far, far more likely, given both video and physical evidence, is that being restrained caused positional asphyxiation, which is plausibly exacerbated by underlying chronic health conditions (e.g. heart disease, obesity, etc. do make it worse) or certain drugs in someone's system. This is why Chauvin is still culpable; it was his restraining that ultimately caused the asphyxiation, since without it, Floyd could have just corrected his own position so that he could breathe properly.
|
On June 01 2020 00:19 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 00:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 31 2020 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I just learned about this... apparently, the medical examiner is trying to cover up George Floyd's murder by saying that Floyd actually died from his own health problems and drugs, and not from the police officers. Now the Floyd family needs to literally hire an independent medical examiner. Even people like Meghan McCain are outraged at this crap. George Floyd Autopsy Draws Outrage For 'Victim Blaming' And Absolving Police Officer
The report's mention of "potential intoxicants" has many skeptical.
A "Statement of Probable Cause" of the death of George Floyd has been released by the City of Minneapolis, and it concludes that Floyd's death was due to underlying health conditions, not strangulation.
"The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation," the statement reads, according to CNN.
"Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death."
According to the statement, "Defendant [Officer Derek Chauvin] had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. 2 minutes and 53 seconds of that was after Mr. Floyd was non-responsive."
The statement also details Floyd's final moments. Read the full statement, below: [in twitter posts] https://www.bet.com/news/national/2020/05/29/george-floyd-autopsy-claims-no-findings-of--traumatic-asphyxia-o.html As a medical professional and a scientist, this is the one thing that gets me. What is wrong with this report? This report doesn't seem to be biased and it doesn't seem to try to blame George Floyd for dying. The reality is that the maneuver that the cop did on Floyd most likely wouldn't strangulate him. You have to push REALLY hard on the back of someone's neck to somehow strangle him from there. It makes sense that there are no physical findings consistent with strangulation. The cops also said something to the effect of "you are talking, so you can breathe". While that is incorrect, what the cops are hinting at is that Floyd's airway was open, and if he was being strangulated, it wouldn't have been, which would have meant that he couldn't talk. What did seem to happen is exactly what the report said; "The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death." This means that without the cop pinning him down like that, death wouldn't have occurred. This doesn't release the cop of culpability. If you want to talk about working within the system to gain justice, this is what the evidence shows and this is why he received a 3rd degree murder charge. As a medical professional you should also know that the airway isn't as essential as the blood supply through carotids and vertebral arteries. People who get hanged lose consciousness in less than half a minute because the blood supply is interrupted. You don't lose consciousness for holding your breath for a minute.
Right? I had thought people had already pointed out it was a blood choke not an airway choke? This report will be used to call the people that remain in the streets unreasonable though I'm sure.
It has been described as excruciating since he applied enough pressure to restrict flow but not enough to lose consciousness until the last few minutes After he had lost consciousness and had no pulse he then remained on his neck for several more minutes.
Floyd went face down on the ground with Chauvin's knee in his neck at 8:19:38 p.m., according to the complaint. At 8:24:24, Floyd stopped moving. Approximately a minute later, video "appears to show Mr. Floyd ceasing to breathe or speak."
Keung checked for a pulse on Floyd's right wrist, said he couldn't find one, the complaint states, and still none of the officers moved from their positions.
At 8:27:31 p.m., Chauvin removed his knee from Floyd's neck
That's depraved indifference at minimum if not intentionally killing him imo (but what you can get a jury to convict a cop for is whole other story).
|
A big part of the problem is that death certificates and investigative findings do not look like or say what many people expect them to, and the language of death causation is a huge battleground in complex murder cases as a result. What's there is enough for a finding criminal liability for murder, but that won't fix the problem that the vast majority of juries in the US are unprepared to hold a cop guilty for what they have done.
|
On June 01 2020 00:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 00:12 farvacola wrote:On June 01 2020 00:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 31 2020 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I just learned about this... apparently, the medical examiner is trying to cover up George Floyd's murder by saying that Floyd actually died from his own health problems and drugs, and not from the police officers. Now the Floyd family needs to literally hire an independent medical examiner. Even people like Meghan McCain are outraged at this crap. George Floyd Autopsy Draws Outrage For 'Victim Blaming' And Absolving Police Officer
The report's mention of "potential intoxicants" has many skeptical.
A "Statement of Probable Cause" of the death of George Floyd has been released by the City of Minneapolis, and it concludes that Floyd's death was due to underlying health conditions, not strangulation.
"The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation," the statement reads, according to CNN.
"Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death."
According to the statement, "Defendant [Officer Derek Chauvin] had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. 2 minutes and 53 seconds of that was after Mr. Floyd was non-responsive."
The statement also details Floyd's final moments. Read the full statement, below: [in twitter posts] https://www.bet.com/news/national/2020/05/29/george-floyd-autopsy-claims-no-findings-of--traumatic-asphyxia-o.html As a medical professional and a scientist, this is the one thing that gets me. What is wrong with this report? This report doesn't seem to be biased and it doesn't seem to try to blame George Floyd for dying. The reality is that the maneuver that the cop did on Floyd most likely wouldn't strangulate him. You have to push REALLY hard on the back of someone's neck to somehow strangle him from there. It makes sense that there are no physical findings consistent with strangulation. The cops also said something to the effect of "you are talking, so you can breathe". While that is incorrect, what the cops are hinting at is that Floyd's airway was open, and if he was being strangulated, it wouldn't have been, which would have meant that he couldn't talk. What did seem to happen is exactly what the report said; "The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death." This means that without the cop pinning him down like that, death wouldn't have occurred. This doesn't release the cop of culpability. If you want to talk about working within the system to gain justice, this is what the evidence shows and this is why he received a 3rd degree murder charge. I believe this is accurate, and I will see if I can corroborate that belief by asking my pa. He cuts up dead people in a big city and he'll prolly know I've seen this way too much on my social media. As much as I've been supporting the protests, if you want to talk about obtaining justice within the current system, there simply isn't proper evidence to win a conviction of 1st or 2nd degree murder against Chauvin, and there isn't sufficient evidence to charge the other three officers with any murder charge. You can have a conversation about what the law should be, but that opens up a whole different can of worms. There is a good reason that there are different degrees of murder and manslaughter. Justice shouldn't be conflated with revenge. 3e degree is the right call if you want to actually get a conviction. Without something like a text message from the cop say "I am going to kill a black guy today" your never going to prove he maliciously aimed to kill.
|
On June 01 2020 00:15 StalkerTL wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 00:13 puppykiller wrote:On June 01 2020 00:05 StalkerTL wrote:On May 31 2020 23:57 Furikawari wrote:On May 31 2020 23:54 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:47 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:31 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:21 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:11 puppykiller wrote:
Black Lives Matter most (over property). How is that evidence I'm far right?
I see a lot of people talking about being critical who seem to really cherish an articulate discussion. I have mapped out my arguments one step at a time, responded to all your criticisms, and I think I've touched a nerve. If you want to talk quality arguments give a quality careful response. All I see is two people who are trying to defer. Ok I'll recap my stance (given the issues are quite the same in France, even though Francce is a less violent country and we have a decent social protection making our poorest less poor by comparison) : - There are lot of problems stemming from racism - Many actions were taken to peacefully solve the problem, mostly ignored - It has solved nothing - Victims eventually melt down after an emotional event Sure the state has to take actions against rioters but more importantly it has to take care of the issues which lead to those events. We're not saying they're acting well, nor that those riots will solve the problems. We're saying we've seen it coming and that it's time to address the real issues. Ok I will respond to this by saying that I agree with absolutely every single thing you wrote. Based on what you wrote I would wager we agree on a lot more. I don't think it addresses the core of what I've been saying though. My stance is, if destruction is the way to solve this, and black lives matter more than property, and those that lament the destruction of property "must not care enough about black lives". Why isn't anyone destroying their own property to aid the cause. Not their neighbors, their own. It were spontaneous gatherings, filled with anger. Then humans being humans. I doubt even a tenth of the protesters participated in the lootings. It should not be the focus of those events, nor shall it be entirely ignored. Sounds like we agree again. I might not have any issue with your perspective. The people I disagree with are the ones thinking that: 1: The looting/arson is the pathway of change we should be actively pursuing, 2: That this looting/arson is commendable so long as it is being done by or on the behalf of oppressed minorities 3: Those who oppose it don't value black lives enough From your first post thet I noticed 3 or 4 pages ago I was going to remind people about Bourdieu and social lift (ascenceur social in french) and how the luckiest one that can benefit of the broken lift are the harder to defend the system. You're such a perfect example of this. Survivorship bias is such a common aspect of minority success stories that it’s kind of disgusting. Pascal Siakam and the NBA tried to push the idea that anyone can be as successful as him through pure hard work. Yes he worked hard but it’s actually quite insulting to suggest hard work will bring someone from Africa out of poverty when Pascal Siakam hit the gene jackpot required to play in the NBA. On June 01 2020 00:03 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:56 StalkerTL wrote:On May 31 2020 23:31 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:21 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:11 puppykiller wrote:
Black Lives Matter most (over property). How is that evidence I'm far right?
I see a lot of people talking about being critical who seem to really cherish an articulate discussion. I have mapped out my arguments one step at a time, responded to all your criticisms, and I think I've touched a nerve. If you want to talk quality arguments give a quality careful response. All I see is two people who are trying to defer. Ok I'll recap my stance (given the issues are quite the same in France, even though Francce is a less violent country and we have a decent social protection making our poorest less poor by comparison) : - There are lot of problems stemming from racism - Many actions were taken to peacefully solve the problem, mostly ignored - It has solved nothing - Victims eventually melt down after an emotional event Sure the state has to take actions against rioters but more importantly it has to take care of the issues which lead to those events. We're not saying they're acting well, nor that those riots will solve the problems. We're saying we've seen it coming and that it's time to address the real issues. Ok I will respond to this by saying that I agree with absolutely every single thing you wrote. Based on what you wrote I would wager we agree on a lot more. I don't think it addresses the core of what I've been saying though. My stance is, if destruction is the way to solve this, and black lives matter more than property, and those that lament the destruction of property "must not care enough about black lives". Why isn't anyone destroying their own property to aid the cause. Not their neighbors, their own. We’ve been through this already. Destruction of property during riots are always of their own urban environments. It is because the people participating in the riots feel no collective ownership of the environment they live in. You have to them ask yourself why people might feel this way and feel such a disconnect from their community, surrounding urban environment and public infrastructure. If you can answer you, you know damn well why they’re not setting fire to their own houses and property. A lot of people aren't setting fire to their literal own business, but instead their neighbors business. Maybe not next door, but another person within a few miles, who is perhaps oppressed by the system or perhaps not, and has just as much right to their property as anyone else. Thus people riot for change, but who they destroy for change, and how they choose them is very unjust. Maybe it doesn't feel unjust in the heat of a moment. But it is. I have to go to bed, I have been up all night. Yes and you have to again ask yourself why people would be OK with setting fire to some other guy’s business in the same urban environment as them. A few miles away is still pretty much the same city if not the same electorate. Because they don’t care. You have to ask yourself why they don’t care. The solution to riots was to deal with the causes long ago. "The action is ok because the people doing it believe it is ok" How about you ask why people might feel OK about these actions rather than being obsessed with property and SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. It is actually very important to ask yourself why people feel OK about burning down some guy’s property.
Very fair point. I don't know if you think your the one I should be asking so if not please notify me. This is what I think your argument is. Please tell me if this is a reasonable representation.
You believe people who are burning feel no collective ownership?
|
On June 01 2020 00:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 00:19 Vivax wrote:On June 01 2020 00:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 31 2020 23:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I just learned about this... apparently, the medical examiner is trying to cover up George Floyd's murder by saying that Floyd actually died from his own health problems and drugs, and not from the police officers. Now the Floyd family needs to literally hire an independent medical examiner. Even people like Meghan McCain are outraged at this crap. George Floyd Autopsy Draws Outrage For 'Victim Blaming' And Absolving Police Officer
The report's mention of "potential intoxicants" has many skeptical.
A "Statement of Probable Cause" of the death of George Floyd has been released by the City of Minneapolis, and it concludes that Floyd's death was due to underlying health conditions, not strangulation.
"The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation," the statement reads, according to CNN.
"Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death."
According to the statement, "Defendant [Officer Derek Chauvin] had his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. 2 minutes and 53 seconds of that was after Mr. Floyd was non-responsive."
The statement also details Floyd's final moments. Read the full statement, below: [in twitter posts] https://www.bet.com/news/national/2020/05/29/george-floyd-autopsy-claims-no-findings-of--traumatic-asphyxia-o.html As a medical professional and a scientist, this is the one thing that gets me. What is wrong with this report? This report doesn't seem to be biased and it doesn't seem to try to blame George Floyd for dying. The reality is that the maneuver that the cop did on Floyd most likely wouldn't strangulate him. You have to push REALLY hard on the back of someone's neck to somehow strangle him from there. It makes sense that there are no physical findings consistent with strangulation. The cops also said something to the effect of "you are talking, so you can breathe". While that is incorrect, what the cops are hinting at is that Floyd's airway was open, and if he was being strangulated, it wouldn't have been, which would have meant that he couldn't talk. What did seem to happen is exactly what the report said; "The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death." This means that without the cop pinning him down like that, death wouldn't have occurred. This doesn't release the cop of culpability. If you want to talk about working within the system to gain justice, this is what the evidence shows and this is why he received a 3rd degree murder charge. As a medical professional you should also know that the airway isn't as essential as the blood supply through carotids and vertebral arteries. People who get hanged lose consciousness in less than half a minute because the blood supply is interrupted. You don't lose consciousness for holding your breath for a minute. Right? I had thought people had already pointed out it was a blood choke not an airway choke? This report will be used to call the people that remain in the streets unreasonable though I'm sure.
See my edit above. I'm very skeptical that this maneuver could cause a "blood choke" (i.e. cut off blood supply as the primary cause of death). It's much more likely that positional asphyxiation was the cause of death.
Also bear in mind that everyone involved should receive some kind of criminal charge akin to criminal negligence for a professional. All first responders are required to be trained in at least CPR, and if you don't feel a pulse and don't start doing chest compressions (explicitly said in the video evidence by one of the cops), you are criminally negligent. Not doing compressions for over 2 minutes is incredibly damning, and the other cops should easily receive charges as well.
That's depraved indifference at minimum if not intentionally killing him imo (but what you can get a jury to convict a cop for is whole other story).
This is why a 3rd degree murder charge fits. It's a charge worse than manslaughter but doesn't rise to the level of "I planned this ahead of time".
|
On June 01 2020 00:18 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 00:12 puppykiller wrote:On June 01 2020 00:09 Gahlo wrote:On June 01 2020 00:03 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:56 StalkerTL wrote:On May 31 2020 23:31 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:21 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:11 puppykiller wrote:
Black Lives Matter most (over property). How is that evidence I'm far right?
I see a lot of people talking about being critical who seem to really cherish an articulate discussion. I have mapped out my arguments one step at a time, responded to all your criticisms, and I think I've touched a nerve. If you want to talk quality arguments give a quality careful response. All I see is two people who are trying to defer. Ok I'll recap my stance (given the issues are quite the same in France, even though Francce is a less violent country and we have a decent social protection making our poorest less poor by comparison) : - There are lot of problems stemming from racism - Many actions were taken to peacefully solve the problem, mostly ignored - It has solved nothing - Victims eventually melt down after an emotional event Sure the state has to take actions against rioters but more importantly it has to take care of the issues which lead to those events. We're not saying they're acting well, nor that those riots will solve the problems. We're saying we've seen it coming and that it's time to address the real issues. Ok I will respond to this by saying that I agree with absolutely every single thing you wrote. Based on what you wrote I would wager we agree on a lot more. I don't think it addresses the core of what I've been saying though. My stance is, if destruction is the way to solve this, and black lives matter more than property, and those that lament the destruction of property "must not care enough about black lives". Why isn't anyone destroying their own property to aid the cause. Not their neighbors, their own. We’ve been through this already. Destruction of property during riots are always of their own urban environments. It is because the people participating in the riots feel no collective ownership of the environment they live in. You have to them ask yourself why people might feel this way and feel such a disconnect from their community, surrounding urban environment and public infrastructure. If you can answer you, you know damn well why they’re not setting fire to their own houses and property. A lot of people aren't setting fire to their literal own business, but instead their neighbors business. Maybe not next door, but another person within a few miles, who is perhaps oppressed by the system or perhaps not, and has just as much right to their property as anyone else. Thus people riot for change, but who they destroy for change, and how they choose them is very unjust. Maybe it doesn't feel unjust in the heat of a moment. But it is. I have to go to bed, I have been up all night. Who the police destroy for the status quo, and how they go about doing so is very unjust. It feels unjust every second of every day, because it is. "It's ok to destroy people who are not the police because the police destroy us" I can do stupid strawmen too. "People should get tear gassed and beaten for protesting for their right to stay alive." Rioters and people that support/approve of their actions value the lives more than the property. If you don't, you value the property more than the lives. The riot is the final bargaining chip of desperate people.
I think what I said summarizes what you said. What do you think? I would argue what you said doesn't summarize what I said. I never said anything to the effect of: the cops are in the right for beating up people who are demonstrating on behalf of this cause.
Your second statement just brings me back to my whole: donate your property to prove you value lives over property, otherwise their are pretty obviously some other factors at play going on beneath the surface. If you are interested in understanding this argument, please refer to the last few pages.
|
On June 01 2020 00:35 puppykiller wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 00:18 Gahlo wrote:On June 01 2020 00:12 puppykiller wrote:On June 01 2020 00:09 Gahlo wrote:On June 01 2020 00:03 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:56 StalkerTL wrote:On May 31 2020 23:31 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 23:21 nojok wrote:On May 31 2020 23:11 puppykiller wrote:
Black Lives Matter most (over property). How is that evidence I'm far right?
I see a lot of people talking about being critical who seem to really cherish an articulate discussion. I have mapped out my arguments one step at a time, responded to all your criticisms, and I think I've touched a nerve. If you want to talk quality arguments give a quality careful response. All I see is two people who are trying to defer. Ok I'll recap my stance (given the issues are quite the same in France, even though Francce is a less violent country and we have a decent social protection making our poorest less poor by comparison) : - There are lot of problems stemming from racism - Many actions were taken to peacefully solve the problem, mostly ignored - It has solved nothing - Victims eventually melt down after an emotional event Sure the state has to take actions against rioters but more importantly it has to take care of the issues which lead to those events. We're not saying they're acting well, nor that those riots will solve the problems. We're saying we've seen it coming and that it's time to address the real issues. Ok I will respond to this by saying that I agree with absolutely every single thing you wrote. Based on what you wrote I would wager we agree on a lot more. I don't think it addresses the core of what I've been saying though. My stance is, if destruction is the way to solve this, and black lives matter more than property, and those that lament the destruction of property "must not care enough about black lives". Why isn't anyone destroying their own property to aid the cause. Not their neighbors, their own. We’ve been through this already. Destruction of property during riots are always of their own urban environments. It is because the people participating in the riots feel no collective ownership of the environment they live in. You have to them ask yourself why people might feel this way and feel such a disconnect from their community, surrounding urban environment and public infrastructure. If you can answer you, you know damn well why they’re not setting fire to their own houses and property. A lot of people aren't setting fire to their literal own business, but instead their neighbors business. Maybe not next door, but another person within a few miles, who is perhaps oppressed by the system or perhaps not, and has just as much right to their property as anyone else. Thus people riot for change, but who they destroy for change, and how they choose them is very unjust. Maybe it doesn't feel unjust in the heat of a moment. But it is. I have to go to bed, I have been up all night. Who the police destroy for the status quo, and how they go about doing so is very unjust. It feels unjust every second of every day, because it is. "It's ok to destroy people who are not the police because the police destroy us" I can do stupid strawmen too. "People should get tear gassed and beaten for protesting for their right to stay alive." Rioters and people that support/approve of their actions value the lives more than the property. If you don't, you value the property more than the lives. The riot is the final bargaining chip of desperate people. I think what I said summarizes what you said. What do you think? I would argue what you said doesn't summarize what I said. I never said anything to the effect of: the cops are in the right for beating up people who are demonstrating on behalf of this cause. Your second statement just brings me back to my whole: donate your property to prove you value lives over property, otherwise their are pretty obviously some other factors at play related to destroying property for the cause going on beneath the surface. If you are interested in understanding this argument, please refer to the last few pages.
Oops, x2 post. I really need to sleep.
|
On June 01 2020 00:22 farvacola wrote:
A big part of the problem is that death certificates and investigative findings do not look like or say what many people expect them to, and the language of death causation is a huge battleground in complex murder cases as a result. What's there is enough for a finding criminal liability for murder, but that won't fix the problem that the vast majority of juries in the US are unprepared to hold a cop guilty for what they have done.
Ultimately people are using the language of "murder" and "choked/strangled to death" in a purely emotional fashion. There are particular legal and scientific definitions for what happened and we're gonna end up with more cops walking free if we don't use the right terms, proper evidence, and go for the right charges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
