Not in my hood wrote:
Borya wrote:
Collecting data only on people who have died from fentanyl is a statistical error. You also need data on those who have survived after taking fentanyl.
Another issue would be the lack of information on whether deaths from fentanyl occurred to people who had developed a tolerance or not.
It would also be powerful to have a list of cases where neck restraints were used. Are there examples of neck restraints lasting 10+ minutes not resulting in death? Or are there only examples of it being used safely very briefly?
I thought I just need to show some doubt? If I see 5000 names scrolled in front of me for minutes and all have died with lower levels than GF, I would believe that he too could have died, especially if he had limits three to 10 times more than those names I just saw.
Do we know if GF was a long time fentanyl user? How long does one need to use to develop such a high tolerance? How does an unemployed guy pay for all those drugs?
My point is that if you look through deaths by fentanyl and find 5,000 deaths that data is meaningless if you haven't investigated the amounts of fentanyl that other people have taken and survived. The data you mentioned wouldn't show doubt. It would show misunderstanding.
Floyd had been employed, but whilst unemployed maybe he used counterfeit money (as accused), income from drug dealing and perhaps other crimes.
Consider the case of a man who runs 150 miles per week. He was badly injured after being hit by a car. He claims the car driver caused his injuries, but there are thousands of runners who sustain leg injuries when they increase their mileage to a fraction of 150mpw. So, maybe he already had a stress fracture when he was hit by the car. If not, he probably would have had one by the end of the week.
You could probably find 5,000 people who suffered stress fractures whilst running 50 miles per week or less. Would that convince you that there was a high probability that the 150mpw runner had a stress fracture?
What if there were examples of other runners who regularly complete 150+ mpw who don't sustain stress fractures?
"In 2009, George Floyd was arrested for a 1st-degree felony charge, as per police criminal records/history/past, of assault and armed robbery he took part in 2007 and spent five years in prison for breaking into a lady’s house with the intent to rob her. George agreed that he wore a blue uniform to look like a government employee to gain the lady’s trust, and eventually pave his way into the house.."
If this career criminal was WHITE no one would give a crap that he got high on Fentanyl, resisted arrest and was killed by police. I certainly wouldn't - which is why I don't care about George Floyd and support the COPS. They deal with this BS everyday out in the field.
But he is black so Minneapolis (A democrat controlled district) must be burned to the ground in protest. The Police Chief is a democrat. The Mayor is a democrat. The City Council are all democrats.
So if "systemic" racism does exist (Spoiler alert - it does not) then it exists exclusively in districts and areas that have 100% DEMOCRAT control.
Not in my hood wrote:
Or, Ashli Babbitt?
In her case they were rioting pre-emptively.
Also, there weren't four officers who were trying to reason with her. There were hundreds inside the building and many close behind her. If they hadn't used force to stop Babbitt, they may have lost control.
wazzu1452 wrote:
If this career criminal was WHITE no one would give a crap that he got high on Fentanyl, resisted arrest and was killed by police.
I absolutely would still care. At least you admitted he was killed by police, though.
pupil3142 wrote:
Borya wrote:
No. Their best offense is to question the claims made by the defense.
a bit iffy, since the prosecution lays its case then the defence replies.
of course the prosecution can respond, but the ball is in the prosecution's court to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
dont let armstronglivs know that a member of the general public can ave a general idea of trial basics.
The defense have already made claims that Floyd's death was caused by fentanyl (Chauvin's lawyers argued in August that charges should be dropped for this reason). So the prosecution can presumably make the case that this is untrue.
Do you think the defense have an entirely different argument up their sleeves?
I don't care that he was killed by the police.
"Hennepin County medical examiners released the toxicology report on June 2nd, 2020 which stated that George Floyd was indeed intoxicated with Fentanyl, Methamphetamine, and traces of cannabinoids and morphine at the time of his death."
He made his own bed.
wazzu1452 wrote:
So if "systemic" racism does exist (Spoiler alert - it does not) then it exists exclusively in districts and areas that have 100% DEMOCRAT control.
Well, I guess now that you've cleared that up, we can all go home...
Borya wrote:
Not in my hood wrote:
I thought I just need to show some doubt? If I see 5000 names scrolled in front of me for minutes and all have died with lower levels than GF, I would believe that he too could have died, especially if he had limits three to 10 times more than those names I just saw.
Do we know if GF was a long time fentanyl user? How long does one need to use to develop such a high tolerance? How does an unemployed guy pay for all those drugs?
My point is that if you look through deaths by fentanyl and find 5,000 deaths that data is meaningless if you haven't investigated the amounts of fentanyl that other people have taken and survived. The data you mentioned wouldn't show doubt. It would show misunderstanding.
Floyd had been employed, but whilst unemployed maybe he used counterfeit money (as accused), income from drug dealing and perhaps other crimes.
Consider the case of a man who runs 150 miles per week. He was badly injured after being hit by a car. He claims the car driver caused his injuries, but there are thousands of runners who sustain leg injuries when they increase their mileage to a fraction of 150mpw. So, maybe he already had a stress fracture when he was hit by the car. If not, he probably would have had one by the end of the week.
You could probably find 5,000 people who suffered stress fractures whilst running 50 miles per week or less. Would that convince you that there was a high probability that the 150mpw runner had a stress fracture?
What if there were examples of other runners who regularly complete 150+ mpw who don't sustain stress fractures?
Makes sense, but if you show me that 5,000 people had stress fractures from running 50 miles a week, I would certainly agree that running more would be a likely reason to increase the odds of developing a stress fracture. I would think it would be very difficult to find more than 5000 people running more than 150 miles a week that do not have stress fractures.
Aren't they trying to prove a likelihood? With so many people ODing from fentanyl and so few being killed by police restraining techniques this seems pretty simple to create some doubt.
really wrote:
wazzu1452 wrote:
So if "systemic" racism does exist (Spoiler alert - it does not) then it exists exclusively in districts and areas that have 100% DEMOCRAT control.
Well, I guess now that you've cleared that up, we can all go home...
He does bring up a good point and it would have been nice for some of that Blue States Bailouts to help with these issues instead of just paying off large donors and bailing out these blue states. Maybe with the billions going to schools they will make some positive changes in that area, but not likely.
fasciz wrote:
wazzu1452 wrote:
If this career criminal was WHITE no one would give a crap that he got high on Fentanyl, resisted arrest and was killed by police.
I absolutely would still care. At least you admitted he was killed by police, though.
Wazzu goes home devastated ?
I hope wazzu isn’t a defense lawyer ?
fasciz wrote:
Let it Rupp wrote:
How many riots were there for Justine Damond?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_DamondOdd that they actually held that officer accountable and you aren't complaining about how it wasn't malpractice.
Why are you making a bad faith comparison?
StevePrefonDead wrote:
fasciz wrote:
Odd that they actually held that officer accountable and you aren't complaining about how it wasn't malpractice.
Why are you making a bad faith comparison?
Seems to me it was the poster I was responding to making the bad faith comparison.
fasciz wrote:
Let it Rupp wrote:
How many riots were there for Justine Damond?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_DamondOdd that they actually held that officer accountable and you aren't complaining about how it wasn't malpractice.
That's because there is no controversy on what happened. She wasnt on drugs, she wasnt resisting arrest, theres no speculations on whether she may or may not have been a threat to the officer. Theres no questions on whether she died of an overdose, covid complications, heart attack, or the officers bullets.
I think both sides of this George floyd thing are completely ridiculous. Lets look at the facts. The man was resisting arrest. Whether or not he was guilty of the counterfeiting is completely irrelevant (other than he had probable cause to be detained). He was on a lethal amount of fentanyl and had covid. Nobody knows how much force the officer was applying to detain him. A man died while he was being detained, nobody knows beyond a reasonable doubt what caused that death, but he definitely did die under those circumstances. Chauvin was made aware that there was a problem and the man was unconscious. He never bothered to stop and asses his condition or and that, at minimum, could have had a shot at preventing his death. Floyd died while under chauvin's control and negligence definitely occured. Chauvin will get manslaughter 2 and it will be the correct call. Riots will occur because "it's not enough"
Not in my hood wrote:
Borya wrote:
My point is that if you look through deaths by fentanyl and find 5,000 deaths that data is meaningless if you haven't investigated the amounts of fentanyl that other people have taken and survived. The data you mentioned wouldn't show doubt. It would show misunderstanding.
Floyd had been employed, but whilst unemployed maybe he used counterfeit money (as accused), income from drug dealing and perhaps other crimes.
Consider the case of a man who runs 150 miles per week. He was badly injured after being hit by a car. He claims the car driver caused his injuries, but there are thousands of runners who sustain leg injuries when they increase their mileage to a fraction of 150mpw. So, maybe he already had a stress fracture when he was hit by the car. If not, he probably would have had one by the end of the week.
You could probably find 5,000 people who suffered stress fractures whilst running 50 miles per week or less. Would that convince you that there was a high probability that the 150mpw runner had a stress fracture?
What if there were examples of other runners who regularly complete 150+ mpw who don't sustain stress fractures?
Makes sense, but if you show me that 5,000 people had stress fractures from running 50 miles a week, I would certainly agree that running more would be a likely reason to increase the odds of developing a stress fracture. I would think it would be very difficult to find more than 5000 people running more than 150 miles a week that do not have stress fractures.
Aren't they trying to prove a likelihood? With so many people ODing from fentanyl and so few being killed by police restraining techniques this seems pretty simple to create some doubt.
But even to conclude "running more would be a likely reason to increase the odds of developing a stress fracture" might be wrong. Let's say all of the 5,000 50mpw runners were either novices, or overweight or very old and all of the 150mpw were professional marathoner. The two groups are made up of people who have completely different characteristics. Running more does not indicate that they are at greater risk, but that their bodies are able to cope with much higher mileage.
Yes, the example of 5,000 50mpw runners with stress fractures suggests if a random person ran 50mpw he would risk a stress fracture. But if we were considering a professional marathoner, I would argue the example of 50mpw runners was of little or no relevance.
Very few die due to neck restraints. Are the fatal occasionally, or something coincidental, or did they cause death because they were implemented differently?
Borya wrote:
Not in my hood wrote:
Or, Ashli Babbitt?
In her case they were rioting pre-emptively.
Also, there weren't four officers who were trying to reason with her. There were hundreds inside the building and many close behind her. If they hadn't used force to stop Babbitt, they may have lost control.
How many protesters in the summer were shot by the police? You really think what she was doing was worse than what occurred this summer? It's amazing that the police shoot an unarmed woman for trying to get through a window. Why not grab her and handcuff her? What threat did she really pose? Yet, no media attention and no riots result from that event?!?!?!
Not in my hood wrote:
Borya wrote:
In her case they were rioting pre-emptively.
Also, there weren't four officers who were trying to reason with her. There were hundreds inside the building and many close behind her. If they hadn't used force to stop Babbitt, they may have lost control.
How many protesters in the summer were shot by the police? You really think what she was doing was worse than what occurred this summer? It's amazing that the police shoot an unarmed woman for trying to get through a window. Why not grab her and handcuff her? What threat did she really pose? Yet, no media attention and no riots result from that event?!?!?!
I think maybe a few hundred protesters were shot by the police (quite a few lost an eye). Babbitt was part of a group trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power and murder and kidnap politicians. That is definitely worse than the protesters (is there anything wrong with protesting?). It is arguable whether it is worse than the rioters, arsonists and looters, but I'm not aware of the police responding to these people. I think they only shot protesters. There were numerous instances of people smashing shop fronts and stealing things with no police around. I think if they did attempt to deal with riots in the same way they dealt with the Capitol insurrection that would have been justifiable. Isn't that what happened during the LA race riots in 1992? If a big group invades somewhere, and there is no way to get them under control, some of them might be shot and killed, even if they don't appear very dangerous individually.
Why would there be a riot in response to Babbitt being killed whilst rioting? Was there a riot in response to the handling of the riots in 1992? Was there a riot in response to any other riot? It's hard to imagine the police stopping a riot without violence, in which case why wouldn't there be riots all the time?
If Babbitt was an isolated individual I think she would have been handcuffed. As she was part of a big group they weren't able to do that. If they let her through that window, others would have tried to follow and it may have resulted in many deaths and much greater instability.
Not in my hood wrote:
really wrote:
Well, I guess now that you've cleared that up, we can all go home...
He does bring up a good point and it would have been nice for some of that Blue States Bailouts to help with these issues instead of just paying off large donors and bailing out these blue states. Maybe with the billions going to schools they will make some positive changes in that area, but not likely.
What are you referring to exactly? What "blue state bailouts"? In case you aren't aware, the red states are typically the ones that are most dependent on federal funding.
really wrote:
Not in my hood wrote:
He does bring up a good point and it would have been nice for some of that Blue States Bailouts to help with these issues instead of just paying off large donors and bailing out these blue states. Maybe with the billions going to schools they will make some positive changes in that area, but not likely.
What are you referring to exactly? What "blue state bailouts"? In case you aren't aware, the red states are typically the ones that are most dependent on federal funding.
States that need government aid to cover underfunded pensions and cities that haven't been able to balance a budget in years...you know Democrat ran states and cities.
Borya wrote:
Not in my hood wrote:
How many protesters in the summer were shot by the police? You really think what she was doing was worse than what occurred this summer? It's amazing that the police shoot an unarmed woman for trying to get through a window. Why not grab her and handcuff her? What threat did she really pose? Yet, no media attention and no riots result from that event?!?!?!
I think maybe a few hundred protesters were shot by the police (quite a few lost an eye). Babbitt was part of a group trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power and murder and kidnap politicians. That is definitely worse than the protesters (is there anything wrong with protesting?). It is arguable whether it is worse than the rioters, arsonists and looters, but I'm not aware of the police responding to these people. I think they only shot protesters. There were numerous instances of people smashing shop fronts and stealing things with no police around. I think if they did attempt to deal with riots in the same way they dealt with the Capitol insurrection that would have been justifiable. Isn't that what happened during the LA race riots in 1992? If a big group invades somewhere, and there is no way to get them under control, some of them might be shot and killed, even if they don't appear very dangerous individually.
Why would there be a riot in response to Babbitt being killed whilst rioting? Was there a riot in response to the handling of the riots in 1992? Was there a riot in response to any other riot? It's hard to imagine the police stopping a riot without violence, in which case why wouldn't there be riots all the time?
If Babbitt was an isolated individual I think she would have been handcuffed. As she was part of a big group they weren't able to do that. If they let her through that window, others would have tried to follow and it may have resulted in many deaths and much greater instability.
I think Babbit was a grass roots protester, i dont agree it was an organised mob trying to genuinely stop transfer of power. she wanted to take part in stuff, like lots of people. I think they all got carried away in the moment and thought they were just being cool, like the climate change protesters who did something similar earlier. there were people there with different agendas, as ever.
But the security forces had decided on a red line of that barricade - fairly enough - they had to draw the line somewhere, and she went for it, and she paid the price.
i think if she was alive today, she wouldlook at her footage and say; 'doh'.