patrick.net

DeficitHawk says

Although I have ignored richwicks because I dont think he is able to acknowledge facts even if there is a link, still, here is the link:

https://apnews.com/article/death-of-george-floyd-racial-injustice-faddce75c2e073a88653dacb0ce3d860

ap isn't news, it's a propaganda outlet similar to goebbels or pravda

mell says

DeficitHawk says

Although I have ignored richwicks because I dont think he is able to acknowledge facts even if there is a link, still, here is the link:

https://apnews.com/article/death-of-george-floyd-racial-injustice-faddce75c2e073a88653dacb0ce3d860

ap isn't news, it's a propaganda outlet similar to goebbels or pravda

@DeficitHawk - I went to the court records. I know what kind of "news" agencies we have, and have had, for 2 decades, maybe my entire lifetime. Do your fucking research. I've seen the FIB lie multiple times. They tried to with-hold evidence in the Rittenhouse trial. Fuck them. Your civic duty is to be informed, not to repeat bullshit from our propaganda. Find out if it's true. MAYBE it is, but AP isn't even worth thinking about, neither is Fox News, NewsMax, CNN, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, Breitbart, NY Times, or any of that bullshit.

All corporate "news" in the US is bullshit at this point. We have links galore, where did AP get their "information"? Pulled out of an asshole most likely, but why don't they PROVE they are telling the truth? A link is simple to make.

cisTits says

AP also pitched the bullshit RUSSIA BOMBED POLAND propaganda atory.

mell says

ap isn't news, it's a propaganda outlet similar to goebbels or pravda

OK, it seems that we are still debating facts and information sources rather than policy. So I guess that's where we need to focus, and drill this down to basic truth until we can agree. It isn't going to be possible to debate on policy until we can agree on how to introduce and acknowledge facts. This one is so basic and verifiable... the words on a death certificate.

I have posted images of the death certificate and linked where I got them. I have also linked testimony of the ME confirming what was written on the death certificate. mell and cis response is that they dont trust AP, implying that AP has falsified the information.

mell and cis, please answer directly: Do you believe that the cause of death is as I typed below? OR do you believe that AP and other news agencies falsified these images, and coordinated to falsify their reporting on the ME's court testimony? If it is the latter, can you please say what YOU think the death certificate says, and how you reached that conclusion?

DeficitHawk says

Lets just type out the Medical examiners determinations in full glory so we dont argue which words are more important.
Cause of death; Immediate: Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression
Other contributing conditions: Arteriosclerotic and hyptertensive heart disease; fentanyl intoxication; recent methamphetamine use
Manner: Homicide

DeficitHawk says

cisTits says

AP also pitched the bullshit RUSSIA BOMBED POLAND propaganda atory.

mell says

ap isn't news, it's a propaganda outlet similar to goebbels or pravda

OK, it seems that we are still debating facts and information sources rather than policy. So I guess that's where we need to focus, and drill this down to basic truth until we can agree. It isn't going to be possible to debate on policy until we can agree on how to introduce and acknowledge facts. This one is so basic and verifiable... the words on a death certificate.

I have posted images of the death certificate and linked where I got them. I have also linked testimony of the ME confirming what was written on the death certificate. mell and cis response is that they dont trust AP, implying that AP has fals...

Your ap link states he didn't die of the neck restraint, so they lie blatantly in the headline. It vaguely says the neck restraint "complicated" things, but the cardiac arrest clearly wasn't primarily caused by it. Of course none of this standard procedure had anything to do with race. Ap = goebbels.

There is a difference between stupid and willfully ignorant. Not a big difference, but still.

mell says

Your ap link states he didn't die of the neck restraint, so they lie blatantly in the headline.

OK, you didnt answer my question about the death certificate. Please answer my question above about the death certificate.

BUT you did raise an interesting point about the text in the AP article, and I agree with you, they got that text wrong, by misinterpreting the word 'complicating' and interpreting it as 'complicated by'. Actually 'complicating' is the reverse of 'complicated by'... as in "X complicated by Y" is the same thing as "Y complicating X".

Nevertheless, that wasnt the question I asked about. I asked if you agreed with what i said the death certificate said.

DeficitHawk says

OK, you didnt answer my question about the death certificate. Please answer my question above about the death certificate.

They found the right doctor to write what they wanted on a piece of paper. That does not mean that Floyd didn't die from being a drug addled thug.

Kind of like when they had to get Epstein's lawyer to sign off on the search warrant at Mara Lago.

Paper just lies there and lets you put anything on it.

@DeficitHawk

Do you think it was right for the FBI to raid Mara Lago?

DeficitHawk says

mell says

Your ap link states he didn't die of the neck restraint, so they lie blatantly in the headline.

OK, you didnt answer my question about the death certificate. Please answer my question above about the death certificate.

BUT you did raise an interesting point about the text in the AP article, and I agree with you, they got that text wrong, by misinterpreting the word 'complicating' and interpreting it as 'complicated by'. Actually 'complicating' is the reverse of 'complicated by'... as in "X complicated by Y" is the same thing as "Y complicating X".

Nevertheless, that wasnt the question I asked about. I asked if you agreed with what i said the death certificate said.

Sure but homicide has to be at least reckless/involuntary manslaughter, i.e. the death, even if involuntary, was 100% caused by the persons action. In this case it's clear the neck restraint played a minor role if at all, so what the MD wrote is reckless, destroying a person's life for political pressure/reasons.

BTW, I also noticed that error in the AP article yesterday, and I went and looked up the meaning of the words so I could understand.

I found this reference for filling out death certificates and how to use the words "complicating" and "complicated by" etc.
https://www.health.state.mn.us/people/vitalrecords/physician-me/docs/capcodbook.pdf

See page 195.

The condition that sets off the chain of events 'x', can lead to complications 'y'... such as having a heart attack while swimming... "heart attack (x) complicated by drowning (y)"... means the same thing as "drowning (y) complicating heart attack (x)". The death certificate says cardiopulmonary arrest (y) complicating police restraint (x).

Police restraint is the condition that began the sequence leading to the complication of cardiopulmonary arrest. Not the other way around.

mell says

Sure but homicide has to be at least reckless/involuntary manslaughter, i.e. the death, even if involuntary, was 100% caused by the persons action. In this case it's clear the neck restraint played a minor role if at all, so what the MD wrote is reckless, destroying a person's life for political pressure/reasons.

OK so I take this statement to be an acknowledgement that the death certificate the AP posted was NOT falsified, and you agree that it says what the image shows?

Then why did you respond by critisizing the AP and not acknowledging the fact? As for your comments that you dont agree with what the ME wrote.. OK thats fine, thats valid debate, you can have that opinion. But please dont reject facts as propaganda when you actually acknowledge they are true.

DeficitHawk says

Police restraint is the condition that

happens when thugs resist arrest.

DeficitHawk says

please dont reject facts as propaganda when you actually acknowledge they are true.

Don't accept propaganda as fact just because you think it is true.

It's good that you are digging down into the "facts". Many who claim to be Democrats or progressives eventually leave this site because the cognitive dissonance is too great.

It's the little things you discover, like three towers fell on 9/11/2001, or "the vax is safe and effective and will stop you from getting and spreading covid", that make you question the narrative. Unfortunately the dive down the rabbit hole ends up on flat earth, by design. That does not make the FACTS like steel towers don't collapse from fire and the vax is unsafe and ineffective any less true.

But keep arguing and keep digging. You might learn something.

DeficitHawk says

OK so I take this statement to be an acknowledgement that the death certificate the AP posted was NOT falsified, and you agree that it says what the image shows?

Then why did you respond by critisizing the AP and not acknowledging the fact? As for your comments that you dont agree with what the ME wrote.. OK thats fine, thats valid debate, you can have that opinion. But please dont reject facts as propaganda when you actually acknowledge they are true.

yeah seems authentic. I didn't read the whole thread you had going on with someone else. Most of the that ap article is propaganda. But thats' besides the case. If a violent thug threatened you/your family by roaming around nearby infused with drugs and committing crimes you'd be all for standard police procedure to put him into custody. That's all Chauvin did. The neck restraint practice may or may not have needed reform, but that is not relevant to that specific case after the fact.

richwicks says

DeficitHawk says

The medical examiner was explicit on the death certificate and in testimony.

DeficitHawk

Can you show us the death certificate?

Here is George Floyd's autopsy results:

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/ExhibitMtD08282020.pdf

An important part of that is:




Now I read that as:

Autopsy pe...

I read the PDF report. It doesn't take too long. The fact that DH couldn't be bothered to do so, and was more concerned with digging up "counter-evidence," demonstrates to me that he is not acting in good faith. richwicks is justified in his frustration with DH. Richwicks did a great job of putting up a real document which spoke to the moment, before it became political theater. It's clear from the documents how the incident was slowly twisted into an unjustified murder charge.

Bravo @richwicks!

stereotomy says

The fact that DH couldn't be bothered to do so, and was more concerned with digging up "counter-evidence,"

Oh I read this document. But it does not contain the death certificate, official cause of death, or an opinion from the medical examiner on the cause of death. These are notes taken before the medical examiner had reached a conclusion, so he had not given an opinion yet.

The question I am trying to address is "What is the official cause of death?" in response to patricks question above. I am not trying to be pedantic, but I am trying to address a specific matter of fact so that we can agree on facts.

The only opinions on cause of death in that document are from 2nd opinion doctors (not the medical examiner), and both of them said it was neck compression, but they are not the medical examiner and they dont determine the official cause of death. So even though I read that document, I did not see how it addresses the question I am trying to answer.

I think you are conflating a hypothesis that you have with facts. I think you have a hypothesis that the medical examiner would have concluded that it was a drug overdose, but that someone intervened and pressured him to say it was neck compression. Its fine for you to have that hypothesis... and if you bring factual evidence for it, you may convince people. Maybe your hypothesis is that the 2nd opinion doctors swayed the opinion of the ME. Maybe its true. I dont know, I havent seen any facts or evidence to establish this, other than that the ME said under oath that no one pressured him. But maybe your hypothesis is that statement under oath was a lie due to still more pressure? I dont know. Your speculation is just that... speculation.

But your hypothesis is NOT a statement of fact. The fact remains, the official cause of death was "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual restraint and neck compression"

IF you havent noticed, I am pretty much a stickler for separating facts from speculation during debate. When I bring facts, and people deny facts, call the facts 'Goebbles propaganda', and substitute speculation, I am unimpressed.

Onvacation says

DeficitHawk says

OK, you didnt answer my question about the death certificate. Please answer my question above about the death certificate.

They found the right doctor to write what they wanted on a piece of paper. That does not mean that Floyd didn't die from being a drug addled thug.

Kind of like when they had to get Epstein's lawyer to sign off on the search warrant at Mara Lago.

Paper just lies there and lets you put anything on it.

DID they?

This was a NEWS report, where's the original document?

I cannot stress to people how often, and BLATANTLY our "mainstream media" lies. They could have entirely constructed it. I know this seems unimaginable but:

Where is the original document? Must be on a *.gov document, if it's real. Must be in the court case, if it's real..

We just went though 3 years of bullshit about covid deaths - what part of that was real? Our media ceaselessly promoted it. They are propagandists, not reporters.

mell says

If a violent thug threatened you/your family by roaming around nearby infused with drugs and committing crimes you'd be all for standard police procedure to put him into custody.

Oh you bet I would. I agree 100%. I want the police to do their work. i want the police to arrest criminals. Honestly, even besides violent crime I want police to deal with nonviolent and nuisance crime with more priority. I'm pro cop. I have met all the officers who patrol my neighborhood and gone out to thank them, and tell them about goings-on in my neighborhood. I'll be honest, if I thought my family was threatened, I wouldnt really be checking whether the procedure was standard or not, as long as it ended the threat to my family.

BUT:
mell says

That's all Chauvin did. The neck restraint practice may or may not have needed reform, but that is not relevant to that specific case after the fact.

This I dont agree. The police chief says what he did was NOT per training or policy.. he should have released the neck hold after the resistance stopped.

Here is what the Chief of Police said in testimony:
"There is an initial reasonableness in trying to get him under control in the first few seconds," Arradondo said, "but once there was no longer any resistance, and clearly when Mr. Floyd was no longer responsive and even motionless, to continue to apply that level of force to a person proned out, handcuffed behind their back – that in no way, shape or form is anything that is by policy, is not part of our training and is certainly not part of our ethics or our values."

(Here is my Goebbels propaganda link... https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-over-killing-of-george-floyd/2021/04/05/984412060/watch-live-derek-chauvin-trial-enters-second-week-of-testimony)

Onvacation says

@DeficitHawk

Do you think it was right for the FBI to raid Mara Lago?

Seems like a violation of the constitution and a dangerous precedent by a corrupt government. What do you think?

Onvacation says

dangerous precedent by a corrupt government

I think it was more something that just isn't done in the politer traditional relationship of political rivals. The fact that they did it also set precedent that Trump can do the same to Obama, Bush and Clinton if and when he is back in office with his hands on the reins. One might even speculate that Trump set them up to do it for just that reason.

DeficitHawk says

mell says

If a violent thug threatened you/your family by roaming around nearby infused with drugs and committing crimes you'd be all for standard police procedure to put him into custody.

Oh you bet I would. I agree 100%. I want the police to do their work. i want the police to arrest criminals. Honestly, even besides violent crime I want police to deal with nonviolent and nuisance crime with more priority. I'm pro cop. I have met all the officers who patrol my neighborhood and gone out to thank them, and tell them about goings-on in my neighborhood. I'll be honest, if I thought my family was threatened, I wouldnt really be checking whether the procedure was standard or not, as long as it ended the threat to my family.

BUT:
mell says

That's all Chauvin did. The neck restraint practice may or m...

There is plenty of footage suggesting Chauvin was on Floyd's back or shoulder rather than on his neck for most of the time, but that was conveniently ignored by the lamestream media aka goebbels propaganda. Arredondo obviously threw Chauvin under the bus to escape the woke mob and sentencing himself. Chauvin could have acted better and responded sooner to Floyd's drug induced struggle/passing out, but the sentence was purely politically motivated and a travesty, a shameful kangaroo court

Onvacation says

Onvacation says

DeficitHawk

Do you think it was right for the FBI to raid Mara Lago?

Seems like a violation of the constitution and a dangerous precedent by a corrupt government. What do you think?

To be honest, I havent dug into this one and I dont know what info/evidence the FBI had that lead to the decision to do the raid. So I havent formed an opinion.

I will say, there are always two things you want to be simultaneously true, but they are in tension with each other...
1) No one should be above the law, and even politicians and powerful people should be held accountable for crimes
2) We should not have a clown show system of government in which sitting political leaders leverage law enforcement to undermine political adversaries.

So, I would not want to see Biden driving intervention in the FBI to cause them to investigate Trump if the were not otherwise planning to. That I would disapprove of (for violating 2). At the same time, I wouldnt want to say they cant investigate because of 1.

Whether the judgement of the FBI on the data they had was good or not, honestly I dont have enough info to form an informed opinion.

DeficitHawk says

To be honest,

O K

DeficitHawk says

honestly I dont have enough info to form an informed opinion.

What is the worst thing you honestly think Trump has done?

Onvacation says

What is the worst thing you honestly think Trump has done?

By far, the worst thing he has done is to refuse to concede the 2020 election, and promote conspiracy theories of fraud.

DeficitHawk says

conspiracy theories

Like those who think Oswald didn't kill JFK or those who don't believe the official story of the WTC towers' destruction? Conspiracy theories?

What is the next worse thing Trump has done?

cisTits says

EVERY mail in ballot in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania was illegal.

Pennsylvania supreme court didnt seem to agree... To paraphrase this ruling, it said "You guys passed this act allowing mail in ballots and were super happy with it in the last election, but then turned around and challenged it when you found out you lost this election like a bunch of whining babies!"

https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20210603/222013-file-10781.pdf

i found some democrats, but 41% already suicided. mystery!!

cisTits says

That is a procedural ruling, not one on the merits of the case.

Of course I read it. Its more than procedural. Its not about filing deadlines or procedures...it is about the timing of the motion making it clear that the plaintiffs only brought the case because they were losing the election. They were fine with the law and the voting methods in the prior election, and they had passed the bill themselves with republican majorities! No one had any concerns about it until they used it as an excuse to challenge an election that had already happened, and they only did so because they were losing.

I do agree it doesn't address the constitutionally question. It says "you are so transparent in your whining babylike efforts to overturn this election... you dont get to challenge the constitutionality of a bill you had no problem when you win, but only challenge AFTER THE FACT when you loose..." Same as I paraphrased above.

Even a trump appointed conservatives majority US supreme court wouldnt touch this one!

Onvacation says

What is the next worse thing Trump has done?

There are lots of reasons I dont like Trump related to his leadership style and rhetoric.

My overriding distaste for him is the tendency to appoint/promote/support individuals due to their loyalty to him, rather than their competence, and then drop support for them and attack/undermine them if they stop being loyal to him. I think that's a slippery slope towards authoritarian leadership. His treatment of Pence is a good example of this. So on the whole thats one major beef I have, and it is probably the 2nd worst thing.

The Zelensky / Ukraine extortion to drive an investigation of his political rival was pretty bad and he got impeached for it, but I'd say its down the list of worst things in my opinion.

If Biden did stuff like that (like if he twisted arms for the FBI to investigate Trump when they independently didnt intend to), I'd vote for someone else, with the exception if he was running against Trump again, since Trump definitely did it.

Of course, I live in california, so my vote for president doesnt really matter.

DeficitHawk says

The Zelensky / Ukraine extortion to drive an investigation of his political rival was pretty bad and he got impeached for it, but I'd say its down the list of worst things in my opinion.

You're talking about the biden corruption here, nothing to do with Trump

DeficitHawk says

"you are so transparent in your whining babylike efforts to overturn this election... you dont get to challenge the constitutionality of a bill you had no problem when you win, but only challenge AFTER THE FACT when you loose..."

Actually I should correct my own paraphrase.. I dont think this ruling prevents the plaintiffs from challenging the constitutionally of the bill, but just prevents them from throwing out the ballets of the election already held as a remedy.

Maybe someone with more legal knowledge than me can clarify.

DeficitHawk says

Onvacation says

What is the next worse thing Trump has done?

There are lots of reasons I dont like Trump related to his leadership style and rhetoric.

My overriding distaste for him is the tendency to appoint/promote/support individuals due to their loyalty to him, rather than their competence, and then drop support for them and attack/undermine them if they stop being loyal to him. I think that's a slippery slope towards authoritarian leadership. His treatment of Pence is a good example of this. So on the whole thats one major beef I have, and it is probably the 2nd worst thing.

The Zelensky / Ukraine extortion to drive an investigation of his political rival was pretty bad and he got impeached for it, but I'd say its down the list of worst things in my opinion.

If Biden did stuff like that (like if he twisted arms for the FBI to investigate Trump whe...

This I find pretty funny in that nobody is above the law. My question is should Biden be investigated / prosecuted now? Certainly there is evidence that Trump was right about Ukraine and so much more. And then should Biden be doing the same to Trump now? He is.

mell says

You're talking about the biden corruption here, nothing to do with Trump

No, was Trump who interfered with the disbursement of funds with the intent of triggering an investigation of his political rival.

That would be like if Biden called the FBI and said "We're shutting down the FBI's funding unless you raid Mar a Lago"

I dont think Biden did this... but if he did, I'd think it was very wrong.

keeprubbersidedown says

Certainly there is evidence that Trump was right about Ukraine and so much more

Share it then. Facts and evidence of crimes, not speculation please.

keeprubbersidedown says

And then should Biden be doing the same to Trump now? He is.

It would concern me greatly if he was as I mentioned above, but I have seen no evidence for this.. Please share facts and evidence. Not speculation.

DeficitHawk says

My overriding distaste for him is the tendency to appoint/promote/support individuals due to their loyalty to him, rather than their competence,

Do you think a woman that slept her way to the top, that lied about being black, put Jamal Trulove into prison for a murder he didn't commit, put pot smokers into jail, and is a pot smoker herself was picked as VP due to competence, or loyalty?

She knows she'd never be in that position if she wasn't absolutely loyal. You know it too.

Onvacation says

It's good that you are digging down into the "facts". Many who claim to be Democrats or progressives eventually leave this site because the cognitive dissonance is too great.

I wanted to follow up on this comment. I've seen this sentiment expressed by a few people on this site, and I dont agree with it. Actually I have a much lower opinion of the level of intellectual honesty happening on this site than you do.

First... its not democrats you cant find... its anyone who grounds themselves on facts and tries to debate from them, rather than hinging debate on speculation and tribal beliefs. There are not many moderates from either party. This site is dominated by a particular cross section of of the right wing who conform to a specific tribal belief system, and bounce largely conforming opinions around in this echo chamber. All while claiming the high-ground of 'independent thought' and maintaining such an opinion of themselves... Talk about cognitive dissonance! Actually all you are doing is comparing facts, information, and analysis against the narrative construct of your tribe and attacking anything that doesnt match!

I know I was criticized for making monty python references above.... but, still, the mantra of this echo chamber is: "Yes, we are all individuals!" but actually the level of conformity in tribal beliefs here is ASTOUNDING!.

Tribalism is not a compliment. Left and Right both have this tendency.

For example, above, we debated on a 3 court cases that were highly controversial. There is absolutely a tribal belief system at work on both sides of this.

Lefty tribe members think:
1) Floyd (Jury was RIGHT)
2) Rittenhouse (Jury was WRONG)
3) Arbury (Jury was RIGHT)

Right winger tribe members think:
1) Floyd (Jury was WRONG)
2) Rittenhouse (Jury was RIGHT)
3) Arbury (Jury was WRONG)

There are 3 cases here, with 2 outcomes possible for each... thats 8 possible opinion sets. But the two tribes simplify into only 2 opinion sets.

Is there anyone here on this site (besides myself) that does not fall neatly within one tribe or the other with respect to these three cases?

DeficitHawk says

No, was Trump who interfered with the disbursement of funds with the intent of triggering an investigation of his political rival.

Trump was asking about Biden extorting Ukraine as Biden himself recounted here:

original link

Do you think Biden should be investigated for this obvious extortion?

DeficitHawk says

(besides myself)

And since we have you here, what is your opinion of Hunter Biden's laptop?

DeficitHawk says

mell says

You're talking about the biden corruption here, nothing to do with Trump

No, was Trump who interfered with the disbursement of funds with the intent of triggering an investigation of his political rival.

That would be like if Biden called the FBI and said "We're shutting down the FBI's funding unless you raid Mar a Lago"

I dont think Biden did this... but if he did, I'd think it was very wrong.

Your not serious right.... Have you heard of Hunter laptop? Burisma? Bobulinski?

Biden withheld funds to force the oust of a person who was looking into corruption.