No, those were contributing factors, not the cause of death.
And no, the medical reports do not back you up.
So in your opinion,” Nelson asked, “both the heart disease as well as the history of hypertension and the drugs that were in his system played a role in Mr. Floyd’s death?”
“In my opinion, yes,” Baker said.
But Baker reiterated he stood by the cause of death he wrote on Floyd’s death certificate and his finding Floyd’s death was a homicide, which to a medical examiner means his death was caused by another person and does not necessarily indicate guilt.
“Yes, I would still classify it as homicide today,” he said.
I mean yes, it's what the medical experts and reports told us happened (even the lead defense witness merely advanced alternative theories about how the restraint could have contributed to his death in ways which wouldn't make the officers culpable rather than pushing the 'overdose' angle, whilst also conceding that the officers' failure to attempt to resuscitate him after detecting no pulse was a contributory factor in the death).
But clearly nothing can compare with what your favourite partisan source tells you happened.
It's what the coroner told us happened, yes. It's also what the video evidence we saw with our own eyes said had happened. It seems very likely to be what really happened, unless you have evidence you're hiding from everyone else.
1. The murderer was tried and convicted. Society did not back him. The criminal justice system did not back him.
2. More unarmed white people are killed by police than unarmed black people. So are whites the oppressed group? (
3. Bringing up George Floyd as "proof" for wokist ideas is exactly evidence for a moral panic, because it appeals purely to emotion with complete disregard of and in contradiction to the actual facts. So thanks!
4. Trans people are more free than they have been in history, and there is no societal movement to "ban" them from "existing". That is just the hyperbolic language of catastrophization that is one of the common and extremely tiresome tactics. Society has some laws and customs that segregate the sexes, largely to protect women. In many of these areas, trans-women can be and are accommodated, but some are sensitive and rightly contested.
1 the conviction of chauvin was an outlier event that took exceptional circumstances to achieve. The point you prefer to avoid is how rare this is.
2 is in bad faith. Your country is majority white.
3 is begging the question. How's this: your social bubble thinks Chauvin should be exonerated, and your bubble is in a moral panic that the uppity n* are getting their way.
4 typical yankee parochialism. Trans people may or may not be more free than they have ever been, in your short view. In other cultures and at other times they have had more recognition. I do grant that they have more medical options now than ever before, but OTOH infowars - by which I mean, whatever "culture war" teat the alt-right trogs suckle on nowadays - is very much a phenomenon of today
4a "largely to protect women" oh oh oh it's for their own good! Silly me
4b "rightly" contested is begging the question again
If your primary response is ad-hominems, it's probably not the other person that's out of rational arguments. Needless to say, those ad-hominems are completely wrong where they make factual claims. Comically wrong, even. Of course being completely wrong when you are utterly convinced that you are right ... hmmm.. Dunning-Kruger?
Anyway: if the evidence you provide for <general state of affairs> is a single instance, that's already really really bad. It gets a lot worse when that single instance actually shows the opposite of your claim, and you then go on to claim that that instance is the exception that...proves the general rule?
Surely you should be able to easily come up with better evidence than a contradiction of your claims? At least if your case is so incredibly bullet-proof? Or is it so bullet-proof that it doesn't actually require evidence?
Why would that be? Maybe because its "proof" is emotional, not factual?
Anyway, we can agree that just looking at overall population statistic may be too simplistic, though it is hands-down no-contest than using a single example, never mind a single example that contradicts the claim.
A more nuanced approach is probably needed. So when you look at police killings relative to percentages of the population, you do get somewhat higher relative numbers for blacks than whites, though not nearly as dramatic as people think.
So triumph, right? Well, not quite.
Because just like absolute numbers are not quite the right measure, neither are raw numbers relative to population. For example, my chance of getting shot by an American cop is pretty much zero. But that's not because I am white, but because I don't actually live in the US. Race has nothing to do with it in this case. So if you want to determine if the police are disproportionately shooting a particular group, you need to take actual police encounters into account.
And once you adjust for that, the numbers come up a wash (something like 29% vs. 31%).
Of course, you can argue that police encounters are skewed because of racism, but it turns out that crime is also more prevalent in the black community, and pretty much in-line with the encounter numbers.
But let's assume for a second that it's true. Even then the charge that police somewhat over-police high-crime areas doesn't exactly have the same emotional impact as "racist police on a killing spree of unarmed blacks".
And of course, you can now go back and look at why the crime rate among blacks is significantly higher, and you might come up with relative poverty as a potential answer. And if you looked at that a bit more closely, you would see that adjusting for socio-economic status actually levels out not just the crime figures, but ALL of the other numbers so far.
So it isn't a race problem. It's a poverty problem. It turns out that poor white people can be killed by the police with just as much impunity as poor black people. And, and this is important, with far less press coverage. Even though (absolute numbers again) many more (poor) whites get killed by the police than (poor) blacks, those cases do not get reported.
And so you are looking at a simple case of availability bias as one of the cause for this particular moral panic.
> 4. Trans people are more free than they have been in history, and there is no societal movement to "ban" them from "existing". That is just the hyperbolic language of catastrophization that is one of the common and extremely tiresome tactics. Society has some laws and customs that segregate the sexes, largely to protect women. In many of these areas, trans-women can be and are accommodated, but some are sensitive and rightly contested.
They are so "oppressed" in fact that when one of them shoots up three kids plus three teachers plenty people and government institutions will be quick to point out that there are seven victims. What other mass shooter gets that that kind of sympathy.
