MisterSwig

Not really, very few people die in wars now compared to prior generations. We've looked at this fact as a good thing generally, but it has negative consequences.

In the past, those who couldn't hack it mentally could run off to war and die a noble death for their nation. Now we don't have great wars anymore because nukes. So our societies are overrun with mental cases imposing their psychotic ideas and behaviors on the culture.

Friday was day five of the trial. The prosecution called two police officers to testify. The first was Sgt. Jon Edwards, who took over the scene from Sgt. Pleoger. Edwards testified about securing the scene and making sure officers conducted initial inquiries and various duties related to processing a potential "critical incident" involving a death in police custody. The second officer to take the stand, Lt. Richard Zimmerman, was the senior homicide detective. He arrived on scene after Edwards and turned over the investigation to the Bureau of Criminal Affairs. Mr. Frank used Zimmerman to re-raise the issue of police policy on the use of force. Based on seeing the available video, Zimmerman stated that the use of force in this case was "totally unnecessary" and "uncalled for." He had never been trained to kneel on the neck of a handcuffed person. He said that once the person is handcuffed their threat level is gone. Not even Mr. Frank was happy with that answer, and he corrected the policeman by pointing out that even a handcuffed person can kick the officers. On cross Mr. Nelson noted that Zimmerman hasn't been on street patrol since 1993 and doesn't train officers in use of force, current tools or tactics. Zimmerman agreed that generally officers are responsible for scene safety and are permitted to use whatever force is reasonable to protect themselves. Nelson asked about the concept "holding for EMS." Zimmerman indeed had heard it before. He didn't agree completely with Nelson's definition of the term, but when asked to provide his own he simply repeated that it meant "hold for EMS," as if his emphasis conveyed something special. That concluded testimony for the first week.

To begin the fourth day Mr. Frank brought Floyd's girlfriend, Courteney Ross, to the witness stand. She told the story of how they met in 2017 at the Salvation Army where Floyd worked at the time. Frank used Ross to portray Floyd as a father and a "mama's boy." After Floyd's mother died in 2018, Ross said he became "a shell of himself," a "broken" man. Floyd and Ross were both opioid addicts, using their own prescriptions and other people's prescriptions to acquire Oxycodone for pain. They also purchased pills off the "streets and the black market." Despite the drug use, she said Floyd was athletic, lifting weights and playing sports a lot. She didn't hear him complain about difficulty breathing. On cross-examination Mr. Nelson asked Ross about Morries Hall, the man in red sweatpants who was sitting next to Floyd in the car. Nelson referred to a prior FBI interview in which Ross admitted that they bought pills from Hall. Ross, however, attempted to backtrack from these earlier statements, claiming she didn't recall saying them. Apparently she also had said that Floyd got heroin from Shawanda Hill, the woman in the backseat of Floyd's car that day, but in court Ross said she was only "speculating" for the FBI. Nelson asked Ross about the time Floyd overdosed on opioids in March 2020, a couple months before he died. Floyd had complained to her that his stomach hurt and then she drove him to the hospital. Also in March 2020 they bought some different pills which were a "really strong stimulant." They made her "jittery" and she "couldn't sleep all night." She told the FBI that sometimes Floyd was "up and bouncing around," other times he was "unintelligible." Nelson asked if she recalled telling the FBI that, a week before Floyd's death, she had taken some of the new pills and it "felt like she was going to die." Ross replied that now she "doesn't remember feeling that way." Nelson then mentioned that sometimes couples have pet names for each other. This made Ross smile brightly, perhaps recalling fond memories. Then he asked what was Floyd's pet name for her. Under what nickname did Floyd list her in his phone contacts? Ross' smile quickly vanished from her face. She now glared at the defense attorney and answered, "Mama." On redirect Mr. Frank felt the need to establish that Floyd also referred to his mother as "mama," but anyone with a brain scored that round for the defense. Next the prosecution called the two paramedics, Seth Bravinder and Derek Smith, who responded to the incident. They arrived on scene about six or seven minutes after being dispatched. Smith was the lead who checked Floyd's pulse and pupils. He could not detect a pulse and Floyd's pupils were large. Smith testified that he thought Floyd was dead, and that Floyd's condition never improved while they worked on him in the ambulance. They did a "load and go," driving around the block to work on Floyd, because the spot in front of Cup Foods "didn't feel like a welcoming environment," according to Smith. On cross, Nelson reiterated the point that sometimes overdose patients wake up violent, which is why police are called to assist EMS with such patients. Bravinder testified that he had personally seen overdose patients turn violent after being revived. Also when he arrived on scene he recalled seeing Floyd "primarily on his left side." Nelson also pointed out that Smith was able to check for a carotid pulse even with Chauvin still in position over Floyd, suggesting that the knee was not blood choking Floyd. During redirect of Bravinder the prosecution tried to establish that an opioid overdose would result in small pupils, but on recross Nelson asked if someone under the influence of meth could have large pupils, and Bravinder agreed. The fire captain, Jeremy Norton, also testified, but I didn't find much relevance to it, except to establish that the firefighters were dispatched a few minutes after EMS and they arrived on scene after the ambulance had already moved around the block. The final witness of the day, David Pleoger, was the police sergeant supervising the officers. He received the phone call from concerned dispatcher Jena Scurry and then called Chauvin about the use of force incident. Mr. Schleicher of the prosecution team asked Pleoger about a couple police policies. Relating to "medical assistance" the policy is "as soon as reasonably practical, determine if anyone was injured and render medical aid consistent with training." Regarding "maximal restraint technique," the policy is "if a hobble restraint device is used the person shall be placed in the side recovery position." Pleoger stated that the side recovery position helps the person breathe easier. He said that the dangers of "positional asphyxia" have been known for a long time. Pleoger concluded that after Floyd stopped moving the restraint could have ended. On cross Nelson emphasized the first part of the policy, "as soon as reasonably practical," and brought up the police's "critical decision making model," of which factors include size and state of the crowd, tactical or disadvantaged position, traffic conditions, etc. He suggested that rendering aid in a busy street might not be the best decision, and Pleoger said "right." It depends on the circumstances. Nelson also asked about the term "hold for EMS," but Pleoger said he wasn't familiar with it.

Day three began with Mr. Frank calling Christopher Martin to the stand. Martin was the young Cup Foods employee who sold cigarettes to George Floyd. He noticed Floyd was a big man and asked if he played baseball. During the course of their brief conversation, Martin observed Floyd struggling to form words. He testified that Floyd "appeared high," though he could still understand what Floyd was saying. The prosecution played a security video from inside the store. It showed Floyd entering the store and interacting with people. At one point Floyd clearly shuffles or dances back and forth in a playful or excited manner. There was no audio on the video. A little later Floyd and Martin go to the tobacco counter. Martin said he sold Floyd a pack of cigarettes. The video shows Martin holding Floyd's bill up to the light. Martin said the $20 bill had an odd, blue pigment and he "assumed it was fake," but he completed the transaction anyway. He then told the manager. The manager sent Martin and other employees out to the street to ask Floyd to return to the store. Martin had watched Floyd walk to his car across the street. In the car with Floyd was a woman in the backseat and in the front passenger seat was a man in red sweatpants who had tried to use a similar fake bill earlier in the day, but Martin refused to accept that one. Martin said that Floyd, while not responding except to throw up his hands and say "why is this happening to me," ultimately refused to come back to the store, and that's when the police were called. A little later Martin noticed the commotion outside the store and went to see what was happening. He witnessed officer Thao push a co-worker off the street and back onto the sidewalk. He then tried to calm down his co-worker. In the end Martin said he felt "guilty" about what happened because it all could have been avoided if he hadn't accepted the fake $20 bill. Mr. Nelson cross-examined Martin particularly about the fake bill. He asked what Martin was looking for when he held the bill up to the light. Martin replied, "That's a good question. I have no idea." Nelson suggested he might have been looking for a security strip, but Martin maintained his ignorance. The store policy was that an employee who accepted a fake bill had to pay for it themselves, and Martin had already refused a similar fake $20 earlier in the day, so Nelson asked why Martin decided to take the one from Floyd. Martin said he wanted to "do him a favor" because it didn't seem like Floyd knew it was fake, whereas the man in red sweatpants had appeared to be "scheming" earlier in the day. Despite this, Martin did tell his manager about the bill and where to find Floyd across the street. Next up was Christopher Belfrey, who parked behind Floyd's car and took some video of the initial encounter with police, where they struggled to get Floyd out of his car and handcuffed. Then Ms. Eldridge brought Charles McMillian to the stand. McMillian is the older gentleman who witnessed the incident starting with the officers walking Floyd across the street to squad 320 in front of Cup Foods. He is heard on video talking to Floyd, telling him to "comply" because he "can't win." After the prosecution showed bodycam footage of officers struggling to get Floyd into the squad car, and Floyd crying for his momma, McMillian broke down and wept. Eldridge asked, "Explain what you're feeling." He said, "Helpless. I don't have a momma either. I understand him." After a break court resumed. McMillian testified that he heard Floyd say "I can't breathe," "they're killing me," and "momma." McMillian said he tried to help Floyd by telling him to "get up and get in the car." Floyd said he couldn't. McMillian also told Floyd that "if he keep talking he can breathe," and repeated "get up and get in the car, you can't win." McMillian said he also told Chauvin, "Your knee on his neck, that's wrong, man." McMillian came across as an observant, clear-headed witness. The defense decided not to cross-examine him. The final witness of the day was Lt. James Rugel, who manages the police's technology unit. He was used simply to introduce several videos into evidence. The prosecution published "milestone" video from a street cameras as well as videos from the officers' body worn cameras. Chauvin's camera was knocked down to the ground during the struggle with Floyd. But the other officers' cameras captured the entire incident.

I wouldn't say inherently flawed, but the prosecution does seem to be relying on unreliable eyewitnesses. I don't want to do too much analysis before the prosecution finishes its case, but I find much of the initial testimony to be irrelevant - or worse, damaging to witness credibility.

On day two prosecutor Jerry Blackwell called Darnella Frazier, the young woman who recorded the viral video of the incident. The only interesting thing about her testimony, in my view, is that she didn't know there were two other officers behind the squad car at the time. The defense is making the point that these eyewitnesses arrived late to the scene, did not have the full story of what happened, and they jumped to conclusions based on false assumptions. Alyssa Funari, another young witness, was questioned by Erin Eldridge, attorney for the prosecution. Eldridge played to emotions, asking Funari how she felt about what she saw. Funari was concerned that Floyd was going to die because "time was running out." On cross, Nelson reminded her that she had told law enforcement that she had seen the officers check Floyd's pulse "multiple times" before the ambulance arrived. She also acknowledged that she was angry. Funari's teenage friend, Kaylynn Gilbert, also testified, but not much stood out for me. Gilbert talked about her feelings of anxiety. Clearly watching a man die affected these young ladies. The standout witness of the day was Genevieve Hansen, an off-duty firefighter who shouted for the officers to check Floyd's pulse. She described Floyd having an "altered consciousness," and his face being "puffy and swollen." She said the officers were putting "all or the majority of their weight on Floyd." When she identified herself as a firefighter and tried to help, she said that officer Thao told her, "if you really are a firefighter you'd know better than to get involved." Mr. Frank asked what she would have done had she been allowed to help. Hansen said she would have requested additional help, checked Floyd's airway and started chest compressions. She then became emotional and cried on the stand. She continued, saying that she didn't see the officers check Floyd's pulse. Frank asked about seeing agonal breathing, and she replied, "I don't remember anymore, but I, um, I don't know." Agonal breathing was a point raised in the prosecution's opening statement. Let's hope they weren't relying on Hansen to provide that observation. We also learned that Hansen felt "helpless" and that she thought she "should have called 911 immediately." Instead she chose to record the scene and shout at the police like several other bystanders. After Floyd was taken away, she said she was "worried about the safety of the black witnesses." On cross examination, Nelson pointed out that Hansen arrived at 8:26 pm and EMS had been called at 8:21 pm. Her response: "I don't believe that." She said that such a response time would be "totally abnormal." Again Nelson brought up the concept "load and go." Hansen was familiar with the practice, used by EMTs at unsafe locations. Hansen also acknowledged that overdose patients sometimes become combative when they regain consciousness. Nelson pointed out Hansen's flawed recollections. She thought four cops were on Floyd, that fluid on the ground was urine, and that Floyd was a "small, slim, frail man." She had trouble answering Nelson's "yes or no" questions and tried to argue with the defense attorney and the judge. The judge then chastised her for being argumentative, and the court session ended for the day.

The prosecution spent the first week of the trial presenting eyewitness testimony and video taken during the incident between George Floyd and the officers. The first witness, Jena Scurry, was the Minneapolis Police Department dispatcher who dispatched units to the scene and saw live surveillance video of the incident while working in the 911 call center. She said she was concerned about the length of time the incident was taking, so she reported it to the police sergeant. On cross examination, Mr. Nelson pointed out that Scurry called the sergeant after the ambulance had left the scene and the incident was over. Also, he made the point that "takedowns" don't require supervisor review for "use of force." Nelson brought up the concept "load and go," to convey the idea that the scene was hostile and unsafe for medical assistance, which is why the ambulance loaded Floyd into the vehicle and drove down the street instead of working on him in front of Cup Foods. Alisha Oyler took the stand. She witnessed the incident from her workplace, the Speedway convenience store across from Cup Foods. Some video she took was introduced as evidence. Other than that she added little to the case. Frankly she wasn't very articulate. Donald Williams was next. He's the man who, on the viral video, repeatedly shouted at officers Chauvin and Thao, calling them names like "tough guy" and "bum." He also shouted about choke holds. He has training and fighting experience in wrestling and MMA. Mr. Frank of the prosecution used him as an expert in choke holds. Williams described Chauvin using a "shimmy" foot movement to apply pressure to Floyd's neck. On cross, Mr. Nelson pointed out that MMA fights have rules and this incident wasn't an MMA fight. Floyd might have bitten the police or continued resisting if he regained consciousness. When asked about air versus blood chokes, Williams said it takes 3-5 seconds to blood choke someone. The defense made a point about the timeline. Williams arrived on the scene three minutes after an ambulance had been called. So not only was Williams unaware of medical assistance being called, he also didn't know why Floyd was bleeding, which started before he arrived. Williams had assumed it was from being pushed to the ground. Another fact the defense is stressing relates to the emotional state of the observing crowd. Williams tried to downplay his anger, saying, "You can't paint me out to be angry." But he was obviously angry in the video and later was quoted saying, "I really wanted to beat the shit out of the officers." Also, Williams became evasive when asked about his foul language, responding to Mr. Nelson, "Is that what you heard?" I guess they also have him on video later saying Thao should kill himself for what he did.

They've certainly convinced a lot of people that "life" begins at conception. People like Biden can't really challenge it because they believe it too. All they can do is be hypocrites and say they won't impose their beliefs on others, when they're perfectly willing to impose other beliefs on others.

No. Chauvin's lawyer said the jury would be hearing about it but he didn't go into detail. He'll probably bring in an expert to discuss it. Yes, I think they will. But the prosecution seems convinced that Chauvin suffocated Floyd, so I doubt they'll put much if any blame on Floyd. In the opening, for example, Blackwell said it was the police officers' duty to care for Floyd since he was in their custody. And he suggested that Floyd was an addict who had a high tolerance for drugs and wouldn't have overdosed on the amount found in his system. I don't know if this question specifically will come up because it doesn't sound like it'll be an aspect of the prosecution's case. Something relevant, though, might be the fact that the officers asked Floyd what he was on and he didn't answer them. So they didn't know what his medical situation was. Also, if Floyd was suffering from an excited and delirious state, the officers were in a real bind as to what to do. They needed to calm him down but they also needed to keep him in custody and prevent him from further hurting himself. That seems to be the purpose of the restraint.

The trial started on Monday. Jerry Blackwell presented opening remarks for the prosecution's case. He argued that Derek Chauvin violated the police oath by using "excessive and unreasonable force" on George Floyd. He described Chauvin as "grinding and crushing" Floyd on the ground, and said that Chauvin "squeezed the life out of" Floyd. As evidence that Floyd died from asphyxiation, he said the video shows Floyd suffering anoxic seizures and agonal breathing from oxygen deprivation. He said pressure was maintained on Floyd's neck even after the police could not find a pulse. Blackwell then played the viral video and pointed out how often Floyd repeated that he couldn't breathe and was going to die. The video shows Floyd moving his right shoulder up, and Blackwell said this was to create space for Floyd's rib cage to expand so he could breathe while in the prone position. As for the question of intent, Blackwell said the whole case would offer an "umbrella of intent." He mentioned the dangers of the prone position and how officers are trained to avoid putting pressure on areas above the shoulders, spinal column or neck, and the importance of the side recovery position. He told the jury, "You can believe your eyes that it's a homicide. It's murder." Addressing the idea that Floyd overdosed on drugs, Blackwell said that you can see from the video that Floyd doesn't look like someone who would die from an opioid overdose, since Floyd was actively struggling and opioids put you in a stupor. As for the idea of heart attack being the cause of death, Blackwell said Floyd's heart had no sign of damage. Chauvin's attorney, Eric Nelson, then gave his opening remarks. He started with a soliloquy on using reason and applying common sense. He said 50,000 documents were generated pertaining to four different locations (the Cup Foods store, the Mercedes Benz car, police squad 320, and the Hennepin County Medical Center), so the case is about more than the nine minutes and twenty-nine seconds, the time Floyd was restrained on the ground. Nelson pointed out that the Cup Foods cashier thought Floyd was under the influence of something. Prior to the police arriving, Floyd's friends watched him take pills and fall asleep in the car. According to lab results, those pills were likely speedballs (opioid and meth) manufactured to appear as Percocet. Nelson also said that Floyd put drugs in his mouth to conceal them from the police. As for intent, Nelson said Chauvin used the maximal restraint technique he had been trained to use. And to cause, Nelson mentioned excited delirium. He said the autopsy revealed no evidence of asphyxiation, no petechial hemorrhaging or signs of mechanical asphyxia.

Rand started writing AS on September 2, 1946. I don't suspect her of using numerology. Just self-reference. The reason I think Chinese numerology might be relevant to Firefly is because the Chinese language and culture are components of the show. The Alliance is really a union of the American and Chinese core planets. So like all the other yin-yanging in the show, Whedon also depicted the West and the East joining together. Yeah, that's a whole debate on its own. I don't think Fox understood or appreciated the show. The person who cancelled it, Gail Berman, said the show was expensive to produce and wasn't getting good enough ratings. But airing episodes out of sequence and in the "Friday night death slot" didn't help matters. Also, Whedon had to fight Fox over basic story elements. For example, Fox wanted a romance between Mal and Zoe, but Whedon stood firm and insisted that the Zoe-Wash marriage was important.

Rapid synaptic resetting sounds like an important idea or discovery. I'll have to check this out. Thanks.

I dislike almost everything about Sam Harris, and I think he strawman's the free will position in order to maintain his determinism. How about the fraud aspect? The surgeon is lying. The scientist probably believes what he says.

You asked if I could see the freedom theme. I'll ask: do you realize that Mal hasn't been a literal soldier for years by the time the show starts? He fights for his freedom on the frontier of space, but he's literally a smuggler now. He's not going to do the heavy fighting in his transport ship. His great win consists of fooling the Reavers into attacking the Alliance, while Serenity slips away from the battlefield. And he only got into that jam because he refused to give up River.

Yes, I like to think I see most of the themes including freedom. I've watched the series and movie multiple times, but it's the sort of show where I notice something new with each viewing. I hadn't read the Wikipedia article by the way. The family theme hit me when I realized the brother-sister symbolism of Simon/River and Mal/Zoe. Also, if you're into numerology (which normally I'm not), you might find it curious that Simon and River both have five letters in their names, Mal and Zoe have three. In Chinese numerology 5 is either good luck (Simon) or bad luck (River). The number 3 means life and growth. Of course Mal is a nickname but I think it counts. Big Damn Hero. I see Wash as Mal's brother-in-law. He's not much of an uncle figure. She's like the beloved housekeeper, keeping the ship's engine clean and running properly. I see Jayne as that close associate who's not sure whether he wants to become part of the family or not. Kind of like Inara, who initially keeps her distance. Both of them take awhile to learn the value of family. Jayne ultimately takes on the tough but silly uncle role after his betrayal and repentence.

"Axiomatic" is being used as a modifier. So "axiomatic certainty" would be a type of certainty that is self-evident or undeniable, something like that. Truth is not the same as certainty. Truth (or falsehood) refers to the status of a proposition's relationship to reality. Certainty (or doubt) refers to the status of one's confidence in a proposition's relationship to reality.

It's axiomatic knowledge. Have you tried axiomatic certainty?

Yeah, I don't care about statistics much. I pointed out the demonstrated strongest men in the world identified through international competition. That's all. I could also easily prove that the top sprinters in the world are all or mostly black. What does it mean? It means that genes play a part in physical capabilities. They're not the be all, end all, but they're clearly a factor, especially in competitions based primarily on physical prowess. Good writers don't randomly include characters in their stories. The dog is a symbol of the love Wick's wife had for him before she died. Even in death she's trying to nurture her husband and help him go on with life. To be a symbol of that femininity, it helps that the dog is female with a super-feminine name like Daisy. I haven't personally asked the writer why he made the dog female, but I'm fairly confident in my interpretation. And this is why the death of the dog impacts Wick so much. It's like the villains robbed him of the last piece of his wife. On top of that, they stole his muscle car, which has been a symbol of masculinity in movies since, I think, the late '50s. Take the wrong man's wife, dog, or car, and you're asking for trouble. Killing is a huge part of the story after the first act. But that's not all he does. In the first act he's remembering and missing his wife. After that Wick isn't chasing women, because he's too busy getting revenge. And he's still not even over his wife's death. You like that word "statistically." Mal never had a family? While it's not in the TV show, there was a Whedon-approved novel that told Mal's backstory. He did have a family and friends before the war. And during flashback scenes in the TV show he treats his fellow soldiers like family, rushing around to protect them and covering for them when they got shellshocked. Of course Zoe is like a sister to him. If you chew on it a bit, I think you'll agree that the whole show is about Mal forming a new family aboard Serenity and trying to protect them from all sorts of baddies and nasty situations. Nope, precisely because she's too tomboyish for his supreme masculinity. He wants the ultra feminine Inara to go with his ultra masculinity. The yin and the yang. Why do you think they curse in Chinese? I'm telling you, Whedon is a genius writer and there are several depths to the show's meaning. Look at Zoe's pick for a mate, Wash is the only one on board who struggles with his manhood because his wife is a warrior and he is a pilot. (Again, yin and yang, opposites attract.) The episode where he and Mal get tortured is about him trying to prove that he's capable of being Mal's wingman in dangerous situations. But really he's not good at it. Freedom for whom? First it's a show about the people on Serenity. The show is named after the class of the spaceship, which is literally a home. And what are homes for?

As I explained Wick is a symbol of masculinity and domination, like a lot of male badasses in movies. In addition to that, the Wick movies so far have stayed away from outright supernaturalism, so the context is still a sort of realism observing physical laws, which places a serious check on my suspension of disbelief. But I have no problem with female warriors like Wonder Woman, because she's supernatural, and in supernaturalism anything goes. I'm sorry, I need to bail. I'll try to respond more in a day or two.

In this Big Think video, philosopher Daniel Dennett describes a thought experiment designed to "jangle the nerves" of neuroscientists who claim that we don't have free will. It involves a neurosurgeon who implants a computer chip into a patient's brain and then tells the patient that he no longer has free will, and that the surgeon will be controlling him via the chip 24/7. The patient promptly goes out, acts irresponsibly, and is arrested for some crime. He pleads innocent explaining how the surgeon took away his free will. Yet when asked the surgeon says that it was a joke, he wasn't actually controlling the patient. Are neuroscientists who say that we don't have free will similarly (or equally) nefarious as the surgeon in Dennett's thought experiment?

If you haven't seen it you should watch the Coen brothers' version of True Grit. One of my favorites. It's based on a novel, and in my view it's better than the classic adaptation with John Wayne. Consider this scene where Mattie goes up against the man who killed her father.

I recall a moment in the '80s when it was hip to be square.

Charlie Kirk thinks he has a logical case against abortion. I'll call it the DNA argument: "it's not your DNA, it's not your choice." He didn't go into much detail, but I suppose the basic idea is that a woman needs a man to fertilize her egg with his sperm, and because this produces an embryo with DNA from both the egg and the sperm, the man has a claim to 50% of the fetus. The problem with this argument is that without a contractual agreement such as a marriage, the sperm is merely a gift, and the man has no claim on it after giving it away voluntarily. Also, even if the man owns 50% of the fetus, how is this an argument against abortion? Both parties could agree to abort. In my opinion, the most effective argument against abortion is still "life begins at conception," because it challenges "life begins at birth" while sidelining the question of when rights begin. But I'm not interested in rehashing that old debate again. Mostly I'm curious what others think of this DNA argument.

Absolutely not true. John Wick is the ultra straight male. He cherished his wife who died from some illness. Her last gift to him was a dog named Daisy. He cherished the female dog. And then the whole first movie is about him going after the people who killed that precious dog, his last connection to his wife. John Wick is the ideal, dominant force of nature who by the third installment is literally taking on the entire world of professional assassins. He is superman without the supernatural abilities. He is the greatest assassin, the greatest skill at killing and the greatest concentration of willpower. He cannot be a woman. Nobody would believe that a woman could endure the physical trials that Wick survives. It's already unrealistic with him as a man, but that's okay because his character is a fantastical symbol for male strength and dominance. It's also a great political play about the individual versus the collective but that's not relevant to this discussion..