Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What have George Floyd, Micheal Brown and Malice Green in common?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

Have you read the criminal complaint or full autopsy report? I'll copy them below.

I started the tread based on a preliminary report.

Since then, the public reaction has risen to greater importance.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I go to Ford to purchase a new car. I buy a car with all the latest features, but I get home and the car is missing some features. I go back to the Ford dealer and summoning my best Karen, I ask to sp

Regarding "retaliation" Ayn Rand wrote: "Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use" (Lexicon).   So violence against a Minneapolis p

I have to digress first: The situation cannot ONLY be described in terms of retaliation, as some of it is random and illegitimate simply blowing off steam. Some are people trying to find something to

18 hours ago, Eiuol said:

But you see, plenty of people are judging what happened after they knew what happened. They saw the video, then they judged. There was a conflict, past tense, then there wasn't, because Floyd was restrained. Floyd asked for medical attention. Floyd went unconscious. The cop continued. The cop had complete control of the situation. I truly do not understand how this could be considered not knowing what happened. If someone didn't see the video, sure. But if you want to say "they need to know what really happened and not just some of the story" that's on the level of denying the moon landing. Is it not enough to see a man on the moon jumping around in low gravity? 

 

 

What you might be overlooking is the persistence of an image. Whatever the context, one's pre-knowledge and post-knowledge, the picture is what sticks in the mind longest. The first visual identification, a perception, over rides any subsequent information, especially for anyone who doesn't go to the trouble of integrating it with all the rest, conceptually. In which case, emotions are raised without needing or wanting to know the complete facts. So the ~racial~ aspect of this imagery is why I referenced it. Simply, white man forcing down a black man. Exacerbated by his death.

Naturally the media has always understood the power of a dramatic image, if needs be, to further their moral/political agenda. Pictures like the youngster defiantly in front of Army tanks in China provide a symbol and rallying cry of resistance for great numbers, for example. This one I'm afraid will do the same to encourage the false meme of systemic racism.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, whYNOT said:

especially for anyone who doesn't go to the trouble of integrating it with all the rest, conceptually. In which case, emotions are raised without needing or wanting to know the complete facts

But they are the complete facts. 

I'm asking in all seriousness, and since I think you are old enough to have been an adult at the time, what did you do in response to apartheid of South Africa? I'm curious how you approach issues where race is at least involved and where police are involved. I'm not trying to claim that race really is the primary issue here (I don't think it is), just that it has some relevance. I'm trying to figure out what actions would you think are or could be appropriate to a grave injustice, but using real-life examples. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites

That people put this incident in a racial context is not a failure of objectivity; it's trying to interpret events in the "widest possible context."

No, it's not necessarily the case that the officer in this incident was motivated by racism. It can often be hard to determine other peoples' motivations with precision, given the internal nature of consciousness*. But when you examine the history of the United States, specifically with respect to race relations, and modern policing, and any number of these incidents of police brutality, then a pattern emerges. It is not a failure of rationality to recognize such a thing (though it is arguably a failure to be unable to do so, or unwilling).

While justice requires that we treat individuals as individuals, and while, as agreed above, the officer in this case is not necessarily racially prejudiced (and will have his day in court), neither is it wrong to see this pattern of behavior over time or to interpret new information accordingly.

(* Although, given the notion of "structural racism" it is not always necessary for an individual actor to himself be racist to yet act in a racist manner -- according to the "structure" of the system in which he participates. Or at least, so the logic of that argument goes.)

Yes, if this were a black police officer and a white suspect, it may well have provoked a different reaction. White people were not widely enslaved for hundreds of years in this country, subject to discriminatory law, and not the focus of the broad suite of racist ideology that grew up around supporting those institutions, and which infiltrated the general culture. If you look at the scenarios "white officer/black suspect" and "black officer/white suspect" devoid of this larger historical and sociological context, then yes, there oughtn't be much to further distinguish them. But what do we stand to gain by forgetting or pretending not to know what we do, in fact, know? We should strive rather to widen our context, to see events not merely in themselves, isolated and discrete, but as a part of a larger current, when and where applicable. Mistakes of interpretation can be made, given such a process, but as the incidents of police brutality continue to pile up, and as this is rather to be expected given the history from which we all proceed, I think it becomes harder and harder to argue that there isn't a broad and persistent problem here -- even if some specific incident fails to qualify, or does not withstand further scrutiny.

It is not rational to insist that, because only trees exist metaphysically, that we may therefore never describe a "forest."

Edited by DonAthos
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

I'm asking in all seriousness, and since I think you are old enough to have been an adult at the time, what did you do in response to apartheid of South Africa? I'm curious how you approach issues where race is at least involved and where police are involved. 

Now, Apartheid was indeed "systemic" racism. Written into the Statutes, official, institutionalized. Knowing that at close hand is the reason that I find this accusation lately against Americans counter-factual and ignorant, where meekly (guiltily) accepted. And, abhorrent when used by some to manipulate your socio-political climate. 

The position of whites in Africa was of course always a small minority group, now dwindling further. It is amazing in retrospect they (the colonials and the settlers - to make a careful distinction) managed to keep control in African countries for as long as they did. It should be pointed out that day by day there was little of the misrepresented "brutality" of whites and police against blacks in South Africa. Incidents, of course, and sometimes by black cops too, but never general. If nothing else but that SA would have become ungovernable if the mass of people had suffered under that for long. I remember more kindness and good will than there is now. No excuses, the curtailment of free movement and activity and being dis-enfranchised and treated as second-class citizens by authorities was a severe injustice alone. Actually at the time I got here a lot of the pettier laws were not being enforced and there was quite a relaxed social and business interaction between the races. Especially the younger and liberal whites were mixing freely with blacks. Fast forward. The evolution (not the glamorized revolution of "the Armed Struggle") of that attitude of "liberty for all" was what had a majority of we whites voting in a Referendum for - eventually - handing over to majority rule. The last white president was prescient enough to give his citizens that option, the last all-white election. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DonAthos said:

It is not rational to insist that, because only trees exist metaphysically, that we may therefore never describe a "forest."

But any indiscriminate attack on a forest which includes the innocent IS an attack on the innocent.  No attack on the person or property of any innocent in civil society is justified.

 

Certainly trees can be asked to try to keep the forest in line and as orderly and peaceful as possible... it's the least anyone could expect of any forest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

While mowing the lawn, listening to Scott Brick read John Galt's speech, thinking about the police officers that are on the front lines of the executive fight for justice. When the officer is examined in the aftermath, the snap judgements have seemingly with "this shouldn't have happened", as the criteria by which the snap judgement then spreads.

In a business, employees are hired and fired on the basis of the objectives of the employer.

In politics, the bureaucracy is created to accomplish the political objective. The political objective is influence by the individuals elected to bring about the campaign promises used to get the politician elected. In the United States, most police forces have an elected individual guiding the policies of the department, including the objectives used as the basis of hiring and firing officers.

When individuals state that police officers need to be controlled, what is the underlying premise at play? That individuals that choose to become police officers are not capable of learning and performing the actions befitting the post? The call to control the actions of another is reminiscent of another area of control being exercised, when mayors, elected to oversee state operations, faced with a pandemic, deem that their constituents, so wise to select them as their surrogate parent, treat their 'children' as needing to be told what to do, or controlled. (In Galt's Speech, the fear of death, illustrated by the implementation of orders to trying to prevent deaths at any cost, is not the motivation fueled by a love of life.)

When a police force reaches the point where a mob can rise up against them and be told by their management not to engage, less the mob become more unruly than they are, when does the question of the underlying cause of the flow of events reveal the role of philosophy behind the scenes on the stage before us to the wider audience?

Joseph de Maistre is credited with stating "Every nation gets the government it deserves." Those who embrace objectivity, get the fruits borne by the successful implementation of such activity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 8/6/2020 at 12:52 PM, dream_weaver said:

Leaked video from a body cam(s?) provides a bit more insight into the context surrounding the event.

The body cam supports many of the factual statements from the original complaint and autopsy. But hardly anyone cared about the facts back then, and now some are surprised by the leaked video. Others still don't care about the facts and so they ignore or suppress/edit the body cam footage. Even Styx, who usually has a decent grasp on the relevant facts, mischaracterizes a few things.

 

He says, for example, that the forensic evidence shows that Floyd's "heart stopped because of the massive amount of drugs he was on." I don't think the autopsy makes that narrow conclusion. It might be partially correct, but there is also the fact that Floyd was resisting arrest and physically exhausting himself for several minutes. If Floyd had obeyed the police and calmly sat in the car he might have survived the drug intoxication. But, for whatever reason, he added physical activity to the mix, and that probably contributed to his death.

Styx also says that the body cam footage doesn't completely exonerate the cops. He believes the cops should have tried to resuscitate Floyd once he stopped breathing. I suppose this represents a sort of last ditch argument from reasonable people who still want the cops to be held partially responsible for Floyd's death. I would remind these people that Floyd was bleeding from the mouth. The cops suspected he was high and suffering from excited delirium. Also, on the video Floyd says he has Covid-19 and claustrophobia. The cops are not EMTs. They had called for an ambulance. What sort of resuscitation tactic should they have tried?

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Others still don't care about the facts and so they ignore or suppress/edit the body cam footage.

For one, we can ignore what DW says. He speaks in riddles and if you ask him what his motivation and thinking is, he won't have any idea. I think it's bad to engage with people who simply throw around word salad. Engaging such people only reduces the quality of discussion. 

3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

If Floyd had obeyed the police and calmly sat in the car he might have survived the drug intoxication.

Great, but they kept going for more than 8 minutes. He said he couldn't breathe. Then he stopped breathing. The point is that there were visual signs of medical distress and verbal indications of medical distress. All you said is how to prevent the situation from occurring. But since the situation did occur, are you trying to make a claim that cops have no further constraints on appropriate action? 

Not to mention that if they really thought he was going through excited delirium, the person would not be in a state where they are capable of calmly obeying anything.

3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I suppose this represents a sort of last ditch argument from reasonable people who still want the cops to be held partially responsible for Floyd's death.

How is it a last-ditch argument? It's a rational position, no need to suggest that a person you say that is reasonable only "wants" a certain conclusion. I have no reason to say that Styx is failing to be rational here. I would point out that you have not made an argument. You made statements as if the statements alone require no argument. Floyd was bleeding from the mouth. What does that have to do with resuscitation? You said the cop suspected he was high. What does that have to do with resuscitation? Floyd says he had covid. What does that have to do with resuscitation? You say the cops are not EMTs. What does that have to do with not bearing partial responsibility? They called for an ambulance, but how does that relate? They were not responding to medical distress that they were partly responsible for (besides the problems with autopsy procedures in the first place, an autopsy could not be able to determine conclusively *all* the meaningful things that contributed to someone's death). All you did was list facts. 

Without any medical training whatsoever, one resuscitation tactic is "not kneeling on someone for eight minutes".  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Without any medical training whatsoever, one resuscitation tactic is "not kneeling on someone for eight minutes". 

According to the medical report the kneeling didn’t apply enough pressure to do any damage.  Your complaint amounts to:   The cops did nothing but wait for the ambulance and medics that they had summoned.  

What else were they supposed to do?  What would you have done?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

For one, [we]* can ignore what DW says. *[italics added]

An appeal to a politic of derision?

To what collective is your "we" referring to here?

 

I accept the fact that the innocence of Officers Budzen and Nevers was not substantiated by court rulings. I also accept the fact that there is an ongoing effort to impugn Officer Wilson.

The only 'sense dressing' I have to offer to go with this particular 'word salad' was insinuated behind the motivation of these thoughts expressed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dupin said:

According to the medical report the kneeling didn’t apply enough pressure to do any damage. 

You don't need to do damage to restrict someone's breathing. All they had to do was keep doing what they were doing in the body cam video - holding him and letting him have his attack of paranoia. 

 

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites

Eiuol,

Even considerable pressure on the side of the neck doesn't interfere with breathing, and the office appears to be applying light pressure or even just touching.  What you see in the video is a restraint technique, not a choke hold.

Also, recall that Floyd complained of having trouble breathing before the police placed him on the ground.  In fact they had Floyd in the police car and took him out at his own request and allowed him to lie on the ground.  But they had to restrain him.  This was an arrest that Floyd had resisted.  Furthermore he was under the influence of drugs and might harm others or himself. 

Again, what would you have done other than what the police did:  call an ambulance and medics, and restrain Floyd somehow or other until they arrived.

 

Edited by Dupin
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dupin said:

What you see in the video is a restraint technique, not a choke hold.

Thank you for your clarification.

It seems like these "multiple" policemen, did not have handcuffs available. Or did they choose not to use them? Or did he beg them not to put them on?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

It seems like these "multiple" policemen, did not have handcuffs available. Or did they choose not to use them? Or did he beg them not to put them on?

George Floyd was handcuffed. That is visible in some of the photos in the Daily Mail article. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8576371/Police-bodycam-footage-shows-moment-moment-arrest-George-Floyd-time.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dupin said:

Again, what would you have done other than what the police did:  call an ambulance and medics, and restrain Floyd somehow or other until they arrived.

I told you what I would do, I would continue doing the same thing that they were doing in the body cam video. I don't have a reason to think it wasn't working. 

15 hours ago, Dupin said:

Even considerable pressure on the side of the neck doesn't interfere with breathing, and the office appears to be applying light pressure or even just touching.  What you see in the video is a restraint technique, not a choke hold.

How do you know that kneeling on someone's neck doesn't interfere with breathing? I said that you don't need to do damage to restrict breathing. By interfere, I mean make more difficult, make more labored, or cause further distress. Your only evidence so far that kneeling didn't restrict his breathing is that there was no damage, but that isn't true. Telling me that sometimes strong neck restraints don't interfere with breathing doesn't demonstrate that weaker restraints never interfere with breathing. Besides, I don't actually believe you when you say considerable pressure on the side of her neck doesn't interfere with breathing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, merjet said:

George Floyd was handcuffed. That is visible in some of the photos in the Daily Mail article. 

Okay, fair enough. 
Yes, I stand corrected. 
He did have handcuffs on.
Which then begs the question, what was the point of sitting on him?

One can hear:
"I'm claustrophobic"
"You're going in the car anyway"

He was begging not to be shot.

There is the possibility that Floyd was lying, that is is not in fact claustrophobic and this was all an act.

Does the whole thing hinge on if he was or was not actually claustrophobic or in terror? 

If in fact he was claustrophobic, he could have become either violent or have a heart attack.

A reasonable assumption would be that he was not believed to be claustrophobic or in terror of his life.

Police Level of knowledge and training may in fact inevitably led to such a conclusion.

Why not tie up his legs too and not sit on him?

Should the police have other alternatives or should the next guy be sat on and accidently, innocently die?

So, it was this an honest mistake?

If so, we can't allow a mistaken killing of a person be the norm.

So what do we call it? Would this end up being called an example of excessive force?

Let us say it is NOT excessive force, is this how it should be done moving forward? 

The ultimate question is what is in your self interest in this whole affair especially if it was your son, brother, father or your self. (perhaps in the wrong place at the wrong time)

 

Edited by Easy Truth
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Eiuol,

“How do you know that kneeling on someone's neck doesn't interfere with breathing?”

The windpipe, which is fairly rigid by itself, is well-sheathed by muscle and tendon on the right and left sides of the neck.  For a muscular man like Floyd very much so.  

The type of restraint used on Floyd is taught in many police departments and it is explicitly authorized by the MPD.  American police departments began learning it from the Israelis, traveling to Israel to train.

I agree that this form of restraint should rarely be used.  It can be dangerous if a lot of pressure is applied.  The police officer in the video looks between bored and worried, waiting for the ambulance that he or one of the other cops had called.  He doesn’t appear to be applying much pressure.

I know there is a lot of police brutality but I don’t think that this case is an example.  Seems to me the police acted with restraint considering Floyd’s mental condition and that he was resisting arrest.

A cop’s analysis of the full video can be found by searching:
"bob peele" floyd
(The author will be prejudiced in favor of the police but in any case he deserves an ear.)

Asides:  

1.  A “choke hold” uses pressure to the front of the neck.   

2. Pressure  applied to *both* sides of the neck will interfere with blood flow to the brain.  In wrestling it’s called the “sleeper hold”; you apply the edges of your open hands to the sides of your opponent’s neck. (Pressure to just one side has little effect because upstream the carotid arteries share a cross artery; in a way two, forming a horizontal ring at the base of the skull.)  Unfortunately it’s also called the “sleeper choke hold” which is confusing.  (I’m not into wresting, I read about it during my investigation of the death of James Forrestal, who had been the first U.S. Secretary of Defense.)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2020 at 4:01 PM, Eiuol said:

All you said is how to prevent the situation from occurring. But since the situation did occur, are you trying to make a claim that cops have no further constraints on appropriate action? 

No. There are the constraints of rights and laws and police policy.

On 8/11/2020 at 4:01 PM, Eiuol said:

How is it a last-ditch argument? It's a rational position, no need to suggest that a person you say that is reasonable only "wants" a certain conclusion.

Because it's not an argument against the actions the police took. It's an argument for an action they did not take and against their moral character. It's a kind of "bad Samaratin" position, which asserts that the cops should have tried to resuscitate Floyd. It's complicated though by all the facts I mentioned and other things going on at the time.

On 8/11/2020 at 4:01 PM, Eiuol said:

Floyd was bleeding from the mouth. What does that have to do with resuscitation?

It might be a factor in deciding whether to attempt mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.

On 8/11/2020 at 4:01 PM, Eiuol said:

You said the cop suspected he was high. What does that have to do with resuscitation?

In cases of overdoses or excited delirium I believe the paramedic needs to revive the patient with a special drug treatment that counters the bad effects.

On 8/11/2020 at 4:01 PM, Eiuol said:

Floyd says he had covid. What does that have to do with resuscitation?

It might contribute to his breathing problem, in which case he needs special treatment to clear the lungs. It would also be a reason to keep his face turned away so that he doesn't spread the virus to the cops.

On 8/11/2020 at 4:01 PM, Eiuol said:

You say the cops are not EMTs. What does that have to do with not bearing partial responsibility?

They aren't qualified or equipped to perform emergency resuscitation under such conditions.

On 8/11/2020 at 4:01 PM, Eiuol said:

They called for an ambulance, but how does that relate?

It shows they recognized a medical situation they weren't able to handle themselves. 

 

On 8/11/2020 at 4:01 PM, Eiuol said:

Without any medical training whatsoever, one resuscitation tactic is "not kneeling on someone for eight minutes".

How should they have restrained him? Or should they have done something else with him?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Dupin said:

I agree that this form of restraint should rarely be used.  It can be dangerous if a lot of pressure is applied.  The police officer in the video looks between bored and worried, waiting for the ambulance that he or one of the other cops had called.  He doesn’t appear to be applying much pressure.

It looks like Chauvin tried to gauge the pressure to keep Floyd's head and shoulders down but not cause an injury. Floyd was still able to move Chauvin's knee until he ran out of energy or had the heart attack and stopped resisting. So clearly Chauvin wasn't applying his full weight. I doubt even half his weight, since he wasn't straining and kept both feet on the ground.

I do question the need to keep the knee on the neck for three minutes after Floyd stops moving. Possibly they thought it best to keep him in that position until the EMT arrived. When someone is bleeding and foaming from the mouth, I suppose it's best to keep them face down so the fluid can spill out onto the ground instead of running down their throat and clogging the airway. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...