Minneapolis PD Suffocate Unarmed Black Man Who Later Dies in Hospital

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

No they don't.

[Scorch]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Let's say you ride your horse every day and he's a really good horse. He does everything you want him to do. But one day you decide to stop riding him and stop taking care of him. And then you stop being nice to him. And eventually you're really mean to him. Then one day you decide to go for a ride again and he bucks you off. Who's fault is that

Am I missing something here about systemic racism analogy?

Dude may have just compared black people with horses and it doesn’t look like he’s put away the whip yet

[Acey]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No they don't.

Malpractice suits don't exist? The point, obviously, is that cops need to be held to a higher standard... like the cop under investigation for using force 79 times in 42 months.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Scorch

Am I missing something here about systemic racism analogy?

Dude may have just compared black people with horses and it doesn’t look like he’s put away the whip yet

Basically, if you're trying to come up with an analogy for a discussion about race relations, ask yourself at least the following two questions:

1. In my analogy, have I compared one of the races to animals of any type?

2. In my analogy, does one race own the other race?

If your answer to either of these questions is "yes", maybe try out a different analogy.

Originally Posted by Acey

Malpractice suits don't exist? The point, obviously, is that cops need to be held to a higher standard... like the cop under investigation for using force 79 times in 42 months.

Re-read my post and try to decide for yourself if what I was trying to say was that malpractice suits don't exist. Be honest with yourself - is that really what you thought I meant? If not - if that isn't a reasonable way to interpret my post - why did you respond the way that you did?

... if it helps, what I was saying is that doctors' careers are not immediately ended forever when they get a malpractice suit against them. Even if the suit is successful, that is not what happens. Now, is it possible to have one such suit end your career as a doctor? Are there case where that happens? Of course, if your conduct is found to be bad enough - but it is rare. Malpractice suits are not particularly rare. The same is true for Police, and for complaints against them, as of right now.

Obviously that doesn't suggest that the status quo is fine or that the goal shouldn't be to reduce the number of incidents where police use force against suspects, particularly black suspects. It is simply making the point that what that person said in their tweet was hopelessly stupid.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Re-read my post and try to decide for yourself if what I was trying to say was that malpractice suits don't exist. Be honest with yourself - is that really what you thought I meant?

I had no idea what you were referring to. You simply said "No they don't" because a post that actually makes sense was too difficult to type the first time, I guess?

The tweet doesn't state that every malpractice suit ever filed results in a doctor never practicing again. If you want to interpret it that way to invalidate the overall point, go right ahead.

[PsYcNeT]

NYT getting dragged today for their terrible editorial about law and order yesterday.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1268590738067148800

https://twitter.com/user/status/1268286767549091842

https://twitter.com/user/status/1268363480668594176

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Tweet: "Doctors lose their licenses, end up in jail and can never work again because of ONE malpractice suit."
Me: "No they don't".

I thought that was pretty easy to follow but I guess maybe I should have quoted it. My mistake.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Tweet: "Doctors lose their licenses, end up in jail and can never work again because of ONE malpractice suit."
Me: "No they don't".

I thought that was pretty easy to follow but I guess maybe I should have quoted it. My mistake.

...but yes they can, and have. Which is why that response is confusing.

So did you mean, no cops shouldn't be held to that standard? Or no, malpractice suits that end careers don't exist?

Clearly we disagree on what could potentially come of malpractice suits, so it doesn't really matter. Carry on.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

When you're sympathizing with Piers Morgan, you know the person he's taking abuse from must be absolute human trash.

In this topsy-turvy world of low oil prices, global pandemics, murder hornets and natural disasters of varying intensities one must come to the conclusion that Piers Morgan being a voice of reason is the true indicator that the endtimes have come.

Even Nostradamus would admit he never saw this coming.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Acey

...but yes they can, and have. Which is why that response is confusing.

So did you mean, no cops shouldn't be held to that standard? Or no, malpractice suits that end careers don't exist?

Clearly we disagree on what could potentially come of malpractice suits, so it doesn't really matter. Carry on.

Cops shouldn't be held to that standard, no, because it's an entirely different sort of profession... but also, Doctors are not even held to that standard.

Sometimes a doctor does something so bad that the resulting malpractice suit ends his career. It's rare, though. Most complaints against doctors are not career-ending.

Sometimes a police officer does something so bad that the resulting investigation ends his career. It's rare, though. Most complaints against police are not career-ending.

That is the status quo. Both in the case of doctors and police officers, egregiously unprofessional conduct can end your career, while most complaints do not end your career. The tweet purports to rely on a fundamental difference in standards that does not exist in the real world.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

NYT getting dragged today for their terrible editorial about law and order yesterday.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1268590738067148800

https://twitter.com/user/status/1268286767549091842

https://twitter.com/user/status/1268363480668594176

There's a real irony to left wing zealots bitching that the new york times posted an opinion piece that goes against their views of the world while simultaneously complaining about the echo chamber that is fox news.

Fair and Balanced ( as long as those views align with mine).

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

There's a real irony to left wing zealots bitching that the new york times posted an opinion piece that goes against their views of the world while simultaneously complaining about the echo chamber that is fox news.

Fair and Balanced ( as long as those views align with mine).

What editorial are they even referring to? I googled and found that there was one written by Tom Cotton. Is that it?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Acey

...but yes they can, and have. Which is why that response is confusing.

So did you mean, no cops shouldn't be held to that standard? Or no, malpractice suits that end careers don't exist?

Clearly we disagree on what could potentially come of malpractice suits, so it doesn't really matter. Carry on.

The tweet makes it sound cut and dry.

Your post here is much more accurate, they “can” and “have”. It isn’t automatic. And it shouldn’t be. What a way to ruin the career of someone you don’t like, one single complaint, true or not. See ya.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The tweet purports to rely on a fundamental difference in standards that does not exist in the real world.

How can this even be quantified? It's pretty much a matter of opinion whether or not you think suits are sufficiently detrimental to doctors who are guilty of malpractice. Your opinion apparently is that, at present, they're equally detrimental to the punishment levied to police officers who are guilty of malpractice. Fine. Others hold a different opinion. Also fine.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

What editorial are they even referring to? I googled and found that there was one written by Tom Cotton. Is that it?

Yes

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Acey

Your opinion apparently is that, at present, they're equally detrimental to the punishment levied to police officers who are guilty of malpractice. Fine. Others hold a different opinion. Also fine.

But that's not what the tweet is saying. The tweet is, simply and directly, saying, "hey, when doctors get a malpractice suit against them, they lose their license and their career is over - why isn't that what happens to police officers when they get a claim against them in their job"?

The correct response to that question is, "you're wrong; most of the time that doesn't happen to doctors who get a malpractice suit against them. What happens to them when they commit malpractice depends on the nature of the malpractice. That's true of police malpractice, too. So the difference you're seeing is actually just a result of your ignorance about how malpractice suits play out in the real world."

The point is, on its face, incorrect. It isn't making some nuanced claim about how rigorous medical review boards are in examining the conduct of doctors, and then comparing that to the way police internal investigations are conducted. You don't even need to get into the inherent differences in the two different professions in terms of what they require and who they're interacting with (although you probably should if you want to try to make those sorts of comparisons).

[OMG!WTF!]

I think the punishment for cops who break the law should be much worse than for the general public. It's patently worse when a cop breaks the law than when the public does. If you don't like the risk, then police work isn't for you.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

What editorial are they even referring to? I googled and found that there was one written by Tom Cotton. Is that it?

Yes - about bringing in the troops.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Yes

What's the gist of it? I don't subscribe to the NYT.

It seems to me that criticizing the substance of the article would make more sense than shaming the NYT for publishing it, but I guess that would depend on what it says, maybe.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

But that's not what the tweet is saying. The tweet is, simply and directly, saying, "hey, when doctors get a malpractice suit against them, they lose their license and their career is over - why isn't that what happens to police officers when they get a claim against them in their job"?

We're pretty much down to an interpretation of the (terrible) English language at this point where "because of one suit" could mean that any suit against a doctor explicitly results in the aforementioned consequence, or the alternative where that is the potential implication of any given suit.

The latter interpretation is one that gives the tweet merit, so I chose to go with that one.