Minneapolis PD Suffocate Unarmed Black Man Who Later Dies in Hospital

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

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.

Imagine what a far right southern politician would say about bringing in troops to quell riots - that is what it says.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

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.

Called for the military to suppress the protesters.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Acey

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.

That's actually not the potential implication of any given suit - it's the potential implication of a suit where the doctor's conduct is egregious enough to warrant losing his license.

If that's what you mean, though, then the response is "well, that's true of police officers too... in fact that's even true of Chauvin in this case. So... what's your point?"

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Imagine what a far right southern politician would say about bringing in troops to quell riots - that is what it says.

I don't see what the problem is with the NYT running a piece like that, then. In fact, they should run something like that, given that there are a lot of people probably making that argument. The NYT's subscribers are welcome to not read it, or to read it and disagree with it. Suggesting that no such thing must appear in the pages of the paper of record is... I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this point.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I had a chat with a friend's mom last night who's pretty with it and sharp but a little Trumpish. She asked who George Floyd was. I was like...well, he's a dead black guy. But was he famous? Not before the cops killed him. Well then why are people rioting? Cause of racism. Then in a perfect SNL moment...Well I don't know about that.



I thought the horse analogy would work well explaining systemic racism. It did not.



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?



I was surprised to learn how many red necks respond with..."No horse is gonna buck me off. That horse would be on the plane to France"...and so on.

It's always surprising, despite how often it happens, each time a person's racist tendencies are revealed when they provide their commentary during events like these. The consistently poorly thought out "rebuttals", like "the vast majority of cops are good" or "all lives matter", is so incredibly disheartening.

[WhiteTiger]

Nm

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't see what the problem is with the NYT running a piece like that, then. In fact, they should run something like that, given that there are a lot of people probably making that argument. The NYT's subscribers are welcome to not read it, or to read it and disagree with it. Suggesting that no such thing must appear in the pages of the paper of record is... I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this point.

I agree assuming it doesn't actually put people in danger.

The left gets unfocused in these debates and lets the right reframe them as first amendment (in this case) or disrespecting the flag (Drew Brees). Stay on the important message where you win.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I agree assuming it doesn't actually put people in danger.

How could an opinion piece, about what policy the author thinks should be brought to bear, put people in danger? Just by suggesting the use of military force? Are the NYT also not allowed to publish opinion pieces suggesting military intervention abroad, either? The position that the state should intervene to stop any further rioting and looting, and should use the military to do it, even if it prevents otherwise lawful protests from happening, is a legitimate perspective. I think it's clearly a bad idea (especially the part about using the military), but it's certainly a view you could rationally attempt to defend in an opinion piece.

This sounds like more of the "speech is violence" rhetoric you often hear nowadays as an attempt to suppress opposing viewpoints. I dunno, as I say I haven't read the thing so I guess I'll reserve judgment. Maybe the dude is actually calling for something more than a public policy measure - for example, if he's calling for vigilantism. But yeah... this element of the left is just the worst.

The left gets unfocused in these debates and lets the right reframe them as first amendment (in this case)

I'm not sure what the first amendment has to do with it. Presumably the government didn't force them to run the piece, and isn't stopping them from running whatever else they'd like.

[Coach]

Is there a link/list of cities that have curfews? Looks like LA just cancelled theirs. I'm curious who still has them, but some google searching hasn't yielded much, strangely.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Coach

Is there a link/list of cities that have curfews? Looks like LA just cancelled theirs. I'm curious who still has them, but some google searching hasn't yielded much, strangely.

DC cancelled theirs also, seems like cities are making gametime decisions based on public outcry on Twitter as if it's a GDT.

[D as in David]

What if the doctor is actually a veterinarian and he mistreats a horse that was bucking it's owner; can the vet lose their career?

There's clearly an analogy here. I have no clue what it is but I'm sure someone could figure it out.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Acey

DC cancelled theirs also, seems like cities are making gametime decisions based on public outcry on Twitter as if it's a GDT.

I just think that the overall temperature of things has gone down dramatically, and it was never about quelling the peaceful protsters but the criminal thugs that hid within.

Those arrests yesterday combined with the up charge against Chauvin was the difference maker for many.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I just think that the overall temperature of things has gone down dramatically, and it was never about quelling the peaceful protsters but the criminal thugs that hid within.

I wish I could believe that, but there is enough video evidence to show peaceful protesters getting attacked yet in areas of looting, the police were conspicuously absent.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

How could an opinion piece, about what policy the author thinks should be brought to bear, put people in danger? Just by suggesting the use of military force? Are the NYT also not allowed to publish opinion pieces suggesting military intervention abroad, either? The position that the state should intervene to stop any further rioting and looting, and should use the military to do it, even if it prevents otherwise lawful protests from happening, is a legitimate perspective. I think it's clearly a bad idea (especially the part about using the military), but it's certainly a view you could rationally attempt to defend in an opinion piece.

This sounds like more of the "speech is violence" rhetoric you often hear nowadays as an attempt to suppress opposing viewpoints. I dunno, as I say I haven't read the thing so I guess I'll reserve judgment. Maybe the dude is actually calling for something more than a public policy measure - for example, if he's calling for vigilantism. But yeah... this element of the left is just the worst.

I'm not sure what the first amendment has to do with it. Presumably the government didn't force them to run the piece, and isn't stopping them from running whatever else they'd like.

Should you read an article before defending it, or by questioning critique of it?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I wish I could believe that, but there is enough video evidence to show peaceful protesters getting attacked yet in areas of looting, the police were conspicuously absent.

I mean the idea behind the curfews...not sure how you got to this conclusion.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Should you read an article before defending it, or by questioning critique of it?

Yeah, probably. And since I'm probably not going to read it, I'll shut my trap now.

[KelVarnsen]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I just think that the overall temperature of things has gone down dramatically, and it was never about quelling the peaceful protsters but the criminal thugs that hid within.

You really need to find a new word.

[#-3]

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.

I'd actually like to see the sourcing on this.

A doctor who was removed quickly after a first malpractice allegation. I have my doubts that you can back that claim up with specific examples. I am aware of doctors being removed after length investigations or after a long pattern of behaviour is established, but your claim sounds like hyperbole.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I mean the idea behind the curfews...not sure how you got to this conclusion.

Sorry if I misunderstood. I don't want to suggest you meant something you didn't.

I personally just don't see the curfews and policing activities as mutually exclusive. The curfews just gave them grounds to criminalize everyone, peaceful or otherwise.

[Locke]

So when do they unleash Judge Dredd onto Minneapolis?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

You really need to find a new word.

Why?

They have been calling violent criminals and gangs "thugs" forever.

Hell Al Capone was always referred to as one all the time....Donald Trump is one in my eyes as well.

It traces back to organized criminal activity of which a lot of this certainly was.

Its an appropriate term for anyone that conducts themselves as such.