America coming apart at the seams?

[Giggle]

I'm not wrong.

The law says people can't approach voters waiting in line and try to persuade them with gifts. I can see how you wouldn't like that.

[Whistler]

Show us your data, giggles.

Here are two, only because I'm nice. Next time do your own research and maybe you'll be less ignorant.

An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force
Roland G. Fryer Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_G._Fryer_Jr.

Journal of Political Economy
Volume 127, Number 3
June 2019

https://doi.org/10.1086/701423

Not only were police not using force disproportionally against black people, but police were more hesitant, more reluctant to pull the trigger on a black person than a white person.

One more

Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings

David J. Johnson, Trevor Tress, Nicole Burkel, Carley Taylor, and Joseph Cesario
National Academy of Sciences

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877

By using a comprehensive database of FOIS during 2015, officer race, sex, or experience did not predict the race of a person fatally shot beyond relationships explained by county demographics. On the other hand, race-specific violent crime strongly predicted the race of a civilian fatally shot by police, explaining over 40% of the variance in civilian race.

Fryer has all the credibility of a crocodile that claims to be a vegetarian. His research paper was widely lambasted as being inaccurate

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019 ... bs-closes/

[Kenr6583]

Why do any of you keep entertaining this troll?

[Whistler]

sound advice Ken. I will try to keep responses from here on in, TROLL ALERT!

[Udon Map]

I'm not wrong.

The law says people can't approach voters waiting in line and try to persuade them with gifts.

And a liar, to boot!


What you said, sir, was:

What is in the statute, what is absolutely clear, is that they're preventing political organizations from giving people in line things: meals, water, what have you.

You cited this quote, allegedly from Politifact:

[The law] very specifically says that [giveaways] can't be provided by political entities seeking to one way or another influence an outcome of a vote.

But we now know that that's not true. It's not limited to "political organizations" or to "political entities seeking to one way or another influence an outcome of a vote" -- It applies to all people.

Got that cleared up for you?

You know, it doesn't hurt a bit to admit that you were wrong. I promise!

[Giggle]

Is eight meters too far for the loonie left to walk to get a slurp of water? Eight meters. Really? Sounds desperate.

[Whistler]

Udon,

Giggle knew he was lying, but he had to post something to get a rise out of people. It's up to you if you want a troll to stay on the forum. If you do, there will be more of the same, he is enjoying this.

[Kenr6583]

I personally don't think kicking anybody off this forum is the answer. If you ignore a troll it will eventually go away. This one in particular is just looking for entertainment.

[Giggle]

Ban! Ban! Ban!

[Udon Map]

Is eight meters too far for the loonie left to walk to get a slurp of water? Eight meters. Really? Sounds desperate.

That's not the point, of course. What you posted here was incorrect. Fake news. A lie.

[Udon Map]

Udon,

Giggle knew he was lying, but he had to post something to get a rise out of people. It's up to you if you want a troll to stay on the forum. If you do, there will be more of the same, he is enjoying this.

I personally don't think kicking anybody off this forum is the answer. If you ignore a troll it will eventually go away. This one in particular is just looking for entertainment.

Ban! Ban! Ban!

No one has been banned from Udon Map for a number of years, now, since the departure of one of our previous Moderators, who was a fierce proponent of banning people. Udon Map no longer bans people.

[jackspratt]

Here are two, only because I'm nice. Next time do your own research and maybe you'll be less ignorant.

Ignorance is not checking your own sources to confirm your own statement. Yours dont.

To start, let's re-visit your original statement:

Post by Giggle » April 3, 2021, 1:04 pm
The Chauvin trial is another complete fabrication of the leftist narrative that police mistreat blacks.

They do not. Data, parsed any way you like, supports this.

NOTE: no mention of shooting.

An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force
Roland G. Fryer Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_G._Fryer_Jr.

Journal of Political Economy
Volume 127, Number 3
June 2019

https://doi.org/10.1086/701423

Not only were police not using force disproportionally against black people, but police were more hesitant, more reluctant to pull the trigger on a black person than a white person.

This is what the Abstract actually says:

Abstract
This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On nonlethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than 50 percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/f ... 086/701423

As noted by Whistler, the paper has been heavily criticised. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... /87301632/

Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings

David J. Johnson, Trevor Tress, Nicole Burkel, Carley Taylor, and Joseph Cesario
National Academy of Sciences

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877

By using a comprehensive database of FOIS during 2015, officer race, sex, or experience did not predict the race of a person fatally shot beyond relationships explained by county demographics. On the other hand, race-specific violent crime strongly predicted the race of a civilian fatally shot by police, explaining over 40% of the variance in civilian race.

This is from the RETRACTION of the above article:

Despite this correction, our work has continued to be cited as providing support for the idea that there are no racial biases in fatal shootings, or policing in general. To be clear, our work does not speak to these issues and should not be used to support such statements. We take full responsibility for not being careful enough with the inferences made in our original report, as this directly led to the misunderstanding of our research.
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/30/18130

Need I say more!

[Giggle]

officer race, sex, or experience did not predict the race of a person fatally shot

Awfully clear to me, and everyone else who read the report.

[Declan MacPherson]

https://www.westernjournal.com/never-se ... emed-high/
Despite the establishment media’s insistence that a conviction is inevitable in former police officer Derek Chauvin’s trial, there are actually many compounding factors that make the case relatively complex.

[Whistler]

https://www.westernjournal.com/never-se ... emed-high/
Despite the establishment media’s insistence that a conviction is inevitable in former police officer Derek Chauvin’s trial, there are actually many compounding factors that make the case relatively complex.

You are certainly selective in picking your sources

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/western-journalism/

[jackspratt]

Post by Giggle » April 3, 2021, 1:04 pm
The Chauvin trial is another complete fabrication of the leftist narrative that police mistreat blacks.

They do not. Data, parsed any way you like, supports this.

officer race, sex, or experience did not predict the race of a person fatally shot

Awfully clear to me, and everyone else who read the report.

Keep on parsing, giggley - any way you like.

[Giggle]

The only doctor to do an autopsy on Floyd didn't give the prosecution what they wanted, so they're shopping around for someone who will. Weak.

Cause of death at issue in Chauvin trial as prosecution questions medical examiner's findings

Chao Xiong
Star Tribune
April 5, 2021

MINNEAPOLIS — Prosecutors trying the former Minneapolis police officer charged with murder in George Floyd's death appeared to distance themselves last week from the medical findings on his cause of death, issued by the only doctor who performed an autopsy.

...

Some veteran attorneys and legal scholars said the prosecution appeared to draw a line between themselves and the medical examiner. Others said perhaps they were "shoring up" Baker's work, which concluded that Floyd's death was a homicide.

"Usually you hear about alternative experts — outside experts — from the defense," said former Ramsey County attorney Susan Gaertner. "Typically expert pathologists are hired by the defense to dispute or undermine the medical examiner's report.

"What is unusual is that, to some extent, the battle of the experts is within the state's case instead of between the state and the defense."

Chauvin's attorney, Eric Nelson, seized on the issue. To raise reasonable doubt, he told jurors in his opening statement, "The state was not satisfied with Dr. Baker's work so they have contracted with numerous physicians to contradict Dr. Baker's findings, and this will ultimately be another significant battle in this trial: What was Mr. Floyd's actual cause of death?"

He noted that Baker was the only person to perform an autopsy on Floyd.

"Dr. Baker found none of what are referred to as the telltale signs of asphyxiation," said Nelson. "There was no evidence that Mr. Floyd's airflow was restricted and he did not determine [it] to be a positional or mechanical asphyxia death."

Nelson argued that Floyd died of a cardiac arrest resulting from drug use and preexisting health issues, including heart disease and high blood pressure.

Chauvin is on trial for second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.

Prosecutors have yet to call Baker or their medical experts to the witness stand. Blackwell told jurors they would hear from "a number of experts" and pathologist Dr. Lindsey Thomas.

Medical examiners in Minnesota work independently of law enforcement and prosecutors. They determine the cause and manner of death, but make no determination about legal culpability. However, as the authority legally mandated to perform autopsies and issue reports about sudden, suspicious or unexpected deaths, their findings historically form the bedrock of criminal cases and are largely undisputed by prosecutors.

"It seemed to me that essentially the prosecution is going to take the position that Dr. Baker's autopsy report is incorrect or can be explained more clearly," said Mitchell Hamline School of Law emeritus professor Prof. Joe Daly. "It's extremely unusual … to cast doubt on your own medical examiner."

Baker's findings that Floyd's cause of death was "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression" sparked public outrage when they were released last June 1. Many, including attorneys for Floyd's family, believed Floyd died of asphyxiation and criticized Baker's ruling. An emergency fence and concrete barricades were erected around Baker's downtown Minneapolis office two days after he issued his results; they remain standing.

Baker listed hardening and thickening of the artery walls, heart disease and drug use as "other significant conditions." Fentanyl and methamphetamine were also found in Floyd's system.

"[I]t appeared to Dr. Baker that the pressure to the neck was coming from the back or posterior lateral portions of the back, and none of these strictures would impact breathing or cause loss of consciousness," said a document summarizing the meeting. " … Dr. Baker found it important that Floyd had narrowing of coronary arteries: 75-80% narrowed. This would put him at risk for a sudden cardiac arrest."

Baker cited a study that found that placing 200 pounds of weight or more on a healthy person did not have an "observable impact on breathing."

He reportedly referenced a recent study that said positional restraint did not lead to "ventilatory or cardiac failure."

"Dr. Baker offered that one possibility for the pathway of Floyd's death is that Floyd's heart was starting to fail because of the stress, drugs, enlarged heart, and [heart] disease," said a summary of the meeting. "He said that once the heart starts to fail … one of the symptoms is the perception that you cannot breathe."

[Udon Map]

The only doctor to do an autopsy on Floyd....

More nonsense. There were two autopsies.

CBS News: "Two autopsies both find George Floyd died by homicide, but differ on some key details"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-flo ... n-details/

Five Thirty-Eight: "The Two Autopsies Of George Floyd Aren’t As Different As They Seem"
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... they-seem/

CNN: "Independent autopsy and Minnesota officials say George Floyd's death was homicide"
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/01/us/georg ... index.html

It's all part of the conspiracy, Giggle, right? In fact, ANY opinion or fact that differs from your opinion or disputes your narrative is part of the conspiracy, right? Everyone else is lying; you're the only one telling the truth. Got it.

[Kenr6583]

LOL

[Giggle]

Only one is official. Why are they still shopping for a Dr who will say what they want? Sounds desperate.