Penn wrote: » Biden's comments to Floyd's family were about praying for the right verdict (but doesn't seem to have specified which verdict was the "right" verdict), and then after the verdict he called it murder and that justice was done, which is true at that point as that was the verdict. I'd be willing to bet Biden chose his words carefully enough that, even if the defence did try to use it as part of an appeal or retrial, it wouldn't be deemed to have enough weight.
Mellor wrote: » It was disputed that it was fatal or 3x fatal. Saying it’s “high” is meaningless. It’s unqualified.
Mellor wrote: » FWIW I provided evidence that c.10ng/ml is in the law analgesic range.
Mellor wrote: » But I’m not going to expect a reasonable thought out arguement tbh. He’s not exactly a paragon of enlightenment and reasoning.
BattleCorp wrote: » They were only sequestered while deciding upon the verdict. Every other day they got to go home, hear about things that they weren't allowed to hear about in court, watch tv footage of the trial, ...
Yellow_Fern wrote: » l These 'Fact checks' would make you think the drugs in his system are irrelevant but it is alone to cause reasonable doubt, which is really a low bar for a defence.
No one claimed that. The meme claimed 3.7ng/ml could kill. Which is correct. It didn't say would kill always in all cases which is a very different thing. According to the Handbook of forensic toxicology for medical examiners 3 ng/ml in blood is in the lethal range in forensics.
See Molina Handbook of forensic toxicology for medical examiners. CRC press, 2009.
No, according to the Handbook of forensic toxicology for medical examiners actually 10 ng/ml in blood is the upper limit of a therapeutic dose but that is a dishonest point to make as therapeutic vs lethal doses will overlap because humans vary enoughly and due to the large variability between antemortem doses and postmortem blood concentrations.
Why do you say that? Strange point to make.
Mellor wrote: » Reasonable doubt of what exactly? You can’t just wheel it out as a get out of jail card.
Mellor wrote: » Reasonable doubt of what exactly? That’s incorrect. That the poster said was that 11ng would kill 95% of people. That is completely untrue. The “evidence” he provided actually proved him wrong.
Mellor wrote: » Can you provide evidence if 3.7ng/ml of fentanyl killing? I’ve asked for this a few time. As so far, everyone repeating this sound bite has been unable to. Obviously, a cocktail of 3ng fentanyl, plus other opiates would not be evidence of this. I don’t have a copy. Can you provide an extract or link?
Mellor wrote: » Up to 5-10ng was a therapeutic/analgesic dose, and 10-20ng was an anaesthetic dose.
Mellor wrote: » And of course ranges will overlap. if 10ng is the upper limit for therapeutic doses. Are you honestly defending the claim that 11ng will kill 95% people?
Yellow_Fern wrote: » Reasonable doubt that Chauvin commited murder or manslaughter. The benefit of the doubt always goes to the defence
OK we crossed wires. I thought you were referring to the 'fact checks' that 'debunked' the role of drugs.
That handbook is evidence. You can get it in libgen for free.
We can't even use that kind of language, for example 'was an Up to 5-10ng was a therapeutic/analgesic dose, and 10-20ng was an anaesthetic dose'. Concentrations in the blood is an inexact indicator of how much is consumed.
I was the first person to point that that the paper does provide evidence of the claim that 11ng will kill 95% people.
zom wrote: » Apologies for breaking in discussion but is this double jeopardy any serious issue even as a precedence?Opinion: No, Derek Chauvin isn't being subjected to double jeopardy:https://news.yahoo.com/opinion-no-derek-chauvin-isnt-223630308.html
Mellor wrote: » In order for reasonable doubt to be relevant, it has to provide some sort of doubt that the accused actions were criminal. There is zero doubt that Chauvin's actions were criminal.
Mellor wrote: » That states that therapeutic doses are typically 0.3-10ng/ml, but have been up to 40ng/ml. The lethal range is 3-210ng/ml. The lower ranges are likely associated with poly-narcotic overdoes, or deaths in elderly patients with serious illnesses. So that in no way suggests that 11ng/ml is three times the lethal dose. It's firmly at the low end of the range and within the therapeutic range. As I said
Mellor wrote: » So that in no way suggests that 11ng/ml is three times the lethal dose. It's firmly at the low end of the range and within the therapeutic range. As I said
Mellor wrote: » I was the first person to point that that the paper does provide evidence of the claim that 11ng will kill 95% people. No you weren't. Unless you were posting from your alternate account. You mentioned about a lethal dose having to be the dose that kills everybody, bit 95 out of 100. Which is incorrect. If a lethal dose is quoted for a substance, it is typically given in the format of LD50. Which is the dose that will kill over 50% of people.
jace_da_face wrote: » Obviously with the anniversary of George Floyd’s killing, and on the back of the recent conviction of Derek Chauvin, there is still a lot of media attention in the news. But something is bothering me with how the case is being conflated with systemic racism in the eyes of the media. It seems somehow that Chauvin was convicted of racism and of a racist murder as far as the media are concerned. Is that true? To my knowledge he was convicted on three counts, first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter. I can’t say I followed the actual court proceedings, but was a racial element shown to be the case or even explored? Did any evidence emerge to show that Chauvin actually committed a racial killing? Or that he was a racist? Was he a member of a neo-nazi group? Did they raid his house and unravel racist paraphernalia? I am not aware myself. These questions are important are they not? The fact that Chauvin applied brutal and unnecessary force to Floyd, which resulted in Floyd’s killing and Chauvin’s conviction for murder seems completely like the correct decision. But was Floyd’s blackness shown to be a factor in this case? The media are presenting it so.
BattleCorp wrote: » This was a police brutality case, not a race case. Race was not a factor in the trial as there was no evidence that Chauvin did what he did because Floyd was black. The media nowadays aren't really concerned with evidence or facts. Every single incident involving people who are different colours is painted as a racial incident, except when a black person kills a white person.
Tell me how wrote: » This isn't at all complicated and the people looking to absolve police from any sort of racial considerations know exactly what they are doing. Their bar for something being racially motivated is that the accused clearly and loudly used a racial slur or was wearing clothing or had a tattoo with racist symbolisms on it (even though they'd probably debate that also). This is also evident in how they can't understand the concept of systemic racism. BLM has risen in to the public space because of the frequent occurrence of excessive and prejudicial force being used on black people by people specifically hired to defend the public often resulting in the deaths of those black people. The experience of people in black communities are frequently that they are treated differently and unfairly because of the colour of the skin. Most sensible people look at the emergence of these stories, in large part solely because of the presence of more and more advanced phones and see the police behaviour as often inappropriate and excessive and they also wonder just how many cases of such behaviour occurred before video recording was so mobile. Others look to absolve the police with the claim that there's no evidence of it being racially motivated.
BattleCorp wrote: » And at the same time, the above could be used to ascribe racism as a factor in some situations where it doesn't exist. There needs to be slightly more evidence of an action being fuelled by racism than the colour of the person being assaulted is different from the colour of the aggressor.
Tell me how wrote: » The accusation of racism didn't appear at any point in the trial. Chauvin was tried for his actions and found guilty on the basis of those and those alone.
But when there is sustained and both documented and lived evidence of how people of different colour experience the police, should this reality just be ignored because no one used the N word?
BattleCorp wrote: » Because there was absolutely zero evidence that Chauvin's actions were borne out of racism. It's a legal principle that each case has to be tried on its own merits. You can't attribute actions in a case to racism just because there is evidence of racism elsewhere. In other words, you can't tar everyone with the one brush. By the way, I'm not denying that some members of the police force are racist, but it's incorrect to say that every negative interaction between black people and the police is because of racism.
Tell me how wrote: » Who said they were?
BattleCorp wrote: » Does your statement below not suggest we should be looking for racism even if on the surface there's no evidence of it?
Tell me how wrote: » I asked the question about the documented and lived evidence of black people and how they frequently experience a more negative and often fatal outcome when engaging with police than people who are not black. I was asking does society not explore this issue because there might be an absence of evidence of absolute racial motivation? I was not suggesting that every such interaction between the police and black people is or can be assumed to be racially motivated. If a racist cop ten years ago trained a rookie to be excessively aggressive towards black people and told them that this is the correct procedure. They might not have said that Blacks deserved it, or anything overtly racist, but they were motivated by their racial hatred of black people. That rookie cop could then carry out procedures without being in any way racially motivated but in doing so is actually treating someone unfairly because of their race. It is things like this hypothetical scenario which are what systemic is (in part) and why it can be a problem without saying every cop is racist. And given the experience of black people, who feel they are treated differently and unfairly, is it not fair for them to what to see this type of situation change?
Darc19 wrote: » Someone wasn't thinkinghttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/spain-stamps-post-office-equality-b1856101.html New Spanish postage stamps to mark anniversary of George Floyd. The black stamp is 70c and the pale stamp is €1.60. Seems it was intentional, but over thought and ended up accidentally seen as racist. “The darker the stamp, the less value it will have,” the state-owned company, called Correos, said in a news release announcing the launch. “Therefore, when making a shipment, it will be necessary to use more black stamps than white ones. That way, each letter and each shipment will become a reflection of the inequality created by racism.”
Hhhhh wrote: » hahaha that's hilarious. This progressive ****e is the gift that keeps on giving. Biden needs to rid his party of it quicker rather than later.
Hhhhh wrote: » Just because one feels they are treated differently and unfairly, doesn't mean they are. This is why above posters' points about the media making near every negative interaction between police, particularly when the policeman is white, and a black person onto a race issue is so dangerous. Your hypothetical is quite a strange one. Is there any evidence that rookie police were trained to deal with black people specifically in a different manner than anyone else in the last 10 years?
Tell me how wrote: » Every hypothetical is a strange one when your only metric for racial tendencies are cast iron proof through verbal expression or the use of symbols. Why don't you come up with a hypothetical in which racist police (and we know there are at least some) behave in a racist manner without the use of words or symbols just so we can see if you are willing to believe it can happen.
Hhhhh wrote: » What makes you say the above is my only metric? The last time I interacted with you you called me a conservative, you seem to jump to conclusions aft too quick. I do believe it can happen, but you were suggesting that police were being trained to be racist. That's a big leap to make with not even a hint of evidence.
Tell me how wrote: » I don't remember you at all. I didn't suggest people were being trained to be racist, I gave a hypothetical, I literally said that in my post. Are you going to answer the question?
Hhhhh wrote: » I know you don't remember me, that's the point. You jump to conclusions about people immediately if they don't agree with you. Usually hypotheticals in these discussions need to be realistic. Yours isn't. Hypothetically you could have a cop who constantly stops mainly black people simply to hassle them and piss them off because he's a racist. Hypothetically this cop could also be black, hypothetically he could even be from Mars. Hypothetically.
On Friday morning, Arkansas County Sheriff Todd Wright resigned from his position following the circulation of a five-minute audio recording in which he used the n-word, an anti-Black racial slur, nine times to describe a Black employee of a Piggly Wiggly grocery store. In the recording, Wright, upset that the woman he was was with had spoken to the Black male employee, calls her a "[n-word] lover" and refers to the man as a "f*cking Black-ass [n-word]."
Tell me how wrote: » Sure, I'm jumping to conclusions, and you're keeping your head in the sand. That's twice you have declined to give an example of how a racist cop (which no one is denying exists) is likely to behave in a racist manner which is not obvious so we can then see how you would suggest they be held to account for that.
Hypothetically you could have a cop who constantly stops mainly black people simply to hassle them and piss them off because he's a racist.
Tell me how wrote: » You are trying to deflect so that you and others can continue to claim that there is no evidence of individual or systemic racism within police forces.
Tell me how wrote: » I still want you to answer the question asked, but given you are trying to dance around it on the basis that it is hypothetical related, here's a specific case for you.
Tell me how wrote: » Arkansas Sherriff resigns He was Sherriff in a county which is 25% black, twice the national average, do you think he was likely to be have treated all black people he engaged with in a fair manner given his engrained beliefs? How do you think that deputies out of his office would have been encouraged to behave towards some members of the community?
Tell me how wrote: » But note, it took a recording from his private life to ultimately result in his removal (resigning, not firing) from his role after he insisted he wasn't a racist.
Tell me how wrote: » If Todd Wright had come in to the news for being excessively forceful in a traffic stop, you guys would likely argue there was no evidence of him being racist, and it was just people looking to inject racism in to a case where there was none. So how should society deal with cases of racists holding positions of authority within police bodies? Ignore it, until there is clear and unambiguous evidence that it exists? Or be forceful in ensuring that it will be sought out and removed?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)