The info about the CA sheriffs also being the coroner is fascinating and something I didnt know. My wife, who has major interests in medieval history pointed out that one of the reasons for establishing the office of the coroner was to reduce the effects of corruption by the sheriffs, who in medieval times were often pretty awful. It sounds like CA has managed to install a system that has been known for hundreds of years to foster corruption and false outcomes, especially for the benefit of the sheriff.
I saw it too! I don't like being pedantic as a rule but I would be totally happy to crack open my AP Stylebook and do a quick newspaper copy desk proof on these if you ever want a volunteer editor!
Howsepian first, I assume, never had George Floyd as a patient so he is spitballing. Plus, spitballing that Floyd may have suffered from an extremely, extremely rare condition.
Weird. Reminds me of my own doctor's advice to me: if you hear hoofbeats in New Mexico, it is more likely horses than zebras.
I respect Coleman. I think he's a smart and thoughtful guy. Unfortunately, like so many other podcaster pundits, he wades into areas that are out of his depth. He got out over his skis on this one. He should have taken the L and moved on. I'm really disappointed with how he responded. As for Weiss, she's not a good faith actor, and "Honestly" must be the most pretentiously inaccurate title for a podcast ever. I tried to listen to her, but her fangirl interview of William Barr was too much. You'd never get an apology or correction from her.
This is only relevant if you think the prosecution claimed that Floyd died because Chauvin was kneeling on his neck, obstructing his windpipe. And indeed, that’s how the documentary depicted the state’s case. It’s also a claim many pundits on the right amplified when the documentary came out.
But this isn’t what the state actually argued. Prosecutors argued at the trial that Chauvin’s weight, the handcuffs, and the asphalt underneath Floyd restricted his ability to expand his diaphragm. He couldn’t sufficiently inhale. This caused his oxygen levels to drop and the CO2 in his blood to soar, ultimately resulting in his heart and lungs shutting down. Hughes did not address this in his column.
The Chauvin defenders are erecting a straw man: If you claim that the prosecution claimed that Chauvin kneeled on Floyd's neck until he died, and you show that Chauvin did not in fact kneel on his neck, Chauvin's guilt is not proven. But as Balko conclusively shows, the prosecution did not claim that, so the antecedent is false, so the consequent does not follow.
First off Radley, thanks for staying on this beat. I'm generally a fan of Coleman Hughes and think the Free Press does a good job of packaging some genuinely interesting and insightful commentary and stories (admittedly along with a fair amount of dreck) with real personality, but I lost a lot of respect (particularly for Coleman) from his reaction to your articles. Unlike someone like Glenn Loury, it became clear that Hughes is more interested in simply defending his original position than he is at really evaluating and understanding what happened. After reading your pieces (as well as Hughes' and many others), there is no doubt in my mind that any reasonable person who isn't trying to defend a political position would find Chauvin guilty of unintentional murder.
Having said that, I'd be interested in you going deeper on the Mario Gonzalez case and what you think should we take away from it because I think the case is very different from Floyd's in many important respects and is one where we may well disagree (and I always find it most valuable to read authors I respect when I disagree with them).
From what I can tell from this article, you agree with the new DA that the police in the Gonzalez case are guilty of manslaughter, and I (at least for the moment after having watched the video) disagree. Here is how I think about it:
- First, I strongly disagree with the idea that the police had no cause to take action against Gonzalez. I live in the Bay Area, and I think one of the real disasters for this region has been the way that substance abusers and the mentally ill have driven folks away from public spaces like parks and streets. When someone is behaving like Gonzalez was in a public park, others folks are not going to want to use it. I think that's a real problem and wrong, and I believe the police or other public officials (like the Mobile Crisis Response Team in Alameda you mentioned) need to take action in these situations. I also question it's ultimately in the best interests of society, or even his own best interest, for folks like Gonzalez to be left to roam the streets unattended.
- Though the video doesn't show most of that 11 minute time period, just from the fact that they talked to Gonzalez that long before taking action leads me to think that the officers were trying to action in both society and Gonzalez's best interests and eventually became convinced that they needed to arrest him.
- In contrast to Chauvin and the other officers in the Floyd case, give the struggles that the officers had in bringing Gonzalez under control (notice how hard they were working even up to the 4 minute mark and the officer's comment at the 6:20 mark about not wanting to role him on his side because of the fears of losing his hold on Gonzalez) and the fact that they seemed to be trying to be conscious of Gonzalez's well being as well as their own (notice both the conversation at 6:35 about not putting weight on his chest and then how quickly they did roll Gonzalez on to his side and then began CPR once he stopped struggling and became unresponsive).
Given all of this, I don't see the officers as guilty of manslaughter. But I'd like to understand why you feel differently. I'm not ruling out that I could be convinced.
- Perhaps not calling and waiting for the Mobile Crisis Teram (who is seems would have been the right folks to handle this) warrants that charge.
- Or perhaps you could say more about why you feel the officers' actions should have known their actions were clearly both so unnecessary for their own safety and dangerous to Gonzalez, when what I currently see is a team of folks taking reasonable steps to control someone who is physically difficult to control without putting their own safety at risk.
But for now, unlike the Floyd case which clearly was a murder, this strikes me as an unfortunate but understandable mistake. I don't want the police so afraid for their own careers and freedom that there unwilling to take action in cases like these. Would be good to understand more about why you see it differently.
He hadn't committed any crime! There was no cause to arrest him. So no, I don't think you should be detained, tackled, cuffed, and pinned because someone was made uncomfortable by your presence in a public park. He only became difficult to control once they tackled him. And again, that may well have been because he couldn't breathe. Addicted people, mentally ill people, and homeless people have the right to exist in public spaces, even if other people would rather not look at them.
I don't exactly disagree with your last sentence, but I don't completely agree with it either. I think it's a reasonable (and good for society) to expect people in public spaces to behave in ways that don't suggest they may be a threat to others or behave in ways that people may reasonably find disgusting or offensive, even if those behaviors don't constitute crimes.
I'm trying to be specific in my words because I get the dangers of too much discretion in making these judgements. To be clear, I think it's important to be vigilante about preventing racial discrimination or other forms of bias from sneaking in the back door here or for suppressing free speech on the grounds that someone found it offensive.
But at the same time, I don't think people should be free to hang out in public spaces when they:
- Are acting erratically with behaviors such as loudly talking to themselves, making sudden movements, or stumbling around.
- Stink because they are covered in their own excrement.
- Are injecting themselves.
Even though these behaviors may not technically violate the law, I think it's problematic to just let these folks be unless they violate the law. I think it's problematic for society because it can mean the loss of access to these spaces for others who may reasonably fear for their safety or their senses. And I think it's often problematic for the people experiencing these conditions who may need help, even though they may not recognize it.
In situations like these, I want the police (or other assigned folks) to have the ability to investigate what is happening, to make judgements about whether this is a situation that for the good of society or the individual warrants them becoming involved, and then taking action (that may include arresting the individuals if there aren't other better options). Ultimately, I think that makes for a better world than one where no one has any ability to take coercive action until a law is violated.
Which doesn't mean that I think the officers got it right here. They clearly didn't. But my sense (which is purely based on the video you posted; I don't have additional information) is that they were trying to do what they thought was the right thing. And so while I don't necessarily disagree that some disciplinary action was warranted (getting it too badly wrong should have consequences) or that a legal judgement against the city as was warranted, absent a lot more information that the police tactics were grossly negligent, there is no chance I would vote to convict if I were on the jury.
I think if we convict officers of crimes for making bad judgements calls, they will (rightly) refuse to make judgement calls, and I think that will actually prove to be much worse for society.
Appreciate the comment Jason because I think it underlines where I disagree with both you and Radley. Out of three examples of anti-social (but non criminal) behavior I gave above, the person injecting themseves with a needle is actually the one I would probably consider least important for the police to become involved with.
I think our difference here come from different conceptions of what we want the police to do. My sense is that your belief is that the police should become involved only when they see actual or likely violations of the law. But I want the police to do more than that. I think the role of the police includes maintain a sense of order and safety in public safety and that doing so may require police to become involved even when no laws have been broken.
Now getting involved doesn't necessarily mean arresting people. In fact, the vast majority of the time in situations where no laws have been broken it won't. But it will mean evaluating people to see if they present a danger to themselves and others. Sometimes that will be enough and the police should just move on once they're satisfied the situation is not a problem. Other times it may mean warning people they need to change their behavior if they want to remain where they are (even if their behavior doesn't technically violate any laws). And sometimes it may mean bringing people temporarily into custody, either for further evaluation or just to cool a situation down, even though the officers don't believe that a law has been violated.
I think that kind of police work is valuable to society, and while I think it's important to make sure it's not abused, it's also important not to punish mistakes in such a way that it prevents officers from engaging in it.
Where do you think the police get the authority to enforce what you want them to enforce?
The police have the same rights as everyone else to approach those they think are acting badly and admonish them or request they change their conduct, but there's no legal authority for a cop to approach the guy talking to himself in a public park and require him to cease doing so. He especially doesn't have any legal authority to use force to compel a change in behavior.
No worries on the delay Jason. Life definitely trumps Substack commenting. :)
Meanwhile, I'd still push back. I think the role of the police goes beyond just enforcing laws to maintaining social order and making people safe in public spaces. In fact, my sense is that this role of the police may be as important to society, as their role investigating and arresting folks who have committed crimes.
I think it's important when folks are behaving ways that scare or disturb others that we have people with both the responsibility and authority to approach folks behaving in this way, to assess whether they truly threaten public order, and to take action if they decide that they do. Now these folks don't necessarily have to be the police (I'm fine with ceding that responsibility to something like a "mobile crisis team") and the action they take certainly doesn't have to be an arrest. In most cases when anti-social behavior is happening that falls short of violating the law (and sometimes even when laws have been broken), the best action is probably just words of warning or connecting people in extremis to services they need.
But I do think it's vital for society that we have people playing this proactive intervention role and that they are accorded both respect and reasonable legal protections. Without people doing so, I think you can end up with the kind of degradation of public spaces that currently affects too much of San Francisco (which I live near) and Vancouver (where my family recently visited).
Now respect and reasonable legal protections doesn't mean a blank check. Abusive behavior by the police should still be prosecuted. I think Chauvin's behavior clearly was way across the line into abuse, and he (and the other officers who assisted rather than stopped him) was justly punished.
But based on the video above, I don't see abusive behavior in the Gonzalez case. I see officers trying to do their best but making mistakes. Now, I wouldn't rule out being convinced otherwise. Perhaps if I had heard the full conversation the officers had with Gonzalez, I would be convinced they should just have moved on. Or perhaps I would be convinced that given the policies in Alameda, they should never have tried to handcuff Gonzalez (but should have waited for social services). Or perhaps if I understood how they were trained, I would be convinced that they should have known that the way they were handling Gonzalez was dangerous and unnecessary.
But I would need to see more evidence to be convinced. And I definitely do worry that inappropriate prosecutions of policy could lead to problems in two ways:
- Police refusing to play the role I described above because of fears that they would prosecuted.
- More people coming to believe that the justice system is biased against the police and reflectively defending them in all circumstance (as they did with Chauvin), even when they are genuinely abusive.
I read the Howsepian paper. I have had a fascination with acromegaly since I was a child, and I can see that Floyd could well have suffered from it. The only photo I could find of him showing his teeth showed gaps that while common in acromegaly (and sprinters who take HGH) are not uncommon.
The info about the CA sheriffs also being the coroner is fascinating and something I didnt know. My wife, who has major interests in medieval history pointed out that one of the reasons for establishing the office of the coroner was to reduce the effects of corruption by the sheriffs, who in medieval times were often pretty awful. It sounds like CA has managed to install a system that has been known for hundreds of years to foster corruption and false outcomes, especially for the benefit of the sheriff.
Steve
Great work, which encourage me to take out a paid subscription. There's a typo "Barry" for "Bari" Weiss
I saw it too! I don't like being pedantic as a rule but I would be totally happy to crack open my AP Stylebook and do a quick newspaper copy desk proof on these if you ever want a volunteer editor!
Howsepian first, I assume, never had George Floyd as a patient so he is spitballing. Plus, spitballing that Floyd may have suffered from an extremely, extremely rare condition.
Weird. Reminds me of my own doctor's advice to me: if you hear hoofbeats in New Mexico, it is more likely horses than zebras.
It would not surprise me if "Howsepian" were Armenian for "red herring."
I respect Coleman. I think he's a smart and thoughtful guy. Unfortunately, like so many other podcaster pundits, he wades into areas that are out of his depth. He got out over his skis on this one. He should have taken the L and moved on. I'm really disappointed with how he responded. As for Weiss, she's not a good faith actor, and "Honestly" must be the most pretentiously inaccurate title for a podcast ever. I tried to listen to her, but her fangirl interview of William Barr was too much. You'd never get an apology or correction from her.
“I am a Christian who finds sodomy to completion unethical” is the most baffling sentence I've read in a while, thanks for that.
This is only relevant if you think the prosecution claimed that Floyd died because Chauvin was kneeling on his neck, obstructing his windpipe. And indeed, that’s how the documentary depicted the state’s case. It’s also a claim many pundits on the right amplified when the documentary came out.
But this isn’t what the state actually argued. Prosecutors argued at the trial that Chauvin’s weight, the handcuffs, and the asphalt underneath Floyd restricted his ability to expand his diaphragm. He couldn’t sufficiently inhale. This caused his oxygen levels to drop and the CO2 in his blood to soar, ultimately resulting in his heart and lungs shutting down. Hughes did not address this in his column.
========================================================================
Why is this not a distinction without a legal difference? Remove Chauvin from either scenario and Floyd does not expire.
The Chauvin defenders are erecting a straw man: If you claim that the prosecution claimed that Chauvin kneeled on Floyd's neck until he died, and you show that Chauvin did not in fact kneel on his neck, Chauvin's guilt is not proven. But as Balko conclusively shows, the prosecution did not claim that, so the antecedent is false, so the consequent does not follow.
Thank you for what you do.
Bari Weiss et al are what less than intelligent people think of as smart.
Your final paragraph is GOLD!
First off Radley, thanks for staying on this beat. I'm generally a fan of Coleman Hughes and think the Free Press does a good job of packaging some genuinely interesting and insightful commentary and stories (admittedly along with a fair amount of dreck) with real personality, but I lost a lot of respect (particularly for Coleman) from his reaction to your articles. Unlike someone like Glenn Loury, it became clear that Hughes is more interested in simply defending his original position than he is at really evaluating and understanding what happened. After reading your pieces (as well as Hughes' and many others), there is no doubt in my mind that any reasonable person who isn't trying to defend a political position would find Chauvin guilty of unintentional murder.
Having said that, I'd be interested in you going deeper on the Mario Gonzalez case and what you think should we take away from it because I think the case is very different from Floyd's in many important respects and is one where we may well disagree (and I always find it most valuable to read authors I respect when I disagree with them).
From what I can tell from this article, you agree with the new DA that the police in the Gonzalez case are guilty of manslaughter, and I (at least for the moment after having watched the video) disagree. Here is how I think about it:
- First, I strongly disagree with the idea that the police had no cause to take action against Gonzalez. I live in the Bay Area, and I think one of the real disasters for this region has been the way that substance abusers and the mentally ill have driven folks away from public spaces like parks and streets. When someone is behaving like Gonzalez was in a public park, others folks are not going to want to use it. I think that's a real problem and wrong, and I believe the police or other public officials (like the Mobile Crisis Response Team in Alameda you mentioned) need to take action in these situations. I also question it's ultimately in the best interests of society, or even his own best interest, for folks like Gonzalez to be left to roam the streets unattended.
- Though the video doesn't show most of that 11 minute time period, just from the fact that they talked to Gonzalez that long before taking action leads me to think that the officers were trying to action in both society and Gonzalez's best interests and eventually became convinced that they needed to arrest him.
- In contrast to Chauvin and the other officers in the Floyd case, give the struggles that the officers had in bringing Gonzalez under control (notice how hard they were working even up to the 4 minute mark and the officer's comment at the 6:20 mark about not wanting to role him on his side because of the fears of losing his hold on Gonzalez) and the fact that they seemed to be trying to be conscious of Gonzalez's well being as well as their own (notice both the conversation at 6:35 about not putting weight on his chest and then how quickly they did roll Gonzalez on to his side and then began CPR once he stopped struggling and became unresponsive).
Given all of this, I don't see the officers as guilty of manslaughter. But I'd like to understand why you feel differently. I'm not ruling out that I could be convinced.
- Perhaps not calling and waiting for the Mobile Crisis Teram (who is seems would have been the right folks to handle this) warrants that charge.
- Or perhaps you could say more about why you feel the officers' actions should have known their actions were clearly both so unnecessary for their own safety and dangerous to Gonzalez, when what I currently see is a team of folks taking reasonable steps to control someone who is physically difficult to control without putting their own safety at risk.
But for now, unlike the Floyd case which clearly was a murder, this strikes me as an unfortunate but understandable mistake. I don't want the police so afraid for their own careers and freedom that there unwilling to take action in cases like these. Would be good to understand more about why you see it differently.
He hadn't committed any crime! There was no cause to arrest him. So no, I don't think you should be detained, tackled, cuffed, and pinned because someone was made uncomfortable by your presence in a public park. He only became difficult to control once they tackled him. And again, that may well have been because he couldn't breathe. Addicted people, mentally ill people, and homeless people have the right to exist in public spaces, even if other people would rather not look at them.
I don't exactly disagree with your last sentence, but I don't completely agree with it either. I think it's a reasonable (and good for society) to expect people in public spaces to behave in ways that don't suggest they may be a threat to others or behave in ways that people may reasonably find disgusting or offensive, even if those behaviors don't constitute crimes.
I'm trying to be specific in my words because I get the dangers of too much discretion in making these judgements. To be clear, I think it's important to be vigilante about preventing racial discrimination or other forms of bias from sneaking in the back door here or for suppressing free speech on the grounds that someone found it offensive.
But at the same time, I don't think people should be free to hang out in public spaces when they:
- Are acting erratically with behaviors such as loudly talking to themselves, making sudden movements, or stumbling around.
- Stink because they are covered in their own excrement.
- Are injecting themselves.
Even though these behaviors may not technically violate the law, I think it's problematic to just let these folks be unless they violate the law. I think it's problematic for society because it can mean the loss of access to these spaces for others who may reasonably fear for their safety or their senses. And I think it's often problematic for the people experiencing these conditions who may need help, even though they may not recognize it.
In situations like these, I want the police (or other assigned folks) to have the ability to investigate what is happening, to make judgements about whether this is a situation that for the good of society or the individual warrants them becoming involved, and then taking action (that may include arresting the individuals if there aren't other better options). Ultimately, I think that makes for a better world than one where no one has any ability to take coercive action until a law is violated.
Which doesn't mean that I think the officers got it right here. They clearly didn't. But my sense (which is purely based on the video you posted; I don't have additional information) is that they were trying to do what they thought was the right thing. And so while I don't necessarily disagree that some disciplinary action was warranted (getting it too badly wrong should have consequences) or that a legal judgement against the city as was warranted, absent a lot more information that the police tactics were grossly negligent, there is no chance I would vote to convict if I were on the jury.
I think if we convict officers of crimes for making bad judgements calls, they will (rightly) refuse to make judgement calls, and I think that will actually prove to be much worse for society.
Someone injecting themselves in a public park would likely provide police with at least reasonable suspicion to detain the person and investigate.
Stinking and/or talking to themselves, however, gives police no legal authority to detain someone, let alone forcibly do so.
Appreciate the comment Jason because I think it underlines where I disagree with both you and Radley. Out of three examples of anti-social (but non criminal) behavior I gave above, the person injecting themseves with a needle is actually the one I would probably consider least important for the police to become involved with.
I think our difference here come from different conceptions of what we want the police to do. My sense is that your belief is that the police should become involved only when they see actual or likely violations of the law. But I want the police to do more than that. I think the role of the police includes maintain a sense of order and safety in public safety and that doing so may require police to become involved even when no laws have been broken.
Now getting involved doesn't necessarily mean arresting people. In fact, the vast majority of the time in situations where no laws have been broken it won't. But it will mean evaluating people to see if they present a danger to themselves and others. Sometimes that will be enough and the police should just move on once they're satisfied the situation is not a problem. Other times it may mean warning people they need to change their behavior if they want to remain where they are (even if their behavior doesn't technically violate any laws). And sometimes it may mean bringing people temporarily into custody, either for further evaluation or just to cool a situation down, even though the officers don't believe that a law has been violated.
I think that kind of police work is valuable to society, and while I think it's important to make sure it's not abused, it's also important not to punish mistakes in such a way that it prevents officers from engaging in it.
Where do you think the police get the authority to enforce what you want them to enforce?
The police have the same rights as everyone else to approach those they think are acting badly and admonish them or request they change their conduct, but there's no legal authority for a cop to approach the guy talking to himself in a public park and require him to cease doing so. He especially doesn't have any legal authority to use force to compel a change in behavior.
My apologies on the delay in responding.
No worries on the delay Jason. Life definitely trumps Substack commenting. :)
Meanwhile, I'd still push back. I think the role of the police goes beyond just enforcing laws to maintaining social order and making people safe in public spaces. In fact, my sense is that this role of the police may be as important to society, as their role investigating and arresting folks who have committed crimes.
I think it's important when folks are behaving ways that scare or disturb others that we have people with both the responsibility and authority to approach folks behaving in this way, to assess whether they truly threaten public order, and to take action if they decide that they do. Now these folks don't necessarily have to be the police (I'm fine with ceding that responsibility to something like a "mobile crisis team") and the action they take certainly doesn't have to be an arrest. In most cases when anti-social behavior is happening that falls short of violating the law (and sometimes even when laws have been broken), the best action is probably just words of warning or connecting people in extremis to services they need.
But I do think it's vital for society that we have people playing this proactive intervention role and that they are accorded both respect and reasonable legal protections. Without people doing so, I think you can end up with the kind of degradation of public spaces that currently affects too much of San Francisco (which I live near) and Vancouver (where my family recently visited).
Now respect and reasonable legal protections doesn't mean a blank check. Abusive behavior by the police should still be prosecuted. I think Chauvin's behavior clearly was way across the line into abuse, and he (and the other officers who assisted rather than stopped him) was justly punished.
But based on the video above, I don't see abusive behavior in the Gonzalez case. I see officers trying to do their best but making mistakes. Now, I wouldn't rule out being convinced otherwise. Perhaps if I had heard the full conversation the officers had with Gonzalez, I would be convinced they should just have moved on. Or perhaps I would be convinced that given the policies in Alameda, they should never have tried to handcuff Gonzalez (but should have waited for social services). Or perhaps if I understood how they were trained, I would be convinced that they should have known that the way they were handling Gonzalez was dangerous and unnecessary.
But I would need to see more evidence to be convinced. And I definitely do worry that inappropriate prosecutions of policy could lead to problems in two ways:
- Police refusing to play the role I described above because of fears that they would prosecuted.
- More people coming to believe that the justice system is biased against the police and reflectively defending them in all circumstance (as they did with Chauvin), even when they are genuinely abusive.
I read the Howsepian paper. I have had a fascination with acromegaly since I was a child, and I can see that Floyd could well have suffered from it. The only photo I could find of him showing his teeth showed gaps that while common in acromegaly (and sprinters who take HGH) are not uncommon.
But, as you note, eggshell skull cases....