Radley, I think the policy document is pretty easy to explain. MPD dropped the wrap after a previous lawsuit. So they just went in and deleted B. You can use the way back machine Internet Archive to see different versions of the document over time.
The filmmakers think this doc exonerates Chauvin because it was optional to do hobble and recovery position, look at the doc, they keep pointing to the doc.
Chauvin was at the department for years and was specifically trained to do the recovery position. People who work at MPD all thought he was nuts for not using it. He didn’t care about a typo in a doc and his lawyers didn’t even make this argument during the trial. This is being retconned for the purpose of this dishonest documentary.
Hi Radley––Thank you for correcting your "heart attack" error.
I have no doubt that asking for corrections can be "tactic", as you suggest. But I did not ask you for corrections as a way of sidestepping your substantive arguments. I will address all of those arguments––which are far less substantive than they appear––in a single, unified post after you release your promised "Part 3". I'm also happy to have a public conversation with you on any of these matters.
Coleman, I don't see how replacing heart attack with heart failure weakens Radley's argument in the slightest, so insisting on this without addressing his substantive claims does seem like misleading deflection to me. The suggestion that he "shouldn't participate in the conversation" on these grounds is even worse (link below). But perhaps you will explain why he shouldn't participate when you respond methodically. I for one am very glad that he has chosen to participate.
Thanks. The weird wording bothered me, because my overly literal brain went to “well, if you’re not using the hobble, I guess the policy reverts to the duration of the threat or possibility thereof as the only limitation.” Terrible policy, but we’ve seen terrible policies before and it’s harder but definitely possible to hold Chauvin to account on breaking the policy.
Hughes reminds me of other talented enfant terribles that are so used to being ahead of the curve, they don’t develop the humility to check their own biases, and they don’t handle the damage to their ego well. I hope he’ll learn.
If you’re an intelligent and intellectually honest academic, and you write the piece that Hughes did, and you get destroyed by a highly respected and legitimate expert in the field, your only solution is waving the white flag, complete and total surrender, and contrite apologies for the errors and a pledge to never do it again.
But if you are not, then you will engage in a weak, futile and sad semantic defense, and you will set your course for a career in disreputable academia and punditry.
The Dunning Kruger Effect is real. That's why it's important to consult several experts or reputable sources when writing about fields in which you have no training or first hand knowledge.
Just FYI: The messages were actually sent at 5:14am and 5:18am my time, and the email didn't have a "diagram"––just an auto-generated thumbnail from one of the links I sent. I'm not sure what the purpose of disclosing the time of those emails would be (I noticed Radley only revealed the ones at "4am") other than to paint me as an obsessed late-night troll. You'll be happy to know that I got a good night's sleep and was up early for my 6am appearance on CNN, so I chose to send Radley two messages (which he never replied to) just after 5am. I won't make that mistake again.
When the recipient doesn't respond to any of emails asking for corrections (still hasn't, btw), then I'd argue "pestering" is warranted. But we can agree to disagree.
Why should he. Hughes isn’t a expert on any of the issues dealing with Floyd’s death and Chauvins trial, policing, racism, reparations or anything else except promoting himself!
Notice using CNN as a sign on credibility. You were a wanna be rapper and a 1/2 naked subway pole dancer before you decided to be an expert on race, black people, reparations, policing, medical examiners, Etc.
Thank you for your work. I am a recently retired physician who chaired a program for years. Your attention to detail on the medical issues, you clearly consulted real experts, is amazing. I have now subscribed to my first substack, yours. Now if I can just figure out how to get a password.
Loury and Coleman think being polite is a good way to mask their anti black rhetoric. They get a lot of compliments by on their manner of speaking. These are the moderates who MLK save liked peace over justice.
1. It seems very uncharitable to omit this part of the sentence you quoted: "I’ll get into this more in the third installment, but" and then take issue with Balko making a categorical statement he didn't support. I mean, he literally said he was going to write about it in his nexrt post!
2. With regard to the aftermath of Floyd death, context suggests you and he are talking about different things. You are saying: the "racial reckoning was bad" (or partly bad); he is saying (I'm guessing from his reference to positional asphyxia): "police put some better safety measures and protocols into place" which isn't really about race. Unless you are of the view that more people should die the way Floyd did, then you are talking past him.
Thomas, the rise in homicide was severe and incredibly costly but I don't see how this documentary or Coleman's credulous response to it helps matters, or Radley's critique worsens the problem. I think he is mistaken about the lives saved, I have not seen any evidence of a decline in lethal force overall, but to suggest that he is indifferent to the homicide spike seems to be reading more into his piece than is there. We are still trying to understand the causes of the spike, which thankfully appears to have been temporary. Police pullbacks in the face of the protests do have something to do with it, and Alec MacGillis has some good reporting on this (link below). But I don't know why you are laying all this at Radley's door.
I don't know if the reaction to Floyd's murder was "all to the good," but it was well-earned by police across the country. It's a sad fact that law enforcement is held to lower standards. MPD changed their policies (as Balko noted) following the death of another man in essentially identical circumstances at the knees of two other MPD officers. They didn't face any personal consequences. Chauvin demonstrates the practice didn't follow the policy change, which is a phenomena those of us who pay attention to these issues notice. It's a pattern: 1) Controversial death or injury by police occurs, 2) While not holding anyone accountable, reforms are promised (and maybe even put on paper), 3) The same practices continue and result in [go back to step 1].
Your claim he's being facile and emotionally manipulative is as specious as it is risible. Blaming the increased murders on police reform isn't laughable: it's absurd in a fascist kind of way. The argument that police can only do their job if they're allowed to break the law and kill with impunity is not one a free society can or should accept.
I will remind everyone that a major 2024 Presidential candidate in the USA has recently been quoting Hitler and Mussolini, literally and repeatedly, even after being called out for his fascistic rhetoric. We should all take the threat of fascism coming to power in America quite seriously. If it arrives I expect some cadre of police officers to use that power as an excuse to treat suspects with violence and brutality with impunity in the anime of law and order. The past use of deadly restraint techniques by law enforcement has occurred even in liberal states and cities which have banned such restraints or tried to train officers to use them in concert with risk reduction (progressing to the recovery position quickly after restraints are applied). If a right wing federal government encourages police to be aggressive (as the same Presidential candidate has in the past) the bad cops will feel emboldened and supported.
Radley, I think the policy document is pretty easy to explain. MPD dropped the wrap after a previous lawsuit. So they just went in and deleted B. You can use the way back machine Internet Archive to see different versions of the document over time.
The filmmakers think this doc exonerates Chauvin because it was optional to do hobble and recovery position, look at the doc, they keep pointing to the doc.
Chauvin was at the department for years and was specifically trained to do the recovery position. People who work at MPD all thought he was nuts for not using it. He didn’t care about a typo in a doc and his lawyers didn’t even make this argument during the trial. This is being retconned for the purpose of this dishonest documentary.
Hi Radley––Thank you for correcting your "heart attack" error.
I have no doubt that asking for corrections can be "tactic", as you suggest. But I did not ask you for corrections as a way of sidestepping your substantive arguments. I will address all of those arguments––which are far less substantive than they appear––in a single, unified post after you release your promised "Part 3". I'm also happy to have a public conversation with you on any of these matters.
Best,
CH
Coleman, I don't see how replacing heart attack with heart failure weakens Radley's argument in the slightest, so insisting on this without addressing his substantive claims does seem like misleading deflection to me. The suggestion that he "shouldn't participate in the conversation" on these grounds is even worse (link below). But perhaps you will explain why he shouldn't participate when you respond methodically. I for one am very glad that he has chosen to participate.
https://twitter.com/coldxman/status/1757960435158958142?t=jVsafgmOdRqewzicYc-0mw&s=19
You should go back to pole dancing in your panties on NYC subways. You had more credibility there than in this new grift.
Thanks. The weird wording bothered me, because my overly literal brain went to “well, if you’re not using the hobble, I guess the policy reverts to the duration of the threat or possibility thereof as the only limitation.” Terrible policy, but we’ve seen terrible policies before and it’s harder but definitely possible to hold Chauvin to account on breaking the policy.
Hughes reminds me of other talented enfant terribles that are so used to being ahead of the curve, they don’t develop the humility to check their own biases, and they don’t handle the damage to their ego well. I hope he’ll learn.
If you’re an intelligent and intellectually honest academic, and you write the piece that Hughes did, and you get destroyed by a highly respected and legitimate expert in the field, your only solution is waving the white flag, complete and total surrender, and contrite apologies for the errors and a pledge to never do it again.
But if you are not, then you will engage in a weak, futile and sad semantic defense, and you will set your course for a career in disreputable academia and punditry.
I guess he has made his choice.
The Dunning Kruger Effect is real. That's why it's important to consult several experts or reputable sources when writing about fields in which you have no training or first hand knowledge.
Lack of specialized knowledge is a real problem in this era of "I'll do my own research."
"In his 4:18am email to me, which included a diagram and a link to several medical publications, Hughes wrote:"
Sorry, all I hear is:
twenty seven eight-by-ten
Colour glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and the paragraph on
The back of each one
Just FYI: The messages were actually sent at 5:14am and 5:18am my time, and the email didn't have a "diagram"––just an auto-generated thumbnail from one of the links I sent. I'm not sure what the purpose of disclosing the time of those emails would be (I noticed Radley only revealed the ones at "4am") other than to paint me as an obsessed late-night troll. You'll be happy to know that I got a good night's sleep and was up early for my 6am appearance on CNN, so I chose to send Radley two messages (which he never replied to) just after 5am. I won't make that mistake again.
Well it certainly read as obsessive, but whomst among us hasn't obsessed in followup texts, emails, smoke signals, semaphore.
You could certainly see why it would feel to the recipient like a deluge.
AND ANOTHER THING!
No, that was just me.
When the recipient doesn't respond to any of emails asking for corrections (still hasn't, btw), then I'd argue "pestering" is warranted. But we can agree to disagree.
Why should he. Hughes isn’t a expert on any of the issues dealing with Floyd’s death and Chauvins trial, policing, racism, reparations or anything else except promoting himself!
Notice using CNN as a sign on credibility. You were a wanna be rapper and a 1/2 naked subway pole dancer before you decided to be an expert on race, black people, reparations, policing, medical examiners, Etc.
Thank you for your work. I am a recently retired physician who chaired a program for years. Your attention to detail on the medical issues, you clearly consulted real experts, is amazing. I have now subscribed to my first substack, yours. Now if I can just figure out how to get a password.
Loury and Coleman think being polite is a good way to mask their anti black rhetoric. They get a lot of compliments by on their manner of speaking. These are the moderates who MLK save liked peace over justice.
Here's a video of the Elgin police applying the Wrap (it's a training/ propaganda video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PKlUY4fOMI
Two thoughts:
1. It seems very uncharitable to omit this part of the sentence you quoted: "I’ll get into this more in the third installment, but" and then take issue with Balko making a categorical statement he didn't support. I mean, he literally said he was going to write about it in his nexrt post!
2. With regard to the aftermath of Floyd death, context suggests you and he are talking about different things. You are saying: the "racial reckoning was bad" (or partly bad); he is saying (I'm guessing from his reference to positional asphyxia): "police put some better safety measures and protocols into place" which isn't really about race. Unless you are of the view that more people should die the way Floyd did, then you are talking past him.
Thomas, the rise in homicide was severe and incredibly costly but I don't see how this documentary or Coleman's credulous response to it helps matters, or Radley's critique worsens the problem. I think he is mistaken about the lives saved, I have not seen any evidence of a decline in lethal force overall, but to suggest that he is indifferent to the homicide spike seems to be reading more into his piece than is there. We are still trying to understand the causes of the spike, which thankfully appears to have been temporary. Police pullbacks in the face of the protests do have something to do with it, and Alec MacGillis has some good reporting on this (link below). But I don't know why you are laying all this at Radley's door.
https://www.propublica.org/article/philadelphia-homicide-surge
I don't know if the reaction to Floyd's murder was "all to the good," but it was well-earned by police across the country. It's a sad fact that law enforcement is held to lower standards. MPD changed their policies (as Balko noted) following the death of another man in essentially identical circumstances at the knees of two other MPD officers. They didn't face any personal consequences. Chauvin demonstrates the practice didn't follow the policy change, which is a phenomena those of us who pay attention to these issues notice. It's a pattern: 1) Controversial death or injury by police occurs, 2) While not holding anyone accountable, reforms are promised (and maybe even put on paper), 3) The same practices continue and result in [go back to step 1].
Your claim he's being facile and emotionally manipulative is as specious as it is risible. Blaming the increased murders on police reform isn't laughable: it's absurd in a fascist kind of way. The argument that police can only do their job if they're allowed to break the law and kill with impunity is not one a free society can or should accept.
That's quite the silly response. Not to mention projection.
I will remind everyone that a major 2024 Presidential candidate in the USA has recently been quoting Hitler and Mussolini, literally and repeatedly, even after being called out for his fascistic rhetoric. We should all take the threat of fascism coming to power in America quite seriously. If it arrives I expect some cadre of police officers to use that power as an excuse to treat suspects with violence and brutality with impunity in the anime of law and order. The past use of deadly restraint techniques by law enforcement has occurred even in liberal states and cities which have banned such restraints or tried to train officers to use them in concert with risk reduction (progressing to the recovery position quickly after restraints are applied). If a right wing federal government encourages police to be aggressive (as the same Presidential candidate has in the past) the bad cops will feel emboldened and supported.
Black people have been targeted by the police in the entirety of this countries history.