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.
I look forward to it, because at this point Mr. Balko appears to have crushed Mr. Hughes in terms of reporting. I respect so much of what Mr. Hughes has published and done that his reporting in this case was a real disappointment.
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.
"Floyd’s death spurred reforms and procedural changes that will save lives, including on issues like death investigations and problems like positional asphyxia. One aim of The Fall of Minneapolis and the police groups pushing it is to roll back those reforms, or to snuff them out before they can happen. That means more people will die. We should be angry about that."
This is a categorical statement about the social good of the Floyd reaction which is impossible to justify so simply. The detachment from reality it caused regarding the perception of police violence is well documented, and the destructiveness of the reaction is well documented. To believe the backlash against policing and the social unrest were all for the good is only an article of faith, hardly backed up by solid reason. It is easy to believe, in fact, that the promotion of the idea that black people have a target painted on them, and will inevitably be subject to a lifetime of extraordinary harassment from the police and society in general, is psychologically abusive towards them, to the extent that messaging is exaggerated.
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.
1. I am sure a categorical statement can be made about policy changes at the MPD coming from the social backlash against the Floyd killing. There was a claim about "more people dying" as a result of someone like Coleman writing something like he wrote. You can't just focus on one convenient example of a potential effect and claim a total death count increase. If cooler heads had prevailed in the wake of Floyd, if fewer people encouraged outrage, what do you suppose that would have done to the death count? How about the murder spikes post-Floyd, what do you suppose those did to the death counts? Radley's increased death count claim is facile and emotionally manipulative. Helpfully, he admits how manipulative is when he tells us we should be angry.
2. You are welcome to attempt to divorce the Floyd situation from race and think of it in terms of police policy.
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.
Obviously you're angry, as per Radley's instruction. Unfortunately you're also completely non-serious. I understand this kind of hysteria plays well with your tribe, which is the only tribe you ever interact with, but maybe seeing fascists around every corner, and inventing straw men about police needing to kill with impunity in order to do their jobs, is not actual good faith conversation. And maybe it contributes to messaging which ultimately has the effect of psychological abuse of those convinced, beyond any reality, that they should be terrified of police interactions. But by all means continue, since it clearly makes you feel better.
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.
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.
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
I look forward to it, because at this point Mr. Balko appears to have crushed Mr. Hughes in terms of reporting. I respect so much of what Mr. Hughes has published and done that his reporting in this case was a real disappointment.
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.
"Floyd’s death spurred reforms and procedural changes that will save lives, including on issues like death investigations and problems like positional asphyxia. One aim of The Fall of Minneapolis and the police groups pushing it is to roll back those reforms, or to snuff them out before they can happen. That means more people will die. We should be angry about that."
This is a categorical statement about the social good of the Floyd reaction which is impossible to justify so simply. The detachment from reality it caused regarding the perception of police violence is well documented, and the destructiveness of the reaction is well documented. To believe the backlash against policing and the social unrest were all for the good is only an article of faith, hardly backed up by solid reason. It is easy to believe, in fact, that the promotion of the idea that black people have a target painted on them, and will inevitably be subject to a lifetime of extraordinary harassment from the police and society in general, is psychologically abusive towards them, to the extent that messaging is exaggerated.
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.
1. I am sure a categorical statement can be made about policy changes at the MPD coming from the social backlash against the Floyd killing. There was a claim about "more people dying" as a result of someone like Coleman writing something like he wrote. You can't just focus on one convenient example of a potential effect and claim a total death count increase. If cooler heads had prevailed in the wake of Floyd, if fewer people encouraged outrage, what do you suppose that would have done to the death count? How about the murder spikes post-Floyd, what do you suppose those did to the death counts? Radley's increased death count claim is facile and emotionally manipulative. Helpfully, he admits how manipulative is when he tells us we should be angry.
2. You are welcome to attempt to divorce the Floyd situation from race and think of it in terms of police policy.
3. Lists are fun.
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'm laying at his door only that which he welcomed with his handwaved causal connection between a piece such as Coleman's and a higher death count.
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.
Obviously you're angry, as per Radley's instruction. Unfortunately you're also completely non-serious. I understand this kind of hysteria plays well with your tribe, which is the only tribe you ever interact with, but maybe seeing fascists around every corner, and inventing straw men about police needing to kill with impunity in order to do their jobs, is not actual good faith conversation. And maybe it contributes to messaging which ultimately has the effect of psychological abuse of those convinced, beyond any reality, that they should be terrified of police interactions. But by all means continue, since it clearly makes you feel better.
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.
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.
It's clear that Radley is petulant, and that's unfortunate, but one can hope he will agree to have a public discussion with you on this subject.
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