Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:46, 26 August 2020

faq page Frequently asked questions Q1: Does it have to say "white" police officer? A1: Yes, because almost all reliable sources emphasize the significance of this fact. Q2: I read some information on the web that isn't in this article! A2: When proposing anything to be added to the article you need to cite a reliable source; secondary sources are generally preferred over primary. Q3: This article is biased (for/against), or (whitewashes/blames), (Floyd/police)! A3: See our neutral point of view policy. Complaints of bias must be accompanied by specific concerns or suggestions for change. Vague, general statements don't help. Q4: Why is this article calling it a murder instead of a death/killing? A4: As a person was formally convicted for murder in a court of law, the article uses the term "murder", in line with the community guidance at WP:MURDERS. Q5: Wasn't Floyd killed near a store called Cub Foods, not Cup Foods? A5: The store is Cup Foods, and is not affiliated with the Cub Foods store chain. Q6: Why does the article use such a graphic photo? Isn't it in poor taste? A6: The lead image was determined by the community in a formal Request for Comment process. The RfC reached an "overwhelming consensus" that "...the image, despite it being traumatizing, should be kept per WP:NOTCENSORED, as it is an appropriate representation of the topic." Q7: Why was my request or comment removed? A7: Because of the frequency of meritless and disruptive requests, any further requests to describe Floyd's murder using other terms (e.g. "death", "overdose") or to change the name of the article accordingly will be removed without consideration, unless the request complies with all relevant Misplaced Pages guidelines and essays, including WP:Requested moves, WP:Common name, WP:Article titles, WP:Naming conventions (violence and deaths), and WP:Reliable sources. Anyone removing such requests should include a link to this FAQ in their edit summary. Q8: Why do we not call the protests riots? A8: Because most reliable sources call them protests, not riots. Q9: Did he not die of a drug overdose? A9: No, while fentanyl was a contributory factor, his death certificate lists his cause of death as "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression".

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Floyd article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 5 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] African diaspora Low‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians. This article needs a discography section, as outlined by the guidelines of WikiProject Musicians. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Black Lives Matter Mid‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Lives Matter, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Black Lives Matter on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Black Lives MatterWikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives MatterTemplate:WikiProject Black Lives MatterBlack Lives Matter Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Discrimination Low‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hip-hop Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip-hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip-hop on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip-hopHip-hop Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Minnesota Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Music / North Carolina / Texas / History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject American music. This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Harrison, Stephen (June 9, 2020). "How Misplaced Pages Became a Battleground for Racial Justice". Slate.

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 May 2020. The result of the discussion was redirect to Death of George Floyd.

"Nearly" eight minutes

Hello! I was going to edit the part that is linked saying "nearly eight minutes" to be a tad more accurate because reading it confused me for a second. Is that a correct statement, or should it actually say "nearly nine minutes" since it was 8 minutes and 46 seconds? It confused me since it says "nearly" eight minutes, meaning not eight minutes, but it's over eight minutes and nearly nine minutes. Would it be more accurate to rewrite it and put "nearly nine minutes" instead since it was 15 seconds to 9 minutes? Thanks! A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me. Moves.} 18:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, AbigailAbernathy! Thanks so much for coming to talk first. The time period has since original reports been corrected from nearly 9 to nearly 8, per the sources/notes. —valereee (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah I did not see the note next to the eight minutes in the top paragraph, just did some looking around. Thank you for clarifying! A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me. Moves.} 20:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. While prosecutors corrected the time to 7 minutes and 46 seconds, the New York Times reported that that time doesn't align with video evidence. The exact time is uncertain, but I'd vote "nearly eight minutes" be replaced with "over eight minutes". I'll wait for a more experienced Wikipedian to weigh in, and if we can agree on the change I'll bring it up on the talk page for Eight minutes 46 seconds. Thanks! Ifandonlyif0 (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Ifandonlyif0, thanks so much for coming to talk first! Maybe some sort of language like "approximately 8 minutes" in the lead and "sources vary on the actual exact time from 7'46" to 8'15" " in the body? —valereee (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response Valereee! That sounds good. Only thing I might add is that the NYT source says "at least eight minutes and 15 seconds", so it might be preferable to say "sources vary on the exact time from 7'46" to over 8'15"." (I've also discovered I can't actually make the edit because my account isn't autoconfirmed.) —Ifandonlyif0 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

We'll give it a day or so to see if there are any objections. —valereee (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest going back to "nearly nine minutes." Since the latest body cam footage was publicly released, multiple sources are putting it at around 9:30. —Bagumba (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

to be honest, in my humble opinion, the time was really not that important. I think the people (reporters) we trying to cling on to a specific time for some effect, which did up happening with the 8:46 becoming a symbol. i think the more important detail is that the time length was substantial. to ifandonlyif's point, i think providing a range of the times reported might make this easier to deal with and less likely needing a future update. The range would be between the least reported time by an RS to the most also by an RS, for example. StayFree76 05:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Did you have any input on my 9 minute comment above? I saw that you reverted CodingCyclone's change to 9 minutes at Killing of George Floyd. Figured we could centralize the discussion here. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, hm, I hadn't seen that. This whole time thing is such a rabbit hole. I don't actually have an opinion. Whatever everyone decides is fine. But whatever we decide, let's add it to the FAQs so at least the folks working at the various articles can see what's the currently agreed-on time. StayFree has a point. Maybe we should be dealing with this in the lead as simply knelt on his neck for a time initially reported to be 8'46", then in the section we can explain the various reports? —valereee (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That works for me too. It's the time, accurate or not, most people and even news have been referring to all along also.—Bagumba (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: I've left notification of this discussion at Talk:Killing of George Floyd, Talk:George Floyd protests and Talk:Eight minutes 46 seconds, which have similar wording in their respective leads.—Bagumba (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, okay, I changed it, we'll see what happens. That actually might help prevent random drive-by well-intentioned types, as it provides explanation both for those who believe it's 8'46" and those who know it's not but haven't gotten the latest update. :) —valereee (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• I go with the WP:TENYEARTEST on this. Ten years from now, the fact that initial reports of the time period varied will seem like nothing more than a footnote. Think of the famous example, Dewey Defeats Truman, where a newspaper incorrectly reported that Dewey had won the 1948 United States presidential election. Our article mentions the incorrect reporting, but deep in the body. In the lead, we just say who actually won the election; we don't bother with "first they announced Dewey, then Truman". We should take the same approach here. If the best, most recent sources say 9:30 (and it seems they now do), then we should say 9:30 in the lead. We can explain in the body or in a footnote (or both) that it was initially reported at 8:46 and then 7:46 and then 9:30 after the bodycam footage was released. But the most important thing is we tell the reader what actually happened, moreso than telling the reader what some incorrectly reported. Lev!vich 17:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Willis, Haley; Hill, Evan; Stein, Robin; Triebert, Christiaan; Laffin, Ben; Jordan, Drew (August 11, 2020). "New Footage Shows Delayed Medical Response to George Floyd". The New York Times. Retrieved August 14, 2020.
2. Xiong, Chao (August 3, 2020). "Daily Mail publishes leaked bodycam footage of George Floyd arrest, killing". Star Tribune. Retrieved August 14, 2020.
3. "Two police bodycam videos in killing of George Floyd released". Tampa Bay Times. Associated Press. August 11, 2020. Retrieved August 14, 2020.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

WGF201 (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Later life (after the sentence ..."and his Third Ward pride." insert above text) Between 1997 and 2007, Floyd was sentenced to jail terms nine different times on various charges. These include drug possession, theft, trespass, and aggravated armed robbery. – reference: https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/12/george-floyd-criminal-record/ In August of 1997, he was convicted to six months’ jail-time for drug possession. The following year, he served a total of ten months in jail for two separate charges of theft, on September 25, 1998, and December 9, 1998, respectively. In August of 2001, he was sentenced to 15 days in prison for failure of identification to a police officer. In the 2002-2005 period, he served a total of 30 months’ jail time for four different cases of breaking the law. These amounted to three different instances of drug possession – on October 29, 2002, on February 6, 2004, and on December 15, 2005; and one instance of criminal trespassing – on January 3, 2003. Finally, in 2007, after taking part in a home invasion incident which took place on August 7, Floyd was arrested for aggravated armed robbery, and pleaded guilty to the charges in 2009. He was sentenced to five years in prison, and was paroled in January 2013.

Death (after the sentence ..."emergency medical technicians arrived." insert above text) Upon his death, legal action was immediately taken by Floyd’s family. Reference: https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/07/15/891221766/floyd-family-attorneys-to-announce-a-civil-lawsuit-against-minneapolis-and-polic The lead attorney on his case, Benjamin Crump, provides legal representation for the other two figurehead cases of criminal injustice that have stood at the basis of the black lives matter movement – the killing of Ahmaud Arbery and the shooting of Breonna Taylor. – reference: https://bencrump.com/ben-crump-on-the-george-floyd-case/ From a lawful standpoint, Floyd’s murder is considered a direct instance of applied personal injury law, and as such, his legal team is formed of attorneys that are specialized in this field of activity. – reference: https://www.pintas.com/victims-of-discrimination/

(after the sentence ..."have theorized positional asphyxia." insert above text) Following a post-mortem toxicology screening, it was discovered that Floyd’s body tested positive for 11 ng/mL of fentanyl and 19 ng/mL of methamphetamine. However, according to medical analysis, the mere presence of the drugs in his bloodstream, especially in such low quantities, presents inconclusive and insubstantial. Any claims of Floyd’s loss of consciousness being resulted from substance abuse are therefore medically unfounded. – reference: https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/12/george-floyd-criminal-record/

•  Not done Nah. Prior convictions aren't relevant here. --Jorm (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  The criminal history is actully already covered in the article. It'd be more helpful to say what needs changing as opposed to providing a full rewrite of sorts.—Bagumba (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

WGF201 I'd suggest requesting a single edit at a time, in this format: "Change X to Y, because Z, here's the source." Short as possible. You're giving us way too much information and asking us to analyze it to understand what your point is. —valereee (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add the following informative paragraphs to the Death section of the page:

After the "...as emergency medical technicians arrived." paragraph, in order to provide legal clarity on the post-mortem situation.

" Upon his death, legal action was immediately taken by Floyd’s family. The lead attorney on his case, Benjamin Crump, provides legal representation for the other two figurehead cases of criminal injustice that have stood at the basis of the black lives matter movement – the killing of Ahmaud Arbery and the shooting of Breonna Taylor. From a lawful standpoint, Floyd’s murder is considered a direct instance of applied personal injury law, and as such, his legal team is formed of attorneys that are specialized in this field of activity. "

After the "...theorized positional asphyxia" paragraph, in order to clear up any confusions regarding the cause of death and to disprove the implied lack of mens rea due to supposed substance abuse.

" Following a post-mortem toxicology screening, it was discovered that Floyd’s body tested positive for 11 ng/mL of fentanyl and 19 ng/mL of methamphetamine. However, according to medical analysis, the mere presence of the drugs in his bloodstream, especially in such low quantities, presents inconclusive and insubstantial. Any claims of Floyd’s loss of consciousness being resulted from substance abuse are therefore medically unfounded. "

Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this informative edit, and my apologies for any previous editorial-related confusions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WGF201 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that adds to an article about Floyd. This is a biography. We could maybe add a single sentence about the family filing a lawsuit based on the NPR article. We could maybe add a sentence saying loss of consciousness not being attributable to substance abuse, but I don't think the article currently implies it was, does it? Also I'm not sure I'm finding that in the very long snopes analysis; you'd have to give us a quote from that. —valereee (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I've added the second request in, as the mentioning of the two drugs definitely has a negative connotation and may cause some readers to make a connection between that and his death. I don't see the point of adding the first request though, as the lawsuit was filed in July, while Floyd died in May. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

References

1. "George Floyd's Family Files Civil Lawsuit Against Minneapolis And Police, Lawyers Say". NPR.org. July 15, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
2. "Ben Crump On The George Floyd Case – Weekly Updates". bencrump.com. Retrieved August 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
3. "Statement of Solidarity". pintas.com. Retrieved August 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
4. "Background Check: Investigating George Floyd's Criminal Record". snopes.com. Retrieved August 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change first sentence:

George Perry Floyd Jr. (October 14, 1973 – May 25, 2020) was an African-American man killed during an arrest after allegedly passing a counterfeit $20 bill in Minneapolis.

To: George Perry Floyd Jr. (October 14, 1973 – May 25, 2020) was an African-American man who died during an arrest after allegedly passing a counterfeit $20 bill in Minneapolis. Collinsej (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: See Q4 in the FAQs above. JTP 07:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change: " A white police officer, Derek Chauvin, knelt on Floyd's neck for nearly eight minutes."

To:

"A white police officer, Derek Chauvin, had restrained Floyd with a knee on Floyd's neck for nearly eight minutes."

You can clearly see from the lectures that Chauvin is not putting the full force of his weight on Floyd's neck' To say he was "kneeling" is misleading and tantamount to inciting racial discord and violence based on a lie. Collinsej (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Pretty much every reliable source describes Chauvin'a action as "kneeling" or "knelt". WWGB (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. Its strange people think there are shades of kneeling on someone until they are dead, including one that see's it as unrelated to the actual death. Almost like he just lay there and died without any input from anyone. As if the full force of a knee is required to cause death or injury. Like, improper use of restraints, or restraint methods haven't been studied for decades with revised guidance on policy and procedure issued each time. There is a reason Chauvin was fired. He did not follow his own training, and ignored at least one colleague who raised concerns with how Floyd was being held (but who was at least partially liable for the escalation to that point, hence his firing also). Koncorde (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I do see your point, Collinsej. Typically when say someone is kneeling on something, we mean their full weight is on that thing. The issue here is that we're describing it the way RS are describing it. Have you seen reliable sources saying "restrained Floyd with a knee on Floyd's neck"? To me that seems to imply that there was some need to restrain Floyd, who was during that time handcuffed and not resisting. —valereee (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not aware of a definition of kneeling that would differentiate with the exact balance between Chauvins left knee and right knee, nor would I expect an RS to speculate on the pounds per inch required unless it was an episode of MythBusters. Koncorde (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, there is a HUGE difference between kneeing on someones neck and restraining someone with a knee (especially around the intent of action). Its manual allows "compressing one or both sides of a person’s neck with an arm or leg without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway.". the policy literally states you cannot apply direct pressure to the airway. if chauvin did, then he broke policy and that is a problem and would be ammo for the felony murder charge holding up. in many cases you can restrain someone with a knee and no pressure since the knee isn't the component of the restraint that matters. the point of that neck restraint not knee restraint is to use leverage against a weak point of the body making it difficult to push out of it (lifting 20 pounds with your neck is not easy, let alone 100+ that is floating just above your neck.) to conclude, i think the change should be made given the source i cited, but maybe could be worth seeing if there are others than go into the neck restraint aspect of the incident in more detail. StayFree76 05:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

There isn't, it is recognised as an incredibly dangerous tactic just like restraining someone chest down with pressure on their back is - it is proven to kill people. There are innumerable studies saying so. That you speculate lifting 20lbs isn't easy should really make you wonder how much pressure is actually functionally dangerous, its why I said no RS is going to speculate on the exact weight distribution of Chauvin (the lethality of the knee in the back, and chest compression from laying horizontal under any pressure is a known killer also - particularly for the duration it was done). It's why in your article their expert is amazed that it is in their manual at all, and why it is criticised in that article. If you read the next paragraph of that article you would see, very clearly the context of when such a restraint may be used and why that policy was violated by Chauvin "That's allowed in order to control someone with "light to moderate pressure" or "with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure." The latter act is authorized only to protect officer lives with a suspect who is "actively aggressive" and cannot be controlled by lesser methods.. Koncorde (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, i believe you just re stated what i already stated. my point was that if he was in violation of policy then it should be easier to convict. if he was operating within policy, then it will be hard to convict, which inherently means it was not excessive force as the policy does not authorize force beyond the limit we just discussed... the main point here, is that there is a difference. the act of restraining isn't the same as the act of putting entire weight on someone. it would be very naive to think that people doing restraints like that aren't aware of the amount of pressure they are putting on the person. you might not be aware, but i was active duty USMC and am personally very well trained in hand to hand combatives including lethal and not lethal force. StayFree76 20:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the point is there is no difference in kneeling with different amounts of pressure that would change the description that Chauvin was kneeling on Floyds neck to merely "restraining someone with a knee", and no RS is going to speculate on the appropriate "light to moderate pressure" justification to control someone and whether Chauvin was doing so. The point in all RS is that his knee was on his neck. Functionally whether he was also compressing his chest with his other knee and / or if it was the cause of death was ultimately not because of the pressure on his neck is an irrelevance because the technique is universally recognised as lethal and is pretty much banned in all mental health environments because (and is also meant to be banned in most police forces, but hey ho, unsurprisingly we keep hearing about deaths). I provided 3 studies further up, but you can look this up yourself as to the relative "not lethal force" of pinning someone to the floor that routinely ends up in a lethal outcome. Koncorde (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

the PD allowed that restraint... it doesnt matter what you or anyone else says. the restraint was authorized so its not about whether he did it or not, its about whether he applied excessive force (pressure) on the neck... if it was a clear cut case like you suggest it would have already been done and the prosecutors and everyone else wouldn't have said how difficult it will be to convict the officers. see Kamala Harris talk about it here StayFree76 22:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The point behind it being allowed and in what situation isn't even a point in question. The point about whether the neck pressure was excessive is also irrelevant - the cause of death could be the pressure on his chest, or combination thereof (per second autopsy: "asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain") - the significance of his knee being on his neck is the focal point of all RS because of how it looks. The difficulty in achieving a conviction is irrelevant, and her argument is not about the legality of the restraint but the fact that the general public is programmed to trust the polices POV regardless, and was part of a wider discussion she was having about introducing Anti-Lynching laws and police reform. "It is still the case that jurors are inclined to to trust -- because that's part of the social contract -- to trust police officers and that has been part of the difficulty that so many prosecutors have had when they brought these cases," Harris told the program's hosts. "But there's no denying that this, this officer and those who were his accomplices should pay attention real consequence and accountability for what they've done. I don't think there is any question that he did not die of natural causes," Harris said. "He died while this police officer who had been invested with a badge and a gun by the people used the power he was given by the people to have his knee on a human being's neck." Koncorde (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

the contents of her speech arent relevant here only that she says it will be difficult. is the the officers actions were in violation of policy then it wouldn't be difficult and instead of talking about how difficult it will be they would say how easy it will be. this is due to the legal definition of restraint. its not an aggressive behavior and harm is not the intent. (this is very important because murder charges need to prove intent, unless manslaughter then they have to prove the officer's actions were negligent). with that said, you can see how using wording that infers some behavior or way of thinking needs to be heavily challenged. we dont know whether he had intent and the trial has not ruled he was negligent, therefore stating he was retraining is better. NOTE: i would say that, to add balance, it could also be stated that people were arguing the authorized restraint was done with excessive force making it fall outside of policy (for example) StayFree76 16:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You used, and are using, her words to suggest the difficulty in achieving a conviction is because of the mode of restraint being legit. The reality is her words are saying the issue is because people implicitly believe the words of the police to be true, and behaviour of the police to be justified. There are numerous cases to demonstrate this just in the last decade, indeed it is part of the reason the BLM movement exists. And, when it comes to the legal definition of restraint - it is kind of ruined by the idea that their policy supported its use "with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure." which is harm in anyone's book. Killing someone would be pretty harmful too. Koncorde (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

if something is allowed by policy, regardless of the outcome, then you cannot blame the person who was following the policy. i dont know why this is difficult to understand. if it is determined he followed policy (for real), then the only thing that could happen is a policy change to prevent it next time. thats the way policy works. there have also been plenty of cases where cops in court will say they weren't properly trained on insert thing they are charged with and have gotten off because the PD didn't make something clear to the officers. that is just how it works, whether we like it or not. StayFree76 23:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

God please I hope we can assume that a jury won't decide a cop can't be blamed for kneeling on a motionless person's neck until they're dead because MPD didn't say, "Neck restraints are okay, but don't use one until the person is dead. NOTE: We are emphasizing that you must NOT use this until death results! You must STOP before they die! NO DEATHS ARE ALLOWED TO RESULT FROM KNEELING ON SOMEONE'S NECK!!!" But juries do tend to like cops. —valereee (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

unfortunately, thats the only way to protect good officers, but "bad" officers benefit from it. mainly because its been determined that 'any' force has the potential to kill someone, even if considered non lethal. its the same in the us military. if you are ordered to do something, you do it. if rules of engagement say something, you follow it. if policy is followed, but something bad happens... welp, it comes with the territory. keep in mind this is completely separate from people legitimately disregarding policy or disobeying orders, etc. to close, the policy says the restraint was authorized. policies dont cover things the result of an an authorized action because those outcomes cannot be reliably predicted (this is why policy changes after things like this because it happened so now they can say, NO MORE). StayFree76 19:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

He didn't allegedly use a counterfeit bill. He DID use one. So why can't you just fucking change it too "he paid with a counterfeit" instead of "allegedly". Thewhobitywhaty (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The alleged counterfeit bill was the reason for his arrest. The matter has yet to be determined by a court or judicial officer. WWGB (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought I read that the police never even collected the bill in question.—Bagumba (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Even if the cops have a bill and it is counterfeit, we can't know whether the clerk made a mistake about who gave it to him. I doubt this is ever going to be determined. No one is going to be charging him. Even if the bill is brought into evidence by the defense I suspect we'll never be able to say this is anything but alleged. —valereee (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Circles back to the simplistic "we say what sources generally say".—Bagumba (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Weren't we smart to have come up with that out? —valereee (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Criminal record

Separate from his death, his convictions should earn him the 21st century american criminal category. Blueshocker (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to Category:21st-century American criminals. I'll leave it to the WP:CATDEFINING gurus.—Bagumba (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The category American criminals and most of its subcats requires those categorized that way have been convicted of a noteworthy felony would be what applies here. George Floyd is not an American criminal. It remains to be seen whether Derek Chauvin is. George Floyd is correctly categorized as American people convicted of robbery, etc. —valereee (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class African diaspora articles
• Low-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of musicians
• Musicians work group articles needing discographies
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Black Lives Matter articles
• Mid-importance Black Lives Matter articles
• B-Class Discrimination articles
• Low-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• B-Class Hip-hop articles
• Low-importance Hip-hop articles
• WikiProject Hip-hop articles
• B-Class Minnesota articles
• Low-importance Minnesota articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• B-Class American music articles
• Unknown-importance American music articles
• WikiProject American music articles
• B-Class North Carolina articles
• Unknown-importance North Carolina articles
• WikiProject North Carolina articles
• B-Class Texas articles
• Unknown-importance Texas articles
• WikiProject Texas articles
• B-Class United States History articles
• Unknown-importance United States History articles
• WikiProject United States History articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press