Worth noting.
Incidentally...
This smells like George Sore-Ass...
Posted on 06/01/2020 4:19:54 PM PDT by NautiNurse
Try to focus on the thread topic rather than generalizing or confusing multiple events and/or people. One specific incident does not reflect all stories and experiences throughout the history of the world. If you have difficulty processing clear and cohesive thoughts as evidenced in your written communication, I suggest you take some extra time to focus on posting quality over quantity. Read, re-read and edit your comments to make sure you are providing sufficient details and clarity before mashing the post button.
Your communication is incomplete. You assume the reader is as entwined in a prior event as you are. Examples: Who or what is, "the Covington kid?" Your reference might be someone named Covington or someone from Covington, KY. Most of all, for an effective discussion, stay on topic and don't generalize.
A woman who calls herself “Prince.” That doesn’t make *me* the dumbass... :-D
Thank you and in so many ways.
Megan
It’s a character from a movie, dumbass.
You ascribe negative connotations and emotions to Chauvin, who I’m sure you’ve never met, based on the pictures you’ve seen of him in the last week. That’s just what the media did to the kid from Covington Catholic School in Kentucky who was at the March for Life in DC a few years ago. The media revealed his name and the kid was getting death threats, all because they claimed he was smirking at a “Vietnam Vet” who was Native American. Ring a bell now? He ended up suing NBC for $250 million and settled for an undisclosed amount, all because the media and liberals rushed to judgment based on a smirk. That’s exactly what you’ve done in several of your posts. That’s what a histrionic person does, not someone who understands facts and the law and can present a cogent argument.
My opinion of knee-on-neck ex-cop’s smug, imperious face has absolutely nothing to do with the nice young man named Nick Sandmann. You were doing pretty well until you fell off the wagon with a pointy spear called “histrionic.” Your faulty argument is dismissed.
She-troll.
HENNEPIN COUNTY
MEDICAL EXAMINER’S OFFICE
AUTOPSY REPORTME NO.: 20-3700
CASE TITLE: CARDIOPULMONARY ARREST COMPLICATING LAW ENFORCEMENT SUBDUAL, RESTRAINT, AND NECK COMPRESSION
DECEASED: George Floyd aka Floyd Perry SEX: M AGE: 46
DATE AND HOUR OF DEATH: 5-25-20; 9:25 p.m.
DATE AND HOUR OF AUTOPSY: 5-26-20; 9:25 a.m.
PATHOLOGIST: Andrew M. Baker, M.D.
- - - - - - - - - -
II. Natural diseases
A. Arteriosclerotic heart disease, multifocal, severe
B. Hypertensive heart disease
1. Cardiomegaly (540 g) with mild biventricular dilatation
2. Clinical history of hypertension
- - - - - - - - - -
III. No life-threatening injuries identified
A. No facial, oral mucosal, or conjunctival petechiae
B. No injuries of anterior muscles of neck or laryngeal structures
C. No scalp soft tissue, skull, or brain injuries
D. No chest wall soft tissue injuries, rib fractures (other
than a single rib fracture from CPR), vertebral column injuries, or visceral injuries
E. Incision and subcutaneous dissection of posterior and Lateral neck, shoulders, back, flanks, and buttocks negative for occult trauma
- - - - - - - - - -
VI. Toxicology (see attached report for full details; testing performed on antemortem blood specimens collected 5/25/20 at 9:00 p.m. at HHC and on postmortem urine)
A. Blood drug and novel psychoactive substances screens:
1. Fentanyl 11 ng/mL
2. Norfentanyl 5.6 ng/mL
3. 4-ANPP 0.65 ng/mL
4. Methamphetamine 19 ng/mL
5. 11-Hydroxy Delta-9 THC 1.2 ng/mL; Delta-9 Carboxy THC 42 ng/mL; Delta-9 THC 2.9 ng/mL
6. Cotinine positive
7. Caffeine positive
B. Blood volatiles: negative for ethanol, methanol, isopropanol, or acetone
C. Urine drug screen: presumptive positive for cannabinoids, amphetamines, and fentanyl/metabolite
D. Urine drug screen confirmation: morphine (free) 86 ng/mL
- - - - - - - - - -
The decedent was known to be positive for 2019-nCoV RNA on 4/3/2020. Since PCR positivity for 2019-nCoV RNA can persist for weeks after the onset and resolution of clinical disease, the autopsy result most likely reflects asymptomatic but persistent PCR positivity from previous infection.
Unintentional Fentanyl Overdoses in New Hampshire: An NDEWS HotSpot Analysis
Marcella H. Sorg, Ph.D.
Jamie A. Wren, MPH
Margaret Chase Smith
Policy Center
University of Maine
Kathleen Stewart, Ph.D.
Yanjia Cao
Center for Geospatial Information Science
University of Maryland
Toxicology FindingsPolydrug complexity is an important feature of toxicology findings for this population. Within the medical examiner’s toxicology findings (most are blood specimens), there are 114 drugs and metabolites identified. Individual toxicology tests ranged widely from just one substance reported (9.7%) to 19 substances in one decedent. Fentanyl was found in 98.4% and fentanyl 8analogs in 11.7% of cases; these cases overlap. The mean number of parent3 drugs was 6.23. Key co-intoxicant and potentially synergistic drugs present include heroin/morphine (20.6%), non-fentanyl opioids (34.5%), benzodiazepines (27.5%), cocaine (31.1%), and alcohol (32.9%).Postmortem levels of fentanyl confirmed in our sample range widely from 0.75 to 113.00 ng/mL, with a mean of 9.96. We compared the distributions of fentanyl levels for cases where fentanyl was the only drug found with cases with key co-intoxicants (opioids, benzodiazepines, or alcohol); the distributions were not statistically different. The distribution of fentanyl levels among the subgroup of decedents who reportedly had a “rapid” overdose was not statistically different from other decedents.
Worth noting.
Incidentally...
This smells like George Sore-Ass...
If the mean is 9.96, but you have one case of 113 ng/mL, then the mode is likely a lot lower than 9.96, and so also less than 11.
I see you don't know how to play nice with numbers either.
The mean is the average of the numbers. It is easy to calculate: add up all the numbers, then divide by how many numbers there are. In other words it is the sum divided by the count. If the mean, or average is 9.96; then 11 is higher than the average for the given 541 individual sample of fentanyl overdose fatalities..
To find the mode, or modal value, it is best to put the numbers in order. Then count how many of each number. A number that appears most often is the mode.
"In this study, 541 individuals were identified who died of fentanyl-induced overdose in New Hampshire from January 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016."
You should have read it, you old fool. Your grumpy old man act is not working. Next time look up mode and at least you will know what it means.
Going with your ignorant statistical fudge, if the average overdosed dead body scored 9.96; and the mode were 1.0 (very significantly lower than 9.96); what would that say for poor George Floyd at 11. Would that mean he was eleven times dead? How did you think you were helping your argument by saying the most commonly found fatal dose of fentanyl was less than eleven? Likely a lot lower than 9.96? You should at least try to fudge your statistic in a favorable direction. Nope. You seem to get everything bass ackwards.
I am glad to see that you agree that 11ng/mL works as a lethal dose, without any help from arteriosclerotic heart disease, multifocal, severe; hypertension; or a knee to the neck.
[grey_whiskers #269 to #267] Qualified immunity doctrine does not protect you from a separate homicide rap.Liar.
You appear confused.
[grey_whiskers #262] And that is a question of "qualified immunity" -- everyone knows, and I've pointed it out myself on FR, that if you call 911, the police have zero, none, nada, duty whatsoever to respond in a timely fashion, or even to respond at all.[Woodpusher #267] Madness. Qualified immunity only applies to CIVIL actions. We have not been discussing a George Floyd CIVIL action. Whatever you're babbling about is irrelevant to a criminal case. You do not know what you are talking about. "qualified immunity. (1877) Immunity from civil liability for a public official who is performing a discretionary function, as long as the conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights." Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed. Before slinging legal terminology around, look it up in a legal dictionary so you have a clue about what it means.
Qualified immunity does not protect anyone from any criminal charge. It protects against CIVIL liability, you cranky old fool.
From my #268 to which you purport to respond.
"qualified immunity. (1877) Immunity from civil liability for a public official who is performing a discretionary function, as long as the conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights." Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.
Does large print help with your condition?
to suggest, that this meant that Chauvin & co., would skate on charges related to not giving CPR to a handcuffed, unconscious prisoner with cardiac arrest, in their custody.
You're trying to cover for your own error with bluster.
The reason, is that they are two totally different cases, where in the case you quoted, the police don't have any relationship to the man. But with Chauvin, he took George Floyd into custody.
Now, IF there existed a case, with one individual, to whom the police had a relationship (he was in custody), and the police prevailed up front on an attempted civil rights suit -- not because of qualified immunity & no precedent within that particular federal circuit, but instead, because those suing couldn't prove by preponderance of the evidence, then, the police would ALSO skate on any criminal charges, because of the higher standard of evidence.
Quit blaming ME for your having jumped the gun in your haste to pull up a case which involved police and CPR.
But it might comfort you (since you seem to favor the police dept. in the Chauvin - Floyd incident, to find out that another poster has successfully located State of Minnesota Supreme Court controlling authority in defining the term Depraved Indifference as it applies to 3rd degree murder charges in Minnesota.
In Minnesota, Depraved Indifference does NOT apply, when the action which resulted in death, was directed specifically at one individual (e.g. playing a variant of Russian Roulette where the players take turns pointing the gun at each other). Instead, under Minnesota Law, "depraved indifference" means an action which might have happened to affect any particular member of the general public who unluckily got affected, and just the one person or whatever bought the farm. For example a reckless driver who plows head on into oncoming traffic; he could've hit ANYBODY, but happened to hit specific Car X. He could then be charged with 3rd degree murder for someone in car X who was killed. This being Minnesota, there is actually an example GIVEN in state law, that of someone hunting for deer who shoots his rifle carelessly, not making sure that the rustling is really a deer, and instead hits some poor nature lover out in the woods during hunting season.
Given THAT new information, it looks like Chauvin would walk on 3rd degree murder in Minnesota; they'll have to go for manslaughter.
Keith Ellison, the George-Sore-Ass-approved Attorney General, has announced today he's going for 1st degree murder for Chauvin, and charging the other police (I can't remember whether as accessories or for 2nd degree).
I don't know whether he is doing this to placate the crowd, or with the nefarious Snidely Whiplash plan of getting the crowd all hyped about 1st degree murder, then letting the policeman walk, so the crowd gets REALLY ugly.
The just released final autopsy report, indicates the George Floyd tox screen found fentanyl 11 ng/mL. This greatly complicates the problem is proving that it was Chauvin's action that caused Floyd to become unconscious and then die.
Floyd complained he could not breathe while standing, before Chauvin did anything.
Chauvin was on the force 19 years. He was trained in the technique used and presumably used it many times without killing anybody. This would be the one outlier in 19 years.
New prosecutor Keith Ellison just added 2nd Degree Murder. I see no way for the prosecutor to support any charge under Murder 2. Note that Murder 2 does not carry life imprisonment and in Minnesota does not require a grand jury.
2019 Minnesota Statutes
609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.Subdivision 1.
Intentional murder; drive-by shootings.
Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause
(3). Subd. 2.
Unintentional murders.
Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or
(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.
Let's say you have three people. You, the guy next door, and Bill Gates.
The average is going to be far more than your net worth or the guy next door.
If you have an outlier, then, and the average is far far less than the outlier, then the count of people having less than the mean, *must be* far more than those over the mean.
Strictly speaking, just as you couldn't *really* use the mode for net worth of you and the guy next door and Bill Gates, the mode wouldn't directly work for comparing blood concentrations; you'd have to use to mode of (count of individuals within equispaced ranges. Histogram binning.
Just saying mode was just a shortcut to express that concept, since I'm too lazy to type it all in this late at night.
But--In your haste to flame me, you missed the fact that, if the mean fatal dose is LESS than 11, and (as explained above) the most common fatal dose, is also less than he had in his system, that means that George Floyd would (to a first approximation) be MORE likely to die.
But that's not certain, since the mere count of overdoses did not in the snippet published, allow for body weight: concentration per unit volume of blood is an intensive quantity, but body weight is extensive. And it "often" happens that greater body weight results in greater quantity for absolute doses of chemicals: since the volume of blood in the human body does not scale perfectly with weight.
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3852021/posts
FR thread above.
Article at below link.
https://thedispatch.com/p/explaining-the-new-second-degree
Explaining the New Second Degree Murder Charge Against Derek Chauvin
The political rationale is obvious, but the actual strategic value is less clear.
Ted Sampsell-Jones
I don't have a condition; you were the one who pulled case law from a qualified immunity case, where police didn't render aid to a man who had shot himself...
Whatever your condition is, it seems to affect your memory and you get very confused. It may be that you have been skipping naps, so you get tired, cranky, and forgetful. You were the first to mention qualified immunity on this thread at your #262, in a very erroneous fashion.
grey_whiskers #262:
You're completely wrong.See, in your case, the guy shot himself in the leg.
There was no relationship established between them and the officer.
And that is a question of "qualified immunity" -- everyone knows, and I've pointed it out myself on FR, that if you call 911, the police have zero, none, nada, duty whatsoever to respond in a timely fashion, or even to respond at all.
The guy (Drummond) who shot himself was in the process of running from the police when he tried to draw his weapon and shot himself. As he lay bleeding, he was being held at gunpoint. When multiple cops have their guns pointed at you, as you are lying there bleeding, that’s custody. Aside from what they had been chasing him for, a report of a gun being discharged several times, he discharged his weapon while running from the cops. Wyatt Earp made that a crime.
Anyway, in the Pierce case, “Sharon Pierce, individually and as administratrix of Drummond’s estate, sued the Township under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Township’s police officers violated Drummond’s due-process rights by failing to provide medical aid and by preventing civilian bystanders from providing aid. The district court granted summary judgment for the Township. Because the Township did not deprive Drummond of a constitutional right, we affirm.”
The officers were not parties to the case. Neither that Township, nor any municipality, ever has any claim to qualified immunity. The case was dismissed on summary judgment because no constitutional right of the decedent had been violated. Qualified immunity never had a gosh darned thing to do with it. But, bless your heart anyway.
[grey_whiskers #309] If the mean is 9.96, but you have one case of 113 ng/mL, then the mode is likely a lot lower than 9.96, and so also less than 11.[Woodpusher #310] To find the mode, or modal value, it is best to put the numbers in order. Then count how many of each number. A number that appears most often is the mode.
[grey_whiskers #314] I know what the mode is.
Of course you do. You were just confused. It’s something that goes with a slice of apple pie.
[grey_whiskers #314] Let's say you have three people. You, the guy next door, and Bill Gates.The average is going to be far more than your net worth or the guy next door.
To find the mode, or modal value, it is best to put the numbers in order. Then count how many of each number. A number that appears most often is the mode.
In your given example, the mode is going to be all three unless the guy next door makes the same as Bill Gates, because I know I do not. The three numbers would appear equally often - once each.
Let’s say you have 541 guys who are all dead. They are all dead of an accidental fentanyl overdose. The 541 tox screens showed an average dosage of 9.96 ng/mL. Your tox screen showed 11.0 ng/ml. That sounds about right.
[grey_whiskers #314] But--In your haste to flame me, you missed the fact that, if the mean fatal dose is LESS than 11, and (as explained above) the most common fatal dose, is also less than he had in his system, that means that George Floyd would (to a first approximation) be MORE likely to die.
I did not miss that, I EMPHASIZED it. And you whined on about mode, not mean. But you seem in a constant state of mean. Stupid, but mean. You should steer clear of that cornfangled higher arithmetic.
[grey_whiskers #314] If you have an outlier, then, and the average is far far less than the outlier, then the count of people having less than the mean, must be* far more than those over the mean.
Must be. Yeah, right. Screwed the pooch again.
Whether that must be so depends on the sample size.
In the actual study, there were 541 samples, the lowest value was 0.75 ng/mL, the highest value was 113 ng/mL, and the average or mean value was 9.96. The average or mean is far, far less than the highest value. If your claim is arithmetically correct, the following data results would be impossible.
541 values x 9.96 average value = 5388.36 total value
001 value 00.75
100 value 02.00
100 value 03.00
068 value 04.00
001 value 01.85
001 value 10.00
120 value 11.00
100 value 12.00
010 value 37.20
039 value 41.00
001 value of 113.00
541 value 5388.6
Mean value 9.96
Mode value 11.00
Median value 10.00
With 270 values over 10, and 270 values under 10, 10 is the median value.
With 120 values of 11, 11 is the mode value.
There are more values over the mean value than under the mean value. The count of people having less than the mean, must be* far more than those over the mean is LESS THAN those have more than the mean.
The average value is 9.96, the value in the study.
The total of the values is 5388.6, same as the study.
The total number of values is 541, the same as the study.
And another brain fart bites the dust. Oops, you did it again!
It is so good to see that since I educated you about what the mode value is, you have stopped whining about it and you are now making believe you were talking about the mean value. Bless your heart again.
The point is, if you have an extreme outlier within a series of values, then the count of members of the group, which are below the average, is going to be vastly greater than the count of people above the average.
You have $100. Your neighbor has $120. Bill Gates has $60 billion.
The AVERAGE net worth ( to 1 significant figure) is $20 billion.
IF as I said earlier, you used histogram binning to get over the fact that people have slight variations in their income, the count of the "people worth about $100" would be 2, the count of "Holy Sh!t That's a lot of money" is 1.
But *strictly* speaking since no one number appears the most, in that case there is no mode.
In such a case, you cannot use them mean value as a good estimation of the "typical" value.
Which kind of applies to the blood concentration of fentanyl, depending on how many significant figures you use, and whether you use binning; and averages within each bin.
I ran across a similar situation in a computer program implementing pricing algorithms years ago; only in that case, there were two numbers *tied* for the mode. it ended up crashing a subroutine about four layers down from that.
This reasoning looked like it applied to the blood concentrations of fentanyl; if the average blood concentration was (IIRC) about 2 ng/mL, but George Floyed was about 11, that might mean that the count of people way below 2, would be way more than those at or about 2, in order to bring the average down. I used that example, simply because on my late-night cursory read of your first post, I didn't see N=(about 541?) for the study.
That was in your second post; whether I missed it in the first, and you filled in; or whether you left it out in the first, and brought it into the second, I haven't bothered to look up.
And I see from this post, that you are saying the mean was about 9, not 2; which means I should have had more coffee.
But if you think mean and mode are higher math, it shows your low intellectual level. I'm only suffering from lack of sleep between the riots (I live in the Twin Cities) and a work project that kept me up late 3 nights in a row.
No, I've been a bit distracted & fatigued.
I've had 3 straight nights of 4 hours sleep between the riots, work stuff, and physical homeowner issues.
But I've finished math through university level differential and integral calculus and differential equations by the time I was 17 (I turned down two Ivies for my doctorate, and got my PhD under a Nobel nominee), so go ahead and pretend you're explaining higher math to me all you want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.