Posted on 06/01/2020 4:19:54 PM PDT by NautiNurse
With the small sample set I was talking about, (you, neighbor, and Gates), there wouldn't BE a mode strictly speaking.
Strictly speaking, there is always a mode and in your chosen example there are three modes. You are still making it up as you go along.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/mode.html
More Than One ModeWe can have more than one mode.
Example: {1, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 9}3 appears three times, as does 6.
So there are two modes: at 3 and 6
Having two modes is called "bimodal".
Having more than two modes is called "multimodal".
Strictly speaking, in your chosen multimodal example, you woud have three modes, just as I stated. Your example had three modes and was trimodal or multimodal.
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.
[Woodpusher #310, replying to grey_whiskers #309]
"In this study, 541 individuals were identified who died of fentanyl-induced overdose in New Hampshire from January 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016."
[emphasis in original]
I quoted the report to identify the specific number of individuals in the study and provided a link to the report itself.
Regardless of the number of subjects in the study which I provided, your chosen example would have been useless for demonstrating anything about mode values.
GroupingIn some cases (such as when all values appear the same number of times) the mode is not useful.
Id. You made up an example where mode is not useful. It was not easy to make up an example where mode is not useful, but you were up to the task.
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.
The point is that I supplied data to the real world study, using the same sample size (541), same average value (9.96), the same low value (0.75) and the same outlier high value (113), and proved beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral and mathematical certainty that your claim is false. If your claim were true, my given example could not exist. But it can and does. The larger the sample size, the less relevant the outlier becomes. I demonstrated, with real values, that the mode and the median could be higher than the mean average value with the four pieces of given data.
But if you think mean and mode are higher math, it shows your low intellectual level.
Mode, mean and median are hardly higher math terms. I dismissively used the term arithmetic. They are actually basic terms used in statistics.
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.
Your internet claims are impressive. I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, and ever since I have been able to do simple arithmetic. I let my posts do the speaking about my ability to do arithmetic and whatever else.
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
That's what I was saying. You need more naps. You just might bark at one who does not appreciate your act, will take advantage of your relative youth and inexperience, and will bark back.
You’re simply incorrect about everything but the lack of sleep.
Strictly speaking, there is always a mode and in your chosen example there are three modes. You are still making it up as you go along.
Not making it up, just not typing coherently. The internet does not handle inflections well, and merely emphasizing the word "BE" didn't convey my point. I should have emphasized "A" instead of "BE": not a unique value of the mode, corresponding to one value within the set which is guaranteed to appear more often than all the others.
But that would've been too cumbersome to explain on my third straight night of four hours sleep.
I wasn't making it up, I was remembering. It was a bug I found in someone else's computer program 15 years ago, and led to an eigenvalue subroutine four layers down dying from a divide-by-zero error. I can't remember anymore, but I *think* that series had either 7 or 15 elements in it.
You’re simply incorrect about everything but the lack of sleep.
Of course I am. And that means that when I quoted Math Is Fun at #321, they must have been wrong also. Please explain how Math Is Fun got it wrong.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/mode.html
More Than One ModeWe can have more than one mode.
Example: {1, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 9}3 appears three times, as does 6.
So there are two modes: at 3 and 6
Having two modes is called "bimodal".
Having more than two modes is called "multimodal".
And,
GroupingIn some cases (such as when all values appear the same number of times) the mode is not useful.
Math Is Fun appears correct to me, and your chosen example with its three different values appears useless for a discussion of mode.
[grey_whiskers #319] With the small sample set I was talking about, (you, neighbor, and Gates), there wouldn't BE a mode strictly speaking.[Woodpusher #321] Strictly speaking, there is always a mode and in your chosen example there are three modes. You are still making it up as you go along.
[grey_whiskers #324] Not making it up, just not typing coherently. The internet does not handle inflections well, and merely emphasizing the word "BE" didn't convey my point. I should have emphasized "A" instead of "BE": not a unique value of the mode, corresponding to one value within the set which is guaranteed to appear more often than all the others.
But that would've been too cumbersome to explain on my third straight night of four hours sleep.
That would change your #319 from:
[grey_whiskers #319] With the small sample set I was talking about, (you, neighbor, and Gates), there wouldn't BE a mode strictly speaking.
to the equally useless:
[grey_whiskers #319 reimagined] With the small sample set I was talking about, (you, neighbor, and Gates), there wouldn't be A mode strictly speaking.
Unfortunately, not even an irrelevant digression into an eigenvalue subroutine four layers down dying from a divide-by-zero error can rescue your claim of blithering nonsense about mode values. Whether you emphasize A or BE, your chosen example wit three values, all different, is multimodal and useless.
[Woodpusher #321, replying to grey_whiskers #319]
"In this study, 541 individuals were identified who died of fentanyl-induced overdose in New Hampshire from January 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016."
[emphasis in original]
I quoted the report to identify the specific number of individuals in the study and provided a link to the report itself.
Regardless of the number of subjects in the study which I provided, your chosen example would have been useless for demonstrating anything about mode values.
GroupingIn some cases (such as when all values appear the same number of times) the mode is not useful.
Id. You made up an example where mode is not useful. It was not easy to make up an example where mode is not useful, but you were up to the task.
Whether you emphasize A or BE, you still have the same problem. All your chosen values appear the same number of times (ONCE) and the mode of your chosen data is not useful. Like you unending excuses.
I freely admit screwing up my read on the fentanyl study. It happens when you're tired.
I did manage 9 hours of sleep last night, following a late afternoon 2 1/2 hour nap. And the God-awful work project which kept me up for a number of days till 2-3 in the morning is finished, so I am about 1/3 of the way back to being human.
As Ferris Bueller's recording said, "We appreciate your concern for our welfare."
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/13-3720/13-3720-2014-04-11.pdf?ts=1411029623
Before: MERRITT, BOGGS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Cordell Drummond shot himself in the leg and lay bleeding off a public street. Two Springfield Township police officers called paramedics and then stood by with guns drawn, reasonably believing that Drummond may have been armed and dangerous. 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.
A man lying on his stomach on the ground, with two police officers holding down his legs, and one kneeling on his neck, who first passes out, and then goes into cardiac arrest, cannot reasonably be believed to be armed and dangerous, wouldn't you say?
And, of course, you left out the details of the case, which say :
"In the five minutes intervening, Powers and Downs did not touch Drummond, handcuff him, or restrain him in any way. They observed that Drummond was bleeding and had blood on his hands and pants, but they could not observe the severity of Drummond’s injury or the extent of his blood loss. "
That's a wee bit different, you know, then one of the POLICEMEN, himself, trying to take George Floyd's pulse, not finding any, and telling a fellow policemen, who not only does not try to verify, does not attempt CPR, but KEEPS KNEELING ON HIS NECK.
As to the brandishing the mace?
From your own link above:
After the officers radioed dispatch, Jason Drummond, Cordell’s uncle and a resident of Birchridge Drive, approached the scene. Jason Drummond did not speak, and the officers did not know his identity, intentions, or whether he was armed. Downs held Jason Drummond at gunpoint momentarily and ordered him not to walk closer.
Whereas in the George Floyd case, at least one of the bystanders identifies on video as a first responder and begs Mr. Kneecap to get up and check for a pulse. Not the same thing at all. Not even close.
You've been caught lying again.
And, just to make the rubble bounce.
Your own case, repeats the discussion of the denial of due-process violations, as it is an appeals court, following the original court ruling.
The original court followed the logic of DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 195 (1989).
That was a case where a turd of a social worker didn't intervene in a case where a kid got beat up to the point of permanent brain damage.
To read from this appeal verbatim:
Pierce’s first theory of liability is that the Township assumed a special responsibility to assist Drummond because they placed him in custody. It is true that the DeShaney doctrine contains what has been called a “custody exception” in which “the State’s affirmative act of restraining the individual’s freedom to act on his own behalf . . . trigger[s] the protections of the Due Process Clause.” Id. at 200. Different standards apply to determining whether an individual is in “custody” for Fourth Amendment purposes and for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment and DeShaney’s custody exception.
For Fourth Amendment purposes, individuals are in custody when a police officer restrains their liberty in such a way that reasonable persons would believe that they were not free to leave. Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 573 (1988); Ewolski v. City of Brunswick, 287 F.3d 492, 506 (6th Cir. 2002).
For purposes, however, of the Fourteenth Amendment and of DeShaney’s custody exception, custody requires that the state restrain an individual “through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint.” DeShaney, 498 U.S. at 200. DeShaney’s custody exception requires, “at a minimum—actual, physical restraint of the suspect by the police.” Cutlip v. City of Toledo, 488 F. App’x 107, 114 (6th Cir. 2012). DeShaney’s custody standard is a “difficult and more exacting standard than for a Fourth Amendment seizure.”
Id. The essential point is that, although both standards involve determining whether an individual is in “custody,” they are “legally different concepts.” Id. The mother brought suit under § 1983, alleging that the police acted recklessly and with wanton disregard to her civil rights. Id. The Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause does not confer a right to have the State enforce a restraining order. Id. at 767–68. 9 In this case, even viewing the facts in Pierce’s favor, Drummond was not in custody for DeShaney purposes.3
He was not incarcerated, institutionalized, or subjected to “other similar restraint.” Id. Nor was he handcuffed, arrested, restrained, or even touched by the police. Drummond was incapacitated by a self-inflicted gunshot wound, and he collapsed to the ground before the officers reached him. Under these circumstances, Drummond was not in custody for DeShaney purposes
So in your case, the lawyer sued under the violation of the wrong Constitutional amendment for the circumstance.
But, in the case of George Floyd, the case of DeShaney's custody exception IS FULFILLED. "actual, physical restraint of the suspect by the police." Including ALL of the conditions spelled out by your appellate court: handcuffed, arrested, restrained, AND touched.
So, you pulled a case out of your ass, which applied to utterly different circumstances, and you are utterly, irretrievably, and forever WRONG.
Liar.
You're foaming at the mouth, child.
Respect your elder, son.
I gave a real-world example in which it made a difference whether you a single maximum value, or not.
Yes, you gave an example at your #314:
I know what the mode is.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.
It was a useless example which demonstrated that you did not know what you wre talking about, as I more than adequately documented.
At #318 I gave sample data where the result was
Mean value 9.96
Mode value 11.00
Median value 10.00
proving your *must be* claim was nonsense.
Moreover at #321 I quoted Math is Fun to demonstrate that you were full of crap:
https://www.mathsisfun.com/mode.html
More Than One ModeWe can have more than one mode. Example: {1, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 9}
3 appears three times, as does 6.
So there are two modes: at 3 and 6
Having two modes is called "bimodal".
Having more than two modes is called "multimodal".
Strictly speaking, in your chosen multimodal example, you woud have three modes, just as I stated. Your example had three modes and was trimodal or multimodal.
And I quoted Math is Fun to document why your chosen example, with only three discrete values, was useless to discuss mode:
https://www.mathsisfun.com/mode.html
GroupingIn some cases (such as when all values appear the same number of times) the mode is not useful.
You made up an example where mode is not useful. It was not easy to make up an example where mode is not useful, but you were up to the task.
Now, you only blather on in an effort to have me waste time in a careful effort to read up on the instructions about caring for my pet rock.
The case was dismissed on summary judgment for failure to state a claim. The court read the submissions, decided there was no legal case requiring a trial, and threw the plaintiff's case out.
Your insane rant loses again.
The Court wrote:
We sympathize with Drummond’s relatives, but we agree with the district court’s cogent analysis that the Township did not deprive Drummond of a constitutional right. In this case, construing the facts in the light most favorable to Pierce, Springfield Township did not violate Drummond’s rights under the Due Process Clause. Because Pierce fails to state a claim under § 1983, we agree with the district court’s reasoning and AFFIRM its judgment
Merritt, J., concurring wrote:
I think it is better to conceptualize the case as one in which the police had custody and a duty to act without “deliberate indifference” to Drummond’s medical needs. The standard of “deliberate indifference” is explained in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). In light of the caution the situation required and the obvious medical attention needed, the police acted without “deliberate indifference” in calling for an ambulance which came immediately. Given the specific facts of this case, I cannot see how the police could be at fault in their conduct in briefly maintaining the status quo while the ambulance was on its way.
It should be noted that your obtuse attempt to introduce an element of qualified immunity, you are once again reminded that qualified immuity only applies to CIVIL cases.
I can't decide whether to water you or spray you with RoundUp.
Your trolling is now failing. (Pats head.)
But your own citation showed, that the reason it failed, was because the executrice of the estate, sued under the wrong Amemendment.
Your own case, in fact, the very site you gave, said verbatim:
He was not incarcerated, institutionalized, or subjected to “other similar restraint.” Id. Nor was he handcuffed, arrested, restrained, or even touched by the police. Drummond was incapacitated by a self-inflicted gunshot wound, and he collapsed to the ground before the officers reached him. Under these circumstances, Drummond was not in custody for DeShaney purposes
It is because he was "not in custody for DeShaney purposes" that there was no Constitutional claim.
But Floyd George was ALL FOUR. And he did not "collapse to the ground" before the officers reached him: they were holding him down.
Your dishonesty and bad faith continue.
Toodles!
Oh, make that “George Floyd” or “Floyd, George”...
[grey_whiskers #331] Your trolling is now failing. (Pats head.)
(Hears sound of knock on wood.) Who's there? Oh, you again.
Your senile act is long past the state of failing. It has failed, utterly.
[grey_whiskers #327] You're foaming at the mouth, child.
Respect your elder, son.
[grey_whiskers #327] I gave a real-world example in which it made a difference whether you a single maximum value, or not.
Yes, you gave an example at your #314:
I know what the mode is.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.
It was a useless example which demonstrated that you did not know what you wre talking about, as I more than adequately documented.
At #318 I gave sample data where the result was
Mean value 9.96
Mode value 11.00
Median value 10.00
proving your *must be* claim was nonsense.
Moreover at #321 I quoted Math is Fun to demonstrate that you were full of crap:
https://www.mathsisfun.com/mode.html
More Than One ModeWe can have more than one mode. Example: {1, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 9}
3 appears three times, as does 6.
So there are two modes: at 3 and 6
Having two modes is called "bimodal".
Having more than two modes is called "multimodal".
Strictly speaking, in your chosen multimodal example, you would have three modes, just as I stated. Your example had three modes and was trimodal or multimodal.
And I quoted Math is Fun to document why your chosen example, with only three discrete values, was useless to discuss mode:
https://www.mathsisfun.com/mode.html
GroupingIn some cases (such as when all values appear the same number of times) the mode is not useful.
You made up an example where mode is not useful. It was not easy to make up an example where mode is not useful, but you were up to the task.
You dragged in the Drummond case, as though it disproved my contention, for failure to state a claim.
There is no Drummond case. There is just the Pierce case. The case has not changed. It is Sharon Pierce et al., v. SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP, OHIO, et al., (6th Cir., 1014)
Unlike your incompetent demented nonsense, I can link to an actual case, from an actual court.
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/13-3720/13-3720-2014-04-11.pdf?ts=1411029623
Your legal reasoning is pulled straight from your ass. It did not come from the imaginary Drummond case.
To help with your short-term memory loss, I will remind you of your original claim which you seem to have conveniently forgotten:
[grey_whiskers #201]
Pulling out a can of mace to prevent bystanders from giving aid?AND not doing CPR on a handcuffed guy in your custody, after one of your fellow cops has just told you (on video and in front of witnesses) that he doesn't have a pulse?
That's depraved indifference right there, regardless of what caused the heart to stop beating. You are irretrievably utterly and forever wrong.
First of all, your entire argument fails in a COVID-19 pandemic. You may have the intellect to run around in a pandemic giving mouth-to-mouth, but that's you.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2010758
CPR is resource-intensive and may pose risks to clinicians. In cases of cardiopulmonary arrest occurring outside intensive care units (ICUs), successful resuscitation typically requires transfer to an ICU and mechanical ventilation. Under crisis conditions, however, the hospital may have no available ICU beds or ventilators. If these resources are not available, there may be little role for resuscitation.CPR for in-hospital arrest has limited effectiveness. Excluding patients in specific settings such as cardiac catheterization labs, where arrhythmic arrests are rapidly reversible, only about 25% of patients who have an in-hospital cardiac arrest survive to hospital discharge.
[...]
Third, ensuring the safety of personnel justifies selective constraints on resuscitation. Under crisis standards of care, substantial risks to health care workers may outweigh very small chances of providing benefit to a particular patient. Professional society guidelines recommend protective measures that may alter resuscitation practices and the potential for success. These include consistent use of PPE by the code team, performance of intubation by experienced personnel, and use of mechanical CPR where available.
To protect health care workers in a manner consistent with the ethical framework we’ve outlined, we believe that resuscitation should commence only after the code team has donned appropriate PPE, including a face shield for the person performing intubation. Institutions should not require resuscitation if appropriate PPE is not available. If no member of the code team is sufficiently experienced at emergency intubation, the team should perform only interventions that can be delivered safely (e.g., defibrillation and compression-only CPR with supplemental oxygen) until an appropriate clinician arrives. At the same time, we believe that adequately trained responders who have appropriate PPE should not be allowed to refuse to perform CPR out of concern for personal safety, except in patients with refractory deterioration. (Our recommendations assume that clinicians with contraindications to caring for patients with Covid-19 have been deployed elsewhere.)
The cops do not know the qualifications of bystanders and have no duty to permit bystanders to administer medical care because that is what a bystander desires, and in the George Floyd case, giving CPR was contra-indicated by the lack of personnel protective equipment, even if it were a hospital setting and the individuals were qualified.
[grey_whiskers #332] But your own citation showed, that the reason it failed, was because the executrice [sic - executrix] of the estate, sued under the wrong Amemendment. [sic - Amendment]
Pierce was a FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT brought against a STATE municipality. The FOURTEENTH Amendment MUST be cited because the only legal reason any part of the bill of rights applies to the States is through incorporation via the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
At least try to read the applicable part of Pierce (yes, Pierce, there is no Drummond case), the part about PREVENTING PRIVATE RESCUE. THAT was the topic you brought up, you senile old goat.
Powers and Downs, like the defendant police officers in Tanner v. County of Lenawee, were not “aware of the would-be rescuer’s qualifications,” if any. Tanner v. Cnty. of Lenawee, 452 F.3d 472, 481 (6th Cir. 2006). To the extent the Due Process Clause encompasses a right to private rescue, the officers did not violate that right in this case.
The reason the claim failed is that there was no violation of the right to due process.
To succeed on the FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS claim, the plaintiffs must prove that there was an unlawful deprivation of a FEDERAL RIGHT.
FEDERAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS are claimed under the FOURTEENTH Amendment when the suit is not brought against an element of the Federal government. It comes from THIS part, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
In denying the rendering of private assistance by persons of unknown qualification, did the police deprive the subject of a FEDERAL RIGHT? No, they did not.
https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2018/title-42/chapter-21/subchapter-i/sec-1983/
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018)§1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
If you desire to make it a FEDERAL CRIMINAL action, here is what the prosecution would be up against:
Andrew J. Costello, A Closer Look at the Eric Garner Incident, Journal of Criminal ustice and Law, Journal of the Law and Public Policy Section of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp. 122-135 (2018) at 127:
On the same day, December 3, 2014, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the U.S. Attorney’s Office would conduct its own investigation into the death of Eric Garner (Danna, 2014). Staten Island falls under the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of New York, which was under the control of Loretta Lynch at the time, before she became the U.S. Attorney General. Federal prosecutors generally charge police officers for the excessive use of force under 18 USC § 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. To bring charges, the federal government would be required to show that Officer Pantaleo had deprived Eric Garner of his rights under the Constitution or federal law “… on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race.” For this claim to be made successfully, it would have to be shown that Officer Pantaleo willfully initiated the encounter on the basis of Eric Garner’s race under the guise of a state action.The government would have several problems bringing a federal charge. Officer Pantaleo did not initiate the encounter. The enforcement action against Eric Garner for selling untaxed cigarettes was initiated because of 311 complaints, QOL complaints, and instructions given to the 120th Precinct Commander at Compstat sessions. Also, there was no guise of a state action. Eric Garner sold untaxed cigarettes to an undercover police officer in violation of NYS Tax Law 1814. Although the crime is an unclassified misdemeanor and it can be debated whether the NYPD should be involved in such enforcement, it did subject Eric Garner to arrest. Therefore, Officer Pantaleo and the other officers at the scene neither initiated the action nor used an enforcement action as a guise for discrimination.
Oh, make that “George Floyd” or “Floyd, George”...
Hell, if it is about the non-existent make-believe Drummond case, make it any name you want. It won't matter.
If it is about giving mouth-to-mouth in a pandemic, it doesn't matter what the case is.
You have entered a vegetative state. Consider yourself watered for another day.
Good to see you admitting you were wrong. You were the one who brought it up. :-D
You must be a Democrat.
You said:
There is no Drummond case. There is just the Pierce case. The case has not changed. It is Sharon Pierce et al., v. SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP, OHIO, et al., (6th Cir., 1014)
But in your post #328 you quoted:
"We sympathize with Drummond’s relatives, but we agree with the district court’s cogent analysis that the Township did not deprive Drummond of a constitutional right. In this case, construing the facts in the light most favorable to Pierce, Springfield Township did not violate Drummond’s rights under the Due Process Clause. Because Pierce fails to state a claim under § 1983, we agree with the district court’s reasoning and AFFIRM its judgment"
See, DRUMMOND'S relatives. So I was referring to the case involving a human being named Drummond. Using language YOU cut-and-pasted into the thread.
Because the issue was NOT the name of the person pursuing the lawsuit, but the actual behaviour and circumstances, of the man who was the SUBJECT of the lawsuit.
Next step.
You wrote again in post 322, the very post I'm replying to:
Your legal reasoning is pulled straight from your ass. It did not come from the imaginary Drummond case.
The cut and paste is VERBATIM (that's what cut-and-paste means) from this link: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/13-3720/13-3720-2014-04-11.pdf?ts=1411029623
This is the link YOU gave, in post#260 this thread.
So, you're lying through your teeth again.
So, what did the link say, YOUR link, which YOU said proved there would be no Constitutional violation in the case of George Floyd?
Oh, yeah.
"In this case, even viewing the facts in Pierce’s favor, Drummond was not in custody for DeShaney purposes.3 He was not incarcerated, institutionalized, or subjected to “other similar restraint.” Id. Nor was he handcuffed, arrested, restrained, or even touched by the police. Drummond was incapacitated by a self-inflicted gunshot wound, and he collapsed to the ground before the officers reached him. Under these circumstances, Drummond was not in custody for DeShaney purposes."
Direct quote from the court, defining custody for DeShaney purposes, which governs custody for the purposes of Constitutional rights violations.
Oh, yeah, in case you forgot.
YOUR website, for YOUR case sitation, for YOUR assertion.
Read that again with your poor overworked, lonely brain cell.
Nor was he handcuffed, arrested, restrained, or even touched by the police.
Whereas George Floyd was handcuffed; he had been arrested (for passing a bad $20; and "resisting arrest" was the favorite excuse of the JBT lickers for why the victim "deserved it"); he was restrained -- two cops on his legs; and touched by the police -- one kneeling on his neck.
Your increasing desperation is showing. You're lying like CNN, you're lying like a Democrat.
You're getting caught trivially.
This is even easier that shooting fish in a barrel.
I simply don't care. You're increasing flop sweat is staining the floor around you, with your effort to troll.
Better check your heart rate and blood pressure, kiddo.
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.