Talk:Murder of George Floyd

Should the lede have 8 minutes and 46 seconds or almost 9 minutes?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which is better for an encyclopedic article? The exact time or something else? Should it read knelt on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds or should it be knelt on his neck for almost nine minutes? Either way links to an article about that time, which makes it seem even more ridiculous when you don't have that exact time listed. Dream Focus 16:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• We tell the reader that Floyd was 46 years old – not 46 years, 3 months, 17 days old – because the latter, overprecise formulation gives the reader no additional understanding of anything while it wastes our most precious resource as writers, to wit our readers' limited reservoir of attention and capacity for assimilating detail (or reading past useless detail). Almost nine minutes and Eight minutes 46 seconds have precisely the same relationship. (We're talking here about the lead, where every word counts. In the article body we give full detail, or course.)
  I'm not sure I feel particularly strongly about the above, but I do about this: it's absolutely inappropriate to link the time specification (in whatever form we settle on) to 8'46". That's a classic WP:EASTEREGG. That link is given later in the article, with appropriate explicit introduction, in the discussion of protests and reactions. EEng 16:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• I prefer "almost nine minutes", and it shouldn't link to 8'46". That link should be removed. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• I think it is preferable to use the rounded number in the lede. While I oppose the existence of the 8′46″ article, if that article is to exist, we should link to it in the lede. I do not perceive an WP:EASTEREGG type problem concerning that link. It is not an WP:EASTEREGG because 8 minutes and 46 seconds equals 9 minutes, unless my math is off. Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Given the notability of the exact time (as used in various protests, in various speeches, and in almost all coverage of the incident this article covers), we should use the exact time in the lede. This is very much unlike an age which changes constantly until the person dies, and at death, is often not notable beyond the years passed since birth. This is also not an WP:EASTEREGG as we're giving the exact value to the link, the link merely provides additional information on the significance of that specific amount of time. As regards "every word counting", it actually consumes more space to be less specific... depending on how it's presented, anyways... —Locke Cole • t • c 17:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• I can see a case either way, but have a preference for Dream's version. Some readers, including me, appreaceated the 8'46" link. With Dream's transparently worded version, there's not even a borderline violation of WP:EASTEREGG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Exact time - The problem with just linking 9 minutes to 8'46" is that precision of information is lost on a printed copy of the page (as per WP:EASTEREGG). Now, specifying exact amounts of time isn't usually necessary when dealing with encyclopedic content because it's trivial at best and wouldn't provide any additional insight to the reader. However, in this case, the distinction is necessary because of how iconic and symbolic 8'46" has become to the protests and the amount of coverage from reliable sources it's received. Additionally, saying 9 minutes and then clarifying it as 8'46" just sounds redundant to me. Specifying the exact time is the best option here. --letcreate123 (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Imprecise time - The distinction between 8 minutes and 46 seconds and 9 minutes makes a mockery of the concept of precision. It doesn't matter. It makes no difference. Bus stop (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Redundant vote struck by closer —valereee (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Exact time, per letcreate123. That time - 8'46'' - is now iconic. Let's not be coy, and let's not create eastereggs. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter that it is "iconic". We are not in the business of beating the drums of protest. Wikipedia doesn't engage in boosterism for any cause. Bus stop (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Absolutely right. EEng 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• The link is an easteregg regardless of whether the text the reader sees is almost nine minutes or eight minutes forty-six seconds. Per MOS:EASTEREGG, we're supposed to make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link. Only readers who already know will have any idea that this link will take him or her to an article about a meme or protest slogan. In the Memorials and protests section we've got

  The length of time that Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck, eight minutes forty-six seconds, was often seen on protest signs and messages (see 8′46″), as were the words "I can't breathe".

and that's the right way to do it. (I wrote it so of course I would think that.) EEng 21:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Imprecise time is fine, and remove the link (which is included with relevant context lower down). This is meaningless precision that draws attention away from the fact that Chauvin knelt on his neck for the thick end of ten minutes, including three minutes after he was dead, and thus presumably not struggling much. Guy (help!) 22:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• My reading of 8′46″ has the duration at 7:46 - the 8:46 is an accounting error in the complaint against Chauvin, so almost 9 minutes is a fairly big rounding error on our part. Josh Parris 23:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not sure about 7:46 because this video shows Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck for 7 minutes and 53 seconds. Chauvin's knee is already on Floyd's neck when the video starts; we don't know how long it had been there. The criminal complaints are based on body camera footage, which hasn't been publicly released yet, and the complaints say 8:46. They're probably not wrong about that, since Chauvin's body camera footage would probably show rather clearly when Chauvin knelt. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Even more reason to merge that article. Time stamps themselves are not notable. Trillfendi (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• IMHO: almost nine minutes is too verbose; 8'46" can be a little hard to interpret at first read. On top of that, this duration is an estimate, so being too precise while not exactly accurate is a bit weird. 8 minutes and 46 seconds contains cons of both of the aforementioned options (to verbose, overly precise and eventually reduces flow of reading). So, only okay compromise I can see is keep it as is, i.e.: almost nine minutes.

In terms of keeping wikilink: the notability of 8'46" is albeit a separate discussion. While the article lives, use the wikilink. --nafSadh ^{did say} 19:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• almost 9 minutes, no link, per EEng. --JBL (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• I prefer the exact time (I was the one who originally changed it) for two main reasons. First of all, there is a large protest movement and plenty of protest activities that have sprung up around that specific time, not around almost nine minutes (see 8'46). Futhermore, this phrasing to me seems encyclopedic. Look, says Wikipedia, he was in a chokehold for almost nine minutes! Although others may disagree, it seems as if we are dramatizing the situation, which should not be the job of an encyclopedia; its job is to report facts, and report them neutrally. --Zoozaz1 (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Exact time of 8:46 (or 8 minutes and 46 seconds): 8:46 has become a significant number in its own right. pbp 18:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - prosecutors now say it's 7:46, not 8:46. [1] Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Per other comments, we need to address the fact that the timeline has been corrected, for it's now 7:46 and not 8:46. Love of Corey (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  Doesn't really make too big of a difference. The question is one of "give exact time, or give rounded time", so the change in quantity doesn't make the question moot. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Exact time The time has become something of a symbol of Floyd's death, so it should be recorded in the Wikipedia article.Wurbl (User talk:Wurbl) 16:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Imprecise time in the lede as per User:EEng and User:Bus stop, while including precise time at some place in the body of the article. Chetsford (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• eight minutes and forty-six seconds should be included as having become a symbol itself (sources [2], [3] [4]). Can say approximately 9 minutes when talking about the actual act, but the symbolism of the time and its use in protests (protestors kneeling silently for that long [5] [6] [7]) should be included and the reason for that timing likewise included, and yes included in the lead. nableezy - 16:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It takes a heck of a lot of oxygen to talk

Transcripts of body camera videos have been made public and I don't think this quote or others are in the article. Should they be?

I can't link to what I read but this is one source. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but we need multiple high quality secondary sources to summarize. (Which are out there, with more coming soon, I just haven't looked personally.) The secondary sources will tell us what parts of the transcript should be included and what to say about it. There's a lot in those transcripts that might be added... the part you quote, the part about being shot before, the part about him being afraid that they were going to kill him from the very beginning of the encounter... but we need secondary sources to filter it all. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

(after ec) Yeah like that CBS article! :-) For my part I would encourage bold editing to add this new information in (as long as it's well sourced) and we can go WP:BRD if there's something to discuss. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like nothing from the transcripts has been added. I don't even see a mentioned of the transcripts being released. I did see there is some conflict between the various transcripts. One quotes Chauvin differently that the other. I could link to what I see but if you don't go to the same library that I do, it's unethical for me to share my username and password.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Transcriptions are notoriously error-prone. I suggest we be ultra careful by (1) ideally finding two independent transcriptions that agree on whatever we're quoting and (2) do a direct listen and see if it sounds right to us as well. I've just seen too many times where people have filled in a best guess instead of being clear that there's something not fully intelligible – and that includes transcriptions submitted as evidence in court. EEng 01:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk Page

Could some far-more-intelligent-than-me types find a way to organise this Talk page a little better? I don't direct that comment at anyone, just observing that the current Talk page is a little difficult to follow. Having said that a big fan of the Q&As! SiJoHaAl (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, SiJoHaAl, and welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately we can't go through and organize other people's posts. The most we can do is insert subsections into discussions to allow easier navigation, plus archive past discussions. This means things can get a little messy when there is a lot of discussion happening; you get used to it after you've been here a while and learn how we do things (you can read about that at WP:TALKPAGE), but highly contentious articles like this one can be hard even for experienced editors to follow. —valereee (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

And omigosh I forgot to say thank you for reading the FAQs! —valereee (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I think refactoring indents is also allowed on a limited basis. Some posters just never seem to "get" how to indent and I often fix that for them when I am in a discussion with them so that it is clear that it is all one thread.--Khajidha (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Khajidha, true, me too, especially newer users. After a few reminders I start getting snappish though. :) —valereee (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, this is a particularly difficult-to-navigate talk page, even as compared to other article talk pages. I think, in all seriousness and sincerity, that we've (collectively) allowed some talk page threads to just spiral out of control. Like beyond the point where the thread is useful to anyone, so long and convoluted that no new editor could possibly jump in. Scroll up and look at #image to faq? and #Separating out different discussion on whether previous RfCs were misconstrued. I've been editing this article almost daily for over a month, I'm one of the primary contributors, I created the FAQ template, I've commented in those threads, and I still have no idea what those threads are about! If I don't know what's being proposed or what we're talking about or where the conversation is going, there is no chance that a newcomer (like SiJoHaAl) could possibly participate. So I wonder if we should archive those threads and going forward make an effort to keep discussion focused and productive--something an average person could follow. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  it could always be worse ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Ha! True. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• SiJoHaAl—you say it is "difficult to follow". Can you be more specific? Can you point to any concrete examples? Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Well it could benefit from more sub-sections and archival using the FAQ mechanism. OK, for me reading this talk page yesterday it was difficult to determine which topics of discussion had been resolved and which topics and questions remained open for further talk discussion. As I said in my original comment, I was not pointing to anyone in particular, just making an observation about the presentation as it currently stands. SiJoHaAl (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  SiJoHaAl, better now? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  ooof, yes —valereee (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  Much better.SiJoHaAl (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  SiJoHaAl, for this one, since you were replying to Levivich (even though I also responded to Lev) you indented correctly; we both are responding to the same post, so we use the same number of colons. —valereee (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yay - how do I know when to use the Asterix and when not to? SiJoHaAl (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  SiJoHaAl, God bless you for asking these questions. Nobody bothers to ask these questions! WP:LISTGAP contains the long answer; the short answer is: use colons when you're replying to a post with colons; use asterix when you're replying to a post that uses asterix; they should match. So if you're replying to a post like ::Blah blah you would respond with :::Blah blah. If it were **Blah blah, you should put ***blah blah, and if it's a mix, like *:Blah blah, you'd respond with *::Blah blah (adding one more of the right-most character). If it's *::**:*Blah blah just forget about it, that's just not worth worrying about :-) Installing the WP:REPLYLINK script makes this easier, as the script handles indentation for you (and works most of the time, though not all). In terms of whether to use asterix or colon in the first place, that's a matter of personal preference--some editors prefer one, others prefer the other. Generally it's best to sort of make a thread "one or the other", so people just follow what came before. If you make the first reply, you get to decide whether it'll be colons or asterix :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• For the record, WP:TPO lists the following as among the things it's OK to do to other editors' talk page posts:

  Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels ...

Little adjustments to indentation levels, on the fly, have way more benefit than you might think in terms of making the discussion easy to follow (especially so others can tell who's responding to who or whom). EEng 20:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I wasn't advocating getting rid of the content. Just simple organisation changes like those that have been made by editors since my comment. Much better. If any of my own comments could benefit from indentation fixes and so forth, I welcome those tweaks. SiJoHaAl (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

SiJoHaAl, I've added a colon to the front of your above post, to indicate that you were replying to EEng. When you reply to someone on a talk page, you indicate to whom you're replying by inserting one more colon than they had used. So if you reply to this, you'd use four colons. That's one of the ways we organize talk pages, along with inserting sections or subsections where we think they're needed and archiving discussions that are over. —valereee (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Undue conspiracy section

The conspiracy section should be deleted. Per the WP:UNDUE policy: Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

If the conspiracy theories were truly notable, like Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories or Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, a seperate article would exist, and a "see also" could be added. However, the Floyd conspiracy is a fringe theory without credibility. The Independent wrote: Those claims, which the Republican candidate and “academic” has tried to prove with an online report, have no basis in truth.[8] Reuters said claims that it's not really Chauvin in the video were unfounded.[9] The New York Times called Floyd being alive an unfounded rumor.[10]—Bagumba (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Tend to agree, if we must have this put in conspiracy theories.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The Conspiracy theories section of the article is 100% on-topic and should remain in the article. "Conspiracy theorists are baselessly arguing that George Soros, the billionaire investor and Democratic donor, is funding the spreading protests against police brutality...On Twitter and Facebook, hundreds of posts are circulating saying that George Floyd is not actually dead...Untruths, conspiracy theories and other false information are running rampant online as the furor over Mr. Floyd, an African-American man who was killed last week in police custody in Minneapolis, has built."[11] Why would we omit that there is a plethora of misinformation out there about this incident? Bus stop (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

To be comprehensive the article needs to acknowledge this, and the two sentences now there (I killed a third) are by no means UNDUE, but details of these delusions belong at List of conspiracy theories or wherever. I do wish there was somewhere to put it other than its own section, and that may arise as the article grows. EEng 12:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

"Why would we omit that there is a plethora of misinformation out there about this incident?" Because this is a website based on factual information, not tabloid trash and political mudslinging! Either it goes to List of conspiracy theories or it goes away. There shouldn't even be a debate! MarcoPolo250 (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

MarcoPolo250—it is reliably sourced that "Untruths, conspiracy theories and other false information are running rampant" and that "the combination of evolving events, sustained attention and, most of all, deep existing divisions make this moment a perfect storm for disinformation".[12] Have you looked at the particular section in question? It does not promote unfactual information. It acknowledges its existence. Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

My fingers can't believe they're typing these words, but Bus stop is 100% correct. I wouldn't call it egregious if the article omitted all mention of George Floyd conspiracy theories (leaving them to be covered only in List of conspiracy theories) but the article isn't comprehensive without at least a nod. The only real question is how much detail to give; my emphatic opinion is: very little, plus a pointer elsewhere where more detail is given. EEng 05:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: Are you advocating WP:IAR on the UNDUE excerpt quoted in the opening?—Bagumba (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a subtle point but I don't think this is analogous to flat-earthism. Of modern sources touching somehow on the earth (geology, or the space program, or climate change, or any of a zillion related topics) you'll find essentially none even mentioning flat-earthism. That's why flat-earthism has no place in the Earth article. But there are abundant sources at least briefly describing G.F. conspiracy theories, and quite a few dedicated to them. EEng 06:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That is an uneven comparison of scholarly publications on earth versus news stories on Floyd conspiracies. There are news stories on flat-earth proponents, like this star basketball player. We don't include them because they are fringe.—Bagumba (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

How many news stories you got on other flat-earthers? EEng 06:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

We're getting off topic (but 11 million Brazilians can't be wrong)—Bagumba (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I think you mean this: positing ideas such as that the incident never happened, or that participants in the subsequent protests were paid? I thought about possibly pulling that. Does it really matter what the details are? And aren't all modern right-wing conspiracy theories essentially those same ones, so is that detail even necessary? —valereee (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Everything has a conspiracy theory these days. UNDUE policy gives specific guidance on handling "tiny minorities". Is there any reliable source that says these might even be plausible?—Bagumba (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Plausibility would be irrelevant, Bagumba. Do you think there are rules for constructing an article? I don't. The George Floyd incident is blown way out of proportion in multiple dimensions. The Conspiracy theories section of the article is merely noting that misinformation is also way out of proportion. The conspiracy theory section of the article is telling us that the amount of misinformation generated by the George Floyd incident is inordinate. I am responding to "Is there any reliable source that says these might even be plausible?" Bus stop (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop: Do you think there are rules for constructing an article? For one, WP:ONUS.—Bagumba (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, very true. I certainly think a section isn't necessary, especially when we're talking at most two sentences. We could consider removing the section head and reducing this to a final sentence in the previous section simply acknowledging that there were conspiracy theories, maybe? —valereee (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, removing the section would be an improvement. However, I still side with policy, UNDUE. If these Floyd conspiracy theories aren't notable enough for their own article, this article doesn't need to dignify them.—Bagumba (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I don't agree that everything that's included in this article needs to be notable enough for its own article. It just needs to be noteworthy enough for inclusion. That said, I'm not sure these conspiracy theories are noteworthy. It's still a bit of DOGBITESMAN, but for me the removal of the section heading and details mostly fixes it. —valereee (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee—why are you omitting the slightest reference to the subject of that sentence and that paragraph? Is that what you would consider informative writing? You have removed "positing ideas such as that the incident never happened, or that participants in the subsequent protests were paid". Bus stop (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, per the discussion above. Bagumba and I are trying to find a compromise position between "none of this is even worth including" and "there needs to be some mention of it." Please stop asking rhetorical questions like "Is that what you would consider informative writing?" It's disruptive. —valereee (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This is now the third time I've directed you at Bagumba, I think you mean this: positing ideas such as that the incident never happened, or that participants in the subsequent protests were paid? I thought about possibly pulling that. Does it really matter what the details are? And aren't all modern right-wing conspiracy theories essentially those same ones, so is that detail even necessary?. You added it back with no explanation and without showing consensus to include, for which the ONUS is on those who want to include, not those who want to exclude. I'll remind you that this article is under discretionary sanctions. —valereee (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, Bagumba—why would you write:

"Conspiracy theories began spreading soon after Floyd's death.[166][167][168] The Los Angeles Times said on June 22 that some theories had been "amplified by a growing number of people on the far right, including some Republican leaders" but that "some Republicans (had) begun pushing back" on false claims and those spreading rumors.[167]"

instead of:

"Conspiracy theories positing ideas such as that the incident never happened, or that participants in the subsequent protests were paid, began spreading soon after Floyd's death.[166][167][168] The Los Angeles Times said on June 22 that some theories had been "amplified by a growing number of people on the far right, including some Republican leaders" but that "some Republicans (had) begun pushing back" on false claims and those spreading rumors.[167]"

You mean the reader does not need to know even an inkling about what those conspiracy theories were? Bus stop (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Policies re neck

Quote: The MPD authorizes two types of neck restraints: Conscious Neck Restraint and Unconscious Neck Restraint. (04/16/12)

Conscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with intent to control, and not to render the subject unconscious, by only applying light to moderate pressure. (04/16/12)

Unconscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure. (04/16/12) from: https://web.archive.org/web/20120417172352/http:/www.minneapolismn.gov/police/policy/mpdpolicy_5-300_5-300 as discussed in: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-did-israeli-secret-service-teach-floyd-police-to-kneel-on-neck

I do not see it mentioned here.

=> Let us add it.

It also ties in with a conspiracy theory promoted by Mr Farrakhan and his ilk: snakes wrapping around Blacks' necks and more, q.v.

Zezen (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Zezen, add what, specifically, to the article, and where?

My concern is that the Channel 4 article you link to is about a conspiracy theory, and it mentions the MPD policies in order to debunk that theory. I'm curious if there are other RSes that discuss the MPD neck restraint policy, and what they say about it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikidragon flagging an issue before jumping to another topic.

-EEng

Dear Levivich and the Wiki colleagues:

1. Excuse my brevity, typos, and not contributing more here: it is early morning in my time zone and I will be off to work soon. Also I am typing it on a mobile.

2. Let us expand on this police policy: it seems to be a missing link in this article, and as you can see, it is being picked up worldwide (also in the UK) to weave in such murky conspiracy theories (with ancient snakes and such), so it is not my OR that I mention it here, see the URL breadcrumbs above.

3. Re: "RSes that discuss the MPD neck restraint policy.."

Alas, I have no time for this research: as a WikiDragon I can only flag this issue and jump to another topic, see also Point 1.

Bows

Zezen (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

So the proposal is to add something about the chokeholds/neck restraints permitted at the time by MPD? There are better sources at Duke CSJ blog and MN Post —valereee (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems like there are sufficient sources to add something like, "At the time of the incident, the MPD authorized the use of neck restraints and chokeholds." But on a read-through I couldn't decide where it would be appropriate. Any suggestions? —valereee (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

My question is, does anyone at any point say the MPD did not authorize the use of neck restraints or chokeholds? Does anyone argue that Chauvin's "neck restraint" was authorized by policy? It seems like a straw dog argument to me, with the risk of misleading the reader. Every discussion of the policy I've seen says that Chauvin's knee-on-the-neck did not comply with department policy. I don't even think Chauvin's defense has (yet) said that his actions complied with policy. I'm not aware of anyone arguing that it was within policy. Thus, I don't think the policy is relevant. If there is some debate about the policy or its application here, then yes, I think it could be included, but we'd need to include the whole debate as well. The one thing I can think of is if that policy has been changed since the killing, then that might be worth including. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

City council voted to change policy to disallow neck restraints entirely June 5 per NPR although it's unclear whether that's actually binding yet. —valereee (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I remembered reading they were talking about doing it, and I haven't kept up with what came of it. I hate "reactions" sections but I love "impact" sections and I think changes-to-policy would fit well in an impact section. Maybe we should include the policy and the policy change in the "Memorials, protests and reactions" section (which maybe we should rename to "aftermath and impact"). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I'd LOVE to change the name of that section, and yes, the policy would be a good fit there with the rename. —valereee (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich and Valereee, I agree with the section name change and the inclusion of policy. SiJoHaAl (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Great question. Great points. Whether or not choke-holds generally are permitted or were indicated in this situation I would be very surprised if whatever Chauvin (appears) to have done even meets the definition of 'choke-hold' or was in compliance with any SOPs. Using your knee to apply your body weight to a persons neck against the road.... has that ever been a thing or considered a form of choke-hold? I mean it did choke Mr Floyd and it did appear to hold Mr Floyd, but does that make it a choke-hold by any given definition? ... as opposed to a highly dangerous act not in compliance with any applicable policies at the time. Seems very odd. Even if Mr Floyd had not died would perhaps seem likely he could have sustained spinal injuries. Levivich is there any authority to suggest what Mr Chauvin (appears) to have done is even a form of a choke-hold? May be a danger of conflating whatever Chauvin appears to have done with accepted notions of choke-hold. Forgive me if I'm off-piste here. SiJoHaAl (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, no, I'm not aware of any sources calling a knee-on-the-neck a "choke hold"; I'm not sure even about "neck restraint". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I would be immensely surprised if what Mr Chauvin was alleged to have done could be characterised as a "neck restraint" pursuant to any policies or guidelines. Perhaps we might get some discussion of this in the indictment and the criminal proceedings... SiJoHaAl (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Might come down to whether it "applyed direct pressure to the trachea or airway (front of the neck)" but that might be qualified if it can be established Mr Chauvin "should reasonably know [the force used] create[d] a substantial risk of causing death or great bodily harm" so how the leg was used and the time used for may be relevant. An interesting question is whether that Mr Chauvin had 3 other officers with him should have changed the calculus of what force was (assuming any at all) warranted. SiJoHaAl (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Chuvin has his right hand on George Floyd`s pulse..he knew exactly what he was doing and it was obvious 2600:1702:2340:9470:ED5A:2464:B671:13B7 (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)