Talk:Trial of Derek Chauvin/Archive 4

Andrew Baker's logic flaw
Anybody who understands Andrew Baker's conclusion? He said Floyd's heart disease, fentanyl intoxication and methamphetamine use were contributing causes but not direct causes because they "did not cause the subdual or the neck restraint".--178.3.123.250 (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes? your point is?Slatersteven (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * He says, if a medical condition doesn't cause subdual or neck retraint it can't be a direct death cause. Do you think that's correct?212.51.23.55 (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I am not a qualified doctor or forensic scientist I cannot say. Nor would it matter, we go with what RS say, what do RS say? And please read wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to common knowledge and logical reasoning 185.91.34.84 (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You did not read wp:or did you? We do not engage in OR, nor do we answer points based upon OR. As such your comment can not be dealt with (And read wp:not as well).Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 185, if you have a specific change you would like to make to this article, please state so now, explain why, and explain what sources support that change. If you believe it to be common knowledge that Baker made a logical mistake, find the many reliable sources that would surely therefore report on the mistake, and bring them here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the article could be improved by making Baker's testimony more understandable. Anybody here who can explain his statement? Baker was asked by Jerry Blackwell: You didn't mention either fentanyl or meth in Mr Floyd's system ... um ... you mentioned those, but you don't list either of them on the top line as causes of death. Why is that? Andrew Baker's response: [...] So the other significant conditions are things that played a role in death, but didn't directly cause the death. So for example, you know, Mr. Floyd's use of fentanyl did not cause the subdual or neck restraint, his heart disease did not cause the subdual or neck restraint. Baker confirmed at another occasion that 11ng/ml fentanyl can be a deadly dose. It's obvious that fentanyl and heart disease don't cause subdual and neck compression. Why does Baker mention this? And why is this cited in the article? Was it a valid argument in the trial? If so, it should be explained.88.70.170.86 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Defense "Why did you not list X as a cause of death" Baker "because they were not", it's not hard to figure out. He was asked why he did not list them and he said because it was subdual and neck restraint that was the cause of death. This is why we do not do OR.Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Baker said: Floyd's use of fentanyl did not cause the subdual or neck restraint, his heart disease did not cause the subdual or neck restraint and Wikipedia QUOTES it (without understanding)88.70.170.86 (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this is going nowhere and should be closed. There really is nothing actionable here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * and thirded...Gandydancer (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * With respect to the closer, I wrote the sentence in question, and though I don't completely understand the question(s) here, I can answer one partially (the one from 212, at 13:02).
 * In general, any fatal condition can contribute to a death but not be causally connected to the specific thing noted in the section for the immediate one. It doesn't mean one thing is deadlier or "more official" than the other, just not connected to the other in a physical and logical way. Intoxicating yourself on fentanyl while your burdened circulatory system was recently affected by meth can help kill you, but it's never going to directly cause police subdual, restraint and neck compression. Baker was flawless there.
 * He was also 100% right about the cardiopulmonary arrest "complicating" everything he noted the police were doing, as opposed to everything he noted the police were doing "causing" or "contributing to" the cardipulmonary arrest. Many otherwise reasonable and intelligent people (like Slatersteven, at 17:42) still honestly get that part completely backward. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All I said was the defense asked "by did you not list these as a cause of death (I am of course paraphrasing) and he said, "because they were not THE COURSE OF DEATH, that was subdual or neck restraint". How is this not correct?Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The incorrect thing is "it was subdual and neck restraint that was the cause of death". The cause of death was cardipulmonary arrest. It also complicated subdual and neck restraint. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So the response to "but you don't list either of them on the top line as causes of death?" Was "did not cause the subdual or neck restraint, his heart disease did not cause the subdual or neck restraint." does not mean he was (in effect) saying "the cause of death was subdual or neck restraint, and this is why I did not include the others"? This is why we do not do wp:or, because you interpret it as A and I interpret it as B. Hence why we go with what RS analysis it as.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct, it does not mean what you thought it did, it means what that expert and original author said it does under oath. And one editor explaining something to another editor is not OR. Not saying the article should change in any way, just trying to help people read it. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Again this served no useful purpose and we are just going round in circles, it should have stayed closed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

This whole thread is a violation of wp:forum, and needs closing again (and maybe just deleting).Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If anyone ever pleads with you saying, but I was just trying to help!!!, you can be pretty sure that they are up to no good. Gandydancer (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not pleading, I just briefly tried. As long as he doesn't bring his honest misunderstanding of death certification into the article, I don't mind his personal refusal to learn new things. Or yours, but someone might want clarity, so take it or leave it, don't delete it; it's a niche subject but commonly comes up. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I have now formally asked this to be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not calling that a stupid move, but the most willful ignorance I've ever seen in print, literally. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Resolve 'new trial motion' section edit dispute
Slatersteven Can we resolve the edit dispute we seem to be having regarding the 'new trial motion' section? You seem to have concerns about it being unnecessary, despite it being notable information. Phillip Samuel (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We are putting in arguments the courts have rejected, and thus are not relevant.Slatersteven (talk)

Reference errors under sentencing paragraph
For some reason, when I'm trying to tag references using ≤ref name>, it's not tagging them, and showing an error. Can someone maybe have a look at it and fix them.

Regards

L1amw90 21:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)