Lol yeah, I think so

https://ibb.co/jG1p33G
https://ibb.co/Z1dVsbW
https://ibb.co/tLpzRM6
https://ibb.co/VT0cDpm

“Young man.” I’m 36. Ha.

Don’t believe everything you see in the media. Putin isn’t leaving any time soon. He is going to flood the Donbas and Crimea with as many soldiers as possible. The density of his forces will make future incursions into those territories — especially in the East — very difficult. Putin can escalate the use of force continuum by using more vacuum bombs, cluster bombs, phosphorous, chemical weapons, and the like, but he will not resort to any “tactical nukes” — he simply doesn’t need to, and the potential gains of using that kind of weaponry do not outweight the risks, which includes Russia’s total annihilation. While Putin is surrounded by “yes” men, and has his moments of naiveté, he is still an intelligent operator and knows how far he can push the West and get away with it.

Strategically, we will want to push deeper into the occupied territories as much as possible until resistance becomes too thick to permeate. At this juncture, we will want to dig in, fortify our positions, and effectively establish a new front line while we receive more long range artillery in the meantime. Russia has expended an inordinate amount of artillery during the first 7 months of combat. When I was fighting in Irpin in March, the largest lull in between explosions was counted at only 21 seconds — don’t ask me who determines these figures, but that felt about right. In any case, I believe we can establish superiority of artillery in no more than 1.5 years (provided the incoming stream of NATO-supplied weaponry remains somewhat consistent in number and type). Russia is essentially “blowing its load” and cannot sustain its current pace of artillery bombardments.

Don’t count on Putin being overthrown or the Russian government imploding from the inside. While there are some factors that lend credence to these ideas, there are even more that support the opposite conclusion.

Scary stuff. Russia will continue falling back to the Donbas and Crimea if need be. Putin's decision to mobilize is not a popular one in Russia, but even if half of those troops mobilize, it will help make things more compacted in those regions (almost like an NFL red zone). That's one of the best things Putin could have done strategically. It is possible that the Russian people, and his close advisors and general staff turn on him, but I don't think that is very likely (at least not in the immediate foreseeable future). I see us making moderate gains & reclaiming more land in the east as well as Kherson, possibly, before it starts getting cold in November. Pushing too hard on the Donbas in the winter will lead to high casualties. We will need more long range artillery to pummel Russia throughout the winter.

Another play would be to continue the original Kharkiv push deeper into northern Donetsk and northern/western Luhansk. This would be a gambit because it exposes our flanks and pushes tired (but enthusiastic) troops deeper against more fortified and entrenched positions. It's tempting because the defenders there have seen other Russian soldiers retreating from the west, and their morale is low.

I think the best way to proceed is to continue the push as far as it's allowed and if resistance becomes too strong, pull back, dig in, and wait for the supplies, artillery, and reinforcements to catch up. There are weak points in the defenders' defenses in Donbas, but they are most likely not large enough to exploit to the point we can induce a full-on rout. Sometimes you can remove one straw in the right place and the whole house can come tumbling down. This is what happened in Kharkiv, but then again the Donbas is not Kharkiv.

:cool: :up:

You have a good memory. I worked for a police department many years ago. I do real estate investment now =]

Russia’s goals are summarized well by boethius — among other things securing the Donbas, defending Crimea and securing recognition of their sovereignty over that territory, establishing an overland route to Crimea from the east, etc. Earlier in the war, Russia’s goals were more ambitious. But where boethius attributes the unfulfilment of those goals (e.g. taking Kyiv) to being a strategic diversion, I disagree, and attribute it to incompetence. Putin thought Kyiv could be taken in days, and his “yes men” mirrored that sentiment. This was not a brilliant tactical stroke, rather an embarrassing failure where Russia incurred catastrophic casualties. The number of casualties that we incurred at Irpin? Less than 60.

The sheer number of tanks, for example, that Russia lost during the incursion into Kyiv Oblast is staggering. Prior to the invasion they had 13,000 tanks (probably lower because they self-report to an extent). They lost over 2,000 in Ukraine in less than 7 months. That’s a minimum of 15% of their total tank force (probably more). Russia had already downsized its tank force because it couldnt keep them serviced properly. One thing to bear in mind is that Russia lost some of their better, modern tanks in Kyiv Oblast, and has been forced to use older tanks to bolster their depleted tank force elsewhere. This is something I have not only seen personally, but you can see in videos of engagements on the other fronts. One question to bear in mind is why would Russia send some of their best to simply “create a distraction”? Some of their best units slaughtered. An unacceptable number of Russian generals and colonels killed. High losses among their mid-level officer ranks that will takes many years to replenish. This was not a diversionary tactic. This was a strategic miscalculation in part caused by corruption and nepotism at the highest ranks, along with overconfidence, inexperience, and failed strategy (which of course is not surprising when such a system doesn’t produce the best, but instead the best connected.

The problem is that boethius is trying to render a post factum analysis of the situation as a whole without taking into account the original mindset of those planning the invasion. This is a salient feature to leave out since it speaks to the issue of [in]competency. It is essentially revisionist history (and moreover, excuse making). This is to be expected when glossing over critical details like some of the ones I provided above.

I was fighting in Ukraine in spring when Russia had invaded Kyiv Oblast and was attacking Irpin, Bucha, Brovary, and other surrounding cities. The biggest challenge fighting Russia is their massive amounts of artillery, which is invaluable for keeping attacking infantry units at bay. Russian infantry to my apprehension looked like chickens with their heads cut off, and were hesitant to attack, quick to pull back, and not decisive at all. I have personally seen Ukrainian Territorial Defense units (which are volunteer “reserve” units) hold back incursions made by Russian regulars (supported by tanks), using only automatic rifles, grenades, RPGs, & other rocket systems. To be fair, it is easier to dig in and defend than it is to attack, and attackers generally incur much higher casualties; but I was not impressed with Russia’s combat performance. There was also a host of logistical concerns Russian invaders had to contend with — not limited to bad roads, muddy conditions, fuel shortages, etc. It’s bad when a long column of Russian tanks are stalled out and you can engage them from the trees with infantry & rocket systems, then fall back & mount more attacks. To be fair again, Russia has been better with logistics since that time, but their overall performance on all but one of the Ukrainian fronts has been lackluster thus far.



As of earlier this month several key bridges around Kherson proper were destroyed by Ukrainian long range rocket systems. There are other ways for Russia to get supplies into the city, but currently defenders are largely cut off from their supply lines. As it stands right now we have not reached a point where this is affecting Russia’s ability to mount a strong defense of Kherson. They have a LOT of artillery stockpiled in the city, and defenders there are better entrenched than they were in the Kharkiv Oblast. In addition the terrain in the south does not offer attacking Ukrainian forces much cover as they mount an offense (there are plains, soft rolling hills, and irrigation canals). This will lead to high casualties on the Ukrainian side. The question in my mind is whether Ukrainian generals will decide to “wait out” the defenders & focus on stopping their supply lines while the defending force’s morale withers away, or whether we will continue to press the attack full force. The first option is attractive but the more time we wait, the longer Russia has to devise a plan to get more supplies & troops into the city from the east.

As long as ordnance and equipment continues flowing into Ukraine, Ukraine will not stop until all of the Donbas is reclaimed. Ukrainians are mad and extremely motivated. Actually, even if supplies stopped coming into Ukraine from the West, Russia would be hard pressed to get them to accept any kind of compromise.

As it stands right now, Kharkiv and several thousand square kilometers to the east of the city have been recaptured. Russia is suffering serious personnel shortages. The Russian soldiers previously stationed in that region were inadequately fortified and entrenched. In the south we have Kherson pinned from the north and west, and Russia’s supply lines into the Kherson and some of the surrounding cities in the oblast have been severely compromised. There are still a LOT of Russian soldiers left in Kherson, so the going is slow. We have to work very carefully.

From my experience fighting the Russian invasion force is like fighting children. Most of their troops are inexperienced, unmotivated, poorly provisioned, and suffering from low morale. The main thing that makes things difficult is the inordinate amount of artillery that Russia possesses (easily the most in the world, more than the United States), and the fact that Russia was able to essentially sneak a large part of its army into Ukraine with very little resistance under the guise of doing military exercises and other things.

Ukraine is going to incur heavy casualties in the coming months, but the difference between Russia and Ukraine is that the former lacked the personnel to adequately defend newly gained territory, whereas the later does not. Also, the motivation of the Ukrainian soldiers cannot be underestimated, and the poor morale of Russian soldiers cannot be dismissed. They are very salient factors in this war, especially now that winter is coming.

Russia will be unable to maintain its current pace of artillery fire for more than one year. This is extremely important because its Russia’s artillery (as well as air support, missiles & rockets) that have been largely keeping Ukrainian armies at bay. Meanwhile Ukraine is picking up steam with more and more long range weaponry.

Most likely Kherson will be taken and we will recapture more territory in the north and east. We are reaching a point where Russian forces are more compacted and dug in, so its best to focus on digging in now to fortify the lands we have recaptured, while more of our forces can “catch up” behind us.

It is interesting to see how the Ukrainian counterattack goes. The simple fact is that even with military aid they have gotten, they don't have enough resources for a full on Materialschlacht, a battle of attrition. Counterattacks sooner or later go into this. — ssu

I think that's right. We have to pick our spots and initiate counterattacks only when opportunities present themselves. So far the Russians have been throwing themselves against a brick wall and taking on huge casualties. As we mentioned before, Russia has now lost a bit over 10% of their total tanks in a little over 6 months. That should be a totally unacceptable number for them considering the majority of their remaining tanks are outdated or non-operational.

As the Ukrainian frontline forces consist of a large number of Territorial Defense units, the same is true for the Russian frontline units. The frontline is still majority regular troops, but in many spots they are not. This is problematic for Russia because they cannot mount respectable attacks with non-regulars against moderate-heavily fortified positions.

Ukrainian fighters say that generally they have enough manpower, although many volunteers from the TDF are not ready for combat. Sometimes entire detachments collapse and leave long stretches of the frontline undefended. Tanks are precious, and they send them out sparingly. Ammo for Soviet guns is running out. They get enough ammo for the new Western guns, but those are few and far between, and getting worn out from intensive use.

On the opposing side it's the other way around. Russians have a seemingly endless supply of tanks, guns and ammunition, but nowhere enough men to go with them. They are still losing a lot of armor, but they are not as careless and undisciplined as they were at the beginning of the invasion. — SophistiCat

I think that's right. We have enough manpower (for now), but as the Ukrainian counterattacks ramp up, this will start to change. Since the start of the war, on the Kyiv fronts, Ukrainian Territorial Defense Forces made up a sizeable portion of our frontline units. So far it has been mostly OK because Russia has been content with shelling the hell out of us from long range, and when absorbing these attacks, there's not much salient difference between territorial defense units and regular units.

Attacking is another story, and "regular" troops are preferred for a number of reasons not limited to better training, higher morale, better equipment, etc.

In any case I agree Russia's problem is more about maintaining adequate numbers of trained personnel. However, at the rate they are expending ammunition, and putting stress on their big guns, I do not expect them to maintain their current pace of attack for more than 1 to 1.5 years. They will HAVE to slow down.

We just need to be patient, pick our spots, and plan counterattacks carefully. It would be nice to push hard from now until mid-October or thereabouts, before digging into defensive positions before Winter comes. Then Russia can either wait (while we amass more weapons and ordnance) or they can attack and incur catastrophic casualties. Either way, the winters that have historically worked to their advantage against the French and Germans will now work against them in this war, and I foresee Russian morale dropping to all-time lows.

Funny how you talk about enforcement.

I thought it was to protect and serve. How does that equate/translate to enforce? — Benkei

Ah no, you thought wrong then. That’s the slogan of Los Angeles Police Department — frequently misattributed to other police departments. I suspect it has something to do with Hollywood being in Los Angeles County (people get a lot of their [mis]information from movies).

In any case, enforcement isn’t something mutually exclusive from “protecting and serving,” so I wouldn’t get hung up on the verbiage. Should it come as any surprise that one of the primary functions of a law enforcement officer is to enforce laws? I suppose that language might seem overbearing or not politically correct enough for some.

What's weird to me is that in the US people who can afford it go and see their psychiatrists en masse on a weekly basis to deal with their individual problems but either a) don't believe in sociological and mental health issues that are shared widely in a community and therefore require a coordinated approach or b) doesn't feel any solidarity with other Americans who can't afford it to help them. End result: little money for community projects. — Benkei

Yes, well, I believe that counseling, in many cases, does not produce much beyond short-term cathartic effects in its patients. As to why Americans often spend their money on this? Because they can do whatever they want with their own money. Because they perhaps think that counseling will help solve their issues, or perhaps maybe they just want to talk to someone. Whatever the reason, I think most people, who think they require counseling, are too busy worrying about their own problems to worry about other peoples’ mental issues, much less ponder about coordinated approaches to addressing mental health in the United States at an abstract or theoretical level.

Meanwhile, that huge work burden for police officers is a symptom of underlying social ills. Amsterdam is probably the unsafest city in the Netherlands but it's way safer than most US cities. There are no areas in the Netherlands where I'd be afraid to go at night. None. And 18 million people are policed with 5 billion USD a year and that includes some stuff like forensics and victim care, that I suspect aren't included in the budget for most PDs in the US.

I don't believe that US citizens are inherently more violent or criminal than their Dutch counterparts, so the level of crime is something that can be dealt with differently than answering it with police violence and incarceration. That's obviously not a matter of just shifting around money. — Benkei

You are quite right that Amsterdam feels quite safe. I’ve been there 7 times now, and I’ve never felt unsafe at night time. The shadiest thing I’ve experienced there is someone coming up to me, asking, “Coca? Coca?” and I think in many of those situations, they were actually asking me for the coca.

And yes, I agree that arresting people and incarcerating them is not the most effective way of dealing with criminals, especially considering that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is a broken institution. Arresting and incarcerating criminals is a sort of necessary evil that, as it currently stands, has to be done for practical purposes if for nothing else (better to not have murderers, rapists, and burglars, etc. out on the streets).

In Oakland most crime is done by black people. This isn’t because black people are inherently bad or anything like that. It’s because they have had to contend with institutional racism, injustices, and socioeconomic problems that date back to the days of slavery and beyond. Sometimes people born into these circumstances (like my friend, Dre) end up becoming violent, criminal people. One of the reasons we tend to have more violent, criminal people than the Netherlands is because we have more people who grew up under the same circumstances as Dre. Most people in the Netherlands have not had to contend with these kinds of issues on such a large scale, so the crime dynamic is different.

In your view, what should the basic task of police? — Benkei

If we were able to just enforce the penal code and vehicle code, without having to deal with all of the ancillary functions that SLX and others have brought up, that would be ideal. It’s easier said than done — and many of these functions are not easily separable from what should be the basic tasks of a police officer — but I think cops in certain departments are unhealthy, stressed, and overworked; so it’s apparent that something has to change.

Thanks. I read the article. It was actually an interesting read, though I was left with a strong feeling that he was embellishing several of his stories. This is almost certainly nothing a non-police officer would catch, but as I was reading I wrote down a number of things that didn’t add up for me. I’m not sure if he was actually a police officer, but I wish I could find out which department he worked for, as well as the circumstances under which he left that department.

In any case that’s not really the point. Many of his observations are still apt, and I found myself agreeing with a number of them.

For instance, it is absolutely true that police officers are often expected to wear many hats, and perform some of the same functions as a marriage counselor, mental crisis professional, social worker, and so on and so forth — although they tend to be performed less competently by police officers, and on a more limited basis.

If there were a way to require officers to perform less of these functions, I would be on board with that. Though the practical implementation of such an idea would be very difficult, to my apprehension, the thought of lowering an officer’s workload (and thus raising morale, lowering stress, and retaining qualified officers, etc.) whilst simultaneously allowing better trained professionals to utilize their specialized training in appropriate situations is very appealing.

However, if you recall in my earlier post, I talked about how calls pile up, and how officers in my city, at times, only have enough time to respond to certain kinds of calls — such as those that are violent in nature, or have a real propensity to become violent in nature. If for the sake of argument we were to assume that other proposed specialized workers were able to somehow answer those other more innocuous calls, that would still leave police officers barely keeping their heads above water in regards to the other calls (i.e. they would have a very heavy workload as opposed to having an impossible one). But why have that heavy of a workload at all? If that is the case, then why not, rather than defunding a department that is already hurting, seek cuts elsewhere (like the military, as I suggested in my previous post).

Of course not all police departments are afforded the same amount of resources, nor do all police departments contend with the same level of crime or calls for service. But I do know that certain other police departments are, to varying degrees, experiencing similar problems as OPD. Thus it is my contention that any prospective defunding should be done on a case-by-case basis, and sweeping blanket legislation ought to be avoided.

When someone says, “Defund the police,” I usually want to ask them which police department they are referring to. Or do they mean police departments should be defunded in general?

The reason I ask is because every police department is different. If you ask me whether or not a rural police department in Montana with a population of 5,000 needs 30 police officers, a couple dozen automatic submachine guns, and armored personnel carriers, my answer is going to be no. Defund them.

If you ask me the same question about Oakland Police Department — and certain larger cities like Oakland (there are numerous) — the answer is going to be different. On paper, we have around 750 sworn police officers. Of those 750 officers, about 600 (at best) are patrol officers. If we bear in mind that only about a quarter to a third of those officers are on duty at a given time, that means there is only one police officer available for every 2,175 to 2,900 people.

Why is this a problem? Because when an officer goes off duty at the end of their shift, there are still a lot of calls for service that remain unanswered. They pile up in large numbers, and they pile up quick. Often times officers aren’t even able to answer calls that aren’t non-violent in nature because they simply do not have the manpower to do so. California Highway Patrol actually had to come in to help us with patrol functions because we were so inundated with calls. Even that wasn’t sufficient.

We are short-handed in the technician department as well, so sometimes patrol officers have to take their own pictures of a crime scene as well as play the role of a detective during the preliminary phase of an investigation (because we are short on those too). We have rape kits piled up from years past, because we don’t have enough techs to process them. This means a rape victim sometimes has to wait years to see “justice” finally realized.

Our emergency response team (SWAT) is bare bones. We have to get help from the county sheriff’s emergency response team in many situations because we simply don’t have enough people.

As I mentioned in another thread, we have one helicopter and two pilots for a city of 435,000 people. This means when the pilots aren’t available, normal patrol officers are expected to pilot the chopper.

That last one was a joke. But you can see what I’m getting at. The sheer volume of work involved can be overwhelming at times. I remember working 64-hour weeks doing mandatory overtime. That’s not healthy. That’s why eventually I made a choice between my job and my health, and I chose the latter. You can see how qualified candidates will leave their job or lateral to other police departments because of the underfunding situation.

That’s why my question is, where exactly do we cut funding? Cutting police salaries seems intuitive but it destroys an already dwindling level of morale in addition to encouraging lateral movement even more (no qualified candidate is going to do this job for less than 30 some odd bucks per hour — at least not for long). Many officers are already dissatisfied and look at these departments as a way to earn their stripes on the street just so they can later transfer to a police department in a safer city where they are treated better. Overtime salaries for many police officers can be bloated to be sure, but to cut down on these massive amounts of overtime, that would again require more officers.

I think each department needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, because one-size fits all solutions are rarely workable on such a grand scale.

In any case, I think there’s other places we can cut funding to in order to free up money for domestic infrastructure. How about cutting down on our military expenditure? The United States spent 732 billion dollars on its military last year, which is more than 2.8 times the amount of the next biggest spender, China (261 billion dollars). The US Navy has 11 modern aircraft carriers, while the country with the second most carriers has only two (and they are technologically outdated at that). I can go on...

The prosecutor will have a hard time proving intent to kill, considering Floyd's unknown condition.

Additionally, it transpires Floyd also had a substantial criminal history, with eight arrests, five times in jail, the last time for holding a gun to a woman's stomach while his friends plundered her house, after which, he turned his friends in for a plea bargain to reduce his prison sentence to five years. This information was almost impossible to find, as no US paper has reported it at all. The Daily Mail provided photos of all the records, remarking that the police wouldn't have known about it. However, that's not true, if they had his ID, which I don't actually know is true, then the police have been able to look up all records about any person from their squad cars for some time, as I learned in 2018 when they offered me to join a federal protection program while they nailed some murderers in a black gang just after they also tried to murder me. The Floyd criminal history was published in the UK here: — ernestm

Floyd's criminal history does not, and should not, play a role in whether Chauvin is convicted of murder. What's at stake is rather whether Chauvin's act meets any of the criteria specified in the Murder section of the Minnesota Penal Code. After taking a cursory glance at that section, I can say that a jury will have a difficult time convicting Chauvin of murder in any degree.

Murder in the second degree requires either, (1) intent to effect the death of a person without premeditation, or (2) causing the death of a person without intent, but while committing a felony offense in the first or second degree with force or violence.

The prosecution will probably contend that the criminal elements of 2 are met, because Chauvin was committing a felony assault in the first or second degree "with force or violence." Here first or second degree assault requires, respectively, 'great bodily harm' or 'substantial bodily harm.'

The coroner conducting the autopsy was unable to identify any "life-threatening injuries" other than minor bruising to the face, and trauma to the face, elbows, and hands, consistent with being handcuffed. The official cause of death was listed as "cardiopulmonary arrest, complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression." There were no signs of aphyxia in Floyd's body (*with that being said, the absence of any sign of asphyxia in the body does not license the further conclusion that there's no way Floyd could have died of asphyxiation).

At this point the defense will contend that Floyd's underlying conditions made the possibility of his death much more likely. The prosecution, in turn, will want to seek out additional autopsy reports that include "traumatic asphyxia due to neck compression and restraint due to law enforcement subdual," or something to that effect. I don't think anything the prosecution does will be enough to establish this charge though. This is because criminal convictions require not merely a preponderance of evidence, but guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not see the jurors being presented with much robust, non-speculative evidence from the prosecution; and speculation is not adequate to meet the aforesaid criteria. Thus it looks like an acquittal is in the cards (for murder in the second degree anyhow).

Of course there are many variables to consider in these kinds of cases, including who the judge and jury are, and how well each attorney makes her case. But bear in mind that the U.S. criminal justice system is set up such that letting a possibly innocent person go free is considered better than convicting a probably guilty person. Furthermore, bear in mind that a criminal jury consists of 12 jurors, and all 12 jurors must agree UNANIMOUSLY to successfully reach a guilty verdict.

The charge of second degree murder is meant mostly for show. It's a charge that is politically motivated, and prosecutors know gaining a conviction on this charge is very unlikely. That's why the initial charges of third degree murder and second degree manslaughter remain.

Actually, I don't think third-degree murder will be an easy conviction either, because prosecutors will need to establish that Chauvin acted from a "depraved mind." They will probably do this by looking into his personal history and scrutinizing his record as a police officer; for example, by bringing up the 18 complaints he had filed against him. None of this will likely be sufficient to establish depravity of mind. Btw, 18 complaints in 19 years is not extraordinary. That's a little less than one complaint per year, and when you keep in mind that anyone can file a complaint against an officer for virtually any reason, that makes those complaints look not so alarming.

Manslaughter in the second degree requires that, through a person's culpable negligence, they "create an an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another."

This is the charge that Chauvin will be convicted of.

Can the police line not proceed at a slower, less violent speed, so that the people who refused to clear the area are merely pushed back, with little enough force that they can stay on their feet but enough force that they can’t stay in place, rather than being harshly shoved to the ground risking serious injury? — Pfhorrest

Yes, I think they could, for reasons of prudential self-interest if for nothing else. That looks really bad for Buffalo PD :grimace:

No excuses, but I doubt the officer expected the man to fall back completely defenseless like that. He was old and frail and couldn't balance himself or brace himself. You'd think (or hope) if it were a woman or child, the officer would have better recognized the strength disparity. — Hanover

Yeah, that's a good point too.

Sure thing :victory:

Much more good stuff going on between police and protesters, all very welcome, as are @Wolfman's comments, which give us an insight into things from the police's perspective. — Baden

Since you asked me, I'll try to give you some insight into what the police were probably thinking. This comes with the disclaimer that this is an explanation of what happened, and not a justification or normative evaluation.

So at the start of the video it looks like the police are moving forward on a skirmish line. They usually do this because they want to clear out an area. I don't know why they wanted to clear out the area, but there could be many different reasons.

Generally speaking, before the line moves forward, officers give anyone in the area a number of warnings to disperse. It might be something like, "This area is being cleared out. You are ordered to disperse. We will dispense tear gas. You are being warned." This usually goes on for about 5-15 minutes on a bullhorn, but most departments want to give as many warnings as possible (for legal and political reasons if for nothing else).

After the warnings are given, the police will move forward, and anyone in their path will be pushed back. At this stage there is no talking or debating with people. The police consider everyone warned, and now they will proceed to clear the area. Sometimes people will push their luck by lingering around the skirmish line, even as police officers are moving forward. Most of these people end up dispersing at the very last moment, but some people do not. I have seen people walk up trying to give the cops flowers. I have seen people with signs reading "free hugs," walk up and try to hug the police officers, despite being given those warnings to disperse. What usually happens is police will continue moving forward whilst pushing back anyone in their way. They might give commands like, "Get back! Clear the area!"

At this point the hug people, flower people, and people who want to continue debating, get pushed back, and they usually have a sad, betrayed, astonished look on their face like, "Why did you do that to me? That's assault." The look I usually see on cops after that is like, "Man, we told you to leave."

It looks like the man in that video was a debater, or at least someone who wanted to continue talking to the police. For whatever reason he was not satisfied with leaving the area.

The cops walked forward and pushed the man. He fell down and was injured. The cop whose first reaction was to render aid and check on the man was probably thinking, "Oh shit. Are you okay?" as he went to bend down. The other cop was probably like, "Maintain your ranks. We have EMTs and nothing you can do will help him much as he's down on the ground a few seconds longer." The cop who told him to maintain ranks tells another cop to get two people away from the line, then radios for medical. Then it looks like they cuff one of the other guys with a zip tie and take him into custody.

Just like with the military, when those who serve start to feel there "outside" from the society, that the civilian society is something different that doesn't care about them, then you start getting problems. If the criticism turns into hatred and abhorrence of the police, things just turn worse and the "police community" that feels separated just hunkers down. Luckily that can be avoided, but it takes an effort. — ssu

Yes, I agree. A lot of police stop hanging around their regular non-police friends after a while because they just have more in common with their co-workers. There's also a sort of bond that is forged when you share your blood, sweat, tears with someone. But I think you need to remain as grounded as possible and retain as many of your non-cop friends as possible. Working for a police department will change you. I thought as a far-left liberal I would be immune to this effect, but I was not.

That humility should be part of professionalism. There's a way to get people who serve in uniform to do better when you get them to understand that the best police force is the "smart" and professional one which can tackle underlying problems by good policing cooperation with other authorities and the community and doesn't use the brute force in every issue. Unfortunately Hollywood promotes the idea that the best cop is the door crashing, hard hitting F-the-regulations renegade, as if that's the guy who will save the day. It has a really bad effect, actually. Because that is what many assume police to be as, let's face it, typically we aren't customers of the police daily. — ssu

Yeah, that's true, and a lot of people join the police department for all the wrong reasons. Some people slip through the cracks. Police departments are furthermore paramilitary organizations where sometimes there is a lot of testosterone in the air. Combine this with long work hours, stress, physical and mental fatigue (and even abuse), the threat of violence, etc., and people can be really on edge. Officers have to wear many hats during the course of their job. Some officers are more concerned with being "warriors" but I think they should primarily view themselves as counselors or mediators.

Just to give an anecdote, my mother-in-law was driving me and my wife and kids in an upscale part of downtown Mexico City. A policeman approached that car to stop because I think we had passed a red light. My feisty mother-in-law just yelled at him: "I have two small children in this car, I don't have any time for you now!" and just continued away. And the police, who were actually many present there just where left standing there. I told my mother-in-law never to do that in Finland. She just laughed, but agreed to behave differently here. — ssu

Oh, that's funny. I've traveled to Mexico quite a few times and I've twice had to bribe the policia to get out of being arrested for crimes that I never committed in the first place. The corruption there is VERY obvious and isn't even disguised. It is simply a way of life.

That means oversight boards with teeth, not governed by police, or not only police. It means changes to funding structures, tied directly to policing outcomes. — StreetlightX

This is interesting because I am in agreement with you. Sinyangwe’s twitter post uses Oakland Police Department as an example of a more “reformed” law enforcement agency that experienced a reduction in police shootings, and unjustified use of force incidents (among other things) after entering federal receivership, and officers who were involved in unjustified use of force incidents were terminated. Well, this is my police department that he is referring to, and my internal affairs section that worked to weed out and prosecute these officers.

There are some officers who are not pleased with the idea of federal receivership, but I don’t mind. Most of the problems that arise from being under a receivership are those that you would ordinarily find in any bureaucracy (they come with the territory, so to speak). But I don’t have many gripes with it at a theoretical level.

If these are bad cops - where are the good cops? Why are they not speaking? — StreetlightX

Speaking for myself, I have been speaking, and more importantly, acting. If the media wants to come talk to me, they are welcome to do so. The media is, however, notoriously selective in the material they cover. The majority of cops I know have been supportive of the protest. Some of them have kneeled with protestors, exchanged hugs, and made Instagram posts, among doing other acts of solidarity. I can’t speak for other officers or other departments because every department has its own culture (a more general police culture, but also a more specific localized one).

If someone puts an example of alleged police misconduct in front of me, I will analyze it and render a judgment based on my own training, experience, care, and prudence. If departmental policy is violated, I will recommend that administrative action be taken against that officer. If the officer is involved in criminal activity, I will recommend pursuing criminal charges.

It is very easy to get fired under federal receivership. In the past two years I’ve seen more good officers get fired for political reasons than bad ones not getting fired. If there is any perceived cloud of doubt surrounding an officer, they are usually fired and replaced to err on the side of caution. There’s actually only one recent case where I wanted an officer fired from the department, but he wasn’t because he had a very good lawyer.

In any case, I usually don’t mind the idea of more oversight. It never affected me [much]. A lot of the points brought up in the twitter post have already been addressed by the department in a robust way. Not only can we not shoot at people driving away in vehicles, but we can rarely even pursue them anymore (and if permission is given, the chase is usually terminated rather quickly or else California Highway Patrol will take over), due to the possibility of hitting innocent drivers and pedestrians. It’s kind of funny because now criminals know about that policy, so if they want to get away, they can just speed away, and no one can do a thing about it. Sometimes we can track them down, but other times it is more difficult, like if they’re driving a stolen (10851) vehicle.

I don’t mind police demilitarization to a degree. I must admit some of this might be due to jealousy. LAPD has 19 helicopters and we have only one. How is that fair? But no, all levity aside, I don’t think outfitting police departments with grenade launchers or anything like that is the way to go. But I will say that places like Oakland are extremely dangerous. Not long ago we were ranked as the most dangerous city in California, and in the top five most dangerous cities in America (this has been slowly changing, in part due to receivership, a change in departmental policies, more training, more scrutinized hiring practices, and the like). People on the streets here are known to carry automatic assault rifles. Many D boys (drug dealers) and other criminals also wear body armor. It is not a rare occurrence to find these guys wearing up to level 3 bullet-resistant body armor that is capable of stopping most kinds of small arms fire. If I have a job as a police officer to catch bad guys, I’m not going after these people outgunned. I have a family of my own, and I rather like living. I can’t tell you how many bodies I have seen in the morgue riddled with rounds from an AK-47. For those unfamiliar with that weapon, it shoots 7.62 caliber rounds, which is capable of defeating the level 3/3A armor that police officers ordinarily wear.

Actually, in 2009 four Oakland police officers were killed on the same day. Two of those officers were killed by an SKS rifle, which shoots the same aforesaid 7.62 caliber rifle rounds. The officers were amazing people. Ofc. Romans was a happy-go-lucky kind of person who always had a smile on his face. He was the epitome of community policing. Even when he went into “ghetto” areas like the Acorn Projects, the little kids would run up to him for hugs. He would buy them ice cream and carry them around on his shoulders. Ofc. Sakai was a very humble, intelligent police officer. He was a UC Berkeley graduate and an avid volunteer in the Oakland community. A lot of the selfless things he did were never known until after he died because of his humility and soft-spoken nature. These guys were some of the best that society had to offer, and they were taken away by Lovelle Mixon, a pedophile, rapist, and murderer. After these guys died they had a freeway named after them (small consolation). Something else happened too. A large number of people gathered in Oakland with customized t-shirts that read, “Justice for Lovelle Mixon.” Some carried signs with the deceased officers’ faces on them with devil horns or funny moustaches drawn on them. They chanted, “No justice, no peace. Fuck the police.” I don't want to see anything like this happen ever again.

:up:



I appreciate it. I'm glad for you too. Whether it's New York, Oakland, Philly, or Mumbai, the locale matters not. All around the world it's the same song. Makes you wonder "if heaven got a ghetto."

It can be difficult sometimes to point to some particular policy within a law enforcement agency and say, “There. That one is racist.” I think what mainly has to occur is more training at the individual level for police officers. The main thing to address, I think, is how to combat prejudices and biases that may exist at the subconscious level. Because it can happen to anyone -- even to a black, educated cop from the very community she is serving. She might be an altruistic person who joined the police department for the best of reasons, but if she works in a city where a lot of black crime is occurring, eventually she will develop biases. It is human nature.

I grew up in East Oakland, which is a dangerous part of the country people often refer to as “Baby Iraq.” I was raised in a Chinese household, and my white dad left when I was about 3. My childhood wasn’t great. I was abused badly by my step-father and I ran away from home multiple times. I was homeless on and off when I wasn’t able to find a couch to sleep on. But my childhood still wasn’t as bad as some of my friends.

The first time I was robbed at gunpoint was in middle school. When I was 16 one of my best friends died in my arms after he was shot during a drive-by shooting. I’ve been robbed at gunpoint at multiple times, and I have been the victim of other violent crimes even more times. When I look back at everything that happened to me, I realized that 9 out of 10 times, the person or people who victimized me was black. It might have been easy, at that point, for me to dislike black people, but thankfully I was educated better than that. I had a very liberal education and I knew that black people were responsible for more crime in my city not because they were innately bad, but mainly because of existing socioeconomic circumstances that trace back to the times of slavery and beyond. I knew my friend Dre was a D-boy that hit licks not because he was an evil person, but because he had no father and his mother was a prostitute who smoked crack. Whenever I visited with him, we ate mayonnaise sandwiches that his mom made. We got our condiments by taking handfuls of packets from fast food restaurants and squeezing them into a bottle. Later on in life I knew that I couldn’t reasonably expect Dre to be a perfect law-abiding citizen precisely because of the circumstances he grew up in.

In my early 20s I was somehow able to turn my life around. I began living with my grandparents and took classes at a local junior college until I was able to transfer to UC Berkeley and graduate. I joined the police department shortly thereafter and mostly worked in the internal affairs and personnel assessment section. Most of the people in the police department are good people. Most of the younger people are college-educated minorities, which I think is a good idea since the department should reflect the community it serves. Still, every person in the department is susceptible to developing subconscious prejudices and biases, so I’m a big advocate for doing as much training as possible.

Most of my friends in the department support the protests. It can be difficult though. If you’re standing on a skirmish line and people are yelling at you, cursing, throwing paint, animal blood, bags of urine, feces, and Molotov cocktails, it can break you down. “Fuck you, pig. Why you dressed like Darth Vader? We ain’t in Iraq you bitch ass nigga.” Sometimes you’d want to say something back. We are here because there are some small mom and pop businesses behind us that we are trying to protect. If we are not here, they will be looted. And I would prefer not to wear this bulky, sweaty gear either, but if I take it off, those rocks and other things that are being thrown at me will hurt even worse.

Most protestors are not like this, but there are many that are; and they ruin it for everyone (similar to how a bad cop can ruin it for everyone). But just as I could have easily disliked black people for being the repeated victim of black crime, I realize it is easy for individuals to dislike all police because some individual ones are bad. So if I am on a skirmish line with people calling me every name in the book, I won’t take it personal. I know it’s not me that they are targeting. It is the uniform. They don’t know me anyway. They don’t know who I am or what I stand for. They don’t know that I taught prisoners at San Quentin prison for years or volunteered at a homeless shelter every week for over a decade since I was 17. They don’t know that I am an activist myself and walked in the same protests as they do now. They don’t know that I love my community and want to make it better in every possible way. They only know that they are angry and I wear the uniform. Even with this being the case, I’d rather be a human pinata that understands than have someone else standing in my place who doesn’t. It’s hard though. Even good cops are still human. But most want to do the right thing.

My best friend is a Black Lives Matter activist. We talk about this stuff all the time. We disagree on a few things, but by approaching our debates in the most difference-minimizing spirit we can muster, we usually always reach agreement. The main thing we always come back to is that people need to be educated. It’s too easy to become susceptible to hasty generalizations and group-think. A lot of this stuff is a part of human nature, I think, but it’s not stuff we can’t be [mostly] trained out of.

In any case, I think there’s a number of things police can do better. I don’t like how some police officers are so prideful, and even arrogant. I think law enforcement agencies need to do better in encouraging an ethic of humility throughout their departments. My lieutenant always told me, “Just because you wear the uniform, doesn’t mean you are above the people you serve. You serve them.”

I also don’t like any idea or symbol that serves to separate police officers from the people they serve. I wouldn’t allow officers to wear those thin blue line patches as an accessory on their uniforms. I understand it is meant to support officers, but it isn’t necessary and many times serves to reinforce an imaginary bifurcation of citizens and officers -- the latter of which belongs to the former anyway.

I don’t like how many officers wear dark sunglasses when they are talking to people. It seems rude to talk to someone when you can’t see their eyes. It also can be intimidating.

I think command presence is very important. It keeps officers from getting killed. However, some officers need to realize that they can go overboard. Every citizen, whether they are from the “1%” or the very “bottom” of society, needs to be treated with some base level of respect. Even criminals deserve this. You will be surprised by how much you can get accomplished, and how many dangerous situations you can avoid, by being calm, mild-mannered, reasonable, and respectful. Thankfully most police departments in the country are adopting better training regimens that put heavier emphasis on de-escalation techniques. Of course more can always be done.

Officers need to undergo more training in regards to cultivating more racial sensitivity. They need to learn more about Black, Latino, Asian, etc., history and culture, and in particular they need to learn more about why people, like my friend Dre, do the things they do. Of course even with all of this additional training and understanding, you still need to arrest people who are doing actual crimes, whether or not they had a rough childhood, and whether or not you feel where they are coming from. This is where the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation comes in -- or rather should come in -- but that system has problems of its own as well.

Yeah, you don’t know what you’re talking about, and most of this is a red herring :roll:

Just the other day I saw in another thread someone saying, "Virtue Ethics? No, it's too thin. It doesn't give us enough answers. We need something stronger."

That's sort of a preeminent example of the modern moralist's mindset -- very much steeped in the existing moral tradition, sans any historical understanding.

This is true, although it was not an obligation for you to inform me, only virtuous. :) Or was it? I suppose I'm not going to find an objectively, exclusively virtuous action as it is very subjective. I just struggle to appreciate arguments in specific fields when the foundation of obligation Vs virtue has little definition. — JacobPhilosophy

For the ancient Greeks and Romans, morality just referred to proper manners, behavior, or comportment. "Moral obligation," as we understand it in a contemporary context, was an unintelligible concept. Some time perhaps starting in the 1500s, and coming full swing in the 1800s, the moral tradition started changing to be more action-centric or rule-centric, as opposed to character-centric. Foot and MacIntyre point out that the tradition was sort of hijacked by the likes of Kant, Bentham, Mill, etc. The new idea, whether it was Victorian, or Enlightenment, was that questions concerning morality had actually correct answers, if only we could adopt a set of normative parameters to proceed from.

The problem with the modern moral tradition, in my view, is that it turned into a "truth-seeking" enterprise, whereby ethical questions must have answers, even if we don't know what those answers are. This is why there are so many irresolvable ethical "dilemmas" floating around. It is a kind of manufactured problem that came into being because we peculiarly expected ethics to answer questions for us that perhaps admit no definite answers in the first place.

For the Ancient Greeks, morality was understood as being concerned with wisdom, not truth. Aristotle always said ethics is a practical science, not a precise one, and so we should not expect mathematical certainty.

As long as you don't do all this, your proposal remains in the field of indefinition and doesn't seem to lead anywhere. If you try it you will find all the difficulties that it entails. You will realize that these difficulties have already been dealt with in moral philosophy many times without finding a solution that satisfies everyone. — David Mo

This. Your objections will always stand because Chris doesn't even understand half of the criticisms being put in front of him. His responses clearly demonstrate that.

There 's a big difference here. "Care" already has a common use. To choose that word to refer to something else, something we can't seem to describe, while intending complete separation from the common meaning in the reader's mind, would not be a reasonable thing to do. If Heidegger was at all reasonable, we ought to assume that he intended at least some association with the common use. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think I touched on that here: "There is also an element of sorge that connotes something almost like 'anxiety,' which relates to Heidegger's conception of dasein as always looking ahead of itself." So no, not complete separation.

Actually I think it's very important to understand the terminology. "Care" is a descriptive term, and it is used to describe aspects of temporality. So to understand how Heidegger describes temporality we need to understand what "care" means. It wouldn't make sense to just say "care" refers to temporality, because that's not really the case, "care" describes temporality, so we need to understand what "care" means as a descriptive term, in order to understand temporality. — Metaphysician Undercover

First you asked, "why did he have to call it care?" (emphasis mine), which is something different than needing to "understand what 'care' means," as you're saying now, MU. We can understand what care means without having to know why he called it care. I can also know what a capybara is without knowing the etymology of the word (I don't). In any case, both of your questions are answered now.

Not voting. Voted every year since I was able to, but this year I accidentally threw away my mail-in ballot. It would have been a superfluous vote anyway as Biden winning California is a foregone conclusion.

If "care" has nothing to do with caring then why would he have called it "care"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Heidegger has to invent new terms when he tries to reflect phenomena as they are given as themselves. That is, entirely unmediated through given terms or concepts. Which doesn't mean that intentional structures like care are not in themselves intricately mediated complicated wholes. — waarala

I think this is right. There is also an element of sorge that connotes something almost like "anxiety," which relates to Heidegger's conception of dasein as always looking ahead of itself. I think getting hung up on the terminology itself is besides the point, because Heidegger just needs to call it something to, as you say, "avoid mediation through given terms or concepts." Indeed Dreyfus says of Heidegger's decision to use care in describing his primordial unitary structure, "Well, I suppose he could have called it anything really."

Thanks.

Heidegger calls dasein being-wth-care. So the care of Being and our care add more being to an already existing world? — Gregory

I’m not sure if I understand the question, but let me say more.

Remember thus far Heidegger has explained dasein as a being that takes a stand on its own being, and its primordial being is expressed in thrownness (past), falling (present), and projecting (future).

In his chapter on care, Heidegger just wants to explain how these three elements all hang together in a systematic way. Contra Wittgeinstein, who says we cannot say anything unified about these background practices (which he terms the “hurly burly”), Heidegger says they are primordially and constantly whole -- a single primordial unitary phenomenon -- and despite the appearance of its manifold nature, has structure. This structure is 'care'.

Care isn’t a new concept. It’s just a name that Heidegger is giving the three-fold structure of being that he’s already introduced. So really the care chapter is just a culmination of everything Heidegger has been saying in Division 1. He furthermore says the formally existential totality of dasein’s ontological structure is understood within the framework of this care structure. Care is used by Heidegger in a purely ontologically existential manner and has nothing to do with caring, or worrying, as we would say in English. Care doesn’t refer to experiences because it’s a completely formal structure. It is devoid of any experiential content.

Care is essentially the structure that Heidegger uses architectonically to cover every way being consists in. It is the structure of a being that takes a stand on its being. Within the care structure we are able to make sense of not only Dasein’s three temporal primordial elements of being-in (i.e. thrownness, falling, and projecting), but also how each element of being-in is experienced as (i.e. disposedness, discourse, and understanding), how they are made concrete (i.e. mood, absorbed dealing, and pressing into possibilities), and their essence (i.e. facticity, being-fallen, and existentiality). Heidegger just refers to the care structure of each as (a) being-already-in-the-world, (b) being-admist-entities, and (c) being-ahead-of-itself, respectively.

Yeah.

Anyway, I remember having this conversation about the "absorbed" part with Dreyfus (RIP) when I was a student, and he said when we talk about dasein falling that in English we might say someone "fell to work," which means they dug in and were involved in whatever they were working on. It is the most primordial element of dasein in the present that is experienced as discourse, made concrete in absorbed dealing, and found in a care structure of being-amidst-entities. So when Heidegger talks about "explicit understanding," that is not the most basic way we are involved with things with ourselves.

Being "absorbed" in hammering would describe some madman waiving whatever heavy object. It is not about "mechanical" reacting in different directions. It (Dasein) is not about something just happening in an entirely unconscious darkness. — waarala

That's not what I am saying.

I'm saying that the defining characteristic of dasein is that it expresses a certain way of taking over itself in its activity; that is, it takes a stand on its being, or has an interpretation of what it means to be a human being. But dasein doesn't have to be actively, consciously thinking about what it means to be a human being. For dasein to take a stand on its own being is just to behave in a certain way that reflects what it means to be a human being. Dasein can take a stand on itself by deliberately thinking about taking a stand on itself, BUT more often than not, dasein manifests itself in practical activities, like opening doors, using hammers, speaking languages, and so on and so forth.

Because when framing the argument through my moral theory, they are acting immoral and have ignored other types of ways to prosper that don't require 5% of humanity to be slaves. They have not respected the foundation of well being and harm and they haven't done any unbiased rational thinking to arrive at their conclusion, objections I listed a few of in the earlier post. — Christoffer

As far as I can tell you are just arbitrarily saying we can't hurt the minority, and this conclusion doesn't follow from any of the principles you supplied in the OP. Additionally, you sprinkle the term "well-being" into your responses in some vague fashion, as if that will solve anything. You make no mention at all of well-being in your OP, by the way, and that was supposedly where you were defining your moral terms :roll: You have a ways to go before your half-baked theory makes any sense.

I tell them to stop since they are harming 5% of humanity and do not have a rational argument built upon the foundation of not harming 5% of humanity. If they don't agree to that point, they aren't morally good, I am. — Christoffer

But they do have a rational argument. Their society is experiencing a boom in industry and commerce, health and life expectancy, more aggregate happiness, and so on and so forth. How is that not a rational argument? Let's charitably grant that their original decision to adopt slavery was initially suboptimal from a mathematical standpoint. Maybe there was only a 40% chance of success and 60% chance of failure. But they went on with adopting slavery anyway. Against the odds, slavery turned out to work great for them. So while you might say their original plan was suboptimal, nothing in your theory says their decision to continue their way of life is immoral/suboptimal, because it has been found to work for them, and it has withstood the test of time for the last several hundred years.

Here it seems your theory cannot address such a notion because it is entirely explicated from the perspective one takes prior to making a moral decision, and cannot make sense of the intuitively repugnant consequences that follow as a result of following through on a decision procedure that was initially suboptimal but turned out to be optimal. By the lights of your own theory, nothing says slavery in this case is immoral. Actually, it even looks like its moral. You might want to give your own supplemental reasons for why slavery is wrong, but if it contradicts the supreme principles of your theory then they can be of only secondary importance.

How do they come to the conclusion that enslaving the 5% follows the framework of avoiding harm to humanity? It harms 5% of humanity, it might harm further by the consequences of slavery in form of civil wars in later years. The justification for slavery falls flat by using the proposed method of thinking. — Christoffer

I think your defense is one step removed from where it needs to take place. It doesn't matter how their way of life came to be. The point is that it's already happening, and it's working for them now. On what grounds do you tell them to stop?

The foundation for the method isn't about virtues, but about how we define harm and well being. Virtue is more about characteristics and it's a very loose slippery form of ethics I'm not so sure works very well. — Christoffer

So how do you define well-being, Christoffer? And how does well-being compute, if at all, into what you are proposing? TMF is quite right to point out some similarities between what you are proposing and virtue ethics, but I'm trying to see you flesh out your position more and take it to its logical conclusion.

OK, I didn't think you would bite the bullet on that one. But let me say more:

How does this theory escape some of the traditional criticisms leveled at utilitarianism. Imagine a world where 95% of the population believes slavery is a good thing. By enslaving the 5% minority they are able to develop their civilization to new heights and usher in a period of prosperity that has lasted for the last several hundred years. Industry and commerce are booming, people report being happier overall, and health and life expectancy are at an all time high. Most everything that can ordinarily be said of a successful society is happening here, and none of this would have been possible without slavery because the majority is extremely lazy.

How would you respond to this criticism? How can we not say that people in this society value their way of life, and how can we not say that they do not benefit from it? You go on to talk about scientific method and beliefs supported by evidence, but it isn't at all clear how any of that is sufficient to show why this style of living is morally impermissible.

Well, this point of mine started as somewhat of an aside, where the conclusion of that post was critical of Trump. In so many words I said, "Well, to be fair he didn't exactly tell people to go out and inject bleach into their bodies, but the fact that he said anything that could remotely be construed that way is highly imprudent and irresponsible." Had not some people latched onto that initial point and descended upon it with such fervor, the level of absurdity in the conversation may not have reached such heights. The point being made was fairly innocuous in my estimation; but where Trump is concerned, I suppose even conceding these kinds of trivial points becomes a major point of contention for some.

My take was that he was (a) suggesting looking into an injectable treatment that had the same kind of quick-working cleansing effect that disinfectants have on tables and chairs and things like that. It didn't look to me like he was (b) recommending that people inject bleach into their bodies. I think Trump thought people were negatively reacting to (a) because all of his medical staff told him it was unrealistic and lacked feasibility, so he lied rather obviously to distance himself from that remark. But you could be right that Trump is lying to distance himself from (b), if he is actually THAT stupid.

Actually, that's right. In any case, here I'm not concerned with what someone "couldn't possibly actually mean," rather what someone actually said, and how those words are used to form a non sequitur conclusion. As mentioned previously in my discussion with Relativist, a recommendation to inject bleach into your veins is something different than "making a naive extrapolation," and equating the two or drawing a conclusion of the former from the latter is non sequitur. Pointing out this distinction isn't necessarily a job for a lackey, rather it can be forwarded in the spirit of keeping discussion honest.