Med school apologizes to students "triggered" by a test question

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lol. From my experience most people trying to speak up about the policing issue are also speaking up about the systemic racism that is keeping marginalized groups, marginalized.

The "black on black violence" trope is a silly one IMO. Whataboutism. The idea that people need to worry about "black on black violence" only comes up in discussion when we're debating yet another senseless extra-judicial police killing. If only black people stopped killing other black people, cops won't be using excessive force. That's how the argument sounds.
Black on black crime is irrelevant to the matter of police brutality . There is white on white crime , asian on asian crime , Hispanic on Hispanic crime , etc.... Another point to add much of the outrage also stems from the fact that the cops rarely get in trouble or even charged for their senseless aggressiveness and killings . We see time and time again police abusing their power and not being held accountable. However , with black on black crime the guilty person will mostly be convicted of the crime .

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 3 users
Then how, how do you propose she be allowed to express that not all cops are bad guys and we shouldn’t assault them? How does she do that without you justifying her losing her job for being “tacky and offensive”?
Be specific

In a thoughtful post that fully explores how we got to where we are. You can't really express that not all cops are bad guys without acknowledging without a doubt that some are and that many who are not are caught in a system that has absolutely treated minorities differently. As I said above I love cops and count on them regularly in my job, but I also 100% acknowledge that the murders of Floyd and Taylor didn't happen in a vacuum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Right. It’s about the 120+ cops who have been severely injured or killed because of a uniform they wear while just trying to serve their communities. But what you’re saying is while their lives matter, they don’t matter as much. Got it.

And actually there isn’t data to support that killing of black people by police is a systemic racism issue.

I’m curious why people who think this way never seem to be concerned about the ridiculously high rates of black on black homicide and the systemic racism that keeps black people in high crime areas, predisposing them to be involved in or victims of crime. The same people who go completely nuts on Facebook about black lives mattering when a cop is involved are completely silent on the thousands of young black men killed by other young black men over gang and drug violence thanks to red lining and other racist laws that have put them there. (This part is not about you specifically, @Mass Effect. Talking about the people I’ve interacted with on social media and irl here.)
You can take off a uniform. You can't stop an officer from using the color of your skin to guide their encounter with you, and you certainly can't stop an officer who has already decided to use excessive force against you. This has always been a faulty argument. If you think law enforcement gets a raw deal, or don't want to be associated with criminals and murderers in your department, then purge them or get out. Being an LEO isn't an immutable characteristic. But PDs have made it clear over many decades and especially in the last weeks that they will always circle the wagons around their worst offenders. That's why cops get lumped together. Do you not think a great deal of grief could have been avoided if Chauvin had been arrested sooner, or if any of the several complaints against him previously had been acted on?

I'm interested to hear what you think the disproportionate killing by law enforcement of Black, Indigenous, and other people of color is. Is it because more crime takes place in the communities they've been redlined or otherwise forced into? You've already described this as racism.

Finally, this entire thread is dumb. I read through the article in the OP. The author has chat logs of what students actually said but chose not to publish them? This is faux outrage on behalf of a single student who decided to take a conversation between their classmates and administration to...reason magazine. Why is anyone meant to care about this
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 4 users
Members don't see this ad :)
In a thoughtful post that fully explores how we got to where we are. You can't really express that not all cops are bad guys without acknowledging without a doubt that some are and that many who are not are caught in a system that has absolutely treated minorities differently. As I said above I love cops and count on them regularly in my job, but I also 100% acknowledge that the murders of Floyd and Taylor didn't happen in a vacuum.
But you actually can acknowledge that not all cops are bad without writing a thesis on the history policing in america. It’s a completely reasonable and factual statement that doesn’t in any way imply that a person cannot do their job properly
 
  • Like
  • Okay...
Reactions: 5 users
I'm interested to hear what you think the disproportionate killing by law enforcement of Black, Indigenous, and other people of color is. Is it because more crime takes place in the communities they've been redlined or otherwise forced into? You've already described this as racism.

When people say that there is "disproportionate killing by law enforcement of black people," they tend to be fallaciously comparing police killings of blacks solely to the proportion of blacks in the US population; this completely overlooks differences in the proportion of police encounters that blacks have relative to whites. Blacks are not more likely to be killed than whites by police officers when you factor in differences in violent crime rates. Moreover, blacks are not disproportionately more likely to be killed than whites by police officers when you factor in proportions of police encounters and arrests.

To answer your question more directly: In the US, black people are killed at higher per capita rates by police officers than white people because of differences in crime rates and, as a direct consequence of crime rate differences, differences in both frequency and intensity of their encounters with the police.

If you are skeptical of my explanation above and want to further explore this topic in a factual, data-driven manner, I can share public data with you from the FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics.
 
  • Like
  • Dislike
Reactions: 3 users
I'm interested to hear what you think the disproportionate killing by law enforcement of Black, Indigenous, and other people of color is. Is it because more crime takes place in the communities they've been redlined or otherwise forced into? You've already described this as racism.

To expand on @Osminog 's post -

Racism is and will always be an issue. But racism has not increased since the civil rights movement, and, there isn't disproportionate killing by law enforcement of blacks and hispanics.

See the abstract An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force
On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account.

Most of the exposure we get on what's happening in the world is through the media. I'm subject to the same problem, I usually just watch the TV, read news articles online, and talk to people to get a sense of the world. But the frequency of our exposures to a concept (police brutality) is not always an accurate reflection of society. Incidents of racism are being captured on film more frequently as the age of information technology emerged, giving the media content to publish, spark outrage, and raise their ratings. Of course white-cop-on-white-guy incidents aren't reported as often, and because it isn't reported, naturally we won't know about it. You've got to always be skeptical of what you are told.
 
  • Like
  • Okay...
Reactions: 3 users
When people say that there is "disproportionate killing by law enforcement of black people," they tend to be fallaciously comparing police killings of blacks solely to the proportion of blacks in the US population; this completely overlooks differences in the proportion of police encounters that blacks have relative to whites. Blacks are not more likely to be killed than whites by police officers when you factor in differences in violent crime rates. Moreover, blacks are not disproportionately more likely to be killed than whites by police officers when you factor in proportions of police encounters and arrests.

To answer your question more directly: In the US, black people are killed at higher per capita rates by police officers than white people because of differences in crime rates and, as a direct consequence of crime rate differences, differences in both frequency and intensity of their encounters with the police.

If you are skeptical of my explanation above and want to further explore this topic in a factual, data-driven manner, I can share public data with you from the FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Why do you think minorities have a higher rate of police encounters?
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 1 users
@Osminog and @Hazle -
My comment already assumed that you're both correct to say the discrepancy is driven by higher crime rates. What is the explanation for the higher crime rates in different groups? It was offered in the post I quoted that this is the result of racist policies. Even if I take your arguments at face-value (I don't), you haven't made the case that the issue can't be traced back to racism in any of its forms.
When people say that there is "disproportionate killing by law enforcement of black people," they tend to be fallaciously comparing police killings of blacks solely to the proportion of blacks in the US population; this completely overlooks differences in the proportion of police encounters that blacks have relative to whites. Blacks are not more likely to be killed than whites by police officers when you factor in differences in violent crime rates. Moreover, blacks are not disproportionately more likely to be killed than whites by police officers when you factor in proportions of police encounters and arrests.

To answer your question more directly: In the US, black people are killed at higher per capita rates by police officers than white people because of differences in crime rates and, as a direct consequence of crime rate differences, differences in both frequency and intensity of their encounters with the police.
How do you account for the difference in police encounters? An example from the Boston Globe, discussing these statistics: "Suppose, hypothetically, that a white suspect is killed by police in one out of 100,000 traffic stops and nine out of 10 shootings. And imagine that Black suspects are killed by police after 20 out of 1,000,000 traffic stops and in 10 out of 10 active shooter incidents. In each kind of incident, Black suspects are killed more often than white suspects. In aggregate, though, the percentage is higher for white people: 10 out of 100,010 white people are killed vs. 30 out of 1,000,010 Black people, because the white people tend to encounter the police in more grave situations."

See the abstract An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force
On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account.
From the paper cited: "The forthcoming analysis takes the four data sets described above as given and estimates racial differences in non-lethal and lethal uses of force. But, to the extent that there are racial differences in the probability of an interaction with police, these data may omit a very important margin. Put differently, one may discover no differences in police use of force, conditional on an interaction, but large racial differences in the probability of the types of interactions in which force may be used. By only concentrating on how and whether force was used in an interaction and ignoring whether or not an interaction took place, one can misrepresent the total experience with police." The data supporting the assertion you've shared comes from police reports from a single PD and can only describe what happens after someone has been stopped by an officer. It says nothing about who is more likely to be stopped by an officer and who, if they were to be stopped, would likely be subjected to lethal force. If police kill x people out of every 100,000 people they stop, and Black people are stopped twice as often as white people, then you've found the discrepancy. The paper even suggests this is the case in section III.

Most of the exposure we get on what's happening in the world is through the media. I'm subject to the same problem, I usually just watch the TV, read news articles online, and talk to people to get a sense of the world. But the frequency of our exposures to a concept (police brutality) is not always an accurate reflection of society. Incidents of racism are being captured on film more frequently as the age of information technology emerged, giving the media content to publish, spark outrage, and raise their ratings. Of course white-cop-on-white-guy incidents aren't reported as often, and because it isn't reported, naturally we won't know about it. You've got to always be skeptical of what you are told.
Please don't talk to me or others like they're incapable of due diligence when reading the news. It's not as respectful as you think it is.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 2 users
In response to nobody in particular, I squarely reject the "bad apples" theory. It's a lazy argument that doesn't hold water. Like the vast majority of people, I completely agree that it's only a minority of police that are "bad." However, I don't care if it's 10% or 1% or 0.00001%. It's enough to create evidence of overwhelming racial bias in policing, including use of lethal force. At that point, it's a systemic issue - just like it would be for any other profession. I don't want to hear the "black on black crime" trope. It's useless whataboutism that doesn't even make sense. The premise is usually that people care about police violence but not violence in black communities, which obviously isn't remotely true. I don't want to hear the "black people commit more crimes so that's why they are killed more by police" argument because it ignores the fact that black people get stopped more and experience a higher rate of force used, even when no laws are broken. And finally I think it bears repeating that it doesn't matter if somebody is a criminal or a bad person. It shouldn't ever factor in one bit to whether police were justified in using lethal force on someone. I don't care if somebody has been convicted of horrific crimes in the past. I don't care what kind of drugs they've used. We have a criminal justice system, albeit flawed, that is tasked with deciding somebody's guilt and punishment for a crime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
In response to nobody in particular, I squarely reject the "bad apples" theory. It's a lazy argument that doesn't hold water. Like the vast majority of people, I completely agree that it's only a minority of police that are "bad." However, I don't care if it's 10% or 1% or 0.00001%. It's enough to create evidence of overwhelming racial bias in policing, including use of lethal force. At that point, it's a systemic issue - just like it would be for any other profession. I don't want to hear the "black on black crime" trope. It's useless whataboutism that doesn't even make sense. The premise is usually that people care about police violence but not violence in black communities, which obviously isn't remotely true. I don't want to hear the "black people commit more crimes so that's why they are killed more by police" argument because it ignores the fact that black people get stopped more and experience a higher rate of force used, even when no laws are broken. And finally I think it bears repeating that it doesn't matter if somebody is a criminal or a bad person. It shouldn't ever factor in one bit to whether police were justified in using lethal force on someone. I don't care if somebody has been convicted of horrific crimes in the past. I don't care what kind of drugs they've used. We have a criminal justice system, albeit flawed, that is tasked with deciding somebody's guilt and punishment for a crime.
I guess the followup there is, if we all agree that it’s only a small portion of cops acting wrong......how do we fix it?

do you feel the current methodology on the news helps fix it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
I'll just leave this here: There's overwhelming evidence that the criminal justice system is racist: a Washington Post article that compiles and links about 145 studies that support the presence of said systemic racism. At the end are 10 "dissenting" studies that reached different conclusions.

Excerpt with emphasis added:

Of particular concern to some on the right is the term “systemic racism,” often wrongly interpreted as an accusation that everyone in the system is racist. In fact, systemic racism means almost the opposite. It means that we have systems and institutions that produce racially disparate outcomes, regardless of the intentions of the people who work within them. When you consider that much of the criminal justice system was built, honed and firmly established during the Jim Crow era — an era almost everyone, conservatives included, will concede rife with racism — this is pretty intuitive. The modern criminal justice system helped preserve racial order — it kept black people in their place. For much of the early 20th century, in some parts of the country, that was its primary function. That it might retain some of those proclivities today shouldn’t be all that surprising.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
In response to nobody in particular, I squarely reject the "bad apples" theory. It's a lazy argument that doesn't hold water. Like the vast majority of people, I completely agree that it's only a minority of police that are "bad." However, I don't care if it's 10% or 1% or 0.00001%. It's enough to create evidence of overwhelming racial bias in policing, including use of lethal force. At that point, it's a systemic issue - just like it would be for any other profession. I don't want to hear the "black on black crime" trope. It's useless whataboutism that doesn't even make sense. The premise is usually that people care about police violence but not violence in black communities, which obviously isn't remotely true. I don't want to hear the "black people commit more crimes so that's why they are killed more by police" argument because it ignores the fact that black people get stopped more and experience a higher rate of force used, even when no laws are broken. And finally I think it bears repeating that it doesn't matter if somebody is a criminal or a bad person. It shouldn't ever factor in one bit to whether police were justified in using lethal force on someone. I don't care if somebody has been convicted of horrific crimes in the past. I don't care what kind of drugs they've used. We have a criminal justice system, albeit flawed, that is tasked with deciding somebody's guilt and punishment for a crime.
Banana fish...your statement is ideal but you know it is unrealistic right because we as human have our own prejudice and stigma To certain extend...n I believe you do too...police obviously will approach someone with criminal history more cautious and likely react w force if the individual seem to resist...because let me honest it is their lives on the line here and as any of us...they have a family they want to come home to...their jobs are dangerous...you tell me you don’t treat a drug addict coming to hospital seeking drug differently than someone never use opioid before...I am not saying violence is right...but what you say in the real world is not realistic...if you know there is a sex offender live close by to you and he was walking behind you at night vs an old man and you have a gun, I would be shock if you don’t care about his history and ready at any moment to shoot the guy...lol
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Why do you think minorities have a higher rate of police encounters?

I would disagree with the usage of the term "minorities" here. What I'm talking about doesn't apply to all minorities. For instance, Asians are considered a minority in the US, but they are drastically underrepresented among those who get arrested (~6% of the US population, but only ~1% of total arrests, according to Table 43A of the FBI's "Crime in the USA" publication).

The primary reason that blacks have higher rates of police encounters relative to whites is that blacks commit more crimes, per capita. Because they are more likely to commit crimes, they are more likely to be encountered by police. Also, police officers try to actively patrol high-crime neighborhoods, because their job is to prevent and stop criminal activity; those neighborhoods often have primarily black residents, so if a proactive police officer stops a potential witness for questioning or approaches somebody to inquire about suspicious behavior, it's frequently going to be a black person.

Because so many people are quick to misconstrue my point above, I now have to emphasize something that should be completely obvious: most black individuals are not criminals, and many are peaceful, hardworking contributors to society. I'm strictly talking about group trends and averages.

My comment already assumed that you're both correct to say the discrepancy is driven by higher crime rates. What is the explanation for the higher crime rates in different groups? It was offered in the post I quoted that this is the result of racist policies. Even if I take your arguments at face-value (I don't), you haven't made the case that the issue can't be traced back to racism in any of its forms.

The explanation for why there are differences in crime rates among racial groups is largely irrelevant to what we've been talking about: racial discrimination in policing. The primary job of police officers is to prevent crime and to catch criminals, regardless of which sociological theory best explains why crime rates differ among groups. As long as a disproportionately high number of blacks commit serious crimes, police officers will arrest a disproportionately high number of black suspects, and that's not an inherent problem with the police.

How do you account for the difference in police encounters? An example from the Boston Globe, discussing these statistics: "Suppose, hypothetically, that a white suspect is killed by police in one out of 100,000 traffic stops and nine out of 10 shootings. And imagine that Black suspects are killed by police after 20 out of 1,000,000 traffic stops and in 10 out of 10 active shooter incidents. In each kind of incident, Black suspects are killed more often than white suspects. In aggregate, though, the percentage is higher for white people: 10 out of 100,010 white people are killed vs. 30 out of 1,000,010 Black people, because the white people tend to encounter the police in more grave situations."

In a majority of cases in which police officers used lethal force between the years 2009 and 2012, we know that the suspect was involved in the commission of a crime (80.5%), with the crime being assault, homicide, or another violent offense in 63.4% of cases of lethal force. Also, in a majority of cases, we know that the suspect was deemed to be a threat to the police officer and/or civilians (87.7%). This is based on a table published by criminal justice researchers at CUNY, titled "Characteristics/Circumstances of Deaths Due to Use of Lethal Force in 17 NVDRS States, 2009–2012". Unfortunately, this is the most recent published data set I'm aware of that describes the circumstances surrounding cases of lethal force; if somebody can find more recent data, please do share.

My point is that, excluding individual cases of excessive force and unfortunate accidents, police officers aren't using lethal force during random encounters with compliant, law-abiding individuals. They're usually using lethal force against criminal suspects who are on the verge of getting arrested or are already under arrest, and who are posing a threat of death or bodily harm to them and/or to civilians. If a large proportion of those being subjected to lethal force by police are criminals, then it makes sense that the black population would be disproportionately affected.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
No, it isn't. Intubating a patient because he's violent and you can't deal with it is malpractice.
I've seen the "social intubation" as well.
This is also a good read: My Semester with the Snowflakes, written by a veteran who became a freshman at Yale in 2019... at age 52.
This is a fantastic read, wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed. Wish that more people would not see “safe space” as a place to hide from criticism or disagreements, but rather as a place to hash them out without fear of repercussion. Too often people use that term to just ignore opposing arguments rather than hear them out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Because some of you on this thread need to be reminded: BLACK LIVES MATTER
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
In a majority of cases in which police officers used lethal force between the years 2009 and 2012, we know that the suspect was involved in the commission of a crime (80.5%), with the crime being assault, homicide, or another violent offense in 63.4% of cases of lethal force. Also, in a majority of cases, we know that the suspect was deemed to be a threat to the police officer and/or civilians (87.7%). This is based on a table published by criminal justice researchers at CUNY, titled "Characteristics/Circumstances of Deaths Due to Use of Lethal Force in 17 NVDRS States, 2009–2012". Unfortunately, this is the most recent published data set I'm aware of that describes the circumstances surrounding cases of lethal force; if somebody can find more recent data, please do share.
Another way of parsing this data is that 1 out of 8 fatal police encounters is a civilian who posed no threat. That's what everyone's mad about. Never mind that the data relies on the narrative of the LEO.
 
Because some of you on this thread need to be reminded: BLACK LIVES MATTER
at no point in this thread has anyone said otherwise, if one slipped through it certainly wasn’t noticed. Can you link us to the offending post so we can address it?
Another way of parsing this data is that 1 out of 8 fatal police encounters is a civilian who posed no threat. That's what everyone's mad about. Never mind that the data relies on the narrative of the LEO.
can you link that? I’m interested in looking into the criteria
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users
Then you've witnessed malpractice as well.
Just because you don’t see it as a psychologist does not mean it does not happen and it is malpractice...these patients are often none decisional as well...you actually think someone w extreme manic state is worth to talk to? Indeed none of these cases we even consult psych...they are high on drug...the drug is talking...not a psychiatric problem...intubate them a day or two to allow the drug to wear off keep themselves and other safe do the job...indeed when I was with psych the psych attending had a patient transfer to ICU for social intubation. If you think every patients are suitable for therapeutic communication, good luck like I said make sure you are also the one who hold down the patients and get punch...‍♀ As far as I know we don’t usually consult psych in ICU until the patients are stable and have the capacity to talk...often time psych won’t bother to talk to the patients anyway until they calm down...this usually happen in ICU where we can’t keep them safe without sedation...we don’t have the option to put them in seclusion like psych...even with my experience in EPS when you guys get manic or drug patients you guys let them hang out for a while until they calm down to talk, but these patients are not as crazy like pulling out IO or hitting their heads and arms to bed rails...Just because it is not something you see or under your scope does not mean it is malpractice...typically American culture and malpractice lmao ‍♀ I am sure hospitals have lawyers and they know about it better than you...

No offense but when I was w psych service including EPS, patients were super duper chill...the violent one you guys put in seclusion...the ones we social intubate tried to leave, hurt themselves and highly likely would beat staffs when we tried to stop them from leaving...ICU room is not like seclusion room where we can just leave the patient in there alone without having 6 people holding them down...without hurting both parties...restraints themselves are not safe either...let not forget the medical problem...there is a reason why these patients were transported from another hospital to my big hospital to be managed by toxicologist...directly into ICU but not EPS...not your typical pure psychiatric patients lol...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Another way of parsing this data is that 1 out of 8 fatal police encounters is a civilian who posed no threat. That's what everyone's mad about. Never mind that the data relies on the narrative of the LEO.

6.9% of cases fall into the “unknown/not enough information” category, so we can’t draw conclusions about them. Only 5.4% of cases are known to have not involved any evidence of immediate threat.

Obviously, individual instances of unjust lethal force do occur. In a national police force of over 700,000 officers, you’re going to find some people who don’t do their jobs correctly and unjustly harm people. But I think sensationalized media stories are causing people to misunderstand the actual extent and nature of the problem, especially when it comes to how it relates to race.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
DISCLOSURE: I admire and am grateful for the tremendous contributions that African slaves, and their descendants, black Americans have made to our country especially in the fight for equality and mutual respect.

I don't see Black Lives Matter as a black vs. white or black vs. everyone else issue. If anything, it's pointing to the unequal hierarchy that places some whites at the top and the vast majority of blacks at the very bottom. And everyone else, somewhere in between.

This hierarchy sucks and should change. Thus, BLM affects everybody.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The primary reason that blacks have higher rates of police encounters relative to whites is that blacks commit more crimes, per capita. Because they are more likely to commit crimes, they are more likely to be encountered by police. Also, police officers try to actively patrol high-crime neighborhoods, because their job is to prevent and stop criminal activity; those neighborhoods often have primarily black residents, so if a proactive police officer stops a potential witness for questioning or approaches somebody to inquire about suspicious behavior, it's frequently going to be a black person.

Unfortunately, the state of affairs are far more nuanced *than you are positing. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, "despite the fact that marijuana is used at comparable rates by whites and Blacks, state and local governments have aggressively enforced marijuana laws selectively against Black people and communities. A Black person was 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person — a disparity that increased 32.7% between 2001 and 2010. In the worst offending counties across the country, Blacks were over 10, 15, even 30 times more likely to be arrested than white residents in the same county."

If police officers were simply proactively trying to apprehend criminals for illicit marijuana drug use, they would arrest blacks and whites at comparable instead of arresting blacks disproportionately. It is silly or willfully disingenuous to ignore the fact that bias plays a substantial role in policing.

Most recently, a great deal of attention has been given to social distancing in order to curb the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Interesting, in some cities, the vast majority (80% - 90%) of people who have been arrested or summoned are Black or Hispanic. I supposed Osminog would posit that Blacks disproportionately flaunt social distancing guidelines compared to their peers, since statistically they comprise the majority of those arrested.

The fact is that things are quite nuanced, and employing a reductionist framework limits one's ability to grasp to bigger picture.

*Typo edited
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, the state of affairs are far more nuanced that you are positing. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, "despite the fact that marijuana is used at comparable rates by whites and Blacks, state and local governments have aggressively enforced marijuana laws selectively against Black people and communities. A Black person was 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person — a disparity that increased 32.7% between 2001 and 2010. In the worst offending counties across the country, Blacks were over 10, 15, even 30 times more likely to be arrested than white residents in the same county."

If police officers were simply proactively trying to apprehend criminals for illicit marijuana drug use, they would arrest blacks and whites at comparable instead of arresting blacks disproportionately. It is silly or willfully disingenuous to ignore the fact that bias plays a substantial role in policing.

Most recently, a great deal of attention has been given to social distancing in order to curb the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Interesting, in some cities, the vast majority (80% - 90%) of people who have been arrested or summoned are Black or Hispanic. I supposed Osminog would posit that Blacks disproportionately flaunt social distancing guidelines compared to their peers, since statistically they comprise the majority of those arrested.

The fact is that things are quite nuanced, and employing a reductionist framework limits one's ability to grasp to bigger picture
The war on drugs definitely needs to go. It began as a racist crusade, and that hasn't changed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The war on drugs definitely needs to go. It began as a racist crusade, and that hasn't changed.
I’m all for decriminalizing drugs as long as I’m not responsible for buying rehab or paying someone’s bills when they make bad decisions. If you want the freedom to make that call, you get the consequences too
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Just because you don’t see it as a psychologist does not mean it does not happen and it is malpractice...these patients are often none decisional as well...you actually think someone w extreme manic state is worth to talk to? Indeed none of these cases we even consult psych...they are high on drug...the drug is talking...not a psychiatric problem...intubate them a day or two to allow the drug to wear off keep themselves and other safe do the job...indeed when I was with psych the psych attending had a patient transfer to ICU for social intubation. If you think every patients are suitable for therapeutic communication, good luck like I said make sure you are also the one who hold down the patients and get punch...‍♀ As far as I know we don’t usually consult psych in ICU until the patients are stable and have the capacity to talk...often time psych won’t bother to talk to the patients anyway until they calm down...this usually happen in ICU where we can’t keep them safe without sedation...we don’t have the option to put them in seclusion like psych...even with my experience in EPS when you guys get manic or drug patients you guys let them hang out for a while until they calm down to talk, but these patients are not as crazy like pulling out IO or hitting their heads and arms to bed rails...Just because it is not something you see or under your scope does not mean it is malpractice...typically American culture and malpractice lmao ‍♀ I am sure hospitals have lawyers and they know about it better than you...

No offense but when I was w psych service including EPS, patients were super duper chill...the violent one you guys put in seclusion...the ones we social intubate tried to leave, hurt themselves and highly likely would beat staffs when we tried to stop them from leaving...ICU room is not like seclusion room where we can just leave the patient in there alone without having 6 people holding them down...without hurting both parties...restraints themselves are not safe either...let not forget the medical problem...there is a reason why these patients were transported from another hospital to my big hospital to be managed by toxicologist...directly into ICU but not EPS...not your typical pure psychiatric patients lol...

I don't even know where to begin. Half my residency was spent in the ICU and the ED. I was first page for consult on every delirium, agitation, withdrawal case that existed. If you think psychiatrists just "talk" you need to broaden your knowledge of the field. You've also never been on an inpatient psych unit where dealing with and restraining agitated and violent patients is what we do literally 24/7.

Also, in what hospital is a psychiatrist waiting for a manic patient to "calm down" before doing anything? lol. Dude. Mania is literally a psychiatric condition. It's literally what we do all the time.

Said the psychiatrist who was nowhere near the ED on Saturday night.

Actually, I was in the ED on Saturday night. Not last night, but last Saturday night. I was moonlighting in an ED at a major academic center. That's what we do. We see consults in the ED for violence, agitation, suicidality, homicidality, psychosis, intoxication, and withdrawal. In fact, many hospitals have an actual psych ED which is an extention of the regular ED where the patients who are violent, suicidal, withdrawing, or psychotic go for us to manage them. The violent ones are often restrained (either chemically or mechanically) and security is on stand by if needed.
 
Last edited:
6.9% of cases fall into the “unknown/not enough information” category, so we can’t draw conclusions about them. Only 5.4% of cases are known to have not involved any evidence of immediate threat.

Obviously, individual instances of unjust lethal force do occur. In a national police force of over 700,000 officers, you’re going to find some people who don’t do their jobs correctly and unjustly harm people. But I think sensationalized media stories are causing people to misunderstand the actual extent and nature of the problem, especially when it comes to how it relates to race.
That's still 1 out of 20. What are you willing to tolerate? Can we count on the justice system to arrest, charge, and try even the clearest of cases?

I don't normally argue the point on race because police brutality is bad enough without giving mind to characteristics of the victims. But you haven't convinced me that the issue is race-blind, either. Policing strategy is informed by the way racism has shaped this country.

Yeah, that link says the authors decided for themselves if there was an threat (percieved or actual) but they don’t seem to release the specific data tables to show which deaths they classified as no threat.

that data means nothing without the raw data
Yeah, that's why I took an issue with having to trust LEO narratives + the author's interpretation of it. You may be able to find more data here National Violent Death Reporting System|NVDRS|Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC
 
The moderator staff has received a number of reports from this thread.

The original post is directly related to medical school. The discussion has subsequently moved very close to political territory; however, given that the discussion has mostly remained civil we're going to leave this thread open for now as long as the discussion can continue without the personal attacks and insults that often come with this kind of subject matter.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 7 users
That's still 1 out of 20. What are you willing to tolerate? Can we count on the justice system to arrest, charge, and try even the clearest of cases?

I don't normally argue the point on race because police brutality is bad enough without giving mind to characteristics of the victims. But you haven't convinced me that the issue is race-blind, either. Policing strategy is informed by the way racism has shaped this country.


Yeah, that's why I took an issue with having to trust LEO narratives + the author's interpretation of it. You may be able to find more data here National Violent Death Reporting System|NVDRS|Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC
I sincerely appreciate the attempt but what I am looking for is which deaths where assigned “no threat” to see if I agreed with the designation
 
the ridiculously high rates of black on black homicide and the systemic racism that keeps black people in high crime areas, predisposing them to be involved in or victims of crime. The same people who go completely nuts on Facebook about black lives mattering when a cop is involved are completely silent on the thousands of young black men killed by other young black men over gang and drug violence thanks to red lining and other racist laws that have put them there.

Genuine question for those who hold a more "woke" opinion than me: Why do I often see people say "there is no such thing as black on black crime" or that "black on black crime is manufactured by the right/white establishment" or "using black-on-black crime statistics is racist"? There are numbers and data you can literally point to...how does it "not exist"? I truly want to know what reasoning is behind the notion of saying "there is no such thing" when it just seems...apparent. Wording? Semantics? Rhetorical strategy? Analogous to "you can't be racist to white people"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
DISCLOSURE: I admire and am grateful for the tremendous contributions that African slaves, and their descendants, black Americans have made to our country especially in the fight for equality and mutual respect.

I don't see Black Lives Matter as a black vs. white or black vs. everyone else issue. If anything, it's pointing to the unequal hierarchy that places some whites at the top and the vast majority of blacks at the very bottom. And everyone else, somewhere in between.

This hierarchy sucks and should change. Thus, BLM affects everybody.
You phrased this so well, props.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I guess the followup there is, if we all agree that it’s only a small portion of cops acting wrong......how do we fix it?

do you feel the current methodology on the news helps fix it?
I'm glad you acknowledge there's an issue! What do you mean by methodology? I certainly think that the increased media coverage is a very positive step.

It's an extraordinarily complicated problem and I am likely not qualified to answer it but I have a few opinions. I apologize if this is stream of consciousness, I'm only at my computer sporadically currently. On a macro level, we have way too people incarcerated and a racially biased criminal justice system that perpetuates a cycle of crime and recidivism. That needs to be addressed, but that in itself is another very complicated discussion. There needs to be better accountability and transparency. Chauvin had an egregious number of complaints against him and was still working. The cop who killed Tamir Rice had basically been fired from another department because he was unfit to serve. So, obviously, don't hire or retain people like this. We need to actually carry out studies and collect accurate data on policing and crime and what works and what doesn't. We need to eliminate perverse incentives that encourage police to stop and ticket more people to raise more revenue. I think we need to really question what we truly need armed police to do because I'm of the opinion that we don't need every police officer to be armed to the teeth 24/7 for the vast majority of the responsibilities the police have. Though there are potential downsides, I'm a fan of community oriented policing that recruits people from the actual communities that they understand to work there, and to build relationships with the community, not sending in people who live in the suburbs to work in communities they have no connection with. There are many, many things that could be done to better the problem. I'm sure I'm missing tons of them.
 
I'm glad you acknowledge there's an issue! What do you mean by methodology? I certainly think that the increased media coverage is a very positive step.

It's an extraordinarily complicated problem and I am likely not qualified to answer it but I have a few opinions. I apologize if this is stream of consciousness, I'm only at my computer sporadically currently. On a macro level, we have way too people incarcerated and a racially biased criminal justice system that perpetuates a cycle of crime and recidivism. That needs to be addressed, but that in itself is another very complicated discussion. There needs to be better accountability and transparency. Chauvin had an egregious number of complaints against him and was still working. The cop who killed Tamir Rice had basically been fired from another department because he was unfit to serve. So, obviously, don't hire or retain people like this. We need to actually carry out studies and collect accurate data on policing and crime and what works and what doesn't. We need to eliminate perverse incentives that encourage police to stop and ticket more people to raise more revenue. I think we need to really question what we truly need armed police to do because I'm of the opinion that we don't need every police officer to be armed to the teeth 24/7 for the vast majority of the responsibilities the police have. Though there are potential downsides, I'm a fan of community oriented policing that recruits people from the actual communities that they understand to work there, and to build relationships with the community, not sending in people who live in the suburbs to work in communities they have no connection with. There are many, many things that could be done to better the problem. I'm sure I'm missing tons of them.
I’m gonna disagree that a pistol on your waist is “armed to the teeth” but we probably agree on decriminalized drugs

I’d like more consistent standards for officer behavioral/criminal issues. Chauvin clearly should have been charged and it appeared they might not have been...but the officer shooting brooks should not have been charged with felony murder. Depts have too many wide misses.

I more speakong about methodology like how the protests have went (noting not all of these have been actual protestors and there is some opportunism). Specifically
1)marching
2)blocking roads
3) chaz
4) tearing down statues
5) generalized looting/burning
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
We should rename this thread “SDn posters triggered by med students triggered by exam questions”
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 2 users
I don't even know where to begin. Half my residency was spent in the ICU and the ED. I was first page for consult on every delirium, agitation, withdrawal case that existed. If you think psychiatrists just "talk" you need to broaden your knowledge of the field. You've also never been on an inpatient psych unit where dealing with and restraining agitated and violent patients is what we do literally 24/7.

Also, in what hospital is a psychiatrist waiting for a manic patient to "calm down" before doing anything? lol. Dude. Mania is literally a psychiatric condition. It's literally what we do all the time.



Actually, I was in the ED on Saturday night. Not last night, but last Saturday night. I was moonlighting in an ED at a major academic center. That's what we do. We see consults in the ED for violence, agitation, suicidality, homicidality, psychosis, intoxication, and withdrawal. In fact, many hospitals have an actual psych ED which is an extention of the regular ED where the patients who are violent, suicidal, withdrawing, or psychotic go for us to manage them. The violent ones are often restrained (either chemically or mechanically) and security is on stand by if needed.
So tell me how would you as psych manage a patient who is still agitated despite maxing out propofol, precedex, fent, versed, and 10 of Valium Q1 and still is agitated without intubation in a ICU setting?

I am not saying psych all they do is talk lol. I am just saying depend on situation talking is not appropriate...this is one...

Btw I rotated through consult inpatient and eps...the patients I saw were not violent and danger to themselves and others and needed to be social intubated.

You also have to remember psych is under a control environment. This is not the case in ICU especially when we have to manage their medical problem at the same time. We have to keep them in bed and connect to monitor. That often time is enough to piss off patients. Psych they have lot more freedom in their room or walk around. I found often time is enough to deescalate the situation.
 
Last edited:
So tell me how would you as psych manage a patient who is still agitated despite maxing out propofol, precedex, fent, versed, and 10 of Valium Q1 and still is agitated without intubation in a ICU setting?

There are all kinds of others meds that we use - antipsychotics for one. In fact, Haldol and Zyprexa are go-tos for ICU agitation, depending on cause. What we use is dependent on the etiology of the agitation/delirium and co-morbidities/risks.

I am not saying psych all they do is talk lol. I am just saying depend on situation talking is not appropriate...this is one...

Who cares if in this situation talking isn't appropriate? Much of CL isn't about talking. It's about management and this qualifies. As I said, half of my time was spent in the ICU and ED dealing with these patients.

Btw I rotated through consult inpatient and eps...the patients I saw were not violent and danger to themselves and others and needed to be social intubated

All I'm going to say about that is that your rotation is not reflective of many (most) psych programs going by the 6 programs I know - one from my home institution, 4 programs I did aways at, and the one I matched at.

You also have to remember psych is under a control environment. This is not the case in ICU especially when we have to manage their medical problem at the same time. We have to keep them in bed and connect to monitor. That often time is enough to piss off patients. Psych they have lot more freedom in their room or walk around. I found often time is enough to deescalate the situation.

Again, I'm quite familiar with the ICU as I spent a lot of time there. I know what the ICU is and what happens in the ICU. I maintain your experience is not reflective of the field of psychiatry as a whole.

Expand your knowledge in this area:
 
I don't even know where to begin. Half my residency was spent in the ICU and the ED. I was first page for consult on every delirium, agitation, withdrawal case that existed. If you think psychiatrists just "talk" you need to broaden your knowledge of the field. You've also never been on an inpatient psych unit where dealing with and restraining agitated and violent patients is what we do literally 24/7.

Also, in what hospital is a psychiatrist waiting for a manic patient to "calm down" before doing anything? lol. Dude. Mania is literally a psychiatric condition. It's literally what we do all the time.



Actually, I was in the ED on Saturday night. Not last night, but last Saturday night. I was moonlighting in an ED at a major academic center. That's what we do. We see consults in the ED for violence, agitation, suicidality, homicidality, psychosis, intoxication, and withdrawal. In fact, many hospitals have an actual psych ED which is an extention of the regular ED where the patients who are violent, suicidal, withdrawing, or psychotic go for us to manage them. The violent ones are often restrained (either chemically or mechanically) and security is on stand by if needed.
Sorry, it was a poor effort at a joke. I just think that you guys are talking past each other about the intubation thing. They call it a “social intubation” at my hospital when it is exactly what you are saying: they give the drugs which then necessitate the intubation. On my psych rotation I was in the psych ED and I don’t know how you guys deal with that stuff all the time. Takes a lot of patience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Banana fish...your statement is ideal but you know it is unrealistic right because we as human have our own prejudice and stigma To certain extend...n I believe you do too...police obviously will approach someone with criminal history more cautious and likely react w force if the individual seem to resist...because let me honest it is their lives on the line here and as any of us...they have a family they want to come home to...their jobs are dangerous...you tell me you don’t treat a drug addict coming to hospital seeking drug differently than someone never use opioid before...I am not saying violence is right...but what you say in the real world is not realistic...if you know there is a sex offender live close by to you and he was walking behind you at night vs an old man and you have a gun, I would be shock if you don’t care about his history and ready at any moment to shoot the guy...lol
You're definitely correct that we are susceptible to bias and I'm sure it influences me as much as anyone else. My main point of contention with the criminal history thing is that in most cases the police wouldn't even know if somebody has a criminal history, so it doesn't even factor into their actions. It almost always comes up after the fact when conservative commentators try to justify what happened by saying that the victim had a history of X, Y, and Z - not that it is ever a justification. I also completely agree that police have a difficult and dangerous job. But they choose to do that job, and get paid to do it, and have a place over other people knowing that there are risks that come with it. Black people don't choose their race and the dangers associated with it.
 
There are all kinds of others meds that we use - antipsychotics for one. In fact, Haldol and Zyprexa are go-tos for ICU agitation, depending on cause. What we use is dependent on the etiology of the agitation/delirium and co-morbidities/risks.



Who cares if in this situation talking isn't appropriate? Much of CL isn't about talking. It's about management and this qualifies. As I said, half of my time was spent in the ICU and ED dealing with these patients.



All I'm going to say about that is that your rotation is not reflective of many (most) psych programs going by the 6 programs I know - one from my home institution, 4 programs I did aways at, and the one I matched at.



Again, I'm quite familiar with the ICU as I spent a lot of time there. I know what the ICU is and what happens in the ICU. I maintain your experience is not reflective of the field of psychiatry as a whole.

Expand your knowledge in this area:
Of note, this patient is already on an antipsychotic... on top of all those meds I listed. So what else you do if not intubation? Patient is hitting bed rails and head...spitting and hitting at staffs...despite vest and four point restraints...what will you do lol?

I only mentioned talking because you mentioned and seems to think it works every time lol...

I strongly believe most of the times you don’t manage these patients in ICU because it is not appropriate for a psych consult at this time...A toxicologist is qualified to deal w a tox patients lol...indeed my hospital is the only in the state has a toxicology department and we have 10+ level I hospitals and patients were transferred to my hospital for this...if it simply can be managed by a psych, I don’t think we get these patients at all...even if you see patients in ICU you tend to see them after they already calm down...Again I was on psych and my attending also had a patient transfer to icu for social intubation
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: 1 user
You're definitely correct that we are susceptible to bias and I'm sure it influences me as much as anyone else. My main point of contention with the criminal history thing is that in most cases the police wouldn't even know if somebody has a criminal history, so it doesn't even factor into their actions. It almost always comes up after the fact when conservative commentators try to justify what happened by saying that the victim had a history of X, Y, and Z - not that it is ever a justification. I also completely agree that police have a difficult and dangerous job. But they choose to do that job, and get paid to do it, and have a place over other people knowing that there are risks that come with it. Black people don't choose their race and the dangers associated with it.
But they don’t get paid that much... I don’t even know why people choose to go into police....tbh...high expectation low respect low pay dangerous job...vs medicine high expectation high respect high pay somewhat safe...so...If I have kid later I would tell my kids not to do it...terrible job!!!
 
I’m gonna disagree that a pistol on your waist is “armed to the teeth” but we probably agree on decriminalized drugs

I’d like more consistent standards for officer behavioral/criminal issues. Chauvin clearly should have been charged and it appeared they might not have been...but the officer shooting brooks should not have been charged with felony murder. Depts have too many wide misses.

I more speakong about methodology like how the protests have went (noting not all of these have been actual protestors and there is some opportunism). Specifically
1)marching
2)blocking roads
3) chaz
4) tearing down statues
5) generalized looting/burning
Well, I don't think anybody's ever happy to see violence or riots. But I do understand it, and you can't question the effectiveness of it. Let's be honest, would the media be talking about BLM and police brutality because of picket signs and hashtags? Would local governments actually try to take steps in actually fixing the problem? I seriously, seriously doubt it. So I totally get why the people who have been fighting so hard for this feel like they have to resort to riots and civil disobedience. Look at how people were treated for kneeling during the national anthem, which is about as innocuous and nonviolent an exercise of free speech as you can possibly get. While I feel terribly for any random people who have had their property damaged, it's important not to lose focus of the fact that they are literally protesting innocent people getting murdered with the perpetrators often getting off scot-free without any change, which puts things into perspective. I'm glad that finally it seems that people are actually listening.
 
Of note, this patient is already on an antipsychotic... on top of all those meds I listed. So what else you do if not intubation? Patient is hitting bed rails and head...spitting and hitting at staffs...despite vest and four point restraints...what will you do lol?

I only mentioned talking because you mentioned and seems to think it works every time lol...

I strongly believe most of the times you don’t manage these patients in ICU because it is not appropriate for a psych consult at this time...A toxicologist is qualified to deal w a tox patients lol...indeed my hospital is the only in the state has a toxicology department and we have 10+ level I hospitals and patients were transferred to my hospital for this...if it simply can be managed by a psych, I don’t think we get these patients at all...even if you see patients in ICU you tend to see them after they already calm down...Again I was on psych and my attending also had a patient transfer to icu for social intubation

Yeah, the bottom line is that you, as an MS3, know better what my job is than I do...

Also, the more you talk about your hospital, the more convinced I am you didn't actually learn what was happening and why.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
That doesn't even make sense. Agitated patients are transferred to your hospital so that toxicology can intubate them for being violent? That's literally what you're telling me.

But yeah, the bottom line is that you, as an MS3, know better what my job is than I do...
Yes, these are tox patients who are transferred to my hospital...not just for intubation obviously...but it is what we have to do to some at the end to keep them and others safe...and manage their other medical problems...in ICU...usually only need it for 1-2 days until the drug wear off...

I have health care experience prior to medical school...We never involve psych until we feel it is appropriate or psych Often involve in...does not mean it is malpractice lol...we don’t do this until last effort...Problem w you as a physician is you are not the one who manage these patients and have to spend more than “15 mins” w patients at bedside...you are not the one who hold them down...since I spend time at bed side, I understand how tough it is to keep patients and staffs safe...some needs social intubation...
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: 1 user
Damn this thread was so entertaining I could hardly breathe
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 2 users
Yes, these are tox patients who are transferred to my hospital...not just for intubation obviously...but it is what we have to do to some at the end to keep them and others safe...and manage their other medical problems...in ICU...usually only need it for 1-2 days until the drug wear off...

I have health care experience prior to medical school...We never involve psych until we feel it is appropriate or psych Often involve in...does not mean it is malpractice lol...we don’t do this until last effort...Problem w you as a physician is you are not the one who manage these patients and have to spend more than “15 mins” w patients at bedside...you are not the one who hold them down...since I spend time at bed side, I understand how tough it is to keep patients and staffs safe...some needs social intubation...

I agree with Mass Effect here-intubating someone just because they’re agitated does not sound appropriate. To the best of my knowledge, my med school/residency attendings only intubated for two reasons-impending (or actual) respiratory failure, and for surgery.

If what you mean is you have to snow them to get them calmed down/safe enough for both themselves and for staff, and then you unfortunately put them into respiratory failure and now they need to be intubated, I can understand that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I agree with Mass Effect here-intubating someone just because they’re agitated does not sound appropriate. To the best of my knowledge, my med school/residency attendings only intubated for two reasons-impending (or actual) respiratory failure, and for surgery.

If what you mean is you have to snow them to get them calmed down/safe enough for both themselves and for staff, and then you unfortunately put them into respiratory failure and now they need to be intubated, I can understand that.
Yes lol...intubation is to safely sedate they...intubation without appropriate sedation is worse they self extubate lol....we do it before resp failure because we know we would have to give a lot...versed fen propofol precedex and Valium 10 q 1...n still kicking the bed ‍♀️
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top