I tried to read Balko's first essay when it first came out. Frankly, I thought it was terrible, and I didn't finish it. In fact, I gave up after ten or fifteen paragraphs, skimmed a bit more, then gave up on that, too. The essay was so clearly biased, so nasty in tone, and its arguments generally so dishonest and implausible, that I judg…
I tried to read Balko's first essay when it first came out. Frankly, I thought it was terrible, and I didn't finish it. In fact, I gave up after ten or fifteen paragraphs, skimmed a bit more, then gave up on that, too. The essay was so clearly biased, so nasty in tone, and its arguments generally so dishonest and implausible, that I judged it not worth my time. I was initially interested in it, though, because I had concluded long ago that Chauvin was *likely* innocent--and that it was *clear* that he had not received a fair trial. Since that time, I've sought out contrary arguments (of course)...but I found Balko's essay so off-putting that it was doing nothing but (illicitly) strengthening my commitment to the conclusion I'd already arrived at.
One argument that sticks in my mind was his MRT argument. Part of that argument is (as noted by CH, above), basically: Chauvin wasn't using the MRT (at all or, perhaps, correctly) because he didn't apply a hobble. This struck me as an absurd argument even independently of CH's point about the arrival of the ambulance. It seemed to me to amount to: Chauvin wasn't using MRT because he didn't employ all its components--in particular, the hobble. But one can partially apply techniques. And, furthermore, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the addition of a hobble would significantly add to Floyd's discomfort and stress. In effect, Balko was arguing for convicting Chauvin on a bizarre technicality: he applied (quasi?-)MRT in a way that mitigated the stress on Floyd...therefore he did not fully employ the technique...therefore he is guilty. I don't have the patience for such nonsense.
[At the very least we'd have to hear testimony from a lot of other cops and experts about such partial applications of techniques--restraint and otherwise. I'd bet money that it's very common. In what is, in effect, a fight, it's unlikely that everything always gets done perfectly and completely.]
But, to be honest, it was Balko's tone that was decisive. When I can tell from someone's tone that he has no intention of even *trying* to be objective, I'm not likely to waste my time reading his essay...
I tried to read Balko's first essay when it first came out. Frankly, I thought it was terrible, and I didn't finish it. In fact, I gave up after ten or fifteen paragraphs, skimmed a bit more, then gave up on that, too. The essay was so clearly biased, so nasty in tone, and its arguments generally so dishonest and implausible, that I judged it not worth my time. I was initially interested in it, though, because I had concluded long ago that Chauvin was *likely* innocent--and that it was *clear* that he had not received a fair trial. Since that time, I've sought out contrary arguments (of course)...but I found Balko's essay so off-putting that it was doing nothing but (illicitly) strengthening my commitment to the conclusion I'd already arrived at.
One argument that sticks in my mind was his MRT argument. Part of that argument is (as noted by CH, above), basically: Chauvin wasn't using the MRT (at all or, perhaps, correctly) because he didn't apply a hobble. This struck me as an absurd argument even independently of CH's point about the arrival of the ambulance. It seemed to me to amount to: Chauvin wasn't using MRT because he didn't employ all its components--in particular, the hobble. But one can partially apply techniques. And, furthermore, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the addition of a hobble would significantly add to Floyd's discomfort and stress. In effect, Balko was arguing for convicting Chauvin on a bizarre technicality: he applied (quasi?-)MRT in a way that mitigated the stress on Floyd...therefore he did not fully employ the technique...therefore he is guilty. I don't have the patience for such nonsense.
[At the very least we'd have to hear testimony from a lot of other cops and experts about such partial applications of techniques--restraint and otherwise. I'd bet money that it's very common. In what is, in effect, a fight, it's unlikely that everything always gets done perfectly and completely.]
But, to be honest, it was Balko's tone that was decisive. When I can tell from someone's tone that he has no intention of even *trying* to be objective, I'm not likely to waste my time reading his essay...