Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘Excited delirium’, used by police to justify brutality, is junk science

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 62 posts

Re: ‘Excited delirium’, used by police to justify brutality, is junk science

#31

Post by crooked-v »

jirdperson wrote: post #20
ve55 wrote: post #5

Excited delirium is a very well-known and documented phenomenon, primarily in individuals that are on excessive doses of stimulants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_delirium#Cause However, nothing about its existence implies anything about police brutality. For some reason the article thinks it needs to deny the existence of something that obviously exists in order to argue against police brutality. This is a s…

> However, nothing about its existence implies anything about police brutality. As I read it, the article didn't seem to be implying that the existence of "excited delirium" itself implies something about police brutality. I took their argument to be that police departments' misapplication and/or overuse of the concept had led to increased instances police brutality. Not knowing anything else about this issue, it doe…

One example is cited immediately in this article: https://www.floridatoday.com/in-depth/news/2019/10/24/excite...

> But in those deaths where there was no drug use and the toxicology came back negative, the only common denominator in virtually every case was the involvement of law enforcement, such as in the case of Gregory Lloyd Edwards.

> According to the autopsy report, Edwards died of "excited delirium and complications" due to "hyperactive and violent state with subsequent restraint."

Re: ‘Excited delirium’, used by police to justify brutality, is junk science

#32

Post by crooked-v »

refurb wrote: post #30

Science doesn’t have a great explanation for everything, but that doesn’t make it junk science. Suffice to say it’s not uncommon for people to die suddenly when they encounter stressful situations, even not related to police interactions. I remember reading about a case where a person fell through the ice on a lake, the water never going over his head. He was pulled out immediately, but died of cardiac arrest. What h…

> some of these sudden deaths

https://www.floridatoday.com/in-depth/news/2019/10/24/excite...

> For decades, critics of using "excited delirium" as a cause of death have expressed concern that the term appears almost exclusively on medical reports for deaths in custody or that otherwise involve law enforcement.

> About two-thirds of the cases reviewed by FLORIDA TODAY fit that bill. A majority of those cases are complicated by the presence of illegal stimulant drugs like cocaine or methamphetamine. But in those deaths where there was no drug use and the toxicology came back negative, the only common denominator in virtually every case was the involvement of law enforcement, such as in the case of Gregory Lloyd Edwards.

Re: ‘Excited delirium’, used by police to justify brutality, is junk science

#33

Post by throwaway29102 »

at_a_remove wrote: post #19
oxygenmolds wrote: post #18

How long are we going to keep ignoring the fact that statistics do not show any racial bias in police killings, and if anything they show bias against white perpetrators rather than black?

I mean, if you have citations for these, trot them out.

For someone with all the answers, he’s awfully quiet...

Re: ‘Excited delirium’, used by police to justify brutality, is junk science

#34

Post by novia »

Simulacra wrote: post #25
triceratops wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Wikipedia article you linked: "The condition is not recognized by the American Psychiatric Association, American Medical Association or the World Health Organization." It's under the section titled "Controversy_related_to_policing_techniques".[1] Just because something is well-known and documented doesn't mean it's recognized as a medical or psychological condition. Sometimes it can be that medicine hasn't c…

It is curious that the section you identified was added June 17th, 2020.

Why? It's July.

Re: ‘Excited delirium’, used by police to justify brutality, is junk science

#35

Post by newacct583 »

Simulacra wrote: post #25
triceratops wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Wikipedia article you linked: "The condition is not recognized by the American Psychiatric Association, American Medical Association or the World Health Organization." It's under the section titled "Controversy_related_to_policing_techniques".[1] Just because something is well-known and documented doesn't mean it's recognized as a medical or psychological condition. Sometimes it can be that medicine hasn't c…

It is curious that the section you identified was added June 17th, 2020.

That date is just when the wikipedia sentence was written, probably becuase it tracks with exactly this controversy about police violence. The facts its cites about support within the medical community certainly aren't new.

I don't know why this seems so surprising to some here. The police use loopholes like everyone else does. If this gets them off the hook for borderline use of violence, of course they'll use it. If it's used inappropriately, they should stop.

Re: ‘Excited delirium’, used by police to justify brutality, is junk science

#36

Post by AnthonyMouse »

at_a_remove wrote: post #19
oxygenmolds wrote: post #18

How long are we going to keep ignoring the fact that statistics do not show any racial bias in police killings, and if anything they show bias against white perpetrators rather than black?

I mean, if you have citations for these, trot them out.

The police kill more white people in absolute terms than black people. But white people are a larger percentage of the population, so it's still disproportionately black people. But the disproportionality goes the other way if you account for the difference in violent crime rates.

Then someone could argue that the difference in violent crime rates is itself a result of racism, and someone else could argue that that is a separate question from whether the police, rather than e.g. high school guidance counselors (or just factors like parental income), are the root cause of the disparity.

By this point there is enough space between the error bars that each side can declare victory because the other side hasn't been able to prove that their position isn't within them, even though nothing has really been decided and the level of data collection and detailed analysis required to get there is more work than anybody is ever actually willing to do.

Re: ‘Excited delirium’, used by police to justify brutality, is junk science

#37

Post by newacct583 »

refurb wrote: post #30

Science doesn’t have a great explanation for everything, but that doesn’t make it junk science. Suffice to say it’s not uncommon for people to die suddenly when they encounter stressful situations, even not related to police interactions. I remember reading about a case where a person fell through the ice on a lake, the water never going over his head. He was pulled out immediately, but died of cardiac arrest. What h…

> Science doesn’t have a great explanation for everything, but that doesn’t make it junk science.

The issue here is that some people (the police) are applying this idea as if it was a great explanation. That's what makes it junk science.

Re: ‘Excited delirium’, used by police to justify brutality, is junk science

#38

Post by gowld »

ve55 wrote: post #24
jirdperson wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, nothing about its existence implies anything about police brutality. As I read it, the article didn't seem to be implying that the existence of "excited delirium" itself implies something about police brutality. I took their argument to be that police departments' misapplication and/or overuse of the concept had led to increased instances police brutality. Not knowing anything else about this issue, it doe…

Even so, people give a lot of credence to the title, which is obviously very clickbaity.

Which title? The HN/WaPo OP sas

WaPo: "Police keep using ‘excited delirium’ to justify brutality. It’s junk science."

HN: ‘Excited delirium’, used by police to justify brutality, is junk science

Both of which are accurate statements of the key point: There is a body of junk science based on the concept of ‘Excited delirium’, used to justify plice brutality.

The fact that there is something referred to as ‘Excited delirium’ that is not used for police brutality or junk science, doesn't make the title clickbait.

Astrology is junk science, despite the fact that the constellations do exist and that a person is born under a certain configuration of stars ar the location of their birth.

Re: ‘Excited delirium’, used by police to justify brutality, is junk science

#39

Post by gowld »

Simulacra wrote: post #22

I wouldn't call it junk science. I am not a scientist but I do know of times I've gotten so emotional (and really, pick an emotion here) that I've lost myself. IMO there is a breakpoint for most people when we either get too depressed, or too manic, to fully appreciate and control our behavior. With the fight or flight response kicking in, I think we can find ample evidence of people under extreme stress or duress ju…

One detail being sort of true doesn't make the overall body of work non-junk.
Post reply on HN