Thank you, Helen, for being a calm voice of reason. You make some very good points here, and I particularly applaud your defense of the Sikhs in general. They too often get lumped in with a broader, more problematic group.
I didn't know what really happened until I read the entirety of your article. At first, I thought you were being overly academic. Thanks to the headlines and outrage I thought the cops responded to a fight between two individuals and handcuffed the one obviously stabbed and lying on the ground when the other claimed racism. I had that in my head the entire time reading your article. A summary at the top would have been useful! Thank you for clearing up the narrative.
I agree with every argument in this article, save one. You seem to have stated as fact that regardless of the actions of police, Henry's life would have ended that evening. You cannot know that. I realize that he became unresponsive just a few minutes after their arrival, but we do not know whether or not he could have been revived or prevented from entering that state if rushed to the nearest emergency room rather than being jostled, mocked, and handcuffed.
Stab wound with a knife but no obvious bleeding? That sounds very strange. Maybe if it was an ice pick (small wound channel). I would think the front of his shirt would be covered with blood. It does sound like the police could have handled it a lot better. Anyway - your government will get it sorted out.
It seems that he had remained alive and conscious for about an hour after the stabbing, but then lost consciousness and died about 3 mins after the police arrived. It could well be that the police actions, roughly pulling his arms behind his back and literally dragging him around to do this, greatly exacerbated the bleeding into the lung (which then killed him). There was no reason to handcuff him (he was not posing a threat), and without that rough handling the medics might have saved him.
Good article, good arguments. Were there any witnesses to this crime. Any reports on what started the conflict?
I strongly agree with your view against religious exemptions for carrying knives.
As for the anti-bias training of police, there may be something there. I think it is best to keep it simple - just tell the police "Don't be a bigot and try to de-escalate where possible". We need culturally neutral policies. Equal protection under the law.
Thanks for your very reasonable essay. A minor quibble: I'm not sure you know that the victim couldn't be saved. I haven't seen any medical reports, but penetrating chest wounds often compromise lung function, and if that was the cause of death (as suggested by Nowak's words), simple first-aid measures might possibly have saved him.
I certainly don't know. If (for example) his aorta or pulmonary artery was severed, very unlikely. But I doubt he'd remain conscious long enough to speak to police in that case. If the cause of death was loss of lung function secondary to an open chest cavity, probably yes. Stab wounds are dirty, and it probably would require an expert opinion after autopsy to determine.
I'm making a big assumption here, but if his injury had been assessed sooner, inserting a chest tube for drainage might have saved him. Or perhaps a chest seal dressing. Medical examiners will find out.
The ruling from the court stated that he could not be saved, although I understand this is something that is being disputed by some people who have vested interests and didn't examine the body first-hand.
Sure, but now we're in conspiracy territory where a cover-up that includes the pathologist and Coroner is involved. We can always claim that such a thing has happened and that authorities are lying to us but without evidence to suggest so, this is an unfalsifiable claim. Anti-racist activists could claim that Nowak had racially attacked Digwa and the courts were covering that up. We have to assess things based on the evidence we have, not what could be true if there is an ideologically-motivated conspiracy.
I would agree if this was a typical inquiry, but this is a case where the police, who work with the medical examiner and who work with prosecutors and judges, are involved in a potential scandal that has serious political implications. The idea that in cases like this, the public should ignore those obvious conflicts of interest and any talk of public servants being potentially compromised should be brushed aside as conspiracy theory seems a tad myopic.
No evidence of conspiracy. Vested interests maybe - lots of money involved. I'm sure the police will be sued. I agree with you. People should not jump to conclusions with no evidence. We see that way too often. US mainstream media gets that wrong quite often. Not sure about the UK.
Of course judges aren’t perfect and have institutional biases but what would be the issue in this case when the ruling was based on testimony of the medical examiner? You can read the ruling online.
I don't know of course but I read that it took him an hour to die? If that's correct I'd guess it could have been possible to save him. It's hard for me to know where to find accurate information about an incident with this much political salience
Yes I have seen a report from a Polish medic who asserted that if an ambulance had been called and he had got to the hospital which was literally close by he could actually have been saved.
I appreciate your analysis. However, the key issue - to me, at least - is the difference in the societal and political responses to what happened here and what happened in 2020.
One case warranted protests and murals; one did not. Resolving that fact is our greatest challenge.
Comparisons to George Floyd are spurious. These are both terrible cases, but the murder of a suspect in a minor crime by a police officer in a country with a long history of racial prejudice is simply very different from the murder of one civilian by another followed a mistake made by police in the heat of the moment.
It's great to see a post that attempts to lay out the facts, although the "anti-woke" are increasingly becoming unhinged if not positively cheering for racial civil war to break out.
Both countries have long histories of racial prejudice. Both cases involve the police screwing up. In the Floyd case, the carotid restraint was not necessary and likely led to his death per the medical examiner’s report. Floyd did have many serious co-morbidities.
Thank you, Helen, for being a calm voice of reason. You make some very good points here, and I particularly applaud your defense of the Sikhs in general. They too often get lumped in with a broader, more problematic group.
I didn't know what really happened until I read the entirety of your article. At first, I thought you were being overly academic. Thanks to the headlines and outrage I thought the cops responded to a fight between two individuals and handcuffed the one obviously stabbed and lying on the ground when the other claimed racism. I had that in my head the entire time reading your article. A summary at the top would have been useful! Thank you for clearing up the narrative.
I appreciated hearing your reasonable perspective on this event, Helen.
This was really good. Thank you.
I agree with every argument in this article, save one. You seem to have stated as fact that regardless of the actions of police, Henry's life would have ended that evening. You cannot know that. I realize that he became unresponsive just a few minutes after their arrival, but we do not know whether or not he could have been revived or prevented from entering that state if rushed to the nearest emergency room rather than being jostled, mocked, and handcuffed.
Stab wound with a knife but no obvious bleeding? That sounds very strange. Maybe if it was an ice pick (small wound channel). I would think the front of his shirt would be covered with blood. It does sound like the police could have handled it a lot better. Anyway - your government will get it sorted out.
It seems that he had remained alive and conscious for about an hour after the stabbing, but then lost consciousness and died about 3 mins after the police arrived. It could well be that the police actions, roughly pulling his arms behind his back and literally dragging him around to do this, greatly exacerbated the bleeding into the lung (which then killed him). There was no reason to handcuff him (he was not posing a threat), and without that rough handling the medics might have saved him.
Good article, good arguments. Were there any witnesses to this crime. Any reports on what started the conflict?
I strongly agree with your view against religious exemptions for carrying knives.
As for the anti-bias training of police, there may be something there. I think it is best to keep it simple - just tell the police "Don't be a bigot and try to de-escalate where possible". We need culturally neutral policies. Equal protection under the law.
Thanks for your very reasonable essay. A minor quibble: I'm not sure you know that the victim couldn't be saved. I haven't seen any medical reports, but penetrating chest wounds often compromise lung function, and if that was the cause of death (as suggested by Nowak's words), simple first-aid measures might possibly have saved him.
Is this the case? Everything I have seen said that he could not have been saved.
I certainly don't know. If (for example) his aorta or pulmonary artery was severed, very unlikely. But I doubt he'd remain conscious long enough to speak to police in that case. If the cause of death was loss of lung function secondary to an open chest cavity, probably yes. Stab wounds are dirty, and it probably would require an expert opinion after autopsy to determine.
I'm making a big assumption here, but if his injury had been assessed sooner, inserting a chest tube for drainage might have saved him. Or perhaps a chest seal dressing. Medical examiners will find out.
It is the pathologists report which says not.
I see - well that covers that. Any report on cause of conflict?
The ruling from the court stated that he could not be saved, although I understand this is something that is being disputed by some people who have vested interests and didn't examine the body first-hand.
Your response seems to imply that the court doesn't have vested interests. They most certainly do.
Sure, but now we're in conspiracy territory where a cover-up that includes the pathologist and Coroner is involved. We can always claim that such a thing has happened and that authorities are lying to us but without evidence to suggest so, this is an unfalsifiable claim. Anti-racist activists could claim that Nowak had racially attacked Digwa and the courts were covering that up. We have to assess things based on the evidence we have, not what could be true if there is an ideologically-motivated conspiracy.
I would agree if this was a typical inquiry, but this is a case where the police, who work with the medical examiner and who work with prosecutors and judges, are involved in a potential scandal that has serious political implications. The idea that in cases like this, the public should ignore those obvious conflicts of interest and any talk of public servants being potentially compromised should be brushed aside as conspiracy theory seems a tad myopic.
No evidence of conspiracy. Vested interests maybe - lots of money involved. I'm sure the police will be sued. I agree with you. People should not jump to conclusions with no evidence. We see that way too often. US mainstream media gets that wrong quite often. Not sure about the UK.
Of course judges aren’t perfect and have institutional biases but what would be the issue in this case when the ruling was based on testimony of the medical examiner? You can read the ruling online.
I don't know of course but I read that it took him an hour to die? If that's correct I'd guess it could have been possible to save him. It's hard for me to know where to find accurate information about an incident with this much political salience
The pathologists' report said that the severed vein could not have been accessed and repaird.
That sounds reasonably definitive. Sorry to raise what appears to be an incorrect point, based on insufficient information.
Is the pathologist report public?
Yes I have seen a report from a Polish medic who asserted that if an ambulance had been called and he had got to the hospital which was literally close by he could actually have been saved.
"...the facts of the case become secondary to the narrative....." Over and over and over again.
I appreciate your analysis. However, the key issue - to me, at least - is the difference in the societal and political responses to what happened here and what happened in 2020.
One case warranted protests and murals; one did not. Resolving that fact is our greatest challenge.
Comparisons to George Floyd are spurious. These are both terrible cases, but the murder of a suspect in a minor crime by a police officer in a country with a long history of racial prejudice is simply very different from the murder of one civilian by another followed a mistake made by police in the heat of the moment.
It's great to see a post that attempts to lay out the facts, although the "anti-woke" are increasingly becoming unhinged if not positively cheering for racial civil war to break out.
Both countries have long histories of racial prejudice. Both cases involve the police screwing up. In the Floyd case, the carotid restraint was not necessary and likely led to his death per the medical examiner’s report. Floyd did have many serious co-morbidities.
I think the point is both cases were immediately jumped on by narrative seekers.
@Helen Pluckrose
" Nevertheless, Hanlon’s Razor - Do not attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity - can be argued to apply here."
I assume that malice, malevolence, and mendacity apply to corporate and government entities regardless of competency or stupidity by actors.