Riots in Ferguson

Trans_Maro wrote: Too bad there isn't some way to hold the media accountable for "stoking the fires" as it were. I'm sure they're to blame for a lot of this, considering the way the stories are distorted.

THIS ^^^

What I heard from the media over the weekend before they made the announcement was basically "This white cop killed one of YOUR people, and it looks like he's gonna get away with it. Now what are YOU PEOPLE gonna do about it!?" Along with "Hey 'White America!' Them black folk are gonna start wreckin E36 M3! Grab a cold beer and some popcorn and get your live coverage of the carnage here!!!"

Disgusting. Depraved. And equally saddening and disturbing that that's exactly what happened.

Well said Poopy.

RE: the Garner case, I don't think it's as clear cut as the Brown case, as the officer may have violated NYPD policy or whatever, but...

... if you are saying (or "yelling" as the protestors claim) the words "I can't breathe"... THAT MEANS THAT YOU CAN BREATHE, because enough air is getting into your lungs that you can then force it out through constricted vocal chords to make sounds and words. You might not be able to breathe well and it might be uncomfortable or even panic-inducing, but if you can speak, you can breathe. If you are actually in a proper chokehold, the only thing coming out of your mouth would be "ACKCHKCHK" or "---------" (nothing). I've been on the giving and receiving ends of enough chokeholds to be able to speak to this with some authority

In reply to Wally:

Wally, people just want a reason to stir up crap. In that case, an indictment would have led to the same outcome. Just with months more of media coverage and the same or worse reaction when found not guilty.

In reply to Wally:

My point in my previous post was not that there was no wrong done, but that the officer himself did nothing wrong. The headlock move was actually taught to him in the police academy, so thus him using it could not have been in the wrong since it was part of his training. However, I am not opposed to the NYPD looking at and revising their policies. When I see the video I feel that the officer should have tased Eric Garner rather than putting him in a headlock (physical force is always a gray area).

Wrong may have been done, but it was not by the individual officer. What might need to be looked at is the training of the officers and the NYPD's policies. You can't blame the man for acting on what he was taught, it just doesn't make sense. This is likely the main reason why it didn't go to trial -- there was no evidence that the officer himself did anything out of line.

I can understand why there was no indictment, but I also understand why people are upset. Garner did not deserve to die and it was very sad that the outcome was such. His crime was not equal to what ended up going down. However, no one intended for him to die.

However, I would like to see the NYPD own up to it rather than throw their own officer under the bus for just doing what he was taught.

Zomby Woof wrote:

Trans_Maro wrote: Too bad there isn't some way to hold the media accountable for "stoking the fires" as it were. I'm sure they're to blame for a lot of this, considering the way the stories are distorted.

It's coming and when it happens, everybody will be looking for a way to make the media pay (which has had a free ride for a long time) for pretty much everything they can get away with. And the media will be reporting on it. And nothing will change.

The media does need to be held accountable for their actions. It's ridiculous. They say whatever they want to say and nothing happens, even if they're the one's making the problem in the first place. Either way, there isn't a whole lot we can do about that...

aircooled wrote:

Wally wrote: The reason I feel there should have been an indictment is that in NY the grand jury simply was to see if the evidence showed if the officer's actions could have led to the suspects death, not to find if he was criminally guilty....

From what I hear, that really is the "problem" they should be protesting / trying to change. The prosecutor that is presenting these cases to the grand jurys against these officers, is the same prosecutor that works WITH these officers on most all other case to prosecute criminals. It's a bit of a "self-policing" situation.

Here is one thing I can definitely agree with: Self-policing is a load of bull. You just can't expect the police department that hired the cop to also investigate their own. It doesn't make sense. Even so, if they had changed anything about which prosecutor was pursuing the indictment then things would have been skewed and one could argue it would not make for a fair outcome.

I know that in Canada they have the SIU which investigates instances where force was used. It's a much better idea than having friends investigate friends like here in the USA.

One thing overlooked in the Garner case is the responsibility of Garner himself putting himself in that situation. He had a series of health issues that contributed to his death. He chose a line of "work" that with all probability, would eventually conflict with his medical needs. He was arrested numerous times in the past, and he resisted arrest this time. It was very reasonable to predict that this could lead to a physical altercation, for which he was not fit. For many strenuous jobs (including becoming a police officer) you need to pass a physical. I doubt Garner took one for his "job." Is it the responsibility of the police to do a medical screening before they apprehend a suspect? I'd argue that if your health doesn't mean enough to you, why should it matter to the police? What if a criminal had a rare disease that made his bones brittle- and he ran from the police. Would it be their fault when they tackle him and break 42 of his bones?

EveryQuarterMile wrote:

aircooled wrote:

Wally wrote: The reason I feel there should have been an indictment is that in NY the grand jury simply was to see if the evidence showed if the officer's actions could have led to the suspects death, not to find if he was criminally guilty....

From what I hear, that really is the "problem" they should be protesting / trying to change. The prosecutor that is presenting these cases to the grand jurys against these officers, is the same prosecutor that works WITH these officers on most all other case to prosecute criminals. It's a bit of a "self-policing" situation.

Here is one thing I can definitely agree with: Self-policing is a load of bull. You just can't expect the police department that hired the cop to also investigate their own. It doesn't make sense. Even so, if they had changed anything about which prosecutor was pursuing the indictment then things would have been skewed and one could argue it would not make for a fair outcome. I know that in Canada they have the SIU which investigates instances where force was used. It's a much better idea than having friends investigate friends like here in the USA.

except that an Internal Affairs department is the most hated of all cops (by the other cops)

cops investigating cops

wbjones wrote: ...except that an Internal Affairs department is the most hated of all cops (by the other cops) cops investigating cops

Yes, which only strengthens the point. IA has an adversarial relationship with the rest of the department. The prosecutor almost always works with the department.

aircooled wrote:

wbjones wrote: ...except that an Internal Affairs department is the most hated of all cops (by the other cops) cops investigating cops

Yes, which only strengthens the point. IA has an adversarial relationship with the rest of the department. The prosecutor almost always works with the department.

Internal Affairs investigates issues between cops, not between cops and the community. Their adversarial relationship with the department makes them effective. It actually works fairly well. IA is out of the job if they let cops off the hook.

There are certainly flaws when it comes to a prosecutor prosecuting cops, but that is an issue in the justice system itself. However, most prosecutors do not have a direct relationship with any cops except those in high up administrative roles. But in reality prosecutors simply present the evidence to the grand jury, nothing more. Sure, some out there may be questionable, but I don't believe this applies to Darren Wilson or the Eric Garner case.

Boost_Crazy wrote: One thing overlooked in the Garner case is the responsibility of Garner himself putting himself in that situation. He had a series of health issues that contributed to his death. He chose a line of "work" that with all probability, would eventually conflict with his medical needs. He was arrested numerous times in the past, and he resisted arrest this time. It was very reasonable to predict that this could lead to a physical altercation, for which he was not fit. For many strenuous jobs (including becoming a police officer) you need to pass a physical. I doubt Garner took one for his "job." Is it the responsibility of the police to do a medical screening before they apprehend a suspect? I'd argue that if your health doesn't mean enough to you, why should it matter to the police? What if a criminal had a rare disease that made his bones brittle- and he ran from the police. Would it be their fault when they tackle him and break 42 of his bones?

This is definitely true. People are very happy to ignore the fact that Eric Garner resisted arrest and the fact that Michael Brown attacked Darren Wilson. If someone places themselves in that situation then they are at least partially responsible for what comes as a result.

Wally wrote: On occasion you get an officer who is tired of arresting the same guy over and over again and his temper gets the best of him. From all the evidence that has been released this is what happened which shows he was negligent. I don't believe it was intensional but it is certainly worth of a trial to see all the facts. I doubt he would be convicted criminally but going through the process would have ensued everyone acted correctly.

This is where the issue of racial bias among police really gets mixed up in this. It's not about police being out to get black people or being overtly racist. It's the subtle tendency to behave just a bit differently. For example, studies show police practicing with shoot/don't shoot pop-up targets are more likely to shoot a picture of an unarmed black man than an unarmed white man (black and white cops had the same tendency). Cops are just a bit more likely to use a bit more force a little bit sooner.

If this suspect had been white, would he have maybe not resorted immediately to the neck lock? Or maybe not squeezed quite as tight and damaged his throat? It's impossible to prove because it's about subtle degrees of unconscious tendency, not an active decision.

From the video, I don't really think I buy the "headlock" argument. Garner was so big, the officer had to hop up to get his arm around his neck, and his neck was too thick to wrap around it properly. Body mechanics said he wasn't going to get his arm in the correct position, and that is the primary cause of Garner's death. The cop was doing it wrong. He should have realized that we was not going to be able to do it right, but probably didn't because he was frustrated. That says "negligence" to me.

The push on the NYPD to police "quality of life" crimes was probably also a factor to the cop being irritated. That policy lead to these officers dealing over and over with the same guy involved in something petty.

Beer Baron wrote: This is where the issue of racial bias among police really gets mixed up in this. It's not about police being out to get black people or being overtly racist. It's the subtle tendency to behave just a bit differently. For example, studies show police practicing with shoot/don't shoot pop-up targets are more likely to shoot a picture of an unarmed black man than an unarmed white man (black and white cops had the same tendency). Cops are just a bit more likely to use a bit more force a little bit sooner.

Don't forget to mention that also in these silly studies and in actual practice, it is the Black officers who show the STRONGEST bias towards black folks, and most likely to use force against black folks..

Instead of working so hard to try and get people to hate police, and forming a lynch mob everytime some idiot picks a fight with a cop...

Why don't we work towards breaking down that bias by getting black folks to engage in less crime?

Be a mentor, Hook up with Big Brothers, Big Sisters.. Whatever...

Just stop teaching people to be victims... please...

This is the kind of thread I wish wasn't on this site, as it makes me think so much less of people I otherwise like very much.

I don't know,I think this thread has had the most positive discourse out of any of this nature in recent memory. Certainly going better than the one where all the bikers attacked the dude in the range rover.

In reply to Tim Baxter:

I thought we were all doing a pretty good job of having a respectful, civilised discussion.

I've gained a lot of insight into the situation, we're on the outside up here in Canuckistan so the view is different.

EveryQuarterMile wrote:

Zomby Woof wrote:

Trans_Maro wrote: Too bad there isn't some way to hold the media accountable for "stoking the fires" as it were. I'm sure they're to blame for a lot of this, considering the way the stories are distorted.

It's coming and when it happens, everybody will be looking for a way to make the media pay (which has had a free ride for a long time) for pretty much everything they can get away with. And the media will be reporting on it. And nothing will change.

The media does need to be held accountable for their actions. It's ridiculous. They say whatever they want to say and nothing happens, even if they're the one's making the problem in the first place. Either way, there isn't a whole lot we can do about that...

The SIU in Canada is made up of police officers from other detachments Cops are the same as Mobsters if you rat one of your own out your dead.

Only way you will ever get a true evaluation would be to have a civilian review board but the we would we truly be impartial ??

Beer Baron wrote: From the video, I don't really think I buy the "headlock" argument. Garner was so big, the officer had to hop up to get his arm around his neck, and his neck was too thick to wrap around it properly. Body mechanics said he wasn't going to get his arm in the correct position, and that is the primary cause of Garner's death. The cop was doing it wrong. He should have realized that we was not going to be able to do it right, but probably didn't because he was frustrated. That says "negligence" to me. The push on the NYPD to police "quality of life" crimes was probably also a factor to the cop being irritated. That policy lead to these officers dealing over and over with the same guy involved in something petty.

This is where I think the officer's negligence comes in also. Here was a little guy who was going to show this big lumbering oaf who was boss and have something to joke about later with his buddies how he took down a giant brother. I've watched the police fill vans with these guys over the summer at the Staten Island Ferry terminal and none of them needed to be wrestled to the ground. If anything rather than racism this is a Napoleon complex gone too far but it is still the individual's action not a department policy. I am not discounting the roll that Garner's health played in this and why a simple headlock killed him but that tackling him was unnecessary in the first place. His health was certainly a factor which is why I don't think giving the officers tasers would have helped as a tasering would likely have caused him to have a heart attack.

Throughout the video from the takedown to the EMTs not helping him the way he was treated was wrong and not something people should expect for their tax dollars.

Tim Baxter wrote: This is the kind of thread I wish wasn't on this site, as it makes me think so much less of people I otherwise like very much.

This is the most civilized discussion I've seen in days. You should have been at work when we talked about Hootie dinging White Christmas in Rockefeller Center.

Wally wrote: This is where I think the officer's negligence comes in also. Here was a little guy who was going to show this big lumbering oaf who was boss and have something to joke about later with his buddies how he took down a giant brother. I've watched the police fill vans with these guys over the summer at the Staten Island Ferry terminal and none of them needed to be wrestled to the ground. If anything rather than racism this is a Napoleon complex gone too far but it is still the individual's action not a department policy. I am not discounting the roll that Garner's health played in this and why a simple headlock killed him but that tackling him was unnecessary in the first place. His health was certainly a factor which is why I don't think giving the officers tasers would have helped as a tasering would likely have caused him to have a heart attack.

How long do you think the officers were standing there arguing with that big fat idiot before his friend (who is currently serving time for a weapons charge) turned on the camera and that scene ensued?

Was there any struggle before Napoleon brought him to the ground?

How long did it take for 6+ police officers to arrive on the scene... and why?

Tim Baxter wrote: This is the kind of thread I wish wasn't on this site, as it makes me think so much less of people I otherwise like very much.

Thanks Tim!!

While the thread has remained civil . . . The idea/thought of "he deserved it" being ok befuddles me to no end. No one deserves to be killed. What stops the police from killing civilians for petty crimes? Apparently nothing . . . And some folks appear to indicate that is ok . . . When in truth, it isn't ok.

If Mr. Brown conducted himself inappropriately (don't know, I wasn't there), was it right for him to be killed and left in the streets?

For Tamir Rice, was it appropriate for officers to kill a person in an open carry state where they thought he was in his 20s?

For Mr. Brisbon, was it appropriate for officers to give chase because he removed some from his vehicle then killed?

For Mr. Gurley, was it appropriate for an officer to "accidentally" discharge his service weapon and be killed?

For Mr. Garner, was it appropriate to be killed over selling some loose cigarettes?

For Mr. Jones, was it appropriate to be shot for retieving his license at the request of the officer?

Why are civilians/citizens treated as guilty and judgement executed without going to trial? Why is ok to use force, possibly deadly force, if the SUSPECT is resisting arrest? Why are we, the people, assumed guilty or labelled by law enforcement as criminals for ANY law (even obscure and petty) that is broken?

These are the questions we should be asking; not blaming the victim for having health issues, not blaming a 12 yr old with an airsoft gun, not blaming the parents for not having "the talk" with their sons . . .

I promise you, if one of your close friends or family members were killed by the police for a petty reason, many of these "he deserved it", blasé attitudes would disappear.

ronholm wrote: How long do you think the officers were standing there arguing with that big fat idiot before his friend (who is currently serving time for a weapons charge) turned on the camera and that scene ensued? Was there any struggle before Napoleon brought him to the ground? How long did it take for 6+ police officers to arrive on the scene... and why?

Does any of that actually matter in how they ultimately handled the situation? Police have a E36 M3ty, thankless, frustrating, and hazardous job to do. But they have to perform that job professionally. They must be held to a higher standard as the executors of the law. Being frustrated does not excuse negligence. Even breaking the law and resisting arrest does not excuse negligence or excessive use of force.

Even after he was detained the EMTs seemed to fail to do their job. That is an issue.

And referring to the guy being detained as "that big fat idiot" does not help these discussions. It is as inappropriate as it would be to refer to the cop as "that angry little hothead". People on both extremes of these discussions are engaging in character attacks on the people they disagree with, and all it does is degrade the level of conversation we are actually able to have.

Strike_Zero wrote: While the thread has remained civil . . . The idea/thought of "he deserved it" being ok befuddles me to no end. No one deserves to be killed. What stops the police from killing civilians for petty crimes? Apparently nothing . . . And some folks appear to indicate that is ok . . . When in truth, it isn't ok.

I fully agree that what these people had done, they didn't deserve to be killed for. All of these incidents are unfortunate. The flip side that friends I speak with in other parts of the internet seem to miss is that police do have the right to defend themselves if they reasonably feel their lives are in danger. Police don't deserve to lose their lives either just for trying to serve their community. Sometimes it is impossible to tell ahead of time what level of threat a suspect actually poses.

I probably shouldn't have used "big fat idiot"... But seriously my wife works at a jail. I have seen these situations play out at least 100 times on film and more than enough times in person. Those officers didn't just jump Eric Garner in the street without cause, I ain't buying it. The story is there was a fight going on... and OF course (notice my eyes rolling here) The kind 'father' Eric was just trying to break it up.

His pleas of "I wasn't doing nothing" don't impress me. It looks like officers had tried for some time to reason with the (excuse me) idiot, and he refused. So they brought him to the ground as safely as they could. You will note "I can't breath" is going on LONG after he as been let go. It isn't a genuine cry for help, it was a battle cry. Of course on camera the officers look annoyed and a bit angry. They were surrounded by a mob of idiots looking to do nothing other than provoke them. Put yourself in that situation and see how long you hold up. You have to be able to give the Officers credit for that.

I don't disagree the EMT's could have been more helpful. Around here though the EMT's get pretty sick and tired of getting bit, spit on, punched ect. by guys they are trying to help. All the perp on the ground sees is another badge. and Eric Garner was still fighting even when in handcuffs. You don't have the full story from the video clip forwarded by a criminal whose sole purpose for shooting the clip, and selectively editing it before posting, was to highlight police brutality.

Lets really help people by giving them real role models, lets not waste time helping them find excuses for stupidity.

In reply to ronholm:

Not long at all. The two guys in plain clothes don't go around alone doing these busts. The six officers most likely all came together. I would be willing to bet the entire encounter lasted less than 10 minutes.

The guy doing the filming was locked up a few days after he shot the video for something unrelated but that is irrelevant. During the video he stood back and filmed never getting in the way like a lot of idiots. He is a piece of crap and with police following 24/7 was bound to do something stupid but he's not important to this case, just a bystander.