UrbanOhio.com

General Discussions => Current Events => Topic started by: KJP on August 14, 2014, 06:21:07 PM

Title: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 14, 2014, 06:21:07 PM
Chris Stanford ‏@StanfordKMOV  39m
Moment of silence for #MikeBrown at the Arch
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvCRx20IYAAetMb.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 14, 2014, 06:49:17 PM
Talking Points Memo ‏@TPM  2h
PHOTO: Howard University students respond to death of #Ferguson teen http://bit.ly/Ya8S9K 

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvB65j0IIAE1UU8.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 14, 2014, 07:04:26 PM
This is how the mostly white Ferguson police force responded to protests after they killed #MikeBrown.

(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10455364_10152212733471300_7405589484877278476_n.jpg?oh=1faf0dc76101be66a4b7bdb6615f35a6&oe=5465FD90)


This is what a REAL police officer looks like SERVING & PROTECTING his community. Bravo to State Police Captain Ron Johnson in #Ferguson! Keep marching and stay strong brothers and sisters of #Ferguson!#JusticeforMikeBrown

(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t1.0-9/10411218_10152213387326300_381465408699662094_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on August 14, 2014, 07:21:57 PM
Totally different scenarios, one in the middle of day, another at night after protesters turned violent.  Don't forget the police are under attack.  Over 2 dozen police cars have been destroyed, dozens of officers have been attacked & injured by rocks & even gunshots.  Everywhere you look, people have tagged "FTP" which is "F_  the Police".   
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 14, 2014, 07:35:13 PM
Totally different scenarios, one in the middle of day, another at night after protesters turned violent.  Don't forget the police are under attack.  Over 2 dozen police cars have been destroyed, dozens of officers have been attacked & injured by rocks & even gunshots.  Everywhere you look, people have tagged "FTP" which is "F_  the Police".   

Try living in a community where you have no voice and are constantly under siege by a militarized police force that treats you as a second-class citizen. Until you do, you couldn't possibly try to understand the citizens of this oppressed community who decided to respond with the only voice they had. Frankly, I'm impressed they showed so much restraint.

EDIT: and if your "blame the oppressed" viewpoints are typical of white conservatives in this country, then Ferguson will be remembered as a mild, opening battle in a civil war among the classes and races in America. I'm surprised it's taken this long. Heck, I was beginning to think the only thing that would cause a revolt in this country was a beer truck strike.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on August 14, 2014, 07:45:14 PM
^^Where are you finding these numbers? Sick of these generic articles that I keep coming across that are just skewed one way or another, or Reuters/AP copy.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on August 14, 2014, 08:14:54 PM
^^Where are you finding these numbers? Sick of these generic articles that I keep coming across that are just skewed one way or another, or Reuters/AP copy.

CNN this morning interviewed the Chief of Ferguson Police.  He gave those numbers when Chris Cuomo asked him about the militarized response. 

Totally different scenarios, one in the middle of day, another at night after protesters turned violent.  Don't forget the police are under attack.  Over 2 dozen police cars have been destroyed, dozens of officers have been attacked & injured by rocks & even gunshots.  Everywhere you look, people have tagged "FTP" which is "F_  the Police".   

Try living in a community where you have no voice and are constantly under siege by a militarized police force that treats you as a second-class citizen. Until you do, you couldn't possibly try to understand the citizens of this oppressed community who decided to respond with the only voice they had. Frankly, I'm impressed they showed so much restraint.

Keep waging the class war KJP,  because rioting and looting a Walmart and burning down a gas station is the way to equality...   
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 14, 2014, 08:22:44 PM
Keep waging the class war KJP,  because rioting and looting a Walmart and burning down a gas station is the way to equality...   

I'm not waging it. I'm watching it.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: jjames0408 on August 14, 2014, 08:23:10 PM
Totally different scenarios, one in the middle of day, another at night after protesters turned violent.  Don't forget the police are under attack.  Over 2 dozen police cars have been destroyed, dozens of officers have been attacked & injured by rocks & even gunshots.  Everywhere you look, people have tagged "FTP" which is "F_  the Police".   
You don't think that the police have been a little too quick to pull triggers on black men recently? Black men who have time and time again been unarmed with no criminal record? And if they police do it that means citizens can do it too right?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: DM4 on August 14, 2014, 08:26:59 PM
NSFW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU1jXuTrm4Y
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: DeanSheen on August 14, 2014, 08:45:32 PM
Keep waging the class war KJP,  because rioting and looting a Walmart and burning down a gas station is the way to equality...   

I'm not waging it. I'm watching it.

The Class War meme only works on low information individuals.  There has been an avalanche of evidence based economic studies this past year or so that have detailed exactly what is going on economically in this country.

The Class war is being waged on the 99% and these people, in the bottom third of the 99% are really being hit hard. 

I tire of this looting response as well but these people are poor, frustrated, and have been dealing with this situation in their community for a long time.  I'm not sure how you raise education, awareness and quality of life enough in communities like these to stop it when abuses of force that is murder occurs within their borders.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on August 14, 2014, 08:56:15 PM
I think there are alot of issues at play here in the Ferguson situation.  Racial inequality, a police force that doesn't represent its citizens, an unjustified killing, and a lot of outsiders, including those in the media, trying to exploit the situation.  How much of the rioting & violence is actual acting out due to the oppression and how much is just acting up for the camera trucks which are now on every corner of the town?  The truth will come out, the officer will be charged & convicted of wrongful death, but what will really change for the residents of Ferguson? 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Whipjacka on August 14, 2014, 08:57:43 PM
I don't think this is a justifiable reaction to maintain the peace when the protests are about the police acting with general impunity.  The militarization of local police is the single most compelling reason, in my estimation, to support the second amendment.

Rand Paul: We Must Demilitarize the Police
Sen. Rand Paul @SenRandPaul

http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KyleCincy on August 14, 2014, 09:05:42 PM
How many blacks murder other blacks? Anyone thinks the cop got up in the morning, gotta kill me a young black guy today.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Whipjacka on August 14, 2014, 09:09:40 PM
so, you're saying that blacks killing other blacks is the reason why this cop killed an unarmed person?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 14, 2014, 09:16:11 PM
How many blacks murder other blacks? Anyone thinks the cop got up in the morning, gotta kill me a young black guy today.


Probably at least as many whites who murder whites. Or other ethnic groups murdering within their own groups. That's not even close to the point. The point is that police are supposed to make us feel safer. Police operate at the behest of elected officials. And elected officials often operate at the behest of wealthy campaign contributors. Of course this is over-simplification. But when a community is largely populated with a minority group but their elected officials are mostly white as is the police force, then a reasonable conclusion is that the people are not being represented by those overseeing them. That's when frustrations bubble up and boil over when the lid is taken off by a police officer killing an unarmed kid with no history of trouble.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on August 14, 2014, 09:17:29 PM
No, what he's saying is, people only get upset when it is white on black shootings.  There has been nothing proven as yet, the only evidence from the police reports says that someone was actually fighting in the police car for the officer's gun. If true, that should get you shot every time!  The "other person", the only eyewitness said "he was innocent".  Everyone says they are innocent! 

Pictures of people lighting Molotov cocktails is always good for a peaceful protest.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on August 14, 2014, 09:23:33 PM
how ironic would it be if the cop turned out to not be white
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 14, 2014, 09:26:06 PM
No, what he's saying is, people only get upset when it is white on black shootings.  There has been nothing proven as yet, the only evidence from the police reports says that someone was actually fighting in the police car for the officer's gun. If true, that should get you shot every time!  The "other person", the only eyewitness said "he was innocent".  Everyone says they are innocent! 

Pictures of people lighting Molotov cocktails is always good for a peaceful protest.

You're assuming the police officer didn't make up the story to justify his actions. Sorry, but I've seen too many cops who assume the worst from minorities, and some of the comments in this thread show that some of you feel the same way as they do. You folks scare me and make me realize how bad things have gotten in this country.

Once a black police officer (the chief of the state police) showed up to take command, the protests got very peaceful. He led the protest parade himself. Why did it get peaceful? Because the people felt like they were being respected as people. Isn't that amazing how that works? Stop telling people how they should feel. Go listen to them, ESPECIALLY if you can't understand why they do what they do. Anything else just makes things worse.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KyleCincy on August 14, 2014, 09:30:36 PM
No, what he's saying is, people only get upset when it is white on black shootings.  There has been nothing proven as yet, the only evidence from the police reports says that someone was actually fighting in the police car for the officer's gun. If true, that should get you shot every time!  The "other person", the only eyewitness said "he was innocent".  Everyone says they are innocent! 

Pictures of people lighting Molotov cocktails is always good for a peaceful protest.

Yep, this. You also never see violent protests when a black cop takes down another black person.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KyleCincy on August 14, 2014, 09:31:40 PM
how ironic would it be if the cop turned out to not be white
He is probably white. Cops would have marched out that he is black by now.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 14, 2014, 09:44:53 PM
Kyle, I realize this is an emotional subject, but we're not going to call someone else stupid. Instead, if you really care about what someone's response was to you, ask him why he said it.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Clevelander17 on August 14, 2014, 09:52:44 PM
Wow, what a mess. You can highlight almost every single one of our country's major problems on display here.

Two points, one to impugn both sides:

1) If your response to this event is to loot businesses in your neighborhood (likely owned by your neighbors), you're a complete fool. Protesting and marching, that makes sense. Breaking a window and stealing as many bottles of wine that you can carry? That shows some true ignorance and opportunism and does nothing to improve things in your community.

2) I think we have a newer generation of police officers that are even more anxious to use force, even when unnecessary. After all, they're being recruiting using the following types of videos:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/05/05/another-troubling-police-recruiting-video/

Scary stuff.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 14, 2014, 09:55:55 PM
Agreed on both counts.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KyleCincy on August 14, 2014, 10:04:46 PM
Kyle, I realize this is an emotional subject, but we're not going to call someone else stupid. Instead, if you really care about what someone's response was to you, ask him why he said it.

What he did was straight crap. You know it and I know it. Sometimes you gotta call it out. I did.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 14, 2014, 10:17:19 PM
What he did was straight crap. You know it and I know it. Sometimes you gotta call it out. I did.

No, he was calling YOU out. You should've known it.

And so is Bill Maher (this is from THREE WEEKS AGO)........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs9LNAI0nBc
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: OCtoCincy on August 14, 2014, 10:24:29 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvCsSlsIYAApM1n.jpg:large)

This was Thursday.  The City of St Louis police took over for the County of St Louis police. 

The riot and lawlessness and chaos was about horrible police leadership.  Not about white vs. black.  There are dozens of photos of St Louis City police (white and black) today who have been marching with protestors or working with them peacefully.  The militarization of police doesn't help, and neither does the old school system of policing.  You bad, me good. Relationships, understanding, trust, openness, etc. is what is lacking in a poorly managed, poorly trained suburban police force not accustomed to dealing with diverse groups of people, especially in emotional and highly charged circumstances such as after the fatal shooting of an unarmed teen followed by an intense, over the top police response.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 15, 2014, 05:31:45 AM
"@CityLab: Ferguson is mostly black. Why is its government so white? http://t.co/d1M9foO9fN via @slate #cityreads"
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 15, 2014, 05:41:19 AM
"@CityLab: Ferguson is mostly black. Why is its government so white? http://t.co/d1M9foO9fN via @slate #cityreads"
In other words, democracy doesn’t always serve the poor.
or, democracy doesn't always serve the people who don't participate.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 15, 2014, 06:55:18 AM
Renamed thread.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 15, 2014, 07:08:27 AM
Have the police put out a statement as to what happened between the cop & Brown?
The various accounts that I have heard all seem to be nonsensical.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 15, 2014, 07:47:31 AM
"@CityLab: Ferguson is mostly black. Why is its government so white? http://t.co/d1M9foO9fN via @slate #cityreads"
In other words, democracy doesn’t always ,, the poor.
or, democracies doesn't always serve the people who don't participate.

It would be nice if it were that simple. Just because you are legally allowed to vote, doesn't guarantee that you can. Lack of physical access to polls, gerrymandering, and scare tactics to prevent minorities from voting have proven disgustingly effective at reducing minority participation. Nor can you choose who appears on the ballot. A corrupt political machine does that for you. And sometimes the most frustrating thing is that so many are complicit in it by being so dismissive about it. A human being can only take so much. But that anger and frustration needs to be focused more productively by leaders who have yet to emerge.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: 8Titles on August 15, 2014, 08:16:45 AM
I'm going to assume white unarmed people are NEVER shot or killed by the Police, because I never see it reported in the media??
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 15, 2014, 08:18:18 AM
Anytime there is unrest, some idiots will take advantage of it.  I would bet that 95% or more of people descending on Ferguson are engaging in peaceful protests.  Some news outlets will probably choose to nearly entirely focus on the other 5% because that is what their viewers want to see.

For the record, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of black men killed by the police each and every year.  Please stop acting like there is a public outcry each and every time it happens.  There isn't and nobody can debate that.  The vast majority of the shootings are justified and even some of the ones which are not do not get any attention.

Ironically, the same people who are shouting down at these protesters are the same ones who were cheering on Cliven Bundy and his militia as they pointed high-powered firearms at federal officials and engaged in their own form of lawlessness.  I can't figure out what is different, other than in this situation we are dealing with a dead kid and the police in Nevada actually backed off for whatever reason
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 15, 2014, 08:39:41 AM
"@CityLab: Ferguson is mostly black. Why is its government so white? http://t.co/d1M9foO9fN via @slate #cityreads"
In other words, democracy doesn’t always ,, the poor.
or, democracies doesn't always serve the people who don't participate.

It would be nice if it were that simple. Just because you are legally allowed to vote, doesn't guarantee that you can. Lack of physical access to polls, gerrymandering, and scare tactics to prevent minorities from voting have proven disgustingly effective at reducing minority participation. Nor can you choose who appears on the ballot. A corrupt political machine does that for you. And sometimes the most frustrating thing is that so many are complicit in it by being so dismissive about it. A human being can only take so much. But that anger and frustration needs to be focused more productively by leaders who have yet to emerge.
I am an uber privileged white Protestant male sitting on top of the world here.
No white can be elected in my state districts & my congressional district is pretty much locked up by White Catholics
But I can get an absentee ballot without a drivers license just fine.
I just don't put much ink on it.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on August 15, 2014, 08:49:48 AM
Ironically, the same people who are shouting down at these protesters are the same ones who were cheering on Cliven Bundy and his militia as they pointed high-powered firearms at federal officials and engaged in their own form of lawlessness.  I can't figure out what is different, other than in this situation we are dealing with a dead kid and the police in Nevada actually backed off for whatever reason

You have no evidence of this.

It would be nice if it were that simple. Just because you are legally allowed to vote, doesn't guarantee that you can. Lack of physical access to polls, gerrymandering, and scare tactics to prevent minorities from voting have proven disgustingly effective at reducing minority participation. Nor can you choose who appears on the ballot. A corrupt political machine does that for you. And sometimes the most frustrating thing is that so many are complicit in it by being so dismissive about it. A human being can only take so much. But that anger and frustration needs to be focused more productively by leaders who have yet to emerge.

Yes, over history, gerrymandering, scare tactics are only tools of the Right.  Just ask the black panthers monitoring the polls in Philly.

As it turns out, just another common criminal.  But, he was going to college.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 15, 2014, 08:51:18 AM

Calls to demilitarize the police now sweeping the nation: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/15/us/ferguson-missouri-in-wake-of-clashes-calls-to-demilitarize-police.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSum&module=a-lede-package-region&region=lede-package&WT.nav=lede-package&_r=0

Here's evidence that it works: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/14/with-highway-patrol-hugs-and-kisses-replace-tear-gas-in-ferguson/
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Chris DoorDashian on August 15, 2014, 08:53:13 AM
Quote
As it turns out, just another common criminal.

Incorrect.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2014/08/13/michael-brown-had-no-criminal-record.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/michael-brown-no-record/14041457/
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: jjames0408 on August 15, 2014, 08:56:26 AM
Ironically, the same people who are shouting down at these protesters are the same ones who were cheering on Cliven Bundy and his militia as they pointed high-powered firearms at federal officials and engaged in their own form of lawlessness.  I can't figure out what is different, other than in this situation we are dealing with a dead kid and the police in Nevada actually backed off for whatever reason

You have no evidence of this.

It would be nice if it were that simple. Just because you are legally allowed to vote, doesn't guarantee that you can. Lack of physical access to polls, gerrymandering, and scare tactics to prevent minorities from voting have proven disgustingly effective at reducing minority participation. Nor can you choose who appears on the ballot. A corrupt political machine does that for you. And sometimes the most frustrating thing is that so many are complicit in it by being so dismissive about it. A human being can only take so much. But that anger and frustration needs to be focused more productively by leaders who have yet to emerge.

Yes, over history, gerrymandering, scare tactics are only tools of the Right.  Just ask the black panthers monitoring the polls in Philly.

As it turns out, just another common criminal.  But, he was going to college.
Ugh I get so sick of Republican VS Democrats. As long as there are only two popular parties, there will always be corruption. Both platforms have valid political points and both are full of self-serving people. That's the way that it is. As long as corporations are buying politicians, we will have issues.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on August 15, 2014, 09:01:46 AM
Quote
As it turns out, just another common criminal.

Incorrect.


I just heard on the radio, that there are pictures of him, stealing cigars and pushing the clerk.  The man was 6'4 and 300#.  The policeman who shot him was sent to the hospital for head wounds.

If I am wrong, I apologize.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 15, 2014, 09:03:08 AM
Yes, over history, gerrymandering, scare tactics are only tools of the Right.  Just ask the black panthers monitoring the polls in Philly.

As it turns out, just another common criminal.  But, he was going to college.

So the overarching nationwide polices of the GOP are like those of a violent, racist group like the Black Panthers? Oh, and good of you to find the needle in the haystack incident to justify your prejudice which you revealed in your next sentence.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 15, 2014, 09:07:15 AM
As it turns out, just another common criminal.  But, he was going to college.
wait - where did this come from?
link?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on August 15, 2014, 09:10:54 AM
1) I support the police department refusing to release the name of the officer until a full investigation is performed. The situation in Ferguson would have made him fear for his life. Whether he acted in self defense or aggressively went after and shot Mike Brown is still up for debate. The last thing we need is a mob doing vigilante "justice" before all of the facts are out.

2) It sounds like the police force has been very poorly utilized in Ferguson (as it is in many communities). They reacted with force at peaceful protests all week. I understand bringing out SWAT and riot gear when property is being vandalized or people are actively looting.

3) It appears yesterday was a great show of what a police force can do. They marched with protesters and had dialogue. Something you can't do behind gas masks and riot shields. I'm not saying they should have gone to active looting and tried to have a conversation, so please don't take my statements out of context.

4) People are reacting on both sides prematurely. It seems there is a real issue with the police presence in Ferguson even if the shooting of Mike Brown was justified. This is evidenced by the protests and marches throughout the city. If there wasn't a real structural problem, people wouldn't be raising hell.

5) The police have treated the media completely unfair. Tear gas was fired at reporters from Al Jazeera America. After they dispersed, the police took down their camera equipment and lights. They have told people to stop recording them even though it is fully legal to do so. Reporters were aggressively arrested in a McDonald's while eating, charging their phones, and using the wifi. If there isn't an active problem, the police should be letting everyone carry on as normally as possible and not persecute the reporters in the field for documenting everything.

I see very little room where anyone can disagree with me on these five points. I'm just glad it seems to have gotten under control and didn't spread to St. Louis. I expect to see big changes in how policing is performed in the St. Louis area. Hopefully across the country, but I'm not holding my breath.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: DeanSheen on August 15, 2014, 09:26:34 AM
"But I can get an absentee ballot without a drivers license just fine.
I just don't put much ink on it."

Sounds like another bad talking point.  Voter Fraud is statistically meaningless.

Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: SixthCity on August 15, 2014, 09:27:44 AM
Here's an article with surveillance camera photos and photos on an incident report that brought the officer to the area.  Mr. Brown is included in the incident report write-up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/us/darren-wilson-identified-as-officer-in-fatal-shooting-in-ferguson-missouri.html?_r=0
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 15, 2014, 09:32:11 AM
"But I can get an absentee ballot without a drivers license just fine.
I just don't put much ink on it."

Sounds like another bad talking point.  Voter Fraud is statistically meaningless.


No, I was just stating that not having a drivers license does not really block one from voting
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Clevelander17 on August 15, 2014, 09:33:37 AM
"@CityLab: Ferguson is mostly black. Why is its government so white? http://t.co/d1M9foO9fN via @slate #cityreads"

This seems like a fair enough question. However in regards to why the police department is "so white," we have to ask ourselves is that because of some sort of institutional racism? Or is it part of a more national trend in urban police departments where whites are the majority because of something else, such as the possibility that not enough qualified minority candidates have gone through the training?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 15, 2014, 09:34:36 AM
Here's an article with surveillance camera photos and photos on an incident report that brought the officer to the area.  Mr. Brown is included in the incident report write-up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/us/darren-wilson-identified-as-officer-in-fatal-shooting-in-ferguson-missouri.html?_r=0
Guess the clerk needs to ID the corpse
Of course then we will hear people cry about shooting a guy for stealing crappy cigars...
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: City Blights on August 15, 2014, 09:42:37 AM
Totally different scenarios, one in the middle of day, another at night after protesters turned violent.  Don't forget the police are under attack.  Over 2 dozen police cars have been destroyed, dozens of officers have been attacked & injured by rocks & even gunshots.  Everywhere you look, people have tagged "FTP" which is "F_  the Police".   



Try living in a community where you have no voice and are constantly under siege by a militarized police force that treats you as a second-class citizen. Until you do, you couldn't possibly try to understand the citizens of this oppressed community who decided to respond with the only voice they had. Frankly, I'm impressed they showed so much restraint.

EDIT: and if your "blame the oppressed" viewpoints are typical of white conservatives in this country, then Ferguson will be remembered as a mild, opening battle in a civil war among the classes and races in America. I'm surprised it's taken this long. Heck, I was beginning to think the only thing that would cause a revolt in this country was a beer truck strike.

KJP, have you lived in a community where you were the hunted and had no voice or mobility?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 15, 2014, 09:44:25 AM
Ironically, the same people who are shouting down at these protesters are the same ones who were cheering on Cliven Bundy and his militia as they pointed high-powered firearms at federal officials and engaged in their own form of lawlessness.  I can't figure out what is different, other than in this situation we are dealing with a dead kid and the police in Nevada actually backed off for whatever reason

You have no evidence of this.

I have Drudge Report, Fox Nation, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.  Google stories on both events from these sources.

Yes, over history, gerrymandering, scare tactics are only tools of the Right.  Just ask the black panthers monitoring the polls in Philly.

You mean those two very scary (to conservatives at least) looking guys standing outside one poll in Philly at one election who have since been on a never ending loop over at Fox?  I am not sure if Fox has played that clip or the one of the car burning at Benghazi more.  It would be very close. 

Technically you are correct in using the plural to describe those two knuckleheads, because there was two afterall.  You are incorrect to use the terms "polls" and then there is the slight technicality that they were part of the "NEW Black Panther" party, which is a more radicalized group.  Very scary, I know.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 15, 2014, 09:46:51 AM
As it turns out, just another common criminal.  But, he was going to college.
wait - where did this come from?
link?

Whenever an incident like this occurs, conservative media outlets go into overdrive trying to dig up past records, criminal history, school files, facebook posts, twitter feeds, etc.  Not the cop, just the dead kid.  Anyone named Michael Brown in Missouri is feeling a digital probe up his digital arse right now.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: GCrites80s on August 15, 2014, 09:47:24 AM
If you have a militarized police force it means you are a Third-World country.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: GCrites80s on August 15, 2014, 09:50:17 AM
Dick Cheney's still seeing the money roll in from the Third-World-ing of the USA.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on August 15, 2014, 09:56:23 AM
With regard to your #2, it looks like here the looting and rioting started after the police deployed the heavy equipment.

There was actually a Twitter or Tumblr feed I saw yesterday (sorry, didn't save the link) in which numerous military veterans were contrasting how the police handled Ferguson to how the soldiers handled urban patrols and counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan (and even one from Kosovo).  One of them mentioned that one of the lessons they impressed on soldiers early was that "sometimes, your presence alone can make things worse."  This is particularly true for the heavier, more openly military-grade equipment.

I was at OSU for the Spring Game this spring.  I saw a massive armored vehicle parked at the circle by Larkins (or where Larkins was) and the Stadium.  It was really, really jarring.  If I saw that kind of thing in my neighborhood all the time, it would really affect my feelings towards the police department.  Though when you get down to it, I'm generally in favor of scaling back funding for police purchases of military equipment regardless.

Note that a lot of the police militarization (at least with respect to equipment, though I think culture really can be influenced by material possessions) is the result of federal subsidy programs; it can be hard for a police chief to resist accepting heavy equipment when the federal government will practically give it away free, even if he would admit that it would be a waste of money at full price.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 15, 2014, 09:58:37 AM
I agree that a lot of people are jumping to conclusions with this shooting.  There are countless scenarios in which this shooting could've been justified.  But there must have been something boiling under the surface there in Ferguson for it to erupt like this.  The delayed reports, etc. from the police did not help.  That allowed the narrative to be painted by other witnesses.

To be clear, stealing a pack of cigars and shoving a store clerk is not justification for execution.  That will get you probation at most.  All of that is really beside the point.  The relevant inquiry starts at the point the encounter with the police officer started.  What justified the use of deadly force?  Where was the back-up?

"@CityLab: Ferguson is mostly black. Why is its government so white? http://t.co/d1M9foO9fN via @slate #cityreads"

This seems like a fair enough question. However in regards to why the police department is "so white," we have to ask ourselves is that because of some sort of institutional racism? Or is it part of a more national trend in urban police departments where whites are the majority because of something else, such as the possibility that not enough qualified minority candidates have gone through the training?

Per my understanding, Ferguson has only recently become a minority dominated community.  White flight appears to have hit it hard in the past 10 years and probably greatly accelerated through the recession.  The great majority of the officers were probably hired while the demographics were different.  But, also, you are correct that white applicants for such jobs general outnumber minority applicants.  Much moreso for Fire than Police and EMS, but there is still a fairly sizeable gap.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on August 15, 2014, 10:08:55 AM
Yes, I am prejudiced against thugs.  Has nothing to do with color.  It seems to be a phrase I have heard in any number of news reports concerning young people when they do something wrong.  I have no idea what it has to do with anything.  You know nothing of me, to accuse me.

MSNBC is the source.

Yes, over history, gerrymandering, scare tactics are only tools of the Right.  Just ask the black panthers monitoring the polls in Philly.

As it turns out, just another common criminal.  But, he was going to college.

So the overarching nationwide polices of the GOP are like those of a violent, racist group like the Black Panthers? Oh, and good of you to find the needle in the haystack incident to justify your prejudice which you revealed in your next sentence.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on August 15, 2014, 10:17:14 AM
Yes, I am prejudiced against thugs.  Has nothing to do with color.

A simple question: do you think Cliven Bundy and his supporters are thugs?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on August 15, 2014, 10:17:32 AM
If you have a militarized police force it means you are a Third-World country.

Ever seen the SWAT team equipment that Beachwood has, a very wealthy conservative community outside of Cleveland?  They have vehicles, weapons, gear & training that could take on a Third World country.  Why would a wealthy, low crime community need a setup like this?  Why not I guess...
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 15, 2014, 10:24:46 AM
^Davidson County, NC is what I always think of.  All black cruisers, decked out to the extreme.  All black uniforms with pants tucked into military boots.  That is just the regular everyday turnout gear for their deputies

Yes, I am prejudiced against thugs. 

Think about that for a minute.  It doesn't make sense.  Unless "thugs" for you, like so many others, is simply code-word for young black men.  It has essentially replaced the "N word" in common parlance for several circles of society.

The word prejudice means you pre-judge someone before you know them.  You don't know someone is a 'thug' unless you know them.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on August 15, 2014, 10:25:24 AM
If you have a militarized police force it means you are a Third-World country.

Ever seen the SWAT team equipment that Beachwood has, a very wealthy conservative community outside of Cleveland?  They have vehicles, weapons, gear & training that could take on a Third World country.  Why would a wealthy, low crime community need a setup like this?  Why not I guess...

Maybe to maintain their wealthy, low crime community.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 15, 2014, 10:38:23 AM
Ferguson police officers beat this man – then charged him for getting blood on their uniforms http://t.co/QqHqAVuxuz http://t.co/jpwEQOceLQ
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: City Blights on August 15, 2014, 10:47:11 AM
Police departments have a lot of imagination.  The "cowboy mentality" that has been pervading through American municipal police forces since inception in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (depending on the city) is not a mirage.  It's their self-cultivated identity.

Police officers, when examined as a group of professionals, have an issue with living within boundaries.  They lobby to destroy other city departments and investments in order to avert their own inevitable budget reductions.  They display zero accountability from city to city, state to state.  Many officers, especially in small towns but certainly in large cities too, are not college graduates and were B-/C students in formal school.  I don't think scholar when I see a cop.  I see an individual whom was not tremendously popular or accepted as a youth that sought respect and found it by joining a gang and walking around with a handgun.  That will get you respect.  This is not every officer, but this element exists within each department.

As for riot resources being an American exercise in the unnecessary, I've seen in person the Brussels police force gear up way more that what happened in St. Louis this week.  Police departments worldwide spare no expense in the intimidation of minorities.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on August 15, 2014, 10:49:40 AM
Blood­ is one ­of the most difficult substances to remove once it has stained a fabric, surface, or laundry.

­However, stain removal can be accomplished with some help, usually with everyday items that can be found around the house.

http://home.howstuffworks.com/how-to-remove-blood-stains.htm
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: jjames0408 on August 15, 2014, 10:54:20 AM
Blood­ is one ­of the most difficult substances to remove once it has stained a fabric, surface, or laundry.

­However, stain removal can be accomplished with some help, usually with everyday items that can be found around the house.

http://home.howstuffworks.com/how-to-remove-blood-stains.htm
I don't understand the point of this post. Are you saying beating someone is okay because blood is difficult to get out of a fabric or police over-reacted?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 15, 2014, 10:54:43 AM
Blood­ is one ­of the most difficult substances to remove once it has stained a fabric, surface, or laundry.

­However, stain removal can be accomplished with some help, usually with everyday items that can be found around the house.

http://home.howstuffworks.com/how-to-remove-blood-stains.htm

Really?? I mean, REALLLLLY? ? ?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvF9Qc-CUAArRKZ.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 15, 2014, 11:02:37 AM
Blood­ is one ­of the most difficult substances to remove once it has stained a fabric, surface, or laundry.

­However, stain removal can be accomplished with some help, usually with everyday items that can be found around the house.

http://home.howstuffworks.com/how-to-remove-blood-stains.htm
I had a cousin who did car detailing out in Rapid City. He got a contract to clean the interiors of the local PD's patrol cars. He cleaned blood, vomit, urine all the time. A lot of his employees were felons.
It's not so hard, you just need the right tools & chemistry.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on August 15, 2014, 11:26:39 AM
CNN has a live wire here.  We'll be seeing this story as their main headline and scroll for the next several months I'm sure, and probably for the better part of a year until this officer is brought before a jury.  It's the next "Trayvon Martin" case....   how many pages did that thread end up being on this site?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Chris DoorDashian on August 15, 2014, 11:35:00 AM
Quote
Yes, I am prejudiced against thugs.

What exactly is a "thug" anyway?  Let's look at the definition:

"Thug, a common criminal, who treats others violently and roughly, often for hire"

By that simple logic, a police officer, a common citizen, and even Vladmir Putin could be considered a "thug."  I somehow doubt you would consider a police officer or Putin to be a thug (maybe the latter; throwing the point out there).  Now, we've seen countless naratives of young African-American males NOT treating others violently or committing crimes called "thugs" in the media (Richard Sherman anyone?). A young black kid stealing Swishers from a convenient store wouldn't apply by any stretch to be considered a "thug."  Ya know, the subject of this thread.  Otherwise, I would've called my old white roommate from Chardon a "thug" for stealing several of those $1 liquor bottles from the store.  But that would be asinine as in neither case were they hired to rough up somebody, by definition. So I ask again, what exactly is your definition of a "thug?" 

Quote
Has nothing to do with color.

Of course it does.  In-group/out-group bias is strong in your statements.

Quote
It seems to be a phrase I have heard in any number of news reports concerning young black people when they do something wrong.

Fixed it for you.  You can simply Google "Richard Sherman Justin Bieber" to discredit that assertion.

Now I'm not one of those "Michael Brown is innocent" sympathizers but clearly this case is about racial injustice by police forces vs. African-Americans.  I'm with @ryanlammi on this one.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 15, 2014, 11:36:23 AM
It is a more compelling story then the two Black Panthers Fox has been running as its lead story for the better part of six years
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Chris DoorDashian on August 15, 2014, 11:43:23 AM
I'm more afraid of the white lady on the cell phone going to her car than the two "New Black Panthers" chillin' out.

(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Politics/876/493/bp_philly.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: jjames0408 on August 15, 2014, 11:51:59 AM
Quote
Yes, I am prejudiced against thugs.

What exactly is a "thug" anyway?  Let's look at the definition:

"Thug, a common criminal, who treats others violently and roughly, often for hire"

By that simple logic, a police officer, a common citizen, and even Vladmir Putin could be considered a "thug."  I somehow doubt you would consider a police officer or Putin to be a thug (maybe the latter; throwing the point out there).  Now, we've seen countless naratives of young African-American males NOT treating others violently or committing crimes called "thugs" in the media (Richard Sherman anyone?). A young black kid stealing Swishers from a convenient store wouldn't apply by any stretch to be considered a "thug."  Ya know, the subject of this thread.  Otherwise, I would've called my old white roommate from Chardon a "thug" for stealing several of those $1 liquor bottles from the store.  But that would be asinine as in neither case were they hired to rough up somebody, by definition. So I ask again, what exactly is your definition of a "thug?" 

Quote
Has nothing to do with color.

Of course it does.  In-group/out-group bias is strong in your statements.

Quote
It seems to be a phrase I have heard in any number of news reports concerning young black people when they do something wrong.

Fixed it for you.  You can simply Google "Richard Sherman Justin Bieber" to discredit that assertion.

Now I'm not one of those "Michael Brown is innocent" sympathizers but clearly this case is about racial injustice by police forces vs. African-Americans.  I'm with @ryanlammi on this one.
Agree 100%, especially about some members of the police force being thugs. Not too long ago, a Staten Island man was suffocated to death because he wouldn't be handcuffed for breaking up a fight. He was sick of being harrassed by police just like anyone else on this forum would be if it were them in the same position. It's easy to go around saying deal with it when you're white and do not have to deal with always being looked at like a target. Do you have to worry about getting pulled over for a 'DWB' (driving while black)? No. You're/We're innocent until proven guilty. I was pulled over one time because I had a black person in my car in Independence and searched for drugs. It's ridiculous.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: jjames0408 on August 15, 2014, 11:53:23 AM
I'm more afraid of the white lady on the cell phone going to her car than the two "New Black Panthers" chillin' out.

Yet these are probably the same people who argue that someone should be allowed to bring an assault rifle into a restaurant and they're okay with it.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: eastvillagedon on August 15, 2014, 11:55:04 AM


For the record, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of black men killed by the police each and every year. 

I'm not saying any shooting of anyone who's unarmed--black, white or whatever--is ever necessarily justified--but when you engage in this type of hyperbole you just throw more gasoline on the fire--(as tragic as four a month is, it doesn't add up to "hundreds, if not thousands")

And this is from the ultra-liberal Mother Jones--

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/police-shootings-michael-brown-ferguson-black-men

The killing of Michael Brown by police in Ferguson, Missouri, was no anomaly: As we reported yesterday, Brown is one of at least four unarmed black men who died at the hands of police in the last month alone. There are many more cases from years past. As Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Missouri chapter put it in a statement of condolence to Brown's family, "Unarmed African-American men are shot and killed by police at an alarming rate. This pattern must stop."
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: DM4 on August 15, 2014, 11:56:26 AM

A young black kid stealing Swishers from a convenient store wouldn't apply by any stretch to be considered a "thug."  Ya know, the subject of this thread.  Otherwise, I would've called my old white roommate from Chardon a "thug" for stealing several of those $1 liquor bottles from the store.  But that would be asinine as in neither case were they hired to rough up somebody, by definition. So I ask again, what exactly is your definition of a "thug?" 


If true, I think that the act of Mike Brown pushing the store clerk and acting tough is more of what makes the thug label more realistic. Did your friend get physical with store employees when stealing?

(http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/08/16/us/16documents-ferguson1/16documents-ferguson1-blog427.jpg)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Chris DoorDashian on August 15, 2014, 11:57:46 AM
Quote
Yet these are probably the same people who argue that someone should be allowed to bring an assault rifle into a restaurant and they're okay with it.

Indeed. Bill Maher had made that point months ago regarding the Clive Bundy/Open-Carry in a Chili's in Fort Worth vs. New Black Panthers.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on August 15, 2014, 11:58:40 AM
Please, you know nothing about me, nor how I feel.  Don't try to infer that color has anything to do with what I said. 

When you find some evidence in the shooting itself, that it is clearly racial injustice, let me know.  So far, that evidence hasn't come out.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 15, 2014, 12:02:03 PM
Thugs
(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/11/18/thuggee-0a4adba8e7e36da89adb5b444f658496effd4d5d.jpg)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Chris DoorDashian on August 15, 2014, 12:03:48 PM
Quote
If true, I think that the act of Mike Brown pushing the store clerk and acting tough is more of what makes the thug label more realistic. Did your friend get physical with store employees when stealing?

He got physical when he got caught the second time at the carry-out on 4th & 4th (those in Columbus know about that weird intersection/liquor store).  He shoved the cashier and then proceeded to leave (aka flee the scene).  I don't know if the cashier called the cops or not but they should've; just like the above scenario with Michael Brown.

I still fail to see how in either case the young adult is a "common criminal," let along a "thug."
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 15, 2014, 12:08:54 PM
Stop digging a hole for yourself, Bosco.



For the record, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of black men killed by the police each and every year. 

I'm not saying any shooting of anyone who's unarmed--black, white or whatever--is ever necessarily justified--but when you engage in this type of hyperbole you just throw more gasoline on the fire--(as tragic as four a month is, it doesn't add up to "hundreds, if not thousands")

And this is from the ultra-liberal Mother Jones--

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/police-shootings-michael-brown-ferguson-black-men

The killing of Michael Brown by police in Ferguson, Missouri, was no anomaly: As we reported yesterday, Brown is one of at least four unarmed black men who died at the hands of police in the last month alone. There are many more cases from years past. As Jeffrey Mittman, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Missouri chapter put it in a statement of condolence to Brown's family, "Unarmed African-American men are shot and killed by police at an alarming rate. This pattern must stop."

a) I wasn't referring to only 'unarmed' individuals.  A guy could have a gun or knife or box-cutter or any number of "weapons" in his pocket and be considered "armed" for the purposes of such statistics.

b) perhaps you should look to the much more conservative USA Today for stats you can believe. This report is limited to white officer, black suspect.... another limitation lacking from my comment - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/police-killings-data/14060357/

 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on August 15, 2014, 12:08:55 PM
Funny how the it changes when you tell the whole story.

Steal something?  Push someone down trying to stop you?  Then you are a common criminal.  Period.  Doesn't mean you deserve to get shot, just means you can be considered dangerous and MIGHT get shot if you do something more while being apprehended.  So far, this is all the evidence says.

Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: DM4 on August 15, 2014, 12:11:13 PM
Hate to break it to you, but your friend had to be somewhat of a piece of sh!t to go steal and get physical with a store employee. Is it really that hard to pay? Especially when you said it only cost $1? And why did he have to get physical? Your friendship could possibly be blinding you.

Why does his race or the fact that he was from Chardon matter to you? My highschool was mostly white and we had plenty of thugs, all white, and most people referred to them as thugs. Acting like the word Thug is a replacement for the N-word is ridiculous and is used by people who want to cause trouble.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Chris DoorDashian on August 15, 2014, 12:11:53 PM
Quote
Please, you know nothing about me, nor how I feel.

First statement is correct.  I don't know you, though ironically you don't know Michael Brown but you suggested he was a "thug" and a common criminal (with no criminal history to even be considered a common criminal).  The second statement is not correct.  You stated the following:

Quote
Yes, over history, gerrymandering, scare tactics are only tools of the Right.  Just ask the black panthers monitoring the polls in Philly.

As it turns out, just another common criminal.  But, he was going to college.

You made your position quite clear.

Quote
Don't try to infer that color has anything to do with what I said.

You did that, not I.  You inserted the Black Panthers (which no one in this thread was talking about) in your counterpoint at the suggestion that gerrymandering are tools of the right.  There are many scare-tactics of the Left that you could've named without involving race but you chose Black Panther, a general boogeyman of the American right.  Thus, In-group/out-group bias.

Quote
When you find some evidence in the shooting itself, that it is clearly racial injustice, let me know.  So far, that evidence hasn't come out.

Which is the problem itself.  The silence of the police department and the hyper-defensiveness versus peaceful protesters and journalists at a McDonald's speaks volumes.  When I say clearly this is about injustice between police and African-Americans, you can turn on any news channel and see all the Sean Bell stories rehashed all over.  But you are right, no one knows what happened during the shooting until all the evidence is out.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 15, 2014, 12:15:35 PM
Acting like the word Thug is a replacement for the N-word is ridiculous and is used by people who want to cause trouble.

You can find countless commentaries on this subject by people who have no interest in causing trouble, but just call it like they see it - http://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/mathews-thug-is-the-new-n-word-the-criminalization-of-richard-sherman/
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Chris DoorDashian on August 15, 2014, 12:16:49 PM
Quote
Hate to break it to you, but your friend had to be somewhat of a piece of sh!t to go steal and get physical with a store employee. Is it really that hard to pay? Especially when you said it only cost $1? And why did he have to get physical? Your friendship could possibly be blinding you.

He was my college roommate.  I never said he was a good friend, that he wasn't a piece of sh!t, or that it blinded me.  I haven't spoken with him in over a decade.  I just offered a story.  And why did he have to get physical?  The same reason kids get violent when you take toys away from them: primitive human nature.

Quote
Why does his race or the fact that he was from Chardon matter to you? My highschool was mostly white and we had plenty of thugs, all white, and most people referred to them as thugs. Acting like the word Thug is a replacement for the N-word is ridiculous and is used by people who want to cause trouble.

You can't be that ignorant.  This is UrbanOhio, not Pleasantville. Even the American right can acknowledge the media's code word of "thug" = "young black men doing bad things."
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on August 15, 2014, 12:21:31 PM
Coldayman, I did not bring up all the gerrymandering, or issues preventing minorities from voting.  So I said black panthers in regards to that.  Race is what was being referred to.  What would be scare tactics of the left?  Letting dead people vote doesn't scare me!

You're right, there is no criminal history, but he stole and pushed the clerk, and did something to the police officer that got himself shot.  That is my definition of a common criminal and thug.  Whatever that means to you.  If some white kid did the same, I would refer to him the same.

Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 15, 2014, 12:23:22 PM
^You might, but most of the rest of society would refer to him as a "troubled" or "misguided" youth

And, same as with the police officer, we don't know what Brown exactly did.  We don't know for sure what happened in that store or what happened when he encountered the police.  Maybe he stole something, maybe he didn't.  If I hadn't stolen anything and some store clerk tried to block me from leaving the store, I might react similarly and I hope it wouldn't make me a "thug."  Don't blame others for jumping to conclusions if you are guilty of the same.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Chris DoorDashian on August 15, 2014, 12:26:23 PM
Quote
Coldayman, I did not bring up all the gerrymandering, or issues preventing minorities from voting.  So I said black panthers in regards to that.  Race is what was being referred to.  What would be scare tactics of the left?  Letting dead people vote doesn't scare me!

But two New Black Panthers outside a polling venue in Philadelphia does?  I'd be more scared of the lady leaving the polling venue with the cell phone, knowing she's going to get in her car and drive (which is illegal in Philadelphia).  You offered a defensive, corresponding response about race and therefore when stating:

Quote
Don't try to infer that color has anything to do with what I said.

...become contradictory.

Quote
You're right, there is no criminal history, but he stole and pushed the clerk, and did something to the police officer that got himself shot.  That is my definition of a common criminal and thug.  Whatever that means to you.  If some white kid did the same, I would refer to him the same.

I'll take you on your word (as I don't know you) that if a white kid did the general same thing that you would call them a "thug."  That doesn't mean I don't have my doubts.  Generally, when young adults do random stupid things, people don't call them "thugs" but "idiots."
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: eastvillagedon on August 15, 2014, 12:28:23 PM
 :shoot: :police:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmXlc8ow4zk
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: DM4 on August 15, 2014, 12:30:20 PM
Calling Sherman a thug was stupid. But Ive never personally heard Bieber be called a misguided kid. I have heard him called a piece of sh!t, gay(as an insult), a$$hole, thug, etc. There was even petition to deport him.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Chris DoorDashian on August 15, 2014, 12:35:48 PM
Hilariously, the person stating Justin Bieber "He's just misguided right now" was none other than fellow misguided kid Chris Brown.

http://www.examiner.com/article/chris-brown-defends-justin-bieber-he-s-just-misguided
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on August 15, 2014, 12:35:49 PM
I'll take you on your word (as I don't know you) that if a white kid did the general same thing that you would call them a "thug."  That doesn't mean I don't have my doubts.  Generally, when young adults do random stupid things, people don't call them "thugs" but "idiots."

It means little to me if you take my word or have doubts.  Really doesn't matter.  I said something because I read it as a race issue being implied.  You are right about random stupid things, I would call the kids idiots. Most kids do some idiotic things in their lives.  Now, when they get caught, if they cause physical harm to the person catching them, they might become thugs.

Let's just drop it and wait to hear the results.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Chris DoorDashian on August 15, 2014, 12:38:50 PM
Quote
Most kids do some idiotic things in their lives.  Now, when they get caught, if they cause physical harm to the person catching them, they might become thugs.

"Might" or "Are?"  Because you want from "prejudiced against thugs" (implying that Michael Brown is, in fact, a thug) to "they might become thugs."  That's quite a switch.

Now, you can "drop it" but this thread exists so I doubt that will occur.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 15, 2014, 12:41:12 PM
Calling Sherman a thug was stupid. But Ive never personally heard Bieber be called a misguided kid. I have heard him called a piece of sh!t, gay(as an insult), a$$hole, thug, etc. There was even petition to deport him.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2014/01/25/greta-im-sorry-richard-sherman-biebers-real-thug

http://wifc.com/news/articles/2013/may/16/carly-rae-jepsen-says-justin-bieber-is-passionate-and-hard-working-not-misguided/

Even Chris Brown (probably a 'thug' himself in many people's books) is guilty of it - http://www.examiner.com/article/chris-brown-defends-justin-bieber-he-s-just-misguided

To be clear, I don't think Bieber is a thug.  Far from it, according to my own definition of the term.  Thugs generally don't have or need bodyguards.  That said, a lot of white America really dislikes Bieber right now.  It all started about the time he starting hanging around all those "Lil'-Whatever" rappers..... who, btw, are far from thugs themselves.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: DM4 on August 15, 2014, 12:41:28 PM

Let's just drop it and wait to hear the results.

Now that I agree with. Nothing good will come out of this discussion. More likely to cause fights on here than anything. Might as well lock this thread for awhile and let things cool down. Wait for actual news.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Chris DoorDashian on August 15, 2014, 12:43:49 PM
There isn't any insulting or trolling aka no need to lock this thread.  Just opposing discussion, nothing more.  Otherwise, we'd shut down half the threads in City Discussion if it meant different viewpoints being discussed in a quick fashion.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: old edale on August 15, 2014, 01:00:37 PM
Just a thought. Does anyone think the popularity of the word thug in rap/hip hop has anything to do with the word being used to describe blacks more than whites? There are more examples than I could possibly list here of either rappers themselves (Slim Thug, Bone Thugs) or their lyrics that use the word thug to describe themselves and or their actions.  If the word was popularized by rap and hip hop, who is really to blame for the mental association people have with the word?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: natininja on August 15, 2014, 01:07:31 PM
A young black kid stealing Swishers from a convenient store wouldn't apply by any stretch to be considered a "thug."

Having seen the recently-released video, what he did (assuming it's Brown in the video) was pretty "thuggish". (He didn't just shoplift, but shoved the shop-keeper who confronted him on the way out the door, then as the guy moved to follow him he turned around and moved toward him menacingly.) Though that info was not out there until very recently. And these details are not actually relevant to the way the cop behaved (especially since there was no weapon brandished in the store).

Quote
Now I'm not one of those "Michael Brown is innocent" sympathizers but clearly this case is about racial injustice by police forces vs. African-Americans.  I'm with @ryanlammi on this one.
Agreed.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on August 15, 2014, 01:19:34 PM
Accusing someone of being a bigot or racist isn't insulting in your book?

There isn't any insulting or trolling aka no need to lock this thread.  Just opposing discussion, nothing more.  Otherwise, we'd shut down half the threads in City Discussion if it meant different viewpoints being discussed in a quick fashion.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: GCrites80s on August 15, 2014, 01:21:08 PM
Just a thought. Does anyone think the popularity of the word thug in rap/hip hop has anything to do with the word being used to describe blacks more than whites? There are more examples than I could possibly list here of either rappers themselves (Slim Thug, Bone Thugs) or their lyrics that use the word thug to describe themselves and or their actions.  If the word was popularized by rap and hip hop, who is really to blame for the mental association people have with the word?

Right, when I was growing up and heard "thug" I thought of white guys with stubbly beards, driving caps pulled down over their eyes, flipping a coin in their hand while leaning up a brick wall. They called people "Mac" and "ya mugs".
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 15, 2014, 01:21:42 PM
can we drop the whole, "people are unconsciously speaking in a secret code that they do not understand" BS?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 15, 2014, 01:23:23 PM
^Why does that conversation make you feel uncomfortable?  It is a very real issue.  Let's face it, no one admits they are racist...... sometimes not even to themselves.  In fact, I would suggest that many people have forgotten what exactly 'racism' means.  That comment applies equally to all races, just so your not confused.

Just a thought. Does anyone think the popularity of the word thug in rap/hip hop has anything to do with the word being used to describe blacks more than whites? There are more examples than I could possibly list here of either rappers themselves (Slim Thug, Bone Thugs) or their lyrics that use the word thug to describe themselves and or their actions.  If the word was popularized by rap and hip hop, who is really to blame for the mental association people have with the word?

We had that conversation in another thread.  I don't know if the chicken or the egg came first, but why would it matter?  What matters is the 'mental association', which you acknowledge is present.  The problem is how generalized it has become to the point of any black youth behaving in the slightest illegal way, or appearing similar to a stereotypical urban youth, is automatically labeled as a thug.  Gangsta rap (not hip-hop, there is a difference) generally used thug, not to describe every young black man who might have stolen something out of a convenience store and/or shoved another human being.  You had to do something much, much worse to 'earn' that label in that silly little world.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 15, 2014, 01:32:23 PM
Accusing someone of being a bigot or racist isn't insulting in your book?

Is punching a bully in the face 'bullying' in your book?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Chris DoorDashian on August 15, 2014, 02:02:11 PM
Quote
We had that conversation in another thread.  I don't know if the chicken or the egg came first, but why would it matter?  What matters is the 'mental association', which you acknowledge is present.  The problem is how generalized it has become to the point of any black youth behaving in the slightest illegal way, or appearing similar to a stereotypical urban youth, is automatically labeled as a thug.  Gangsta rap (not hip-hop, there is a difference) generally used thug, not to describe every young black man who might have stolen something out of a convenience store and/or shoved another human being.  You had to do something much, much worse to 'earn' that label in that silly little world.

^This.  Aaaaannnd...

Quote
Is punching a bully in the face 'bullying' in your book?

^This.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 15, 2014, 02:12:53 PM
Turns out that the officer's contact with Brown had nothing to do with a reported robbery.

EDIT: there also appears to be some doubt (I'm not sure how believable) that the man in the video at the convenience store is in fact Brown.  Something about Brown not having a hat on and different shoes.  Remember, this was 10 minutes after the robbery.  Regardless, I guess it doesn't matter one way or the other with the Chief's admission.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 15, 2014, 02:17:38 PM
Turns out that the officer's contact with Brown had nothing to do with a reported robbery.



Yep. It was jaywalking. Jaywalking......  Speechless.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Chris DoorDashian on August 15, 2014, 02:48:11 PM
Ferguson police chief: Officer didn't stop Brown as robbery suspect

Ferguson, Missouri (CNN) -- The Ferguson police officer who shot Michael Brown didn't stop him because he was suspected in a recent robbery, but because he was "walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic," the city's police chief said Friday.

Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson told reporters the alleged "robbery does not relate to the initial contact between the officer and Michael Brown."

So why did Ferguson police decide to release surveillance video of the alleged convenience store Friday -- the same day that they named, six days after the shooting, the white police officer who fatally shot the African-American teenager -- if the two incidents are not related?

Jackson said he released the videotape "because the press asked for it," noting some in the media had filed Freedom of Information requests for the footage and that he couldn't withhold indefinitely. The chief added "we needed to release that at the same time we needed to release the name of the officer involved in the shooting," though he didn't elaborate more on why.

More below:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/us/missouri-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: old edale on August 15, 2014, 02:49:25 PM

We had that conversation in another thread.  I don't know if the chicken or the egg came first, but why would it matter?  What matters is the 'mental association', which you acknowledge is present.  The problem is how generalized it has become to the point of any black youth behaving in the slightest illegal way, or appearing similar to a stereotypical urban youth, is automatically labeled as a thug.  Gangsta rap (not hip-hop, there is a difference) generally used thug, not to describe every young black man who might have stolen something out of a convenience store and/or shoved another human being.  You had to do something much, much worse to 'earn' that label in that silly little world.

I agree that it is problematic that the word thug has become a bit of a label for 'urban black youth' in general.  I was just trying to offer an explanation for why the term might be used more for blacks exhibiting 'thuggish' behavior than whites exhibiting the same behavior.  FYI, I don't really think the term was always used to describe some hardened criminal.  See Tupac's Thugs Mansion as an example. 

Another point that I have found interesting is how these racial flair ups are now well documented by social media.  It has been interesting to see the response of my Facebook friends to not just this story, but also Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, etc.  When I read the reactions of my black friends to these stories, I find it both sad and a bit confusing.  I don't mean to say that each of these stories aren't tragedies- they 100% are.  But it does seem odd that out of the dozens of black men who are murdered every day in this country, only the stories of intra racial violence get attention.  I've read things in the past week like "I fear for my brother every time he leaves the house" or "no black person in this country is safe from the police".  It just seems like....hyperbole to me.  When I asked one of my FB friends about this, I got this response:

"Even though all police officers aren't bad, I don't know if I'll run into a good or bad one when I interact with a police officer so I have to be on guard at all times. That's the same as knowing all men aren't rapists but I have to be careful when I'm out some at night because I don't know if I'll run into a man that may try to take advantage of me."

The thing that got me was how racist this would sound if you substituted 'black people' for 'police officer'.  I know that, statistically, I am way more likely to be robbed or assaulted by a black male in the city of Cincinnati than a white or Asian male, black female, etc.  Does that mean that I need to be on guard every time I interact with a black male?  Of course not.  I understand there is a history of abuse against black people at the hands of the police, but I, as a white male, see these incidents as being outliers, not the rule.  The vast majority of arrests and police interactions are peaceful and uneventful. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: City Blights on August 15, 2014, 03:01:55 PM
This is the base of the dialogue, the cornerstone:  These events never happen to white people.  NEVER.  That should tell everybody something.

Name one white Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Roger Owensby, Timothy Thomas, Amadou Diallo, Eric Garner.  Four separate police departments in four different states, same result.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 15, 2014, 03:04:01 PM
^^Here is a good read getting at your point of 'selective outrage' - http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-our-selective-outrage/2014/08/14/22a72dba-23e5-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html

There should be outrage over any murder, regardless of the skin color of the suspect or the victim.  I sincerely hope we someday reach that point.  But, I believe, that stories like this garner so much attention due to the fear of a 'racially-motivated' or other prejudiced-driven killing.  People are killed everyday.  They are murdered for something they did or didn't do, or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  It is almost always a tragedy.  But when someone is killed (i.e. would be alive otherwise) specifically because they are a particular race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc., the public outcry is inevitably going to be louder.  That's what separates this incident (if that is indeed the case) from the popular right-wing meme about "what about all the killings in Chicago last weekend?  Where is all the outrage over that?"  And murders committed by those who are supposed to protect are also always monumentally more troubling.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Chris DoorDashian on August 15, 2014, 03:14:52 PM
But when someone is killed (i.e. would be alive otherwise) specifically because they are a particular race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc + murders committed by those who are supposed to protect = Edale's answer.

If you want an alternative case that made national headlines due to someone being killed for being a minority, look at Matthew Shephard.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: old edale on August 15, 2014, 03:23:28 PM
Thank you all for the dialogue.  It's refreshing to be able to actually talk about these issues, as prickly as they can be.  I know Facebook might not be the right medium for it, but it seems like anytime I would try to engage there I would just get shouted down as 'not getting it'.  I am saddened by what happened to Michael Brown, and I'm outraged by the militarized response from the police this week.  There are plenty of injustices that need to be corrected in this situation, to be sure.  At the same time, I know I don't feel as strongly about this as some other people do, largely for the reasons I outlined above.  When you don't know something, I think the best course of action is to ask and find out.  Thanks for allowing a healthy exchange of information and perspective.  It's refreshing :-)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 15, 2014, 03:29:36 PM
NONONONONO!!!!!
:-)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on August 15, 2014, 07:04:22 PM
The media is driving this. It has been driving all the high profile cases this decade. It seems to be accelerating.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: DM4 on August 15, 2014, 07:12:40 PM
^ it gets viewers and a lot of website clicks. Same reason Cleveland.com spits out terribly written crime "stories". Takes no effort and brings in the advertising dollars. Hell, UrbanOhio probably even benefits from these big events. These threads always get the most views and comments.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: natininja on August 15, 2014, 07:20:53 PM
This is the base of the dialogue, the cornerstone:  These events never happen to white people.  NEVER.  That should tell everybody something.

Name one white Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Roger Owensby, Timothy Thomas, Amadou Diallo, Eric Garner.  Four separate police departments in four different states, same result.

Just to play devil's advocate, some people I know would say David "Bones" Hebert (http://citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-4585-david_bones_hebert_wrongful_death_lawsuit_expanded.html) would be a white example.

I'm glad the FBI is involved here. I wish they would have gotten involved with the Timothy Thomas case. It's clear local investigators and local courts are unequipped to deliver justice in cases of criminal police actions.

I don't know if anyone posted this article in this thread:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html

Sheds some light on past policies and actions by Ferguson police. I hope this guy gets the justice he deserves. How just...indescribably sad that he probably wouldn't have had a chance without this whole Mike Brown thing.

Quote
Schottel figures the courts might take the problems of the Ferguson Police Department as more than de minimis as a result of the protests sparked when an officer shot and killed an unarmed 18-year-old named Michael Brown on the afternoon of Aug. 9.

“Your chances on appeal are going up,” a fellow lawyer told him.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Civvik on August 15, 2014, 07:51:12 PM
But when someone is killed (i.e. would be alive otherwise) specifically because they are a particular race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc + murders committed by those who are supposed to protect = Edale's answer.

If you want an alternative case that made national headlines due to someone being killed for being a minority, look at Matthew Shephard.

He was probably killed in a twisted meth-dealing relationship gone bad. All of this stuff is shades of gray.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on August 15, 2014, 11:22:32 PM
I was flipping channels tonight watching the coverage.  Don Lemon of CNN seems to be their new face for this story.  He was out on the streets asking lame questions of any joe walking by ("what do you think of the release of the police officer's name the same as the release of the store video?").   There's no actual news left to report, so their just filling time, getting local reactions....   Rachel Maddow was of course outraged.  More interesting though was the live coverage behind her.  It appeared to be some sort of main street in Ferguson.  No cops around and the street was gridlocked with people cruising, blasting car horns & stereos, people walking amidst the cars in the streets, hanging out everywhere.   Both channels had interviews with a man who is now attorney for Dorian Wilson, who was with Mike Brown when he was shot.  Wilson also appears to have been with Brown when the robbery occurred. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on August 15, 2014, 11:30:11 PM
This is the base of the dialogue, the cornerstone:  These events never happen to white people.  NEVER.  That should tell everybody something.

Name one white Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Roger Owensby, Timothy Thomas, Amadou Diallo, Eric Garner.  Four separate police departments in four different states, same result.

Sheesh.  Quick google search came up with this incident.  So there's at least ONE.

http://fox13now.com/2014/08/11/breaking-man-dead-after-officer-involved-shooting-in-s-salt-lake-police-say/
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 16, 2014, 04:51:32 AM
This is the base of the dialogue, the cornerstone:  These events never happen to white people.  NEVER.  That should tell everybody something.

Name one white Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Roger Owensby, Timothy Thomas, Amadou Diallo, Eric Garner.  Four separate police departments in four different states, same result.
Bones
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on August 16, 2014, 05:59:11 AM
This is the base of the dialogue, the cornerstone:  These events never happen to white people.  NEVER.  That should tell everybody something.

Name one white Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Roger Owensby, Timothy Thomas, Amadou Diallo, Eric Garner.  Four separate police departments in four different states, same result.
Bones

Dan Ficker.

In this case, I do believe that Brown resisted the cop and if they did not see him as a robbery suspect, he knew they should.  If that's the case, zero sympathy for him.

There's clearly a kernel of truth to the idea that this PD had issues, but a lot of this reaction is the same mindset that caused people to run Damon Wells out of Mount Pleasant.  Not even racial, at its root.

I am sort of amused by the people tweeting that the rioters should go into the white neighborhoods.  Even the looters are smarter than that.  Though one fails to see what trashing one's own neighborhood accomplishes.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 16, 2014, 06:09:42 AM
Riot - the unbeatable high
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa4S1_v-YJ4
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on August 16, 2014, 06:23:51 AM
Local police are now in a tough game of chicken...  watching the coverage, it's pretty clear the area is filled with a lot of non-residents who've just been attracted by the buzz and are hanging around looking for something to happen.  Sure enough, someone throws a brick through a window of a liquor store last night and its on again.  Police are basically powerless at this point.  Anything they do will reinforce the notion that they are acting too heavy handed
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 16, 2014, 07:34:54 AM
I am sort of amused by the people tweeting that the rioters should go into the white neighborhoods.  Even the looters are smarter than that.  Though one fails to see what trashing one's own neighborhood accomplishes.[/color]

Don't believe what you read on those white power sites. Half those twitter accts are probably fakes. The 'revolution' is not here yet and is much more of a pipe dream then they'd like to admit
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: City Blights on August 16, 2014, 07:43:04 AM
This is the base of the dialogue, the cornerstone:  These events never happen to white people.  NEVER.  That should tell everybody something.

Name one white Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Roger Owensby, Timothy Thomas, Amadou Diallo, Eric Garner.  Four separate police departments in four different states, same result.

Just to play devil's advocate, some people I know would say David "Bones" Hebert (http://citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-4585-david_bones_hebert_wrongful_death_lawsuit_expanded.html) would be a white example.

I'm glad the FBI is involved here. I wish they would have gotten involved with the Timothy Thomas case. It's clear local investigators and local courts are unequipped to deliver justice in cases of criminal police actions.

I don't know if anyone posted this article in this thread:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html

Sheds some light on past policies and actions by Ferguson police. I hope this guy gets the justice he deserves. How just...indescribably sad that he probably wouldn't have had a chance without this whole Mike Brown thing.

Quote
Schottel figures the courts might take the problems of the Ferguson Police Department as more than de minimis as a result of the protests sparked when an officer shot and killed an unarmed 18-year-old named Michael Brown on the afternoon of Aug. 9.

“Your chances on appeal are going up,” a fellow lawyer told him.

Bones, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men:

Tim Thomas: Wielding a video game
Roger Owensby: Wielding 400 lbs
Eric Garner: Wielding loosies
Michael Brown: Wielding stolen Swishers
Trayvon Martin: Being a young, unapologetic black male
Amadou Diallo: Being African

Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party.  Black males don't have to put anyone in harm's way to be slain by the police.  That has been proven over and over.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 16, 2014, 07:45:21 AM
"@clairecmc: America, please don't hold small group of looters against hundreds & hundreds of peaceful protesters.Rather hold small group accountable."

Suspected looters http://t.co/ZVVJXWsaXI
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on August 16, 2014, 07:57:33 AM
POLITICS AND POLICY
In Ferguson's Wake, Odd Bedfellows
By JANET HOOK
Aug. 15, 2014 10:18 p.m. ET

The use of military-style power in Ferguson, Mo., has galvanized a coalition of libertarians and liberals calling for curbs on the use of force by police—a partnership that departs from the party-line splits that have long dominated American politics.

The alliance that has arisen in the wake of protests over the police shooting of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson is the latest in a growing list of issues where liberals and libertarians have found common cause. The scope of National Security Agency surveillance, U.S. drone policy, criminal sentencing and corporate power all have emerged in recent months as topics of concern among both liberal Democrats and libertarian quarters of the GOP.

These instances of agreement hardly signal an end to partisan gridlock in Washington. Liberals and libertarians remain fundamentally at odds over basic policy questions such as government safety-net programs and federal regulation. But their occasional alliances do point to new political dynamics as national policy debates shift from the tax-and-spending issues that so easily split along party lines—and as the growth of libertarian sentiment within the Republican Party has created new coalition-building opportunities.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/in-fergusons-wake-odd-bedfellows-1408155483
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: MyTwoSense on August 16, 2014, 09:32:52 AM
No, what he's saying is, people only get upset when it is white on black shootings.  There has been nothing proven as yet, the only evidence from the police reports says that someone was actually fighting in the police car for the officer's gun. If true, that should get you shot every time!  The "other person", the only eyewitness said "he was innocent".  Everyone says they are innocent! 

Pictures of people lighting Molotov cocktails is always good for a peaceful protest.

As a person of color and mixed races, who are these "people".  I'm more upset about people of color committing crimes against one another!

I wonder who these "people" are?

Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: MyTwoSense on August 16, 2014, 09:41:51 AM
"@CityLab: Ferguson is mostly black. Why is its government so white? http://t.co/d1M9foO9fN via @slate #cityreads"

This seems like a fair enough question. However in regards to why the police department is "so white," we have to ask ourselves is that because of some sort of institutional racism? Or is it part of a more national trend in urban police departments where whites are the majority because of something else, such as the possibility that not enough qualified minority candidates have gone through the training?

Voting!  I've said it before, if you don't vote, you have no voice in several things.  You can't vote in those you want to make a difference, you have no voice in the hiring/firing of those in your community, nor can you be called for jury duty. 

Many times, those who are disenfranchised help disenfranchise themselves.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: City Blights on August 16, 2014, 10:33:18 AM
"@CityLab: Ferguson is mostly black. Why is its government so white? http://t.co/d1M9foO9fN via @slate #cityreads"

This seems like a fair enough question. However in regards to why the police department is "so white," we have to ask ourselves is that because of some sort of institutional racism? Or is it part of a more national trend in urban police departments where whites are the majority because of something else, such as the possibility that not enough qualified minority candidates have gone through the training?

Voting!  I've said it before, if you don't vote, you have no voice in several things.  You can't vote in those you want to make a difference, you have no voice in the hiring/firing of those in your community, nor can you be called for jury duty. 

Many times, those who are disenfranchised help disenfranchise themselves.

The electoral process has been sabotaged repeatedly and legally.  The locations of the polls, gerrymandering, and the fact that the people being voted on are almost always white outside of the most local of politicians does not stimulate faith in minority communities that their ballot is a catalyst of change.  When minorities vote and said elected official offers them more of the same, which is less than what the majority is getting, they naturally get discouraged.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 16, 2014, 10:56:43 AM
s, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men:

Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party.  Black males don't have to put anyone in harm's way to be slain by the police.  That has been proven over and over.
so now a police account is AOK?
Or it's AOK to kill White Men?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: City Blights on August 16, 2014, 11:25:23 AM
s, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men:

Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party.  Black males don't have to put anyone in harm's way to be slain by the police.  That has been proven over and over.
so now a police account is AOK?
Or it's AOK to kill White Men?

Let's examine what I said vs. what you interpreted my words as...

"Bones, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men"

"Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party"

Slicing somebody with a sword and having them call the cops on you is different from selling cigarettes on the street or shoplifting, which is what Eric Garner and Michael Brown died over.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 16, 2014, 11:52:30 AM
s, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men:

Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party.  Black males don't have to put anyone in harm's way to be slain by the police.  That has been proven over and over.
so now a police account is AOK?
Or it's AOK to kill White Men?

Let's examine what I said vs. what you interpreted my words as...

"Bones, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men"

"Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party"

Slicing somebody with a sword and having them call the cops on you is different from selling cigarettes on the street or shoplifting, which is what Eric Garner and Michael Brown died over.

Has Brown ben identified as the shoplifter who was roughing people up?
The guy who complained of Bones was also high as a kite & could never be considered credible.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: City Blights on August 16, 2014, 12:06:48 PM
s, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men:

Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party.  Black males don't have to put anyone in harm's way to be slain by the police.  That has been proven over and over.
so now a police account is AOK?
Or it's AOK to kill White Men?

Let's examine what I said vs. what you interpreted my words as...

"Bones, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men"

"Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party"

Slicing somebody with a sword and having them call the cops on you is different from selling cigarettes on the street or shoplifting, which is what Eric Garner and Michael Brown died over.

Has Brown ben identified as the shoplifter who was roughing people up?
The guy who complained of Bones was also high as a kite & could never be considered credible.

But the man who called the police to report an assault was assaulted, right?  Ok, then.
 
I've seen that surveillance video.  The man alleged to be Brown pushed the shopkeeper in the chest ONE TIME.  Again, this is different from cutting someone with an enormous blade.  Can you accept that the Michael Brown circumstance is extremely different from the Bones circumstance?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 16, 2014, 12:29:04 PM
s, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men:

Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party.  Black males don't have to put anyone in harm's way to be slain by the police.  That has been proven over and over.
so now a police account is AOK?
Or it's AOK to kill White Men?

Let's examine what I said vs. what you interpreted my words as...

"Bones, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men"

"Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party"

Slicing somebody with a sword and having them call the cops on you is different from selling cigarettes on the street or shoplifting, which is what Eric Garner and Michael Brown died over.

Has Brown ben identified as the shoplifter who was roughing people up?
The guy who complained of Bones was also high as a kite & could never be considered credible.

But the man who called the police to report an assault was assaulted, right?  Ok, then.
 
I've seen that surveillance video.  The man alleged to be Brown pushed the shopkeeper in the chest ONE TIME.  Again, this is different from cutting someone with an enormous blade.  Can you accept that the Michael Brown circumstance is extremely different from the Bones circumstance?
The guy who complained of Bones refused medical treatment. Dunno if the police even talked to him in person since he didn't know his address. AFAIK, no evidence of an assault was ever found.
A customer or another employee at the store claims to have been shoved as well.
But now people are saying Brown wasn't stopped for the incident at the convenience store. I don't know as there is any reason to even discuss Brown til this stuff gets all cleared up.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: City Blights on August 16, 2014, 01:02:49 PM
s, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men:

Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party.  Black males don't have to put anyone in harm's way to be slain by the police.  That has been proven over and over.
so now a police account is AOK?
Or it's AOK to kill White Men?

Let's examine what I said vs. what you interpreted my words as...

"Bones, according to Cincinnati Police, was high as a kite and wielding a blade.  That's a lot different than the circumstances preceding the deaths of these black men"

"Bones engaged in a violent act previous to his death that was reported by the affected party"

Slicing somebody with a sword and having them call the cops on you is different from selling cigarettes on the street or shoplifting, which is what Eric Garner and Michael Brown died over.

Has Brown ben identified as the shoplifter who was roughing people up?
The guy who complained of Bones was also high as a kite & could never be considered credible.

But the man who called the police to report an assault was assaulted, right?  Ok, then.
 
I've seen that surveillance video.  The man alleged to be Brown pushed the shopkeeper in the chest ONE TIME.  Again, this is different from cutting someone with an enormous blade.  Can you accept that the Michael Brown circumstance is extremely different from the Bones circumstance?
The guy who complained of Bones refused medical treatment. Dunno if the police even talked to him in person since he didn't know his address. AFAIK, no evidence of an assault was ever found.
A customer or another employee at the store claims to have been shoved as well.
But now people are saying Brown wasn't stopped for the incident at the convenience store. I don't know as there is any reason to even discuss Brown til this stuff gets all cleared up.

If the papers released the name of the man who called in the assault, then the police talked to the guy.  Even if he wasn't about to bleed out or didn't get cut deep enough to cause nerve damage, he still was cut by a blade.  Shoving is not stabbing.  It's not a power struggle between two men with a knife in hand.  It's a shove.

I didn't see Brown push anybody but the one shopkeeper, so the legend of Brown bullying the whole convenience store sounds like a legend to me.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 16, 2014, 01:16:06 PM
legends?
sheesh...
dude, you're just making stuff up as you go.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: City Blights on August 16, 2014, 02:05:17 PM
legends?
sheesh...
dude, you're just making stuff up as you go.

The video that I saw showed a young man shove the shopkeeper one time and did not show said young man shove anybody else.  Until I see a video that shows the same guy in the St. Louis hat pushing somebody else around, it's a legend to me that he did so.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 16, 2014, 07:39:30 PM
Amnesty International condemning the curfew in #Ferguson http://t.co/4mflc1MPMx
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 17, 2014, 06:29:55 AM
The relevant analysis for the purposes of the discussions is not what the suspects actually did before their encounter with the police, but what the police knew at the time of the encounter.  I don't know about this "Bones" guy, but here it appears that the officer might have learned that Brown was a suspect in a shoplifting incident after he came in contact with him.  It further sounds like the officer tried to force Brown into the cruiser and Brown got free somehow.  There was a reported struggle in the cruiser.  The initial question I have is why was the officer trying to force Brown inside the vehicle without first placing him in handcuffs and without backup present.  Both would be fairly standard SOP and highly advisable given Brown's size.  Regardless, if Brown started to struggle, then the use of force was justified.  However, it seems that a lot of people trying to assasinate this kid's character in a Trayvon Martin style hit-job don't understand that there is a difference between the use of force and the use of deadly force.  There is a use of force continuum which cops are trained to follow.  A suspect simply resisting arrest is not enough to shoot him (sorry, stand your ground folks.... it isn't).  If shooting was justified in that circumstance, then we wouldn't have any debate over the  use of tasers, billy-clubs, flashlights, etc. 

The really relevant inquiry, if all these witness accounts are true, begins once Brown broke free.  Even if he had just pummeled the cop, use of deadly force is not justified against a suspect who is no longer engaged in a violent act.  So, if he indeed did have his hands up and was indicating a willingness to surrender, then shooting  him would be akin to execution.  THAT's the issue, regardless of the video from the convenience store Fox is bound to play on a never-ending loop for the next few months.  The police are doing themselves no favors by allowing the witnesses to tell the story?  With all of this militarized equipment, could they not invest in some dash or lapel cams.  Video not only keeps cops in line, it protects them against bogus allegations.

EDIT:  interesting note on the alliance b/t the 'libs' on this one.  Would that be the Libertarians or the libertarians?  Us Freedomonians are on the side of justice.... whichever side that ends up being once the facts are established.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Clevelander17 on August 17, 2014, 08:33:08 AM
The relevant analysis for the purposes of the discussions is not what the suspects actually did before their encounter with the police, but what the police knew at the time of the encounter.  I don't know about this "Bones" guy, but here it appears that the officer might have learned that Brown was a suspect in a shoplifting incident after he came in contact with him.  It further sounds like the officer tried to force Brown into the cruiser and Brown got free somehow.  There was a reported struggle in the cruiser.  The initial question I have is why was the officer trying to force Brown inside the vehicle without first placing him in handcuffs and without backup present.  Both would be fairly standard SOP and highly advisable given Brown's size.  Regardless, if Brown started to struggle, then the use of force was justified.  However, it seems that a lot of people trying to assasinate this kid's character in a Trayvon Martin style hit-job don't understand that there is a difference between the use of force and the use of deadly force.  There is a use of force continuum which cops are trained to follow.  A suspect simply resisting arrest is not enough to shoot him (sorry, stand your ground folks.... it isn't).  If shooting was justified in that circumstance, then we wouldn't have any debate over the  use of tasers, billy-clubs, flashlights, etc. 

The really relevant inquiry, if all these witness accounts are true, begins once Brown broke free.  Even if he had just pummeled the cop, use of deadly force is not justified against a suspect who is no longer engaged in a violent act.  So, if he indeed did have his hands up and was indicating a willingness to surrender, then shooting  him would be akin to execution.  THAT's the issue, regardless of the video from the convenience store Fox is bound to play on a never-ending loop for the next few months.  The police are doing themselves no favors by allowing the witnesses to tell the story?  With all of this militarized equipment, could they not invest in some dash or lapel cams.  Video not only keeps cops in line, it protects them against bogus allegations.

EDIT:  interesting note on the alliance b/t the 'libs' on this one.  Would that be the Libertarians or the libertarians?  Us Freedomonians are on the side of justice.... whichever side that ends up being once the facts are established.

So you're of the opinion that, no matter what happened before the shooting, unless Wilson was involved in an active struggle with Brown at the time of the shooting, there was no reason why Wilson needed to shoot him to death? I suspect that once the police release their side of the story, that's exactly what they're going to claim, that Brown had not disengaged and did not put his hands up. At which point it becomes the word of a handful of witnesses (none of whom would likely tell say that it was Brown's fault even if it was the truth) versus Wilson's word (who himself would obviously have motivation to bend the facts in his favor).

Without getting too emotional or taking sides, it's possible we'll never know what really happened because there isn't an unbiased witness around. What's worse, getting way ahead of myself here, but imagine the outrage that might come if the jury decides to let Wilson off with manslaughter...or even less. Yikes.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on August 17, 2014, 09:01:05 AM
(none of whom would likely tell say that it was Brown's fault even if it was the truth)
How exactly would you know this?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Clevelander17 on August 17, 2014, 09:32:20 AM
(none of whom would likely tell say that it was Brown's fault even if it was the truth)
How exactly would you know this?

Just listening to the comments coming from residents, it seems there is a lot of distrust of the police in that community (and I'm not even saying it's unwarranted). I just don't think any of them would be likely to give the police the benefit of the doubt. Heck there's been debate about the validity of witness testimony, so even if these people believe that they're telling the truth (in other words, if they're not going out of their way to change the story, which is also possible), if they have the inherent biases about the police that I believe is likely, their brains may be more apt to seeing the story in the light that it wants to see it.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: casey on August 17, 2014, 09:45:41 AM
The cop may not have known that Brown was involved in the store robbery, but there was no way that Brown would have known that.

Having just robbed the store/roughed up the clerk, and then getting stopped by the police 10 minutes later - it seems one would probably automatically assume the two to be related. I.e., "This cop is pulling me over because I just stole those cigars and shoved that guy."

That puts Brown's mindset and expectations of what's about to occur (get arrested) at odds with those of the cop, who was reportedly just stopping because they were jaywalking. It's not difficult to see how that situation could potentially get out of control and escalate to something dangerous/completely unanticipated by both parties.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on August 17, 2014, 10:05:24 AM
Just listening to the comments coming from residents, it seems there is a lot of distrust of the police in that community (and I'm not even saying it's unwarranted). I just don't think any of them would be likely to give the police the benefit of the doubt. Heck there's been debate about the validity of witness testimony, so even if these people believe that they're telling the truth (in other words, if they're not going out of their way to change the story, which is also possible), if they have the inherent biases about the police that I believe is likely, their brains may be more apt to seeing the story in the light that it wants to see it.

I think there's a discussion about how much the Ferguson community DISTRUSTS police and how much it DISRESPECTS police.  The initial confrontation with Mike Brown is very telling.  The officer pulls up, tells the boys to get out of the middle of the street and the boy ends up in an altercation with the officer? 

When I was a student at OSU in the late 90s I recall students getting rowdy after beating Notre Dame.  Some couches were burned in the streets, etc.  Cops showed up and arrested anyone standing around, rubber bullets were fired at students, tear gas was shot also.  I don't recall anyone being outraged by police heavy-handedness...
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Clevelander17 on August 17, 2014, 10:26:02 AM
The cop may not have known that Brown was involved in the store robbery, but there was no way that Brown would have known that.

Having just robbed the store/roughed up the clerk, and then getting stopped by the police 10 minutes later - it seems one would probably automatically assume the two to be related. I.e., "This cop is pulling me over because I just stole those cigars and shoved that guy."

That puts Brown's mindset and expectations of what's about to occur (get arrested) at odds with those of the cop, who was reportedly just stopping because they were jaywalking. It's not difficult to see how that situation could potentially get out of control and escalate to something dangerous/completely unanticipated by both parties.

While I definitely agree with this possibility, I have to wonder how long it would have taken for a suspect description to get out over the radio. Could Wilson have had the description and possible whereabouts of the suspect of the convenience store robbery in that ten minute span?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 17, 2014, 05:40:31 PM
The most believable chronology of events I heard was that Wilson was aware of the robbery when he stopped Brown for walking in the street.  It was during that encounter that Wilson saw the box of cigars and made the connection to the robbery.  He went to take Brown into custody and what happens from there is where we are likely to hear conflicting accounts.

So you're of the opinion that, no matter what happened before the shooting, unless Wilson was involved in an active struggle with Brown at the time of the shooting, there was no reason why Wilson needed to shoot him to death?

I'm saying that no matter what happened before the shooting, if Brown had his hands up, then the shooting would be an unjustified use of deadly force.  We got rid of the firing squad awhile back.  It wouldn't matter if Brown had just blown up a school bus full of children according to our laws.  Wilson's side of the story is going to be critical to his defense, if a legal defense is ever necessary.  He hasn't been charged.  Every officer involved shooting is investigated.  That's where it's at.  Like I said, the police are allowing the witnesses to give the only account of the incident and it doesn't look good for Wilson based on that.  Ballistics should tell a lot of the story, mainly the distance and angles of the kill shots.  The closer the shots, the better it will be for Wilson.  Brown's fingerprints on the handle or any part of the duty belt would help as well.

Another reason Wilson's complete recount is not being released is due to complications from what is called the Garrity rule.  When a police officer kills someone, he has no right to 'remain silent' like the rest of us.  He has to write a report for the administrative review of the shooting.  That report is given a confidentiality so that no criminal investigator, prosecutor, judge, or jury are able to ever see it.  The police officer can then both maintain his job and his 5th Amendment rights.  He has to elect to use his Garrity rights, but they are available and Wilson might be wise to do so.  A lot will probably depend on whether he decides to testify should the case be submitted to a grand jury
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Clevelander17 on August 17, 2014, 07:11:24 PM
I'm saying that no matter what happened before the shooting, if Brown had his hands up, then the shooting would be an unjustified use of deadly force. 

I think we're on the same page here. Wilson's job was to apprehend Brown, and unless things went terribly awry, Brown should still be alive.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on August 17, 2014, 07:33:59 PM
how long till the officer is charged with manslaughter/unjustified use of force?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on August 17, 2014, 09:12:07 PM
Never, once they show how violent he was to the police officer, trying to take his gun.  Justifiable homicide.  If he was going to put his hands in the air, he would have done it immediately.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 17, 2014, 09:53:56 PM
How ironic... ‪#‎FoxNews‬ is ignoring ‪the latest ‎Ferguson‬ events, and instead is running pre-recorded interview of author of book "Police State" which apparently applies only to whites.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on August 17, 2014, 10:06:56 PM
I just looked at the streetview for the street that he was shot on. It just seems ridiculous. Impeding traffic. /sigh
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 17, 2014, 11:07:25 PM
Per the autopsy, Brown was shot SIX times including TWICE in the head.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: DeanSheen on August 17, 2014, 11:12:51 PM
Per the autopsy, Brown was shot SIX times including TWICE in the head.

All from the front.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=0
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on August 18, 2014, 04:21:12 AM
Per the autopsy, Brown was shot SIX times including TWICE in the head.

Once you start firing, you keep firing until you know the target is at least incapacitated.  That's basic.  Plus cops are human and there is an adrenalin factor.

There may be no "death penalty" for resisting arrest, but there is a death risk, just like there is for a home invasion.  It's no stretch whatsoever to believe that the guy in the store security video would resist arrest.

Speaking of such, for a mob to target and loot that store after the video was released was just about the most stereotype-reinforcing thing that could have happened.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on August 18, 2014, 04:25:59 AM
I am sort of amused by the people tweeting that the rioters should go into the white neighborhoods.  Even the looters are smarter than that.  Though one fails to see what trashing one's own neighborhood accomplishes.[/color]

Don't believe what you read on those white power sites. Half those twitter accts are probably fakes. The 'revolution' is not here yet and is much more of a pipe dream then they'd like to admit

Oh, they probably mostly fakes.  But that mindset shows up whenever there's an inner city riot.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on August 18, 2014, 07:09:09 AM
Never, once they show how violent he was to the police officer, trying to take his gun.  Justifiable homicide.  If he was going to put his hands in the air, he would have done it immediately.

There's no way the officer doesn't get charged.  Need to see more details if Mike Brown had gunpowder residue on his clothing to indicate he was shot at close range/struggling with the cop's gun in the car...   even then, I don't see any way that the officer doesn't get charged.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 18, 2014, 08:06:18 AM
There's multiple ways he could be charged.  He may face administrative charges if he didn't follow procedure.  Those charges would only affect his employment and that administrative investigation would be kept totally separate from any criminal investigation.  He could get charged and indicted in state court for either homicide or felonious assault (the latter if no intent to kill is found, which is doubtful considering the 'kill shots' which were fired).  He could get charged and indicted in federal court for civil rights violations if it is found either that the shooting was racially motivated (under such circumstances he could get charged with a parallel state crime) or if it was found that he used excessive force while the suspect was in custody (this is most common for jailhouse use of force incidents).

It's certainly possible that he doesn't get charged at all.  But he is likely going to have to have some more evidence than his word considering the other witness accounts.  A he said, they said circumstance would result in an indictment because the grand jury's job is not to resolve conflicting testimony, only to determine whether adequate evidence exists to support an indictment.  Wilson might even elect to maintain his 5th Amendment rights and not testify before a grand jury.  Other forensic work might really help him or it might really hurt him.

Never, once they show how violent he was to the police officer, trying to take his gun.  Justifiable homicide.  If he was going to put his hands in the air, he would have done it immediately.

If his fingerprints are on the gun or the holster and the shots were at close range, then it could be justifiable homicide.  But I fail to see how you jump to such drastic conclusions.  Keep an open mind on this one.   
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on August 18, 2014, 08:06:35 AM
I'm honestly not convinced after the autopsy that Mike Brown was running away when he was shot. And this was a separate autopsy done at the request of the family. He was shot six times, and all were from the front. Not a single shot was fired into his back as the witnesses claimed. Still too early to say for certain. Unless you have a Twitter account.

This is a terrible situation, but there have been so many knee-jerk reactions on both sides. It's really frustrating to watch the constant barrage on social media. Everyone is an expert and has all of the answers.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 18, 2014, 08:36:14 AM
^I think I saw one witness account that he was running away, but I thought the majority of them indicated he was shot while he had his hands up.  He might've started to run away and then turned back to the officer when a warning shot was fired.  The inventory of Wilson's magazine compared to the number of times Brown was shot might be illustrative.

No gun powder was found on the body.  The clothes have yet to be tested, but the kill shot to the head would have left some residue on the body if fired at close range.  Also didn't he have short sleeves on?  There would also be gun powder residue on his arm.  That is actually where I was thinking they would find it from a struggle in the police car.  Hopefully, for Wilson's sake, the police took proper precautions in preserving Brown's clothing.  Tests also need to be conducted inside the police cruiser
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 18, 2014, 08:41:23 AM
Crazy stuff happens when there is a perceived 'injustice'.  Here is 'stereo-type reinforcing' Happy Valley, Pa. after their football coach got fired.

(http://www.mediabistro.com/tvspy/files/2011/11/WTAJ_OverturnedNewsVan.jpg)

(http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/images/guy%20on%20van%20penn%20state.jpg)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on August 18, 2014, 09:11:35 AM
On a related note, police departments and civil libertarians are apparently both getting more and more comfortable with the idea of small, wearable cameras on police.  Dashboard cameras for cars have been around for a while now, but miniaturization is getting to the point where individual officers can wear them on their bodies without weighing them down too much.  The results have been fairly promising in some studies on smaller police forces; AFAIK, there haven't been studies on the major forces, and I don't know if this has been done with units like SWAT teams, either, but it's a promising start:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/business/wearable-video-cameras-for-police-officers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

FTR, I don't see any reason why such cameras would not have similar impact on larger forces, because the logical explanation to me is that the effect operates at the level of the individual officer, not the force.

Liberals and civil libertarians used to have some misgivings about this (Bill DiBlasio had some lukewarm comments about the concept in NYC ... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-tape-everything-in-public-0818-20140818-story.html#page=1), because it would mean basically constant surveillance wherever a police officer goes.  Think of the customer service calls where you get the warning that "this call may be monitored or recorded," only in this case, there would be no warning, you'd just be responsible for knowing that everything you do within the line of sight of a police officer is probably being recorded (and, given the march of big data, photo recognition, etc., likely analyzed in real time).  However, given the growing concern about police use of force, the customer-service-call-monitoring analogy has some attraction as well (after all, part of the reason companies record those calls is to know what their customers are saying, but they're generally far more interested in knowing how their own people are responding).
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: DM4 on August 18, 2014, 10:09:00 AM
I think the cops should be able to turn the camera off and on. No need to record their lunch break or random driving. If an officer responds to a scene or confronts someone, they would turn their body camera on as they are leaving the car. No need for nonstop surveillance and zero privacy for the officer.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 18, 2014, 10:21:20 AM
^That could lead to abuses and unnecessary skepticism.  The way most dash cams work is that they are triggered when the cop turns his cruiser lights on.

The other issue with cops filming everyone at all times is that they themselves often don't like to be filmed by the accused during a routine traffic stop.  I still think the benefits outweigh the potential for abuse.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 18, 2014, 10:29:53 AM
Mom Jones looked into who the cops like to shoot more - blacks or whites and
What we really need to question is, why the cops shoot so many more men than women.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/police-shootings-michael-brown-ferguson-black-men?fb_action_ids=10204557754726134&fb_action_types=og.likes
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 18, 2014, 10:30:32 AM
Per the autopsy, Brown was shot SIX times including TWICE in the head.

All from the front.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=0

It was six shots, two in the head. I don't care if they came from outer space. It's sadistic overkill. It tells me they treated this kid like a piece of meat. That level anger will be returned in equal force against a cop by someone, somewhere. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I don't condone it, but I do expect it because no one is backing down. So much hatred....
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 18, 2014, 10:32:37 AM
Ferguson smokes Springfield on murder but Springfield overall is more crime ridden than Ferguson.
http://www.areavibes.com/crime-comparison/ferguson,+mo-vs-springfield,+oh/
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: originaljbw on August 18, 2014, 10:37:45 AM
^Disagreed. An officer never knows when he/she will suddenly come upon a situation that requires potential use of a firearm. If you work in retail/restaurants/customer service, odds are you are being recorded every minute you're on premises. Which line of work is more important?

If youtube is to be believed, everybody in Russia has a dash cam to cut down on insurance fraud.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on August 18, 2014, 11:02:26 AM
It was six shots, two in the head. I don't care if they came from outer space. It's sadistic overkill. It tells me they treated this kid like a piece of meat. That level anger will be returned in equal force against a cop by someone, somewhere. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I don't condone it, but I do expect it because no one is backing down. So much hatred....

Certainly you would know of police procedures not to fire to wound and to fire multiple times.  I heard along with the 2 shots to the head, he was hit in the hand and arm.  Certainly, if those were the first shots, they wouldn't stop someone, and it might require more shots to bring them down.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 18, 2014, 11:33:17 AM
^Not likely in this circumstance.  The wounds indicate a flurry of successive shots aimed at center mass.  The witness accounts also indicate a series of rapid shots, and the reports the cops have selected to release don't dispute that.  The only contradictory accounts suggest that one or two shots might've been fired during a struggle in the police cruiser.  But, like I said before, if that was the case, there probably would be gun powder residue on the victim. 

Cops don't aim for the upper arm if they are trying to simply wound.  There is an artery in your arm, which if hit, would cause you to bleed out.  Same goes for the thigh.  If incapacitating a threat is truly the goal, the cop would at least try to knee cap him, or more likely resort to a taser.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on August 19, 2014, 09:30:34 AM
any results of the initial autopsy about toxicology report, that might indicate if Mike Brown was high on something?  Random twitter account referencing some unnamed witnesses saying he charged the officer...  might explain random aggression
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 19, 2014, 09:38:06 AM
Random twitter account referencing some unnamed witnesses

And who took the time to report on this random twitter account referencing some unnamed witnesses?

Hopefully, they did not make the same mistake they made in the Trayvon Martin case by doing a toxicology report on the victim but not the shooter.  I'm confident the officer was sober, but it would not help the situation if they failed to do their due diligence.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 19, 2014, 09:52:32 AM
Arrested in #Ferguson: mothers, fathers, Holocaust survivors, journalists, citizens. Not arrested in Ferguson: #DarrenWilson

We saw the video surveillance of #MichaelBrown. Where is the video from the police cruiser #DarrenWilson was in? Why haven't we seen that?!?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on August 19, 2014, 09:58:42 AM
Arrested in #Ferguson: mothers, fathers, Holocaust survivors, journalists, citizens. Not arrested in Ferguson: #DarrenWilson

We saw the video surveillance of #MichaelBrown. Where is the video from the police cruiser #DarrenWilson was in? Why haven't we seen that?!?

Yes, they only arrested the guilty people.

You haven't seen the video, because you have no need to see it until the investigation is complete.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on August 19, 2014, 09:59:12 AM
Because a dash cam video doesn't exist, because there wasn't a camera in the car.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/14/us/ferguson-dashcams/
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 19, 2014, 10:22:54 AM
They spent all of their money on armored vehicles and other military equipment.  Nothing left for dash cams.

There is a video now circulating which shows the immediate aftermath of the shooting.  The witness who took the video had the respect not to release it until Wilson was identified.  Wilson is seen pacing around the body, which is laying face down in the street.  He looks emotionally distressed about what just happened, as would most anyone who just took another's life, but does not appear to have any serious physical injury.

Yes, they only arrested the guilty people.

Now I know what I'm getting you for the holidays.....

(http://ronniehiggins.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/tumblr_lon5josiZy1qzmr3jo1_500.jpg)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 19, 2014, 10:25:19 AM
Yes, they only arrested the guilty people.


One can easily tell by the color of their skin or the size of their wallet....
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on August 19, 2014, 10:33:07 AM
Sounds like you're doing your best to incite the urbanOhio crowd!
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on August 19, 2014, 01:10:27 PM
Yes, they only arrested the guilty people.


One can easily tell by the color of their skin or the size of their wallet....

Right.  Because white people never get their asses kicked by cops, or are arrested unjustly, maced/tasered/teargassed/fired on with rubber bullets while in a rowdy crowd after ignoring orders to disperse....

Shoot KJP I think it was you that posted pics of those white kids protesting during the "Occupy" movement getting maced while just sitting there...   
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on August 19, 2014, 01:12:37 PM
Online forums are always the best way to debate complex social issues.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 19, 2014, 01:23:39 PM
Yes because we all know the history of how badly we've victimized and oppressed rich, white people in America.  :roll:
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on August 19, 2014, 01:47:34 PM
Another police shooting in the area. The place is a mess.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 19, 2014, 02:03:05 PM
^This one appears to clearly be justified.  Unfortunate, for sure.  But the suspect was brandishing a weapon and very close at the time of the shooting.  Assuming the victim was black, this should give a good test as to whether all of these people are correct that there is an uproar each and every time a black man is killed by the police.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 19, 2014, 02:18:20 PM
CityLab ‏@CityLab  10m
Whites have confidence in #Ferguson investigations. Blacks, not so much http://trib.al/RrwyLda  via @nationaljournal
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: richNcincy on August 19, 2014, 02:36:33 PM
It's sad how much people hate cops when something goes bad, yet love them when they're there to save the day for you personally.  No one is perfect at their job, yet we all expect cops to do their job with 100% accuracy.  No one wants to see this happen and cops NEVER want to shoot people.  The only time shots are fired are when it's my life versus yours. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 19, 2014, 02:56:12 PM
^The actions of the police can't be judged with 20/20 hindsight.  They have to make split-second decisions and that is exactly what this particular case might come down to depending on the evidence.  The overall hatred and distrust of the police is not right and I have commented on that many times on this site.  But let's not pretend that 'cops NEVER want to shoot people.'  Just as any other group of thousands upon thousands, there are bad apples.  The profession is not immune from getting infiltrated by cowboys who want nothing more than an excuse to use their service revolver.  Then there is also the simple fact that the profession is not for everyone.  You have to have the right temperament to be a cop and a big component of that is the necessity of extremely thick skin.  You can't lose your temper.  You have to maintain your cool and use PROPORTIONAL force.  Cops are prone to human error just like the rest of us and, although they are given more of the benefit of the doubt when mistakes are made, they are not immune from consequences for horrible decisions.

The general tone of your comment can be applied to many professions.  Nobody likes a prick lawyer, but everyone wants THEIR lawyer to be a prick.  Politicians are all scum, unless we are talking about the few you actually voted for.  Firefighters are overpaid and lazy..... until they run into your burning house and resuscitate your kid.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 19, 2014, 04:11:34 PM
Has #Ferguson Police Response to protests Gone Too Far?

-65% Black said Yes
-33% Whites said Yes

source: Pew http://t.co/9lpQjBgoWH
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: richNcincy on August 19, 2014, 05:00:23 PM
^The actions of the police can't be judged with 20/20 hindsight.  They have to make split-second decisions and that is exactly what this particular case might come down to depending on the evidence.  The overall hatred and distrust of the police is not right and I have commented on that many times on this site.  But let's not pretend that 'cops NEVER want to shoot people.'  Just as any other group of thousands upon thousands, there are bad apples.  The profession is not immune from getting infiltrated by cowboys who want nothing more than an excuse to use their service revolver.  Then there is also the simple fact that the profession is not for everyone.  You have to have the right temperament to be a cop and a big component of that is the necessity of extremely thick skin.  You can't lose your temper.  You have to maintain your cool and use PROPORTIONAL force.  Cops are prone to human error just like the rest of us and, although they are given more of the benefit of the doubt when mistakes are made, they are not immune from consequences for horrible decisions.

The general tone of your comment can be applied to many professions.  Nobody likes a prick lawyer, but everyone wants THEIR lawyer to be a prick.  Politicians are all scum, unless we are talking about the few you actually voted for.  Firefighters are overpaid and lazy..... until they run into your burning house and resuscitate your kid.

You are 100% correct that the profession is not for everyone.  The "cowboys" are usually weeded out within a few years and in this case, the officer was just given an award for going above and beyond.  That alone signifies he doesn't belong in the bad cop grouping.  I'd like to change my previous statement doubt cops NEVER wanting to shoot people, to I've never met a cop that wants to shoot people.

Police officers do have to keep their cool and also have thick skin, but utilize the plus one continuum when using force against another.  Meaning, whatever force is being used against them, they have the right to use one step high to eliminate that force or until they gain compliance. 

Also, the tone of my statement was supposed to apply to many, if not all professions, because cops are only human.  If the cop made a mistake, it will be shown but doesn't give anyone the right to riot and destroy the community they live in.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: old edale on August 19, 2014, 09:14:02 PM
[ If the cop made a mistake, it will be shown but doesn't give anyone the right to riot and destroy the community they live in.

List of mistakes made by the police in the case so far:
1) Putting six shots into an un-armed teen
2) Letting the body of the slain teen lie in the street for 4+ hours
3) Not interviewing eye witnesses at the scene
4) Arresting and tear gassing press
5) Using extraordinary force against protesting citizens

The looting accounted for a small percentage of all protest related activities of the few days, and was perpetrated by a small group of people that other protesters have described as 'drunk teens'.  I understand the sentiment of the looters.  They feel that they are living in a society where they can't win, so lashing out seems like the only option they have.  A cop is allowed to kill a 17 yr old kid without consequence, but a group of black kids break a convenience store window and take some Doritos and justice must be served!!!  :roll:
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ILYO on August 19, 2014, 10:15:54 PM
I just want to jump in here for a second. I feel like...it's 2014, I know there exists a plethora of non-lethal weapons available today. Maybe someone can help me understand why local peace officers are still using lethal weapons. It doesn't have to be " me or him". I don't understand.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 19, 2014, 11:20:02 PM
^Because there are countless circumstances in which a cop needs a lethal weapon, especially in this country with he plethora of firearms held by the citizenry

Police officers do have to keep their cool and also have thick skin, but utilize the plus one continuum when using force against another.  Meaning, whatever force is being used against them, they have the right to use one step high to eliminate that force or until they gain compliance. 

As can anyone when attacked with physical force.  The difference you might note (and be correct) is that the police have the authority to initiate all sort of situations which, if we did ourselves would cause us to lose that privilege.  And cops never have a duty to retreat either.  Of course, the officer loses those privileges too if he doesn't execute his authority lawfully.  The concept of 'proportional force' contemplates a sphere of options, always inclusive of whatever is necessary to eliminate the threat.

If the cop made a mistake, it will be shown but doesn't give anyone the right to riot and destroy the community they live in.

Does anything?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on August 20, 2014, 12:43:46 AM
"One time, for instance, my partner and I faced a belligerent man who had doused his car with gallons of gas and was about to create a firebomb at a busy mall filled with holiday shoppers. The potential for serious harm to the bystanders would have justified deadly force."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/19/im-a-cop-if-you-dont-want-to-get-hurt-dont-challenge-me/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 20, 2014, 06:52:44 AM

Egypt urges US to show restraint
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28855811
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on August 20, 2014, 07:12:26 AM
  A cop is allowed to kill a 17 yr old kid without consequence, but a group of black kids break a convenience store window and take some Doritos and justice must be served!!!  :roll:

OK it's a little more than that...  the gas station was burned to the ground.  dozens of other buildings have been vandalized, public property including police vehicles destroyed...   police have a responsibility to protect property, both public & private. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on August 20, 2014, 08:08:21 AM
  A cop is allowed to kill a 17 yr old kid without consequence, but a group of black kids break a convenience store window and take some Doritos and justice must be served!!!  :roll:

OK it's a little more than that...  the gas station was burned to the ground.  dozens of other buildings have been vandalized, public property including police vehicles destroyed...   police have a responsibility to protect property, both public & private. 

Every encounter has its own separate proportionality standard, though.  You can't just call all of Ferguson one situation and say that because x level of force was OK against looters and rioters, that the same level of force is/was also OK a mile away against crowds that are just walking around and glaring at you.  "He looked at me funny" is not cause to reach for your nightstick or handcuffs, let alone a lethal weapon (or a sound blaster or tear gas).  In particular, the intimidation and force against journalists is over the line.  If you have the right to point your gun at them, they have the right to point their camera at you.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on August 20, 2014, 08:10:05 AM
It's sad how much people hate cops when something goes bad, yet love them when they're there to save the day for you personally.  No one is perfect at their job, yet we all expect cops to do their job with 100% accuracy.  No one wants to see this happen and cops NEVER want to shoot people.  The only time shots are fired are when it's my life versus yours. 

Fair points. However I think it's this that feeds the large well of resentment toward the police. It's not about staying perfect at your job; every day there are countless stories of police misconduct (sorry the wiki link but it is more eloquent than I am).

Police culture
Police culture or “cop culture," as it is sometimes called by police officers, has resulted in a barrier against stopping corrupt officers. Police culture involves a set of values and rules that have evolved through the experiences of officers and which are affected by the environment in which they work. From the beginning of their career at their academies, police are brought into this “cop culture."

While learning jobs and duties, recruits will also learn the values needed to make it to a high rank in their organization. Some words used to describe these values are as follows: a sense of mission, action, cynicism, pessimism, machismo, suspicion, conservatism, isolation and solidarity. The unique demands that are placed on police officers, such as the threat of danger, as well as scrutiny by the public, generate a tightly woven environment conducive to the development of feelings of loyalty.

These values are claimed to lead to the code; isolation and solidarity leading to police officers sticking to their own kind, producing an us-against-them mentality. The us-against-them mentality that can result leads to officers backing each other up and staying loyal to one another; in some situations it leads to not “ratting” on fellow officers.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 20, 2014, 08:14:04 AM
From several accounts, there are agitators on both sides of the standoff.  The extreme minority on both sides, for sure, but agitators nonetheless.  Some have even went so far as to claim that there are "plants" among the protesters put there with the specific intent of stirring up the more susceptible gatherers.  That's a little too conspiracy theory for me, but it is not completely out of the realm of possibility I suppose.  On the police's side, there are reportedly some cops who are egging on the protesters, very slyly and subtlety.  It is not a situation which brings out the best in people.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Chris DoorDashian on August 20, 2014, 08:29:19 AM
Quote
If you have the right to point your gun at them, they have the right to point their camera at you.

Indeed.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on August 20, 2014, 08:35:52 AM
From several accounts, there are agitators on both sides of the standoff.  The extreme minority on both sides, for sure, but agitators nonetheless.  Some have even went so far as to claim that there are "plants" among the protesters put there with the specific intent of stirring up the more susceptible gatherers.  That's a little too conspiracy theory for me, but it is not completely out of the realm of possibility I suppose. 
From several accounts, there are agitators on both sides of the standoff.  The extreme minority on both sides, for sure, but agitators nonetheless.  Some have even went so far as to claim that there are "plants" among the protesters put there with the specific intent of stirring up the more susceptible gatherers.  That's a little too conspiracy theory for me, but it is not completely out of the realm of possibility I suppose. 
False flag. If you want to discredit any peaceful protest, you get one of them to kick in a store window. It makes sense. I suspect if this was ever a possibility it was during the World Bank protests a few years back, where protesters were pleading with people not to commit any violent or damaging acts. Very difficult to prove, especially when there are fringe idiots in any crowd - as mentioned above.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on August 20, 2014, 09:08:23 AM
Quote
If you have the right to point your gun at them, they have the right to point their camera at you.

Indeed.

Except the reporters arrested in the McDonalds did not have guns pointed at them.  They were being told to clear out for their own safety. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 20, 2014, 09:21:19 AM
^That's only 2 of the (at least) 11 reporters that have been arrested.  But all of them were arrested under the premise that they failed to obey a lawful order.  The question arises in this circumstance about whether the police's orders were lawful.

Aren't you the one always posting stuff advocating for freedom of the press?  Weird that in this circumstance your tune has changed.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on August 20, 2014, 09:25:57 AM
just playing devil's advocate.  I'm all for freedom of the press, but when local police are telling people to clear out from an area for their own safety, that seems pretty clear.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 20, 2014, 09:41:56 AM
90 y/o Holocaust survivor arrested in #Ferguson protest: 'Racism is alive and well in the US' http://t.co/Z9F1Zlcwwg http://t.co/OztFHTEewt

Police to journalist:  "I'll bust your head right here." http://t.co/JnPnE767gh
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 20, 2014, 09:55:53 AM
90 y/o Holocaust survivor arrested in #Ferguson protest: 'Racism is alive and well in the US' http://t.co/Z9F1Zlcwwg http://t.co/OztFHTEewt

Police to journalist:  "I'll bust your head right here." http://t.co/JnPnE767gh

wow ... read the dialog that went down!

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2014/8/18/police-to-al-jazeerajournalistinfergusonillbustyourass.html?utm_content=general&utm_campaign=ajam&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 20, 2014, 10:08:06 AM
just playing devil's advocate.  I'm all for freedom of the press, but when local police are telling people to clear out from an area for their own safety, that seems pretty clear.

The question becomes in that circumstance where the line is between a recommendation and a lawful order.  Journalists are on the battlefield in wartime.  They drive into natural disaster areas when everyone else is clearing out.  Danger is an accepted part of field journalism.  The concern here is that the cops are clearing out the media, not for their safety, but for the purpose of preventing them from seeing and reporting on certain police responses to what is going on.  Too many journalists, from all spectrums, have complained about the way the police have treated them for it all to be pure BS 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on August 20, 2014, 11:49:54 AM
just playing devil's advocate.  I'm all for freedom of the press, but when local police are telling people to clear out from an area for their own safety, that seems pretty clear.

If the journalists' own stories are to be believed, they were actually generally trying to obey, whether or not they thought the order was justified, and the police set it up so they basically couldn't possibly obey the order (i.e., giving multiple conflicting orders or giving orders that involved walking impossible lines).
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 20, 2014, 03:04:33 PM
Here's a story about another officer involved shooting of an unarmed youth, this time in Utah - http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58313255-78/burbank-police-taylor-officer.html.csp

For the reasons I stated upthread, I can understand the probable reasons why Wilson's account of the Ferguson shooting are not being released to the public, regardless of how bad that makes him look.  But I have a difficult time understanding how, in this Utah shooting, the police have video of the shooting (from a lapel cam the officer was wearing) but have refused to release it.  That video is not protected by Garrity rights.  Videos of crimes are released all the time without delay.  Why not here?  Troubling.

EDIT:  I guess it might be in dispute whether the Utah victim was armed or not, and the officer was specifically responding to a call about a suspect with a gun.  The video sure would help clear things up, one would think.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on August 20, 2014, 03:27:19 PM
Apparently a friend of the family of Wilson said. A shot was fired. The the suspect ran 35 feet away, stopped and taunted the policeman saying shoot me. shoot me. you won't shoot me.  Then the suspect bull rushed in and he was shot at that time.

Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 20, 2014, 04:44:40 PM
Oh no... I'm thinking a major powder keg is about to go off.  This could make things spread beyond Ferguson:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/18/klan-heading-to-ferguson-to-guard-white-businesses-back-shooting-of-ngger-criminal/
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on August 20, 2014, 06:50:32 PM
CNN now has Anderson Cooper on the ground in Ferguson.  After every commercial break, he's quick to point out that the protests are peaceful "so far", no signs of unrest "yet"....  but the sun is setting rapidly and no telling what might happen then....     from the camera shots of the crowds, it's like 1 cameraman for every 5 protesters...   at what point is the media driving the story instead of just reporting the story
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: SixthCity on August 20, 2014, 08:45:58 PM
Ferguson, Missouri, police officer suffered "serious facial injury" just before shooting and killing Michael Brown, according to sources


FERGUSON, Missouri - Sources close to Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson have told two media outlets the officer suffered "a serious facial injury" just before shooting and killing unarmed teen Michael Brown Aug. 9.

A source close to Wilson who spoke to ABC News today said during the struggle at the patrol car, Wilson suffered "a serious facial injury."

Wilson suffered severe facial injuries, including an orbital (eye socket) fracture, and was nearly beaten unconscious by Brown moments before firing his gun, a source close to the department's top brass told FoxNews.com.


More below:
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2014/08/ferguson_missouri_police_offic.html#incart_river


@ColDayMan why was this edited after I posted it?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: MyTwoSense on August 21, 2014, 05:41:57 AM
CNN now has Anderson Cooper on the ground in Ferguson.  After every commercial break, he's quick to point out that the protests are peaceful "so far", no signs of unrest "yet"....  but the sun is setting rapidly and no telling what might happen then....     from the camera shots of the crowds, it's like 1 cameraman for every 5 protesters...   at what point is the media driving the story instead of just reporting the story

He wasn't the only one there.  I went as well.

From a personal perspective, I've never seen something so bananas.  Tuesday night I thought I would be shot at any moment.  The safety forces acted as if any person in the area was a criminal.  I was made, not asked, to wear a bullet proof vest.  I do not think anyone is "driving" this story.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: MyTwoSense on August 21, 2014, 05:46:13 AM
  A cop is allowed to kill a 17 yr old kid without consequence, but a group of black kids break a convenience store window and take some Doritos and justice must be served!!!  :roll:

OK it's a little more than that...  the gas station was burned to the ground.  dozens of other buildings have been vandalized, public property including police vehicles destroyed...   police have a responsibility to protect property, both public & private. 
I don't think anyone here is doubting this.  I believe those who broke the law should be punished.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 21, 2014, 08:17:21 AM
Oh no... I'm thinking a major powder keg is about to go off.  This could make things spread beyond Ferguson:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/18/klan-heading-to-ferguson-to-guard-white-businesses-back-shooting-of-ngger-criminal/

The Klan is not that dumb, or brave.  They're not coming to Ferguson.  Every time something like this happens, these white power groups talk tough, but do nothing.  The next time one of those groups engages in anything even closely resembling a fair fight will be the first.  This ain't some small Podunk town in Mississippi where the Sherriff is a hood-wearing member.  Seriously..... when is the last time the Klan, the Skinheads, or any other "white power" group showed up in force to "deal" with something like this.  They say stuff like "so long as they don't come to the white neighborhoods", but even in that situation they wouldn't have the guts to do anything.  Fear is what drives the members to these groups and no amount of tough talk can change the fact they are mostly gutless cowards.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on August 21, 2014, 08:25:55 AM
They say stuff like "so long as they don't come to the white neighborhoods", but even in that situation they wouldn't have the guts to do anything.  Fear is what drives the members to these groups and no amount of tough talk can change the fact they are mostly gutless cowards.

The bigmouthed Klan guys probably wouldn't do anything, but don't for one second believe that there aren't people in "white" (or for that matter mixed) neighborhoods that wouldn't shoot at rampaging mobs of any color. 

Fortunately, the people doing the rampaging know this.  It's uninvolved rabble rousers, trolls, or teens who resent the "defection" of their parents who even post that kind of crap.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 21, 2014, 08:33:57 AM
^They don't know this and there is no precedent for what you are saying (feel free to cite me to any recent example).  There are no more people in "white" neighborhoods who would shoot at rampaging mobs of any color than there are in the "black" or other neighborhoods, regardless of the chest-pounding you might read on "other" sites.  It just doesn't happen.  When white people riot, you don't see the vigilantes coming out and shooting them.  You don't see these self-proclaimed vigilantes period, because the great majority of them are too fat to make it up their mom's basement stairs anyways.  The only thing that scares any troublemakers within these protests from going to the white neighborhoods would be the police force and, by the look of things in Ferguson, that isn't having much effect on those troublemakers anyways.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on August 21, 2014, 09:04:39 AM
The weakness of the Klan should be taken as a positive change in race relations.  Yes, there are still many idiots out there, but as each generation grows, they are more and more deminished.  There will always be stupid people, there is no law against it.  Not every sheriff down south is a hood wearing member, just as every black is not a white hating bigot.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 21, 2014, 09:25:00 AM
just as every black is not a white hating bigot.

Who even remotely suggested they were?

The Klan never was all that strong outside of the small communities in which the purported law enforcement were compliant.  Strong groups don't feel the need to hide behind hoods and masks.  Strong groups feels comfortable marching wherever, whenever for their cause (see the Civil Rights protesters marching straight into the Lion's Den deep south)..... without the need for a police escort and protection (as the Klan demands at the taxpayer's expense anytime it tries to demonstrate).  Fear drives people to the Klan and the result is a collection of scared members who talk tough in their quivering boots.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: old edale on August 21, 2014, 10:14:30 AM
Oh no... I'm thinking a major powder keg is about to go off.  This could make things spread beyond Ferguson:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/18/klan-heading-to-ferguson-to-guard-white-businesses-back-shooting-of-ngger-criminal/

The first line says traveling to Ohio to hold a fundraiser, but the article clearly says they're going to be both 'protesting/protecting white business" and holding their fundraiser in Missouri! The editor needs to correct that ASAP! Leave Ohio out of this!
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 21, 2014, 10:15:20 AM
Apparently, Joe the Plumber thinks putting on a job fair in Ferguson would stop any rioting because the rioters would scatter like roaches.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 21, 2014, 10:59:57 AM
^What an embarrassment to Ohio that guy is....
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 21, 2014, 06:47:42 PM
Big key to Ferguson story: Town relies on traffic fines for revenue, creating constant low-level adversarial vibe: http://t.co/UYeTO7wqEJ
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 21, 2014, 07:33:12 PM
Deaths from police shootings (latest available year)
US 409
Germany 8
Britain 0
Japan 0

http://t.co/WXZj9mivRt http://t.co/RYU5guAD98
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on August 21, 2014, 10:59:35 PM
Police pull up to a mentally disturbed person with weapons drawn. 20s later he's dead. Suicide by cop express lane. To protect and serve.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/21/us/st-louis-police-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 22, 2014, 05:48:45 AM
Buchanan calls for Holder to back off
http://buchanan.org/blog/race-based-justice-6903?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PatrickBuchanan+%28Pat+Buchanan+Update%29
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: MyTwoSense on August 22, 2014, 06:05:18 AM
Buchanan calls for Holder to back off
http://buchanan.org/blog/race-based-justice-6903?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PatrickBuchanan+%28Pat+Buchanan+Update%29
Typical, yet his ass wont get anywhere near Ferguson!

Had I not witnessed things myself, I would be an armchair forumer myself.  I really hope that nothing on this scale ever happens in Cleveland.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 22, 2014, 06:08:50 AM
Deaths from police shootings (latest available year)
US 409
Germany 8
Britain 0
Japan 0

http://t.co/WXZj9mivRt http://t.co/RYU5guAD98

This is just murder rates - violent crime would be better
US - 4.8
Japan - 0.3
UK - 1.0
Germany - 0.8
It seems like US police have to deal with a more violent population, however.
If you think the US is outta control crazy over killing, check out central america & the Caribbean countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country
Wonder what the police killing rates are down there...
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Chris DoorDashian on August 22, 2014, 06:26:30 AM
And by "violent crime," you mean the US police have to deal with citizens armed with guns.  Unlike Germany, UK, and Japan.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 22, 2014, 06:48:21 AM
Anything, fists, knives, hammers...
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 22, 2014, 07:08:48 AM
I'm not sure that violent crime rate helps your narrative too much, Bob.  Assuming we do have 4x or 5x the violent crime, why the 50x (or much greater disparity) in deaths by police shooting?  My apologies if you were attempting to reinforce/support KJP's point, which you did very well

Japan, btw, should never be included in such an analysis.  The 'underground' criminal world over there doesn't show up in statistics
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: X on August 22, 2014, 07:31:10 AM
Why assume they would vary proportionately?  Wouldn't violent criminals be exponentially more likely to end up shot by the police than the average citizen?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 22, 2014, 07:58:26 AM
CNN is reporting that the report of Darren Wilson having a fractured eye socket is false.

cc: @FoxNews, specifically @SeanHannity, one of the most disgusting excuses for a human being I've ever heard.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on August 22, 2014, 08:50:00 AM
CNN is reporting that the report of Darren Wilson having a fractured eye socket is false.

cc: @FoxNews, specifically @SeanHannity, one of the most disgusting excuses for a human being I've ever heard.

Funny that this story isn't on the CNN site, at least I couldn't find it, but on the random internet sites that posted about this story, it was said that he did go to the hospital with a severely beaten face. Seems unimportant to me how much damage was done to his face, only that he was touched at all.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 22, 2014, 09:24:50 AM
If you want some inflammatory coverage worthy of reinstating the blink tag, check out InfoWars. Alex Jones is going to town.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Mr Sparkle on August 22, 2014, 10:58:38 AM
I'm not sure that violent crime rate helps your narrative too much, Bob.  Assuming we do have 4x or 5x the violent crime, why the 50x (or much greater disparity) in deaths by police shooting?


The police shooting is a total number, the violent crime number is a rate (per 100,000 population) so they can't be compared directly...

e.g .Germany police shooting deaths:
0.010 per 100,000 pop
USA is 0.128 per 100,000

So 12.8x deaths per police shooting when compare to Germany for example
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Quimbob on August 23, 2014, 07:33:02 AM
A crowdfunding page created for Darren Wilson raised $235,010 from 5,902 people before organizers stopped accepting donations Friday after reaching their goal in four days.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/22/ferguson-calm-officer-support/14439979/
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 23, 2014, 08:44:23 AM
Why assume they would vary proportionately?  Wouldn't violent criminals be exponentially more likely to end up shot by the police than the average citizen?

Did I say I would expect exactness?  At what point would the differential become statistically significant in your mind?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 23, 2014, 08:46:24 AM
CNN is reporting that the report of Darren Wilson having a fractured eye socket is false.

cc: @FoxNews, specifically @SeanHannity, one of the most disgusting excuses for a human being I've ever heard.

Funny that this story isn't on the CNN site, at least I couldn't find it, but on the random internet sites that posted about this story, it was said that he did go to the hospital with a severely beaten face. Seems unimportant to me how much damage was done to his face, only that he was touched at all.


So as long as a suspect lays one finger on a cop, the cop has the right to shoot the suspect?  Sheesh.  What if the suspect has disengaged and was willing to surrender?  Ok for the cop to execute?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 23, 2014, 09:03:35 AM
A crowdfunding page created for Darren Wilson raised $235,010 from 5,902 people before organizers stopped accepting donations Friday after reaching their goal in four days.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/22/ferguson-calm-officer-support/14439979/

I wonder whether those 'donations' can still be written off on taxes if he is found guilty.  I'm sure a lot of people who donated don't truly care about guilt or innocence, and the motivation for giving in some is the "one less #%$&¥£" approach.  But I just wonder if the funds can be transferred to his prison account, if charged and convicted.  What's somewhat comically ironic is, if the funds go to legal defense, all the givers did was save the union money.  It would be the union, not Wilson, who would be paying for legal defense.  I'd bet a good chunk of the givers are not fans of public employee unions.  That kind of stuff tickles me
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: DM4 on August 23, 2014, 09:15:15 AM
^ could be other cops.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 23, 2014, 09:19:33 AM
^other cops wouldn't donate through a service like that.  Police have separate funds for incidents like this

There is no way to confirm this, but I would bet the same people (and for the same motivations) who gave all that money to Zimmerman are donating to this fund
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: X on August 23, 2014, 11:33:26 AM
Why assume they would vary proportionately?  Wouldn't violent criminals be exponentially more likely to end up shot by the police than the average citizen?

Did I say I would expect exactness?  At what point would the differential become statistically significant in your mind?

I'd want to see "police shootings per apprehension" or "police shootings per apprehension of suspect of violent crime" or "police shootings per apprehension of armed suspect" or something similar that breaks the numbers down to a relevant population instead of just a count or per capita number.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on August 23, 2014, 04:13:21 PM
So as long as a suspect lays one finger on a cop, the cop has the right to shoot the suspect?  Sheesh.  What if the suspect has disengaged and was willing to surrender?  Ok for the cop to execute?

You can twist my words as much as you like, but I never said that.  The info from the so called witness said his hands were up and he was shot in the back. 

If he beat the officer's face, one can imagine that the situation escalated.  If he charged as others have said, after hitting the officer, one can imagine what might have happened. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: BCCLE1 on August 23, 2014, 08:05:16 PM
RE: reply #230 by KJP. KJP, you got it wrong, I'm sure you meant to say the worse cc: MSMBC, specifically "Rev" Al A__ Sharpton, one of the most disgusting excuses for a human being I've ever heard, and a racist too.

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?action=post;topic=29535.210;last_msg=723264#ixzz3BGnsHpP0
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: MyTwoSense on August 24, 2014, 05:49:21 AM
RE: reply #230 by KJP. KJP, you got it wrong, I'm sure you meant to say the worse cc: MSMBC, specifically "Rev" Al A__ Sharpton, one of the most disgusting excuses for a human being I've ever heard, and a racist too.

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?action=post;topic=29535.210;last_msg=723264#ixzz3BGnsHpP0


Personally knowing Sharpton and I do not agree with everything he says.  However,  I can say he is far from a racist, but very pro people of color and equality for all.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on August 24, 2014, 06:35:12 AM
RE: reply #230 by KJP. KJP, you got it wrong, I'm sure you meant to say the worse cc: MSMBC, specifically "Rev" Al A__ Sharpton, one of the most disgusting excuses for a human being I've ever heard, and a racist too.

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?action=post;topic=29535.210;last_msg=723264#ixzz3BGnsHpP0


Personally knowing Sharpton and I do not agree with everything he says.  However,  I can say he is far from a racist, but very pro people of color and equality for all.

Good indepth article about the Rev Sharpton.  Perhaps people can draw their own conclusions  http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/al-sharpton-obama-race-110249.html#.U_nXsfmwKRY
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 24, 2014, 07:47:33 AM
So as long as a suspect lays one finger on a cop, the cop has the right to shoot the suspect?  Sheesh.  What if the suspect has disengaged and was willing to surrender?  Ok for the cop to execute?

You can twist my words as much as you like, but I never said that.  The info from the so called witness said his hands were up and he was shot in the back. 

If he beat the officer's face, one can imagine that the situation escalated.  If he charged as others have said, after hitting the officer, one can imagine what might have happened. 

I didn't twist anything.  Your exact words were - "Seems unimportant to me how much damage was done to his face, only that he was touched at all.  I assumed you intended the common English usages of those words.  Maybe you didn't.

I don't know about shot in the back, but the multiple witnesses (not a single "so-called witness") indicate that Brown had turned around and had his hands up when the kill shots were fired.  There are some indications that the officer fired a few shots, but did not hit Brown, before he turned around.  Knowing how many shots the officer fired  would be informative, but the police have not released that information.

The stories about suggesting that he might have "beat the officers face" and "charged", as far as I know, comes second-hand from the officer himself...... not "others".

Sorry for the corrections, but I have to twist your words when you  assign a single witness account to multiple witnesses and multiple witness accounts to a single report.  I will assume that was not intentional in the way Fox would intentionally mislead.

As for hypotheticals, I have already said the shooting would've been justified if Brown beat the officer and then charged at him.

I, however, would have a few questions about the cop's account.  Why was Brown not in handcuffs?  Police don't put suspects in a squad car uncufffed.  Why did he not wait for backup before attempting to apprehend him?  That would be SOP if the officer truly was intimidated by Brown's size/appearance.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on August 24, 2014, 09:45:34 AM

I, however, would have a few questions about the cop's account.  Why was Brown not in handcuffs?  Police don't put suspects in a squad car uncufffed.  Why did he not wait for backup before attempting to apprehend him?  That would be SOP if the officer truly was intimidated by Brown's size/appearance.

Well, we've really not heard the officer's account.  All we've heard are second hand reports from yes, so called witnesses because there have been no official reports released on either side.  It's clear you knew who I meant because the friend who was with him said he was shot in the back. 

One of the second hand reports I heard said that Brown pushed the door in as the officer was getting out and they scuffled through the door or window.  I heard nothing that said he was trying to put Brown in the squad car.

Hard to wait for backup when someone is charging you.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 24, 2014, 11:24:49 AM
Darren Wilson’s first job was on a troubled police force disbanded by authorities
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on August 24, 2014, 12:00:02 PM
So as long as a suspect lays one finger on a cop, the cop has the right to shoot the suspect?  Sheesh.  What if the suspect has disengaged and was willing to surrender?  Ok for the cop to execute?

You can twist my words as much as you like, but I never said that.  The info from the so called witness said his hands were up and he was shot in the back. 

If he beat the officer's face, one can imagine that the situation escalated.  If he charged as others have said, after hitting the officer, one can imagine what might have happened. 

From what I understand, the autopsies definitively found that he was not shot in the back.

If you are actively resisting a police officer, what happens is on you.   He's not going to back down, indeed he is basically not allowed to.

As for the crowdfunding, the worst thing there was the effort by "progressives" to blackmail gofundme into shutting it down.  The left (and for that matter the right) is at its very worst when it is trying to silence the other side.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on August 24, 2014, 12:23:47 PM

If you are actively resisting a police officer, what happens is on you.   He's not going to back down, indeed he is basically not allowed to.

And I respond to your blanket statement with this:

http://www.cbs8.com/story/14628827/sdpd-cop-accused-of-raping-woman

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - A San Diego police officer was jailed Wednesday on suspicion of rape, assault, kidnapping and other felony charges, one day after the city's top cop publicly apologized for a recent rash of misconduct cases involving members of his department and pledged to put a stop to such behavior.

Daniel Edward Dana, a four-year member of the San Diego Police Department, was booked into county jail Wednesday afternoon. He has resigned from his position.

The charges involve alleged on-duty acts committed early Wednesday morning against a 34-year-old prostitute that Dana, 26, had recently befriended, SDPD officials reported.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Htsguy on August 24, 2014, 01:02:58 PM
^Really don't understand your point.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on August 24, 2014, 01:34:41 PM
^Really don't understand your point.

The point is sometimes you should resist a police officer.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Htsguy on August 24, 2014, 01:45:45 PM
^Apples and oranges.  If a police officer is acting in his official capacity to stop, investigate, detain or arrest somebody, a person is a complete moron if he in anyway takes a hostile action against a cop, both for legal as well as practical reasons.  You are just looking for trouble in so many different ways.  And that is my advice with the best and worse trained cop. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on August 24, 2014, 01:56:17 PM
^Apples and oranges.  If a police officer is acting in his official capacity to stop, investigate, detain or arrest somebody, a person is a complete moron if he in anyway takes a hostile action against a cop, both for legal as well as practical reasons.  You are just looking for trouble in so many different ways.  And that is my advice with the best and worse trained cop. 

You must be  reading too much into my post. Here's a recap.

Erocc - If you are actively resisting a police officer, what happens is on you.

Me - That's a blanket statement. [and I cited a recent instance - albeit rare - where actively resisting a police officer may very well be your best option]
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: jam40jeff on August 24, 2014, 02:41:00 PM
http://m.vice.com/read/did-i-get-away-with-felony-drug-dealing-charges-because-im-white
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on August 24, 2014, 06:26:26 PM
^Really don't understand your point.

The point is sometimes you should resist a police officer.

I meant in the performance of his duties, and thought that went without saying.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on August 25, 2014, 06:41:57 AM
^Really don't understand your point.

The point is sometimes you should resist a police officer.

I meant in the performance of his duties, and thought that went without saying.

Okay thanks for clarifying.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 25, 2014, 08:31:52 AM
Well, we've really not heard the officer's account.  All we've heard are second hand reports from yes, so called witnesses because there have been no official reports released on either side.  It's clear you knew who I meant because the friend who was with him said he was shot in the back. 

One of the second hand reports I heard said that Brown pushed the door in as the officer was getting out and they scuffled through the door or window.  I heard nothing that said he was trying to put Brown in the squad car.

Hard to wait for backup when someone is charging you.

Hard to stay objective when you are making conclusory statements about what happened.  The witness accounts are not "second-hand".  Those are first-hand accounts from eyewitnesses.  I have no idea why the no less than 5 separate accounts are from "so-called witnesses" in your mind.  What am I supposed to assume about that?  Would you be saying the same thing if the 5 accounts came from soccer moms who witnessed the scene from their minivans?  I don't think so.  I also don't know what you mean by "either side".  One side is dead and the other is most likely (and wisely) maintaining his right to remain silent.

Allow me to be abundantly clear (again), I don't think anybody could reasonably dispute that IF Brown charged the officer, given his size and after first assaulting the officer and with the officer's knowledge that Brown had just committed a strong-arm robbery, then the shooting would be justified.  Can we put that one to bed?  Anyone care to argue otherwise?  If not, then it is pointless to keep discussing it.

Now, let's look at it from the actual accounts we have heard...... first-hand. 

But let's also give the officer a few benefits of the doubt.  It was Brown in the convenience store video,  The officer did put two-and-two together after he stopped Brown that Brown was the suspect in that strong-arm robbery.  Brown did struggle with the officer and even assaulted and injured the officer during that struggle.  We can assume all of those facts.  All the witnesses saw Brown run away and the officer start shooting while Brown was running away.  The forensics indicate that none of those shots hit Brown.

First inquiry: assuming those facts are true, was the officer justified in discharging his weapon as Brown ran away?

All the independent witness accounts are also consistent that when the officer started shooting, Brown stopped running.  He was about 35 feet away from the officer and turned around with his hands up, saying something along the lines of "OK! OK! OK!".  The officer continues to fire his weapon, striking Brown no less than 6 times, close to center-mass.

Second inquiry: assuming those facts are true, is that shooting justified?

Those are actually two separate legal inquiries.  Again, putting all snark or anything resembling a Fox News "yeah, but" response aside, would anyone argue that the officer was justified in either circumstance?   
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 25, 2014, 08:36:01 AM
From what I understand, the autopsies definitively found that he was not shot in the back.

If you are actively resisting a police officer, what happens is on you.   He's not going to back down, indeed he is basically not allowed to.

He was not shot in the back.  That doesn't mean the officer did not fire when Brown's back was turned.  We still don't know how many shots were fired from the officer's weapon.  Why is that?

As for your other point, I never would've pegged you for one who would've advocated for the Feds to plow over with deadly force all the Cliven Bundy supporters (who were aiming their weapons at the Feds) in lieu of backing down.  Interesting.

On the broader point, is the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment so you can, under appropriate circumstances, actively resist a police officer?  Again.... interesting take from you.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on August 25, 2014, 09:10:35 AM
Well, we've really not heard the officer's account.  All we've heard are second hand reports from yes, so called witnesses because there have been no official reports released on either side.  It's clear you knew who I meant because the friend who was with him said he was shot in the back. 

One of the second hand reports I heard said that Brown pushed the door in as the officer was getting out and they scuffled through the door or window.  I heard nothing that said he was trying to put Brown in the squad car.

Hard to wait for backup when someone is charging you.

Hard to stay objective when you are making conclusory statements about what happened.  The witness accounts are not "second-hand".  Those are first-hand accounts from eyewitnesses.  I have no idea why the no less than 5 separate accounts are from "so-called witnesses" in your mind.  What am I supposed to assume about that?  Would you be saying the same thing if the 5 accounts came from soccer moms who witnessed the scene from their minivans?  I don't think so.  I also don't know what you mean by "either side".  One side is dead and the other is most likely (and wisely) maintaining his right to remain silent.

Allow me to be abundantly clear (again), I don't think anybody could reasonably dispute that IF Brown charged the officer, given his size and after first assaulting the officer and with the officer's knowledge that Brown had just committed a strong-arm robbery, then the shooting would be justified.  Can we put that one to bed?  Anyone care to argue otherwise?  If not, then it is pointless to keep discussing it.

Now, let's look at it from the actual accounts we have heard...... first-hand. 

But let's also give the officer a few benefits of the doubt.  It was Brown in the convenience store video,  The officer did put two-and-two together after he stopped Brown that Brown was the suspect in that strong-arm robbery.  Brown did struggle with the officer and even assaulted and injured the officer during that struggle.  We can assume all of those facts.  All the witnesses saw Brown run away and the officer start shooting while Brown was running away.  The forensics indicate that none of those shots hit Brown.

First inquiry: assuming those facts are true, was the officer justified in discharging his weapon as Brown ran away?

All the independent witness accounts are also consistent that when the officer started shooting, Brown stopped running.  He was about 35 feet away from the officer and turned around with his hands up, saying something along the lines of "OK! OK! OK!".  The officer continues to fire his weapon, striking Brown no less than 6 times, close to center-mass.

Second inquiry: assuming those facts are true, is that shooting justified?

Those are actually two separate legal inquiries.  Again, putting all snark or anything resembling a Fox News "yeah, but" response aside, would anyone argue that the officer was justified in either circumstance?   

You just keep it up.  You have seen no official eyewitness reports.  You may have unofficial reports taken from broadcasts, but nothing else.

You are the one making conclusory statements based on these so-called eyewitnesses, one of which said he was shot in the back.  There goes your evidence.

What in the world does soccer moms have to do with anything?  Plus this isn't the first time you've mentioned my love of Fox News.  I'm not a regular viewer, actually couldn't even tell you when I watched it last.  So please stop.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 25, 2014, 09:30:46 AM
I don't know what I am keeping up.  I just asked some questions.  You don't want to answer them.  Fine.  I understand why.  Don't participate in the discussion.

But, I must ask, when do witness reports become official in your mind?  We have heard first-hand from several of these witnesses.  If you want to dismiss the friend's account, okay.  But you still have the other independent accounts from eye-witnesses whose accounts closely mirror those of the friend's.  Why are those dismissed as "so-called witnesses"?  The only 'second-hand' account we are getting is from the officer himself.

As for some witness saying he was shot in the back, I think the accounts were that the officer fired when Brown's back was turned.  No one definitely said Brown was hit.  Even for trained police officers, hitting a moving target can be difficult.  Even if one of the witnesses said that he was shot in the back, I'm not sure how that would impeach the other accounts, or even that witnesses account.  Furthermore, I don't see how you say "there goes your evidence".  I don't have any evidence.  I am totally objective on this one.  I have given several scenarios in which the shooting would have been totally justified, regardless of whether Brown was armed.  You are the one advocating for a certain outcome without first knowing all of the evidence.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on August 25, 2014, 10:01:57 AM
When witnesses are interviewed by the police I believe those become official. I have never advocated a certain outcome. I said both sides need to wait for official reports.

The only thing you keep up are your comments that I get all my news from Fox.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 25, 2014, 11:25:02 AM
There would be something wrong with that in that it would taint your viewpoint, no different than if someone got all of their information from MSNBC or the Huffington Post.

The police have interviewed the witnesses.  If they haven't, then something is really wrong with this investigation.  The witnesses have also given direct interviews to the media, some of them videotaped.

I'll go ahead and assume that your answers to my two inquiries you avoided above would be in the negative.  Answering the inquiries did not require firm knowledge of any facts, only the assumption of certain hypotheticals.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: SixthCity on August 25, 2014, 11:33:36 AM
As a silent observer of this conversation: I just want to thank you @Hts121 for introducing the relevant legal standards/inquiries into this conversation.  Actual legal analysis has been nightmarishly absent from almost every discussion and article I've seen regarding this incident - from both sides.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on August 25, 2014, 11:43:18 AM
As a silent observer of this conversation: I just want to thank you @Hts121 for introducing the relevant legal standards/inquiries into this conversation.  Actual legal analysis has been nightmarishly absent from almost every discussion and article I've seen regarding this incident - from both sides.

Hts121 cannot help himself.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: BCCLE1 on August 25, 2014, 12:19:57 PM
The AP is reporting that the family of Michael Brown described him as a "gentle soul" at the funeral.

I do not think a person who commits a strong-arm robbery, pushing the person back who is working at the store, assaulting him,  then assaults a police officer, is a "gentle soul".

Also, Hts121, you keep bringing up the "fact" that the friend of the now deceased Michael Brown, was an eye-witness to the "facts" of what happened. But this friend has already been shown to have lied to the police in the past on various news reports. So, can his eye-witness testimony be trusted?

There have also been witnesses for the cop, and for the deceased whom have different stories as to what happened that tragic day, so again who is telling the truth, and who is lying?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Htsguy on August 25, 2014, 12:30:52 PM
I don't know the answer to this....was the friend witness with Brown when he robbed the store or did they hook up later?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: DeanSheen on August 25, 2014, 12:36:07 PM
"I do not think a person who commits a strong-arm robbery, pushing the person back who is working at the store, assaulting him,  then assaults a police officer, is a "gentle soul"."

Well it wasn't a robbery.

Yeah, it's the family, what do you expect them to say?  Gentle soul, good boy, etc.  It is his funeral after all.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: BCCLE1 on August 25, 2014, 01:10:37 PM
"I do not think a person who commits a strong-arm robbery, pushing the person back who is working at the store, assaulting him,  then assaults a police officer, is a "gentle soul"."

Well it wasn't a robbery.

Yeah, it's the family, what do you expect them to say?  Gentle soul, good boy, etc.  It is his funeral after all.
[http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/08/16/us/16documents-ferguson1/16documents-ferguson1-blog427.jpg/quote]

How blind are you. It was a robbery, the accomplice/friend with Michael Brown has at least admitted to that in news reports I have read. It does not matter whether one "takes" a candy bar, or is "given" the cash from the register; if the candy bar is not legitimately paid for, but shop-lifted, and the taker is caught by the person overseeing the store at the time, and refuses to give the candy bar back, it is a robbery once the thief leaves the store. Michael Brown, and his friend may have looked at whatever they were taking from the store as shop-lifting, but they robber the store of what that were not freely entitled too.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 25, 2014, 01:10:52 PM
The AP is reporting that the family of Michael Brown described him as a "gentle soul" at the funeral.

I do not think a person who commits a strong-arm robbery, pushing the person back who is working at the store, assaulting him,  then assaults a police officer, is a "gentle soul".

Also, Hts121, you keep bringing up the "fact" that the friend of the now deceased Michael Brown, was an eye-witness to the "facts" of what happened. But this friend has already been shown to have lied to the police in the past on various news reports. So, can his eye-witness testimony be trusted?

There have also been witnesses for the cop, and for the deceased whom have different stories as to what happened that tragic day, so again who is telling the truth, and who is lying?

When did I bring up such "facts"?  Asking a hypothetical question (which assumes certain facts) and stating a fact are not the same thing.  Regardless, I said above to go ahead and discount the friend's account.  Just rely on the other independent witnesses and you get basically the same story.  Dorian Johnson is the friend.  But there is also Tiffany Mitchell, who knew neither Brown nor Johnson, and was simply driving by when she witnessed the incident.  Her version of events, as given first-hand to the media, closely matches those provided by Johnson.  Then there is also Piaget Crenshaw, who witnessed at least part of the incident from her apartment balcony.  Then there is Emmanuel Freeman, who basically live-tweeted the incident.  Then there is a unidentified guy who spoke with a local TV station - http://fox2now.com/2014/08/12/witness-claims-he-saw-what-happened-when-michael-brown-was-shot/. 

The one common theme from all 5 accounts is that Brown had his hands in the air when the kill shots were fired.  Several of the witnesses reported gun shots being fired as Brown ran away.  All reported some kind of struggle at the police car, with possibly a shot fired, prior to Brown running away.  Based on those accounts, I asked the above questions.  Based on the lack of response, I assume no one would argue those are justifiable shootings.

I have not heard of any 'witnesses' for the cop.  Who would those individuals be?  I know the police have selectively leaked some information which was given to them by Wilson himself.  And there was some lady who called into a radio station claiming to know the cop and recounting, second or third hand, what the cop's story is.  That is not a 'witness for the cop'.  Do you have any links?  Honestly, I don't want to leave any pertinent info out of the discussion.  But also keep in mind that I already gave my opinion on the justification if the cop's account, at least the pieces of it we have been allowed to hear, are correct.  The shooting would've been justified.  (please re-read that last sentence as many times as necessary to understand prior to responding).


How blind are you.

Completely unnecessary.  Keep the discussion civil.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Htsguy on August 25, 2014, 01:24:58 PM
Hts given your brief description of all three "independent" witnesses I could start poking holes in their stories (and you know a good lawyer will) simply based on your descriptions.  I would certainly need to know more information before passing judgment on witness credibility (and I am certainly not in any position to due so from afar like this)...but, based on your description...the women that was driving by (did she continue to drive by or stop and what was her vantage point...at what point did see she the encounter and did she see all of it...same with the witness who saw "part of it" from a balcony.  These a just a "few" thoughts that come to mind from your post.  You know this trial is going to be a blood bath once the lawyers start attacking the witnesses.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 25, 2014, 01:40:38 PM
Certainly.  I don't know why you all keep insisting that I am trying to pass these witness statements off as gospel.  Again, the inquiries were stated under the assumption that the witness accounts are true.  We don't have any other direct information.  Under the assumption that they are not true, and what the officer reportedly claims happened did indeed happen, then there isn't anything to discuss.

You also must realize however that the blood bath is going to apply to any witnesses called on behalf of the officer, right?

EDIT:  Actually, I shouldn't have responded "certainly".  The witness accounts might very well be unimpeachable, depending on the forensics and ballistics.  FYI, the witness accounts are all readily available online for anyone who is interested in actually listening to or reading them.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Htsguy on August 25, 2014, 01:49:16 PM
^Certainly...the trial, whether criminal (by the way, wait for the real riots if the grand jury does not come back with and indictment) or civil will result in major investigations of all witnesses and attacks left and right.  It will not be pretty and god help us all what the media (especially cable news) does with this in the months to come.  I am not really up on much of this, but I was not aware there was an eye witness account supporting the cops version of events.  Of course if his "team" uses forensic expert evidence (which I am sure they will...bullet angles and the like) they will be dog meat as well.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 26, 2014, 08:27:58 AM
An audio recording of the shooting has come to light - http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/michael-brown-ferguson-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1.  It will need to be authenticated, especially for a certain segment of the population because I assume the person who recorded it fits the physical description of a "so-called witness", but it purports to include audio of approximately 10 shots being fired, with a pause between two rapid succession of shots.  Developments like this is another reason why it is in the best interest of the cop to remain silent.  His written report and/or recorded statement to his superiors won't be available for comparison to the prosecutor, special prosecutor (if the County is ever smart enough to get one), the grand jury, judge, and the jury (if one is ever empaneled).  Anything inconsistent in that statement with the audio recording could only be used against him for administrative charges under the Garrity rule.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on August 27, 2014, 04:47:05 AM
In his eulogy, Sharpton had some harsh words for blacks who seem to think the definition of blackness is "how low can you go" (his words) that parts of the right are all over.   We'll see what happens with that.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: DeanSheen on August 27, 2014, 08:34:08 AM
In his eulogy, Sharpton had some harsh words for blacks who seem to think the definition of blackness is "how low can you go" (his words) that parts of the right are all over.   We'll see what happens with that.

Whoa!  He used a eulogy as a bully pulpit against bad actors?

I was listening to reports on the radio and heard a really good quote from man on the street in Ferguson who basically said "people want to help here in Ferguson but I encourage you to look into your own communities, in your own back yard and look to make change there."  I thought that was a very reasonable message to send to the rest of the country.

They also interviewed a woman from a social service agency who said that she was hopeful this would spur introspection and change within Ferguson for other issues like poverty and education. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: DeanSheen on August 27, 2014, 08:44:37 AM
This is not the Al Sharpton I remember.

http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-rev-al-sharptons-eulogy-20140825-column.html#page=1

Sharpton left no one off the hook -- not the overarmed police, not the handful of protesters who responded with violence, not the politicians, not the black folks “sitting around having ghetto pity parties rather than organizing and strategizing.”

“Blackness was never about being a gangster or thug,” he said. “Blackness was about how no matter how low we was pushed down, we rose up anyhow. Blackness was never surrendering our pursuit of excellence. When it was against the law to go to some schools, we built black colleges and learned anyhow, when we couldn’t go downtown to church, we built our own AME church and our own Church of God in Christ. We never surrendered, we never gave up.

"And now we get to the 21st century, we get to where we got some positions of power. And you decide it ain't black no more to be successful. Now you wanna be a nigga and call your woman a ho. You lost where you come from. We got to clean up our community so we can clean up the United States of America.”
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on August 27, 2014, 08:53:22 AM
This is not the Al Sharpton I remember.

http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-rev-al-sharptons-eulogy-20140825-column.html#page=1

Sharpton left no one off the hook -- not the overarmed police, not the handful of protesters who responded with violence, not the politicians, not the black folks “sitting around having ghetto pity parties rather than organizing and strategizing.”

“Blackness was never about being a gangster or thug,” he said. “Blackness was about how no matter how low we was pushed down, we rose up anyhow. Blackness was never surrendering our pursuit of excellence. When it was against the law to go to some schools, we built black colleges and learned anyhow, when we couldn’t go downtown to church, we built our own AME church and our own Church of God in Christ. We never surrendered, we never gave up.

"And now we get to the 21st century, we get to where we got some positions of power. And you decide it ain't black no more to be successful. Now you wanna be a nigga and call your woman a ho. You lost where you come from. We got to clean up our community so we can clean up the United States of America.”

This is the problem with being identified as a group, instead of as an individual. It's too much to bear. Nobody should be held responsible for the actions of others of the same skin tone, or pre-judged in this way.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on August 27, 2014, 02:50:26 PM
Most of the "discussion" about this topic (both online and offline).

Michael Brown Audiotapes Conclusively Reveal Exactly What You Want Them To (http://www.theonion.com/articles/michael-brown-audiotapes-conclusively-reveal-exact,36794/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 29, 2014, 08:48:36 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUi2A6tUYQk
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on September 11, 2014, 11:40:48 AM
Uh-oh.  More 'so-called witnesses' (although I'm not so sure based on the video whether they qualify for the description of 'so-called witnesses') claiming Brown's hands were up.  Their immediate reaction to the shooting was videotaped.  This is looking worse and worse for Wilson.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-witnesses/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on September 11, 2014, 11:51:38 AM
Yeah, I guess they are still so-called witnesses if they won't even be identified!  As I said before, I considered them "so-called" until they were interviewed by authorities and their statements are officially taken.  I don't know why you have such a problem with my opinion and continue to mock me.

The video you speak of is of their interview!  Are you serious that this is important?  They may as well video you and your opinion!

Remember, the kid who was his friend "witnessed" him being shot in the back!

Oh, BTW, you shouldn't get all your news from CNN.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: seicer on September 11, 2014, 12:17:29 PM
Oh, BTW, you should get your news from reputable and accredited news agencies, not partisan blogs and cut-and-run videos.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on September 11, 2014, 12:22:58 PM
^Advising me or Bosco?

^^The! video! I! speak! of! is! not! their! interview!  It is the video shot of them standing there in the street immediately after the incident yelling that his hands were up.  Yes, I am serious that it is important.  Immediate reaction to a shocking event has a special legal relevance.  In fact, that video is probably admissible even without those two construction workers actually testifying to verify what they said under oath.  It likely falls under the 'excited utterance' exception to the hearsay rule

The kid who was his friend witnessed shots being fired when his back was turned and as he was running away.  These 'witnesses' seem to confirm that.

I don't get all my news from CNN, but I do get some of it from time to time.  I like to widen my perspective.  I prefer print journalism and find it more reliable and informative than the sensationalist cable news or internet shock sites.

Now.... calm down!!!!!!  Don't type angry!!!  Lay of the emPHasIS
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on September 11, 2014, 01:55:22 PM
Hts is right about the video and the statements on the video that happened at the time of the shooting.  Recordings are excellent evidence and "excited utterances" are considered reliable enough to qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule.  Of course, the recording is limited to its own scope and doesn't tell you what happened "off camera," but as far as it goes, it's much better than eyewitnesses.

Bosco is more right about later interviews with the media.  Or, for that matter, later interviews with the police, if they're only just now happening.  Then the question shifts to why such witness interviews would only be just now happening ... it's amazing how quickly you can forget details of events, even ones that you'd think would be extremely memorable.  Experiment after experiment shows that eyewitness testimony is among the most overrated forms of evidence ("most overrated" because it's the one that most people think is best, so its flaws are magnified by how much people actually trust it, whereas people know not to trust second- and third-hand information), and stale eyewitness testimony is even worse.  People try to "re-create" an event in their mind and almost never get everything right.  Sometimes they even get surprisingly big details wrong.

Incidentally, the only source of information that competes with eyewitness testimony for being too easily believed relative to how much it explains is prior criminal history, which is why the tape of Michael Brown's store robbery is dangerous without a grain of salt.  Again, it's a video--good evidence--of the fact that he robbed the store.  It is not good evidence of the fact that he then attacked a cop.  It is some evidence (especially for high-recidivism crimes), but again, just like eyewitness testimony, people trust it way too much, to the point where it's generally not even allowed to be brought up in a real criminal trial.  The court of public opinion doesn't have such evidence rules, though, so people are freely assuming from the store video that "well, he was just a thug, so he must have attacked the cop."  There are probably tens of thousands of shoplifters out there.  Almost none of them ever then proceed to fight cops, even if caught.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on September 11, 2014, 02:02:41 PM
The eyewitness 911 caller in the Walmart BB-gun police shooting is starting to look like it could be an outstanding example of the concerns here. Hopefully just a matter of time till the 911 call, and security tapes can be synced up.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on September 11, 2014, 02:06:29 PM
^I think the Walmart issue has more to do with the witness intentionally embellishing.  Whether he was doing that when he made the call or doing it now is what the investigation will have to determine.  If he was doing it when he made the call, then he has some answering to do.  His account to the police led the cops to enter that Walmart prepared to shoot without hesitation and that is exactly what happened.

^^I'm not sure what you mean by "more right" abut the "later interviews."  Whether or not their existence was known to the media, all of the witnesses were interviewed by the authorities immediately after the shooting.  I don't recall any witnesses 'coming out of the wood-work' at a later time.  Those reports/accounts will be recorded and documented.  Some might've even been asked to take CVSA's and indeed done so.  Not that those tests are necessarily admissible (it is largely within the discretion of the court and some courts outright won't let them in), but law enforcement undeniably uses them as an investigatory tool.

Regardless, witnesses are witnesses.  I don't know what a 'so-called witness' is.  You either witnessed the incident or you did not.  You might not get every little detail right, but unless you intentionally perjure yourself, the significant and relevant recollection can be relayed accurately, especially when you witness something shocking.  I can still tell you the clothes I had on, who I was with, and where I was when the Twin Towers fell to the ground 13 years ago.  I don't know when that memory will go "stale", but 13 years haven't been enough.  We rely all the time on eyewitness testimony.  We preserve it by taking statements and recording interviews.  That was done with these witnesses.  Even without such preservation, it is still admissible.  People have been sentenced to die on eye-witness testimony alone.  It is not something to be disregarded simply because it doesn't paint the same narrative someone would like to see play out.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on September 11, 2014, 02:20:31 PM
Actually, recounting events can often vary widely in accuracy. Some people use new knowledge and simply "remember" the event inaccurately. It's not always a deliberate occurrence. Studies have shown that every time you remember something, what you are actually doing is recreating the events and it turns into a game of "telephone" in which you insert new memories and omit old ones until sometimes the memory is very different from what actually happened. The more you think about something, in general, the less accurate your recount is. So if you are thinking about a very traumatic event (witnessing a shooting) a lot of small details can quickly become inaccurate. Sometimes even the larger details can be remembered inaccurately. That's why video is so much better than witness testimony. Getting immediate reactions on video is very important before someone can unintentionally change the memory.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on September 11, 2014, 02:28:27 PM
Out of all the arguably negligent things the Ferguson PD did in the wake and aftermath of this shooting, you'd hope that failing to record interviews of the witnesses would not be one of them..... for Officer Wilson's sake if nothing else.

Regardless, juries will rely on the "best evidence"...... whatever form that evidence takes.  If 5 people come in and recount an event very similarly, it is highly unlikely a defense expert on the psychology of witness recollection is going to convince them otherwise.  The better tactic would be to attack things like vantage points, bias, etc.  If a witness is firm in his/her recollection and all the defense has to say is "oh yeah, how about this study which says your memory is potentially shaky?" that wouldn't be doing the defendant any favors.

On the issue of the store video, if this does go to trial, there will be a very interesting legal battle as to whether that video is even admissible and, if it is ruled admissible, for what purposes it may be used/considered.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on September 11, 2014, 02:41:03 PM
^^I'm not sure what you mean by "more right" abut the "later interviews."  Whether or not their existence was known to the media, all of the witnesses were interviewed by the authorities immediately after the shooting.

Were these people now seen on this CNN video interviewed by the authorities immediately after the shooting?  I wasn't aware of that, and the CNN story itself says nothing about them ever speaking with the police.  It also notes that those workers live outside Ferguson, for whatever that's worth.  It's certainly possible (and preferable) that these construction workers were interviewed ASAP then, but it's also possible that they were not.  You can't completely trust to police neutrality and professionalism here.  Immediate interviews could potentially put one of their brothers on the force behind bars.  Delayed or ignored interviews could be a PR headache but are more likely to play into reasonable doubts, which would in turn keep their fellow officer free.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on September 11, 2014, 03:02:48 PM
^Who knows.  The police aren't being all that transparent with their investigation.  SOP should have been to immediately comb the immediate area for eye witnesses.  That would've included knocking on the doors of all of the apartments nearby and talking to all bystanders.

Regardless, I didn't even listen to the interviews they gave to CNN on the condition of anonymity (I read some highlights).  Their immediate reaction was all I was pointing out.  That was indeed preserved.  And if that is all that was preserved from these two, then that's not a good sign for Wilson.

Also, the issue with evidence preservation cuts both ways.  You wouldn't want to defend a cop when there are concerns with how his own department investigated the crime.  Here in Ohio, a preferred practice is to hire special investigators (commonly the sheriff's office from another county) and sometimes even a special prosecutor, which is one of the reasons why McGinty's continued spearheading of the police chase shooting here in Cleveland has drawn such strong reactions.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: seicer on September 11, 2014, 06:33:43 PM
^Advising me or Bosco?

Sorry, it was Bosco4789.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on September 11, 2014, 08:55:13 PM
^Advising me or Bosco?

Sorry, it was Bosco4789.
Oh, BTW, you should get your news from reputable and accredited news agencies, not partisan blogs and cut-and-run videos.

So when did I ever quote or mention using partisan blogs and cut-and-run videos?

Just another person putting words in my mouth.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on September 12, 2014, 08:10:57 AM
Now they are claiming that, at the time of the incident, the police declined to receive the video obtained by CNN.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on September 12, 2014, 10:07:55 AM
I heard a good point last night which speaks to the way this case should proceed assuming Brown had his hands up.  As I have stated throughout this thread, little (if anything) that happened before Brown put his hands up matters if he indeed did put his hands up as now no less than 7 witnesses (or "so-called witnesses" depending on your perception) have described.  The point was that in times of war, when an enemy combatant puts his hands up and surrenders, regardless of the horrors which that combatant might have committed up to that point, international law prohibits the execution of that combatant.  We didn't (or at least were not supposed) to shoot the Nazis when their hands were up, so an American citizen deserves the same.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on September 12, 2014, 12:32:13 PM
I heard a good point last night which speaks to the way this case should proceed assuming Brown had his hands up.  As I have stated throughout this thread, little (if anything) that happened before Brown put his hands up matters if he indeed did put his hands up as now no less than 7 witnesses (or "so-called witnesses" depending on your perception) have described.  The point was that in times of war, when an enemy combatant puts his hands up and surrenders, regardless of the horrors which that combatant might have committed up to that point, international law prohibits the execution of that combatant.  We didn't (or at least were not supposed) to shoot the Nazis when their hands were up, so an American citizen deserves the same.

And that certainly is the case in domestic law enforcement, too, which is why the defense narrative has been that Brown was reaching for the officer's weapon.  This is also why, as discussed above, the store-robbery video is a controversial subject, because it doesn't directly matter if he robbed the store; it matters only to the extent that the fact that he had just robbed a store makes it more likely that he was fighting the officer for his weapon (because, for example, he thought he was about to be arrested for robbery rather than just cited for jaywalking).  That "extent" might still be very little, however.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on September 12, 2014, 01:06:34 PM
I don't think a defense narrative has been officially put out there yet.  There have been some rumblings that Brown reached for his weapon (a claim I suspect you will find in more than half of the police shooting incidents in which the victim struggled with the officer).  However, all of the evidence and accounts we have heard place Brown at quite a distance from the officer when the kill shots were fired...... as much as 35 feet.  If he reached for his weapon when the two struggled either in the car or near the car, as witnesses have recounted, then any shot fired at that moment is likely justified.  HOWEVER, once Brown broke free (regardless of HOW he broke free, such as slugging the cop in the face), the officer needs a different justification to fire his weapon.  If Brown was running towards a car with civilians in it and the officer reasonably believed that his intent was to strong-arm them and steal their car, then even shooting him in the back could be justified.  If Brown was merely trying to flee arrest, not so much.  If Brown then turned and intended to surrender, then no circumstance prior to that point would justify the shooting.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on September 12, 2014, 01:15:03 PM
In your opinion, if an officer has told someone to stop, and the suspect turns and begins to charge him, at what distance would you consider the officer justified in shooting the suspect?  I don't know if any of these facts occured in this shooting, so please don't let this specific incident color your response.

10-12 yards away is not a very far distance when a large person is charging you.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on September 12, 2014, 01:47:45 PM
You can find my response to that question upthread.  I think I already gave it a few times.  It depends on the circumstances.  If the suspect is a 5'5 110 lb woman, that is one story and it would be hard to justify the shooting.  If the suspect has already overpowered the cop and is the size Mike Brown was, then the shooting would likely be justified if he did indeed charge at the officer.  That said, it would always be advisable for the cop to resort to other tactics (such as a non-lethal shot to the legs or shoulder, or use of a taser), especially if he doesn't have any cameras on the scene to confirm what witnesses may not.  Cops are going to get some benefit of the doubt in making split second decisions.  Juries are made to udnerstand that 20/20 hindsight is not to be used.  But they likely won't be given that benefit when there are several witnesses and the cops' version of events is contradicted by every one.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on September 12, 2014, 01:49:18 PM
Thank you.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on September 12, 2014, 01:54:00 PM
You're welcome.  Now, In your opinion, if a suspect assaults a police officers, runs away, and then turns around when the cop starts shooting and puts his hands up in the air yelling "OK! OK! OK!", would you consider the officer justified in continuing to shoot at the suspect?  How about the shots fired at the suspect as he runs away?  I don't know if any of these facts occurred, so please don't let anything I said color your response.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on September 12, 2014, 02:35:49 PM
Not at all! Depending on the location and the risk of danger to the innocent, I'm not sure the incident warranted shooting as he ran away either.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on September 15, 2014, 10:05:57 AM
One major problem I have with the "hands up" narrative is that the kill shot apparently entered the top of Brown's head.  Considering how tall Brown already was, that would be basically impossible for a shorter policeman to do at 35 feet or even 10 feet.  Maybe earlier shots staggered Brown and he was no longer upright at that point.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/08/18/police-attorneys-michael-brown-head-wounds-not-fatal-to-officers-defense

On the flip side, for some reason I thought it was generally possible for an autopsy to get a good estimate of the distance the shot was taken at, which is the critical piece of information and I'd hope we wouldn't have to settle for more roundabout ways of approximating it.  Maybe I'm wrong at how much we actually can learn from an autopsy and I accidentally absorbed too much fiction from a police procedural somewhere (not that I consciously watch them, but they seem so omnipresent that they're hard to avoid entirely).
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on September 15, 2014, 10:27:48 AM
^The distance of the shots is going to be more accurately determined by a forensic analysis of his clothing.

The sequence of shots appears to have started lower on his body and gone up, which most certainly could have caused Brown to lean forward.  Remember, he was lying face down on the pavement.  Also, when someone is shooting at you, I doubt you would be able to maintain eye contact.  You are bound to move your head, and most likely you are going to duck down, not look up to the sky.  It is human instinct to protect your face with the top of your head.

FWIW, the "hands up narrative" doesn't appear to be much of a 'narrative' anymore with so many witnesses recollecting it that way...... and especially now that we have seen instant reaction from a witness who claims Brown did have his hands up.  There is no way that one could argue that the witness's reaction was influenced by the media or the protests.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on September 15, 2014, 11:12:00 AM
I don't use "narrative" derogatorily.  But (not to be all guy in philosophy class (http://www.theonion.com/articles/guy-in-philosophy-class-needs-to-shut-the-fuck-up,1804/) on you) until proven, it's not proven.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: weatherphotographer on September 24, 2014, 08:47:33 PM
Seen a few articles online that the riots have started back up this week?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on September 25, 2014, 06:45:23 AM
There was some unrest when some A-hole thought it would be funny to light the memorial on fire.  Someone also threw a rock through a beauty store window, possibly th same person.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on September 25, 2014, 01:08:09 PM
As hard as this might be to believe, it is even more incomprehensible that they would try to hide such a document if it did in fact exist.  I would normally be very hesitant to go much beyond blaming the individual officer, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to feel any sympathy for the sh&*storm this department is enduring.

Key report in Michael Brown shooting doesn't exist, Ferguson police say

Police in Ferguson, Mo., have violated their own reporting standards since last month’s controversial fatal shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson.

Ferguson Police Department protocol requires that a use-of-force report be submitted after all such incidents — lethal, nonlethal and even when barehanded physical force is used.

A written directive signed by Chief Thomas Jackson in 2010 states “early and accurate reporting helps establish agency credibility.”

But there is no use-of-force report for the Aug. 9 shooting death of Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old who was shot multiple times in broad daylight in the middle of a residential street.


http://news.yahoo.com/ferguson-police-internal-record-on-controversial-shooting-of-michael-brown-doesnt-exist-001401818.html
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on September 25, 2014, 01:38:59 PM
That actually could be (in a grim irony for some people who have already mentally convicted the officer of murder) worse than the incident itself in terms of likely effects on the officer and the force.  The shooting itself is subject to multiple possible narratives (and I repeat that I don't use "narrative" derogatorily, it's just the term we use to describe everyone's version of events, from the ironclad to the wishful-at-best).  The lack of the use-of-force report, by contrast, is about as open-and-shut as you get.  It's clearly supposed to be there, and it's clearly not.

Also, failure to follow that kind of procedure implicates more than just the officer himself.  Yes, the officer has primary responsibility for filling out that report, but there are supposed to be other people also checking to make sure those i's get dotted and t's crossed, too, which means this is a broader failure of the department, not just an individual officer.  It's also just inexplicably irrational to have skipped that, because those reports are the department's first formalized chance to get its own narrative down as close to the time of the incident as possible.  Chief Jackson's reminder to his force is absolutely accurate--early reports are much more credible than later ones, for the same reasons discussed upthread about witness statements.  If nothing else, police are no more immune from the natural decay of memories than anyone else.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on November 24, 2014, 01:53:16 PM
5:pm will be the announcement.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on November 24, 2014, 02:28:46 PM
Glad to see that the prosecutor gave the GJ a wide range of options to pick from.  It will be interesting to see, regardless of the outcome, whether the proceedings are made public.  Typically, they are not.  In this case, if the prosecutor fails to indict the 'ham sandwich' people are going to want to know why...... one could argue the community needs to know why.  GJ proceedings with a cop as a potential defendant can be tricky.  Whether the GJ members realize it or not, the wrong standards are utilized...... by saying that, I mean that the GJ will take on the role of trial jury and really weigh the evidence as opposed to testing the sufficiency of the evidence.  There also could be a lot of hay made out of the prosecutor's approach of just saying "here's all the evidence, please make a decision."   Prosecutors should maybe do that in every case, but they don't.  They push for indictments.  They carefully select the evidence the GJ is going to see and the witnesses the GJ is going to hear from in order to make sure they get an indictment.  It is all done in secret and nearly impossible to challenge on the back end.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on November 24, 2014, 10:09:05 PM
Looks like they've release all/much of the evidence. First out of the gate is Darren Wilson's hospital photos.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3Qob_2CUAAXaWA.jpg:large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3QhWrsIIAAP3dV.jpg:large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3QlYlbCQAINIYr.jpg)


Edit: PDF of grand jury testimony. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/11/24/ferguson-assets/grand-jury-testimony.pdf
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on November 25, 2014, 08:31:45 AM
Based on the closing argument he delivered last night for prime time TV, it doesn't sound like the Prosecutor asked the GJ to indict.  That is called a 'punt.'  It's a CYA move by the Prosecutor, not uncommon in this type of situation involving an in the line of duty incident involving a cop.  It also sounds like the GJ essentially went through a trial (minus the advocacy for the victim given the approach), which is rare overall but again not uncommon for a cop the prosecutor does not want to indict.  It would maybe be nice to be able to do that for all suspects, but it doesn't happen.  Nor do I think it shouldn't happen in the case of a cop.  I have no problem with cops being afforded special consideration when contemplating an indictment.  I don't take issue with the process, even though the public generally is not given the same treatment.  On the other hand, if the case was a simple self-defense involving a member of the public, the prosecutor might have never sought charges.  This is one of those situations where the prosecutor was not really seeking charges, but CYA'd himself by giving the GJ the option to indict.

What I did take issue with was the decision on the timing of this announcement.  This guy wanted a Primetime spot on all the cable news shows and he got it.  It was a selfish move, although I suspect it will pay off for him with either a run for political office or a gig as a contributor on cable news.  It was/is no excuse for the barbaric behavior displayed by the opportunists who destroyed that community, but it sure helped make it worse that it could've been.  9pm..... really? 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Oldmanladyluck on November 25, 2014, 08:35:52 AM
^^I've gotten hickeys which showed up worse than that.  He had to go to a hospital for that?  Really?

I'm disgusted.  The jury couldn't find probable cause with all of the evidence/statements/videos. Not even probable cause!!
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: BCCLE1 on November 25, 2014, 08:58:03 AM
^^I've gotten hickeys which showed up worse than that.  He had to go to a hospital for that?  Really?

I'm disgusted.  The jury couldn't find probable cause with all of the evidence/statements/videos. Not even probable cause!!

What is there to be disgusted about? The GJ did its job, and found there was no evidence to indict.

All the news reports I watched said that there were approximately 60-70 witnesses interviewed (all black by the way), and when ALL the evidence was presented, and the testimonies compared and analyzed, the evidence showed the cop was telling the truth about what happened.

I'm not disgusted, I believe the GJ got it right.

What is disgusting is what the thugs have done to Ferguson in the aftermath of the GJ outcome, and the St. Louis are in general.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on November 25, 2014, 09:16:33 AM
This is what bothers me the most. Grand Jury's almost never indict police officers, and almost always indict the average Joe.

It's Incredibly Rare for a Grand Jury to do what Ferguson's Just Did (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/)

Quote
Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don’t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. Separate research by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip Stinson has found that officers are rarely charged in on-duty killings, although it didn't look at grand jury indictments specifically.

I think if this case went to trial, he would be found not guilty. But the failure to even bring it to trial is what's disturbing. And it's very common.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on November 25, 2014, 09:34:21 AM
All the news reports I watched said that there were approximately 60-70 witnesses interviewed (all black by the way), and when ALL the evidence was presented, and the testimonies compared and analyzed, the evidence showed the cop was telling the truth about what happened.

No.  The GJ did not find sufficient evidence to support the conflicting accounts, which the prosecutor acknowledged there were.  Big difference there.  The prosecutor took the approach, which perhaps should be used in ALL criminal cases but almost never is, of testing not whether probable cause existed to believe charges the prosecutor himself was not supporting, but instead whether the evidence would support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  A not guilty verdict is not the equivalent of an exoneration.  The failure to issue a true bill from a Grand Jury in this circumstance is something even less than that.  There wasn't anybody advocating for the jury to indict as is the case in 99.9% of GJ proceedings.

The prosecutor essentially told the grand jury "I don't think there is a crime here but I will let you decide."  Very rarely, if ever, will a GJ return an indictment under that scenario...... and especially not against a cop.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on November 25, 2014, 09:44:25 AM
This is what bothers me the most. Grand Jury's almost never indict police officers, and almost always indict the average Joe.

It's Incredibly Rare for a Grand Jury to do what Ferguson's Just Did (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/)

Quote
Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don’t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. Separate research by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip Stinson has found that officers are rarely charged in on-duty killings, although it didn't look at grand jury indictments specifically.

I think if this case went to trial, he would be found not guilty. But the failure to even bring it to trial is what's disturbing. And it's very common.

Actually, as the article noted, it's very uncommon.  And that's the real problem with the American justice system today, and where its real biases against minorities can be found.  The real problem is that prosecutors and grand juries don't give all defendants the same solicitousness that they gave Officer Wilson.  I do believe that the prosecutor gave the fullest presentation of the evidence possible here (60+ witnesses, 90+ pages of testimony, etc.), and the grand jury non-indictment was the proper course.  However, in a disturbingly high number of cases, prosecutors twist hard to not present all the evidence--to present only the inculpatory and not the exculpatory evidence--and to hide the exculpatory evidence from the grand jury and the defendant's attorney if he has one, contrary to the Brady requirements.

Given the ridiculous punishments our criminal codes often require for even nonviolent offenses, what often happens is that (a) the prosecutor presents a case to the grand jury that is heavily slanted towards indictment, (b) the grand jury indicts on multiple counts, some of which are real stretches but are nevertheless terrifying to even a wealthy white male, let alone a poor nonwhite, and (c) the defendant pleads guilty to the lesser charges rather than risk trial on the heavier ones, resulting in him having a criminal record and possibly a surprisingly long time in prison when he might well have been acquitted.  The risk management calculation the defendant faces in that situation can even make the bad plea bargain a rational choice.  The grand jury is supposed to be a filter against that kind of situation ever arising: if the totality of the evidence is, just on a quick look, insufficient for a charge, the grand jury is not supposed to allow that charge to proceed to indictment.  If the evidence is strong enough for some small misdemeanor offenses but not for felonies in the same category of offenses, the grand jury is supposed to allow an indictment only on the lesser offenses, rather than allowing both misdemeanor and felony charges to be filed and then bargained down to misdemeanor (or lower-level-felony) plea deals.

The solution isn't for grand juries to treat police officers like we currently treat regular citizens.  It's to treat regular citizens like we currently treat police officers.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on November 25, 2014, 09:53:58 AM
^Two thumbs up (the 'like' feature only allows me to give one)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Oldmanladyluck on November 25, 2014, 09:55:31 AM
^^I've gotten hickeys which showed up worse than that.  He had to go to a hospital for that?  Really?

I'm disgusted.  The jury couldn't find probable cause with all of the evidence/statements/videos. Not even probable cause!!

What is there to be disgusted about? The GJ did its job, and found there was no evidence to indict.

All the news reports I watched said that there were approximately 60-70 witnesses interviewed (all black by the way), and when ALL the evidence was presented, and the testimonies compared and analyzed, the evidence showed the cop was telling the truth about what happened.

I'm not disgusted, I believe the GJ got it right.

What is disgusting is what the thugs have done to Ferguson in the aftermath of the GJ outcome, and the St. Louis are in general.

That's your opinion, which you have the right to.

I think there was enough evidence for probable cause.  Not to compare a grand jury to a police officer pulling a person over, but probable cause is not hard to get.  Under normal circumstances, a GJ can find probable cause in days, not months.  Enough witnesses stated the same thing- Michael Brown had his hands up.  BTW, not all witnesses were black.  I think there's a video posted up-thread of white contractors who were at the scene, who were speaking of what happened directly after the incident and were not far from the scene of the crime.  Guess what they were saying?  Michael Brown's hands were up.  Hands up and he still gets shot.  Along with the policeman's account that Michael Brown charged him after firing the first shots.  That defies logic and reason, though that's not what the GJ is asked to find.  They only needed probable cause to move forward; that's it.  There's plenty of reasons why they couldn't find probable cause- some of which have already been posted.  The fact that they didn't shows how the rules can be bent to partially protect some over others.

The officer should have gotten his day in court, even if he's potentially found not guilty by a jury after all evidence was presented.  That's my opinion.  I don't know if everyone who rioted was a 'thug', but to each his own.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: seicer on November 25, 2014, 10:10:19 AM
Thanks to the ***holes who decided to block the freeway ramp this morning, holding signs and yelling. I had to drive in the grass to get onto the highway. I can't be late for work on days when I have meetings with the president of our university. :/
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on November 25, 2014, 10:30:19 AM
Thanks to the ***holes who decided to block the freeway ramp this morning, holding signs and yelling. I had to drive in the grass to get onto the highway. I can't be late for work on days when I have meetings with the president of our university. :/

Where's a snowplow when you need one?   

Seriously, intentional blocking of a US/Interstate highway should probably be a federal offense...
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on November 25, 2014, 10:39:37 AM
^It is
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on November 25, 2014, 10:55:04 AM

I would say it's also incredibly rare for an 18 y/o man to disobey a police offer, slam his car door to keep him in the car and then start to scuffle with the officer...

Tragedy what happened to the young man, I don't believe the officer should have pulled his gun and a warning shot in the air probably would have sufficed. 

Aside from all that, the minority community seems to have set race relations even farther back by random rioting, looting and burning.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: DeanSheen on November 25, 2014, 11:10:06 AM
Aside from all that, the minority community seems to have set race relations even farther back by random rioting, looting and burning.

I don't think this point can be emphasized enough and it should become part of the national dialogue because you are pushing away people that you need to be engaged.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: StapHanger on November 25, 2014, 11:10:57 AM
^^Any chance we can blame rioting, looting and burning on the rioters, looters, and arsonists, not on a broader "minority community", 99+% of which is not currently doing any of those things?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on November 25, 2014, 11:20:24 AM
It might be true that 99% of the Ferguson black community is not rioting or looting, but it also seems visually self-evident that 99% of the rioters and looters are black, even though Ferguson itself is actually reasonably mixed-race (only about 67% minority, whereas many minority communities are 90%+ minority).  And while I am of course always receptive to arguments that people should be judged as individuals and not as members of groups, you have to recognize that many of those who insist on judging the looters and rioters as individuals are more than happy to make racial avatars of other individuals, including Michael Brown as the purported representative of black suffering and Darren Wilson as the emblem of white police brutality against disempowered black populations.  If those are fair game, then treating the looters and rioters as emblematic of larger problems in the black community is equally fair game; there is no logical separation between them.

In a cruel twist, I saw that one of the places targeted by the looters was the store that Brown originally shoplifted from on the day Wilson killed him.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on November 25, 2014, 11:56:46 AM
It might be true that 99% of the Ferguson black community is not rioting or looting, but it also seems visually self-evident that 99% of the rioters and looters are black, even though Ferguson itself is actually reasonably mixed-race (only about 67% minority, whereas many minority communities are 90%+ minority).  And while I am of course always receptive to arguments that people should be judged as individuals and not as members of groups, you have to recognize that many of those who insist on judging the looters and rioters as individuals are more than happy to make racial avatars of other individuals, including Michael Brown as the purported representative of black suffering and Darren Wilson as the emblem of white police brutality against disempowered black populations.  If those are fair game, then treating the looters and rioters as emblematic of larger problems in the black community is equally fair game; there is no logical separation between them.

In a cruel twist, I saw that one of the places targeted by the looters was the store that Brown originally shoplifted from on the day Wilson killed him.

It's certainly a minority of the community doing this stuff, but if the community as a whole excuses or condones it, it's not going away.  It's a lot like the Arthur Buford case in Mount Pleasant.  Most would never commit an armed robbery, but by memorializing the wannabe robber and vilifying the man who successfully avoided being his victim, a message is sent.  Broadcast, really.

More to the point, it should be a given that stereotypes which are reinforced don't go away.

Brown didn't exactly "shoplift".  He assaulted the store owner, which makes it felony robbery.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on November 25, 2014, 11:58:12 AM
^It is

Then the organizers are indictable under the conspiracy statutes, and perhaps RICO.

Not holding my breath, though....
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 25, 2014, 12:02:13 PM
^^I don't think "the community as a whole excuses or condones it," but if someone speaks out they're vilified by the most extreme elements as being an "Uncle Tom," etc.


Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on November 25, 2014, 12:22:51 PM
^Everybody has spoken out against it.  Mike Brown's father has spoken out against it.  The family attorney spoke out against it.  President Obama spoke out against it.  I just saw a press conference in which Rev. Al Sharpton spoke out against it.  I heard a montage on NPR of hip-hop radio stations speaking out against it.  And, from all accounts, the only people who were actually trying to stop it (the cops certainly were not) in the moment were members of the community.

Can you cite an example of someone being called an Uncle Tom today for speaking out against the looters and vandalizers?

Dozens of people were arrested and I don't think you will see much defense of those who were caught in the act of looting or vandalizing.  And I hope the husband of Mike Brown's mother is arrested too for his part in inciting the chaos.

I don't think this point can be emphasized enough and it should become part of the national dialogue because you are pushing away people that you need to be engaged.

It is dominating the national dialogue.... almost to the point that nobody is discussing the actual merits of the decision

I would say it's also incredibly rare for an 18 y/o man to disobey a police offer, slam his car door to keep him in the car and then start to scuffle with the officer...

I finally was able to read Wilson's entire account and find it very difficult, albeit not impossible, to believe.  I wonder how much the prosecutor challenged his account, as the prosecutor said he did with other witnesses.  From what I've seen, Wilson's own account does not line up with the physical evidence, particularly the distance between him and Mike Brown when the kill shots were fired.  But also just from a common sense standpoint it doesn't seem to make sense. 

Here's the story in more generic terms: 

A teenager just committed a crime and has the evidence of the crime on his person.  A police officer approaches the teenager for an unrelated issue and tells him to get out of the street.  The teenager, not afraid in the least apparently, tells the officer "f&ck what you have to say."  The cop politely asks the teenager to approach his vehicle and the teenager challenges him by saying "what are you going to do?" as he slams the car door in the cop's face.  As the cop attempts the exist the vehicle again, the teenager begins punching him through the window.  While in the middle of fighting with the cop with one hand, the teenager hands the stolen items to his friend with his other hand.  Once his friend takes the items while the teenager is holding off the police officer with one hand, he then throws a haymaker with the hand he just freed by handing off the incriminating evidence.  The officer feels that he can't effectively use his mace or his baton, so he goes for his gun.  As the teenager sees the officer go for his gun during the course of the struggle, he looks up and says "You're too much of a p&ssy to shoot me."  The two struggle for the weapon and a shot is fired.  The teenager takes a step back and when he realizes the shot did not actually hit him, he dives back in for more.  The officer fires again (presumably hitting the teenager in the hand) and the teenager takes off running.  The officer gets out of the car with his weapon drawn (minus two rounds he already fired at close range) and orders the teenager to get on the ground.  The teenager, who was already shot, then turns around with a grunt and an aggressive look on his face.  Instead of indicating his willingness to surrender, the teenager makes the decision to charge at the officer.  Not only that, but the teenager (as he begins his charge) reaches into his waistband (for a gun which is not there).   The officer again orders the teenager to stop, but he doesn't.  Several shots are fired.  Those shots don't deter the teenager, who continues his kamikaze run towards the officer with his hands in his waistband.  More shots are fired and the teenager is killed.  Did I mention the teenager was high on weed at the time?

That was Wilson's sworn testimony to the GJ.  Even if Mike Brown was a 35 year old hardened criminal, it is an extremely difficult account to believe.  Toxicology showed Mike Brown was not under the influence of PCP or other drugs which would distort reality in such a way to cause him to act like that.  The testimony does, however, read like a checklist of justifications for the use of deadly force.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on November 25, 2014, 12:24:07 PM
^^I don't think "the community as a whole excuses or condones it," but if someone speaks out they're vilified by the most extreme elements as being an "Uncle Tom," etc.

True, perhaps "the community's loudest voices" would be a better way to phrase it. 

Next year will be the 100th anniversary of the death of Booker T. Washington.  Perhaps it's time to revisit his debates with William E. B. Dubois.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Oldmanladyluck on November 25, 2014, 12:43:53 PM
I'm in no way saying that rioting is not wrong, however, rioting generally doesn't occur overnight.  Historically (even locally in Cleveland history) rioting happens after ongoing negative quality-of-life issues are not addressed.  The issues minorities face in Ferguson are now well documented, and should not be kept out of the scenario when looking at why people felt this particular shooting was a breaking point for the community.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on November 25, 2014, 12:56:44 PM
I don't know about any rioters, but the looters from what I saw on TV looked to be nothing more than kids capitalizing on the opportunity to loot while the police were otherwise occupied.  I doubt many of them gave two sh!tes about Mike Brown or other claimed injustice.  I have some other suspicions about the fires.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on November 25, 2014, 01:52:47 PM
It looks like there's a protest going on around Public Square. People are blocking traffic on Superior and there are cops everywhere.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on November 25, 2014, 01:53:58 PM
I found it interesting that the President said that although race relations have improved in his lifetime, there are still issues.  He blamed the system, he blamed race, he blamed the police/black public relations, but he never blamed Michael Brown.  He never called him a criminal; he never said these things wouldn't happen if people didn't break the law; he never said do what you're told; he never said the problem was precipitated by Michael Brown.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on November 25, 2014, 02:05:41 PM
Be honest.  You found nothing 'interesting' about that.  It was an idea that was fed into your head by the groups of people who want to incite the flames, not tamp them down as the speech was intended to do.

Let's put the idiotically childish partisanship aside and be real about something.  Last night's remarks were not about blame.  He didn't blame anybody.  Not Brown, not Wilson, not the police, not the community.  For you to even interject that comment shows what some (including myself) would label as an unhealthy level of obsession.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Oldmanladyluck on November 25, 2014, 02:10:49 PM
It looks like there's a protest going on around Public Square. People are blocking traffic on Superior and there are cops everywhere.

Confirmed- Ontario southbound between Public Square and St. Clair is blocked, from what I saw.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on November 25, 2014, 02:23:12 PM
Be honest.  You found nothing 'interesting' about that.  It was an idea that was fed into your head by the groups of people who want to incite the flames, not tamp them down as the speech was intended to do.

Let's put the idiotically childish partisanship aside and be real about something.  Last night's remarks were not about blame.  He didn't blame anybody.  Not Brown, not Wilson, not the police, not the community.  For you to even interject that comment shows what some (including myself) would label as an unhealthy level of obsession.

No, you're wrong.  He blamed everything but the perpetrator.  These ideas were not fed to me, they were my own.  Interestingly, I never heard that thought from anyone.  For you to even suggest that shows me your inability to consider someone else's opinion.  Thank you for your childish accusation.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on November 25, 2014, 02:34:11 PM
Perpetrator?  I'm sorry, but was Mike Brown convicted of a crime?

The fact that Darren Wilson did not commit a crime is not proof that Brown did.  It is entirely possible for two people to use force against one another in the right circumstances without either one being a criminal.  In this case, we know that Brown committed robbery earlier in the day, but that doesn't mean anything with respect to the encounter that turned lethal, other than providing some evidence (not proof, just evidence) that Brown's actions and reactions in that situation were consistent with someone who thought he was about to be arrested for robbery.

Remember that the standard of proof for all crimes is proof beyond reasonable doubt.  It is entirely possible for reasonable doubts to characterize both sides of a story.  It's entirely possible that if Mike Brown had survived the shooting, he would also not be convicted (possibly not even indicted, though see my previous post above) for assaulting a police officer, even if the police officer also were not indicted or not convicted.  (Again, the store robbery is separate and apart.)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on November 25, 2014, 02:44:05 PM
He blamed everything but the perpetrator. 

Based on that conclusion, I seriously question whether you actually heard or read the speech.  The transcript is available.  Can you cite to the part in which he blamed Wilson or anyone in the Ferguson police department?  How about the part when he blamed what you would call 'the black community'?  And blame for what?  Mike Brown's death?  He didn't even really touch on the reasons for his death.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on November 25, 2014, 03:06:56 PM
It looks like there's a protest going on around Public Square. People are blocking traffic on Superior and there are cops everywhere.

Confirmed- Ontario southbound between Public Square and St. Clair is blocked, from what I saw.

Reportedly there are people on the shoreway west of I90 as well.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: X on November 25, 2014, 04:31:34 PM
I think they've left Public Square, and moved down to the Shoreway.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: jmecklenborg on November 25, 2014, 04:47:45 PM
I found it interesting that the President said that although race relations have improved in his lifetime, there are still issues.  He blamed the system, he blamed race, he blamed the police/black public relations, but he never blamed Michael Brown.  He never called him a criminal; he never said these things wouldn't happen if people didn't break the law; he never said do what you're told; he never said the problem was precipitated by Michael Brown.

You can be doing nothing wrong and still get tricked and abused by the police.  I've been arrested twice and both times they kept insulting me and trying to get me to take a swing at them.  That's why these guys flip out -- because they and people they know have been treated badly by the police in the past and they have no reason to expect that they will be respected. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KyleCincy on November 25, 2014, 04:51:18 PM
The unidentified witness wrote that the 18-year-old Brown “has his arms out with attitude,” while “The cop just stood there.” The witness added, “Dang if that kid didn’t start running right at the cop like a football player. Head down.”

The witness told of hearing “3 bangs,” but “the big kid wouldn’t stop.”

The witness’s account of the unarmed Brown charging Wilson--even after he had been shot in the hand during a struggle at the cop’s patrol car--supports the officer’s contention that he fired a series of shots as Brown bore down on him.

During his September 16 grand jury testimony, Wilson, 28, recounted how he tussled with Brown when the teenager grabbed for his gun while lunging into the squad car. As they fought over the weapon, Wilson testified, the teenager taunted him, yelling, “You’re too much of a pussy to shoot me.”

Wilson told the grand jury that he felt Brown’s “fingers try to get inside the trigger guard with my finger.” He added, “I distinctly remember envisioning a bullet going into my leg. I thought that was the next step.”

Testifying that he thought Brown (seen at left) would “kill me if he gets ahold of this gun,” Wilson said that he discharged the weapon inside the cruiser. The gunshot, he added, “kind of startled him and me at the same time.” The teenager then “looked up at me and had the most intense aggressive face,” Wilson recalled. “The only way I can describe it, it looks like a demon, that’s how angry he looked.” Brown, Wilson testified, then raised his arms and punched him in the face.

Wilson also gave grand jurors another vivid description of Brown. Recalling when he first placed his hand on the teenager’s arm--when the 6’ 4”, 292-pound Brown was alongside his patrol car--Wilson testified that, “I felt like a five-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan.” The cop added, “Hulk Hogan, that’s just how big he felt and how small I felt just from grasping his arm.”
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/darren-wilson/witnesss-said-brown-charged-wilson-897043
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Oldmanladyluck on November 25, 2014, 05:00:13 PM
I caught the tail end of the protest as it headed down Lakeside and onto E. 9th... I would estimate a good 300-400 people who were marching.

(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a352/SLIM216/20141125_162842.jpg) (http://s15.photobucket.com/user/SLIM216/media/20141125_162842.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on November 25, 2014, 05:34:40 PM
I found it interesting that the President said that although race relations have improved in his lifetime, there are still issues.  He blamed the system, he blamed race, he blamed the police/black public relations, but he never blamed Michael Brown.  He never called him a criminal; he never said these things wouldn't happen if people didn't break the law; he never said do what you're told; he never said the problem was precipitated by Michael Brown.
Why would he call someone a criminal if they were not convicted of anything?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on November 25, 2014, 05:38:15 PM
Protesters have shut down I-75 in Cincinnati.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KyleCincy on November 25, 2014, 05:48:00 PM
I found it interesting that the President said that although race relations have improved in his lifetime, there are still issues.  He blamed the system, he blamed race, he blamed the police/black public relations, but he never blamed Michael Brown.  He never called him a criminal; he never said these things wouldn't happen if people didn't break the law; he never said do what you're told; he never said the problem was precipitated by Michael Brown.
Why would he call someone a criminal if they were not convicted of anything?

Because Brown's behavior was criminal. He robbed a store, then beat a cop, tried to take the gun. Dude got shot and still came after the cop until he took one to the head.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KyleCincy on November 25, 2014, 05:50:09 PM
This is what bothers me the most. Grand Jury's almost never indict police officers, and almost always indict the average Joe.

It's Incredibly Rare for a Grand Jury to do what Ferguson's Just Did (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/)

Quote
Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don’t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. Separate research by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip Stinson has found that officers are rarely charged in on-duty killings, although it didn't look at grand jury indictments specifically.

I think if this case went to trial, he would be found not guilty. But the failure to even bring it to trial is what's disturbing. And it's very common.

Should have never even gone to a GJ.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on November 25, 2014, 05:53:05 PM
It's the POTUS. Why would he call someone a criminal when they are not convicted? He didn't call Zimmerman a criminal before he went to trial.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 25, 2014, 06:34:06 PM
what I find disturbing is all the Monday morning quarterbacking of the grand jury by people who claim to be lawyers and those who claim to be law-abiding citizens. The people on this (multiracial) jury just spent three months listening to scores of witnesses--many of them African-American--who corroborated Wilson's account of the events; pored--presumably ad nauseam--over (and over and over...) evidence, presumably with the proverbial fine tooth comb; and basically examined everything connected with this case with the level of seriousness that they were no doubt sworn under oath to do, and for us, or anyone, to dismiss and trivialize their work and dedication as a miscarriage of justice is to call them stupid and deny the validity of their findings because we disagree. It's sickening.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Oldmanladyluck on November 25, 2014, 06:45:17 PM
Looks like the National Bar Association would like to move this to Federal court (I'll remove this if it has already been posted)...

National Bar Association Calls for Federal Charges Against Darren Wilson
BY DOUG SIBOR
9 HOURS AGO

After the grand jury in Ferguson, Mo. decided not to charge police officer Darren Wilson in the death of Michael Brown, many wondered about the legal precedent for such a decision. FiveThirtyEight reported this morning on just how rare it is for a grand jury not to indict someone given the evidence available: in 2010 (the most recent data available), 162,000 cases were pursued by U.S. attorneys, and just 11 failed to return indictments.

More at:  http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2014/11/national-bar-association-calls-for-federal-charges-against-darren-wilson
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on November 25, 2014, 07:33:21 PM
Tonight's the night that shutting down a freeway became a common protest tactic. Baltimore, Detroit, Cleveland, NYC...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3VM_OKIQAAP2X9.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3VM_OXIAAAoCTe.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3VM_OeIcAAt4nK.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3VM_PmIIAA8Bj0.jpg)

Also in Providence, Boston, Seattle.

Tonight I took the Red Line home because traffic on the Shoreway and feeder streets in downtown Cleveland was backed up because of the protests. Then I got off the Red Line to catch the #26 bus -- the transfer point was across the street from the Cudell Recreation Center where another large but peaceful protest was gathering at the site of the Tamir Rice shooting. Police were staying back and most people at the Rapid station were minding their own business....

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3UpeOiCEAAok_y.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on November 25, 2014, 07:39:13 PM

Because Brown's behavior was criminal. He robbed a store, then beat a cop, tried to take the gun. Dude got shot and still came after the cop until he took one to the head.

You know all this as fact then?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on November 25, 2014, 07:39:59 PM
David Wild ‏@Wildaboutmusic  51m51 minutes ago
If #BillCosby landed that #Malaysian plane in #Ferguson tonight, CNN would explode.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on November 25, 2014, 07:48:04 PM
Then I got off the Red Line to catch the #26 bus -- the transfer point was across the street from the Cudell Recreation Center where another large but peaceful protest was gathering at the site of the Tamir Rice shooting. Police were staying back and most people at the Rapid station were minding their own business....

The public meeting with the Mayor etc. was going on there tonight.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on November 25, 2014, 08:05:18 PM
Jennifer Jordan on FOX 8 seriously just questioned if a protest can be considered "peaceful" if it interrupts traffic. Because cars have rights.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: mu2010 on November 25, 2014, 08:29:27 PM
Nobody would ever pay attention to a protest if it wasn't at least moderately disruptive.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on November 25, 2014, 09:00:32 PM
Brown's stepfather is an idiot. There is video of him saying "Burn this place down" with anger.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on November 25, 2014, 09:08:41 PM
Nobody would ever pay attention to a protest if it wasn't at least moderately disruptive.

Of course but at what point does a peaceful protest become too disruptive?  Like, aside from this protest, when would anyone who blocked traffic on a main thoroughfare not expect to be swiftly arrested?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: seicer on November 25, 2014, 09:43:23 PM
Jennifer Jordan on FOX 8 seriously just questioned if a protest can be considered "peaceful" if it interrupts traffic. Because cars have rights.

If a car had hit one of them erroneously, would the driver be at fault? I mean, in Cincinnati, they were laying in the middle of the NB lanes of I-75 tonight. Wearing dark clothing. Others were jumping into traffic holding signs. To what purpose does that serve? And when that mob mentality goes after the driver, as it has in the past with other riots, would we fault the driver still?

This morning, I had to drive in the grassy slope of a freeway on-ramp because there were people intentionally blocking traffic protesting. Shouting, holding some signs. You know, people have to go to work and have places to be.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on November 25, 2014, 09:59:52 PM
... as it has in the past with other riots ...
So you not only avoided a protest but a riot this morning? I'm sure Father Graham would have been understanding regarding your delay.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KyleCincy on November 25, 2014, 10:06:46 PM
Looks like the National Bar Association would like to move this to Federal court (I'll remove this if it has already been posted)...

National Bar Association Calls for Federal Charges Against Darren Wilson
BY DOUG SIBOR
9 HOURS AGO

After the grand jury in Ferguson, Mo. decided not to charge police officer Darren Wilson in the death of Michael Brown, many wondered about the legal precedent for such a decision. FiveThirtyEight reported this morning on just how rare it is for a grand jury not to indict someone given the evidence available: in 2010 (the most recent data available), 162,000 cases were pursued by U.S. attorneys, and just 11 failed to return indictments.

More at:  http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2014/11/national-bar-association-calls-for-federal-charges-against-darren-wilson

Should have never gone to a GJ. There was zero evidence against the cop.
The National Bar Association was founded in 1925 and is the nation's oldest and largest national network of predominantly African-American attorneys and judges. http://www.nationalbar.org/about-us.html

If the cop was black, no story, no $$$ for the poverty pimps.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KyleCincy on November 25, 2014, 10:09:02 PM

Because Brown's behavior was criminal. He robbed a store, then beat a cop, tried to take the gun. Dude got shot and still came after the cop until he took one to the head.

You know all this as fact then?

And you really think Brown held his hand up and said don't shoot? LOL. Keep carrying that water. Did you even hear about the forensic evidence?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Oldmanladyluck on November 26, 2014, 03:33:06 AM
Looks like the National Bar Association would like to move this to Federal court (I'll remove this if it has already been posted)...

National Bar Association Calls for Federal Charges Against Darren Wilson
BY DOUG SIBOR
9 HOURS AGO

After the grand jury in Ferguson, Mo. decided not to charge police officer Darren Wilson in the death of Michael Brown, many wondered about the legal precedent for such a decision. FiveThirtyEight reported this morning on just how rare it is for a grand jury not to indict someone given the evidence available: in 2010 (the most recent data available), 162,000 cases were pursued by U.S. attorneys, and just 11 failed to return indictments.

More at:  http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2014/11/national-bar-association-calls-for-federal-charges-against-darren-wilson

Should have never gone to a GJ. There was zero evidence against the cop.
The National Bar Association was founded in 1925 and is the nation's oldest and largest national network of predominantly African-American attorneys and judges. http://www.nationalbar.org/about-us.html

If the cop was black, no story, no $$$ for the poverty pimps.

Oh, I see. A group of over 20,000 black attorneys and judges are "poverty pimps" because they're... black... right? There's no way this could have to do with the merits of what, should have, been put before a court... I swear the true colors of some folks start to shine even on boards like this.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on November 26, 2014, 04:40:51 AM
When five people were murdered on the east side, no one called Oberlin.

But their next big event on campus might have some unwelcome visitors.  Social media works both ways....
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on November 26, 2014, 04:43:17 AM
Jennifer Jordan on FOX 8 seriously just questioned if a protest can be considered "peaceful" if it interrupts traffic. Because cars have rights.

If a car had hit one of them erroneously, would the driver be at fault? I mean, in Cincinnati, they were laying in the middle of the NB lanes of I-75 tonight. Wearing dark clothing. Others were jumping into traffic holding signs. To what purpose does that serve? And when that mob mentality goes after the driver, as it has in the past with other riots, would we fault the driver still?

This morning, I had to drive in the grassy slope of a freeway on-ramp because there were people intentionally blocking traffic protesting. Shouting, holding some signs. You know, people have to go to work and have places to be.

I was told yesterday that blocking a federal highway (US-20, I-75) intentionally is a federal offense.  That would mean plotting to do so is conspiracy.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: mu2010 on November 26, 2014, 06:16:34 AM
Nobody would ever pay attention to a protest if it wasn't at least moderately disruptive.

Of course but at what point does a peaceful protest become too disruptive?  Like, aside from this protest, when would anyone who blocked traffic on a main thoroughfare not expect to be swiftly arrested?

Protesters often break laws, usually intentionally. There's a famous essay about it which most of you are probably aware of but are presently ignoring, "Civil Disobedience." To do civil disobedience honorably, protesters 1. can't resist arrest, they should go peacefully if arrested, and 2. stay nonviolent.

So, the protests in Cleveland and Cincinnati were pretty damn successful and honorable protests in that they stayed nonviolent and nobody resisted arrest, and I commend them for it. Looting, rioting, all that stuff in Ferguson, that's no good, but that didn't happen here.

You and the others who have pointed it out are absolutely correct that blocking the highway is illegal and aside from this protest, if somebody did it, they would be swiftly arrested. You'd have to call the police or the FBI and ask them why they didn't arrest these protesters. Hint: It's because it would make them look bad. Called a "dilemma action" and also a common protest dynamic.

(EDIT: Reading up on the Cinci protests, looks like 15 arrests after people got on 75, but don't see anything about resistance to arrest)

I don't know all the facts but I think the grand jury in MO made the right decision, and that Wilson probably feared for his life. He doesn't seem like some kind of white supremacist killer to me, he seems like some kid just trying to do his job and stay alive. Regardless, it's obvious that there are huge systemic problems way above Wilson and Brown that led to this. Black frustration with policing policies and practices is well justified. I think people should stop worrying about indictments and convictions so much and start worrying about changing the circumstances that led to the event.

For that reason these protests are a good thing. There's no such thing as bad publicity and since everyone in Ohio is going to be discussing the protests today, I'd say that's a win and a hopefully a move towards substantive change. Either change through legislation, but that's not even necessary. Police departments are going to tweak their policies all across the country to try to avoid a Ferguson, possibly innovate and come up with new solutions. So the battle is already won in that regard.

Now, if you're going to riot, which is different than protest, if you're going to destroy innocent people's property, than not only is that just wrong, you are going to lose the battle of public opinion, so hopefully those idiots stop doing that.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on November 26, 2014, 07:12:30 AM

Because Brown's behavior was criminal. He robbed a store, then beat a cop, tried to take the gun. Dude got shot and still came after the cop until he took one to the head.

You know all this as fact then?

And you really think Brown held his hand up and said don't shoot? LOL. Keep carrying that water. Did you even hear about the forensic evidence?


I don't know what happened. But since you do, I'll just rely on you from now on genius.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Oldmanladyluck on November 26, 2014, 07:20:19 AM
^Charging at someone after they begin shooting at you defies both logic and reason.  I challenge anyone (without any military training, obviously, same as Michael Brown did not have military training) here who has actually had a gun pointed at them from a large distance away to answer if they actually ran at the person who was pointing the gun at them.  If anyone here has actually been shot at, again, I pose the same question.  Did you run towards the attacker while he was shooting at you?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on November 26, 2014, 07:33:25 AM
Nobody would ever pay attention to a protest if it wasn't at least moderately disruptive.

Of course but at what point does a peaceful protest become too disruptive?  Like, aside from this protest, when would anyone who blocked traffic on a main thoroughfare not expect to be swiftly arrested?

(1) The clear red line is when it abandons nonviolence.  Nonviolent lawbreaking is a hallmark of protests; when it starts hurting people or destroying property, you might as well stop calling it a protest and start calling it a riot.

(2) Lesser red lines exist when you either put others at risk or start threatening others (as opposed to merely inconveniencing them).  I'd put the lying down in dark clothing on freeway ramps in this category, incidentally, because you're just asking for someone to have to slam on their brakes or swerve dangerously to avoid you if they don't see you until the last moment.

But quite often, protests face heavy retaliation from the police for nonviolent offenses that are genuine but maybe shouldn't be enforced under stressful and emotional circumstances; in fact, sometimes, the express goal of nonviolent protests is to goad the police into a televised overreaction.  A common example is assembling in a park, street, or other public space without a permit from the park department or whatever agency would normally have to give the OK to shut down a street for a parade or something similar.  The police are in something of a bind here because their goal is to prevent lawbreaking, particularly violent lawbreaking, and yet the politically advantageous thing to do there is wait for the protesters themselves to get carried away and start destroying property, at which point they generally lose public sympathy and the police can act with much greater public support.  The problem is that involves (a) overlooking a certain level of nonviolent lawbreaking, and (b) letting at least a small amount of property damage happen when it might have actually been preventable if the police had been willing to look bad up front, just to make it clear that the protesters crossed the line first.

On the whole, I generally support police taking the latter route anyway and waiting to see if things do get out of hand, because in the long term, public support for and trust in the police is absolutely essential to our urban fabrics, and sometimes protests do just fade away without any lasting damage (you just tend to hear about the ones that end up more confrontational).
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Chris DoorDashian on November 26, 2014, 08:24:55 AM
America, we have a problem

A frail, elderly black man holding a thick, leather-bound Bible stood on the curb within earshot of Ferguson police. The cloud of tear gas that had recently chased away protesters had all but dissipated, though its effects could still be felt.

"We're supposed to love one another," he said between coughs. "We're supposed to love."

Mroe below:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/opinion/granderson-ferguson-america-problem/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: SixthCity on November 26, 2014, 09:08:31 AM
Police departments are going to tweak their policies all across the country to try to avoid a Ferguson, possibly innovate and come up with new solutions. So the battle is already won in that regard.

I'm speaking out of total naiveté here but what are the policies that lead to a Ferguson or Tamir Rice incident that could be tweaked?  I'm constantly hearing about problematic policies/practices but I've never heard any actually enumerated.  Put simply, what exactly are the policy shortfalls and what are the solutions?  Not saying they don't exist but I think to conversation almost always stops after we "blame the system."

In both the Ferguson and Tamir Rice cases, the use of deadly force was the "policy" used that caused the uproar.  Are "we" advocating a change of the threshold for the use of use of deadly force?  Do we want to change that threshold?

When I hear someone claim that the "system" is the broken or the policies or racist - I'm actually relieved.  Why? I'm relieved because systems and policies can be relatively easily fixed, redrafted, reconsidered, etc.  We've amended constitutions and passed comprehensive laws before and this gets much easier on the local level.  We've solved systemic problems before and we certainly have the capability to do so again.  The first step, however, is identifying the problem correctly.

I get drastically more worried when our problems are not within our codified systems but within our society and our behaviors.  Those problems can't be redrafted by paper and pen.  Those problems are much more pervasive and dangerous.  It seems like the things that lead to this unrest are larger societal, cultural, and behavioral issues that are much harder to deal with.  Raging against the nameless, faceless "system" without identifying the particular problems doesn't actually do anything.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: StapHanger on November 26, 2014, 09:38:46 AM
^In practice, the operational threshold has probably changed. Shootings by police have increased even though violent crime and shootings of police officers have declined markedly over the years.

There are many proposals for reform on the table if you care to look for them (I'm guessing you didn't). Lots of attention on de-militarizing police forces, altering training regimens, trying to increase accountability for misconduct, either procedurally or via things like body cameras, shifting away from broken windows to hot spot- community policing, etc. Some of them are probably dead ends, others have some empirical backing. A nice place to start would be to formally track police shootings so we can better understand them (there is no reliable formal count nationally, only some deeply flawed FBI stats that way undercount incidents).

So yeah, the demands of protesters may be abstract or vague, but please don't assume there's nothing that can be changed.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on November 26, 2014, 09:46:51 AM
A pretty remarkable photograph...

In search of visibility, protesters move to the highways http://t.co/uE9LHyEXjq #Ferguson http://t.co/AFNO1TpwX7
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: SixthCity on November 26, 2014, 09:51:57 AM
So yeah, the demands of protesters may be abstract or vague, but please don't assume there's nothing that can be changed.

I didn't and that's why I posed my question, which you answered.  Thank you for that.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: BCCLE1 on November 26, 2014, 09:53:07 AM
^Charging at someone after they begin shooting at you defies both logic and reason.  I challenge anyone (without any military training, obviously, same as Michael Brown did not have military training) here who has actually had a gun pointed at them from a large distance away to answer if they actually ran at the person who was pointing the gun at them.  If anyone here has actually been shot at, again, I pose the same question.  Did you run towards the attacker while he was shooting at you?

Then I guest the teachers, and others in many school shootings who charged after the shooters defies both logic and reason too.

In is uncommon for the majority of humans to go after someone who is shooting a weapon, but it certainly does happen.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: StapHanger on November 26, 2014, 10:02:47 AM
^^Sorry if I was snippy- I couldn't tell if you were asking a question or making a point.  For more info, you might enjoy reading some Radley Balko columns in the WP (e.g., http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/09/26/a-sort-of-defense-of-south-carolina-state-trooper-sean-groubert/)
or looking at some of the attention Cato has paid to the issues: http://www.cato.org/research/police-tactics-misconduct

Police reform is a fascinating issue because it cuts across political lines, drawing civil rights advocates and libertarians (real ones, not Tea Party hacks, apparently).  There's been a flurry of new writing on these issues of late, as you'd expect.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on November 26, 2014, 10:04:32 AM
Police departments are going to tweak their policies all across the country to try to avoid a Ferguson, possibly innovate and come up with new solutions. So the battle is already won in that regard.

I'm speaking out of total naiveté here but what are the policies that lead to a Ferguson or Tamir Rice incident that could be tweaked?  I'm constantly hearing about problematic policies/practices but I've never heard any actually enumerated.  Put simply, what exactly are the policy shortfalls and what are the solutions?  Not saying they don't exist but I think to conversation almost always stops after we "blame the system."

I have a friend that just resigned from the Memphis police. According to him the the department has been frustratingly slow to implement improved training. New techniques provide better better tools to help officers resolve conflict vs. escalating conflict. There's a significant and unhealthy "us vs. them" culture there, which is the natural result of any police that routinely work the most violent, high crime areas.

The proliferation of cameras helps. And he was optimistic that some reforms were taking place, such as better screening of applicants. And he implemented a program instructing ju jitsu for fellow officers. The goal is to improve tactics of non-lethal force; to minimize harm to both the officers themselves and to the persons being arrested. He saw a good number of suspects getting "needlessly roughed-up."
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: SixthCity on November 26, 2014, 10:11:08 AM
^ You're fine, no worries.  I have no point to make - I am just truly naive haha.  I've had very minimal contact with the police in my life.

Also, I'm interested in learning about specific shortfalls and solutions so I appreciate the links - I'll look into them.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hootenany on November 26, 2014, 11:19:01 AM
Then I guest the teachers, and others in many school shootings who charged after the shooters defies both logic and reason too.

In is uncommon for the majority of humans to go after someone who is shooting a weapon, but it certainly does happen.

To me it seems logical for someone to charge a shooter when that person is cornered and knows that the person is trying to kill them (i.e. teachers in classrooms).  It doesn't seem logical, at all, for an unarmed teenager to charge an armed police officer who he knows won't shoot him if he walks / runs away or simply puts his hands up.  There is no certain death in that scenario and therefore no need for a last ditch charge. 

People certainly do illogical things, but in life or death situations I would think instincts take over most of the time.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on November 26, 2014, 11:32:42 AM
Self-Segregation: Why it's hard for whites to understand Ferguson
http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/08/self-segregation-why-its-hard-for-whites-to-understand-ferguson/378928/
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: old edale on November 26, 2014, 11:34:17 AM
^Charging at someone after they begin shooting at you defies both logic and reason.  I challenge anyone (without any military training, obviously, same as Michael Brown did not have military training) here who has actually had a gun pointed at them from a large distance away to answer if they actually ran at the person who was pointing the gun at them.  If anyone here has actually been shot at, again, I pose the same question.  Did you run towards the attacker while he was shooting at you?

Then I guest the teachers, and others in many school shootings who charged after the shooters defies both logic and reason too.

In is uncommon for the majority of humans to go after someone who is shooting a weapon, but it certainly does happen.

This comment really seems to be missing the point.  I don't know what particular story you're talking about, but a teacher charging towards a gunman to protect the lives of her students is very different than someone charging at someone out of rage who is trying to kill you. 

I think it's pretty obvious from the testimony provided by Darren Wilson that he viewed Mike Brown as a scary threat before he even encountered him.  He described the fight with Brown as being like Hulk Hogan taking on a 5 year old child, despite the fact that Brown was only 2 inches taller.  Wilson also described Brown as a 'demon'.  The pictures released of Wilson in the hospital show essentially no injuries (very, very minor if any exist), so I just don't buy the argument that there was this massive struggle and fight that led to Wilson needing to kill Brown.  I believe there was some sort of altercation, and Wilson got spooked and shot the kid down.  The gunshot wound at the top of the head could be explained by Brown falling to his knees after being shot several times already.

 I guess there is ultimately no way to know exactly what happened on that day, but I think the larger issue is the presumption of guilt and the inherent threat that police officers see black men as.  Mike Brown very well could have been responsible for stealing those cigars. He might have provoked an altercation with the police.  But the fact is that he had his trial, sentencing, and execution in 90 seconds on the street that afternoon.  That Wilson doesn't even have to stand trial to defend himself is sickening, and is why so many people are responding so angrily. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on November 26, 2014, 11:59:23 AM
^Charging at someone after they begin shooting at you defies both logic and reason.  I challenge anyone (without any military training, obviously, same as Michael Brown did not have military training) here who has actually had a gun pointed at them from a large distance away to answer if they actually ran at the person who was pointing the gun at them.  If anyone here has actually been shot at, again, I pose the same question.  Did you run towards the attacker while he was shooting at you?

Then I guest the teachers, and others in many school shootings who charged after the shooters defies both logic and reason too.

In is uncommon for the majority of humans to go after someone who is shooting a weapon, but it certainly does happen.

This comment really seems to be missing the point.  I don't know what particular story you're talking about, but a teacher charging towards a gunman to protect the lives of her students is very different than someone charging at someone out of rage who is trying to kill you. 

I think it's pretty obvious from the testimony provided by Darren Wilson that he viewed Mike Brown as a scary threat before he even encountered him.  He described the fight with Brown as being like Hulk Hogan taking on a 5 year old child, despite the fact that Brown was only 2 inches taller.  Wilson also described Brown as a 'demon'.  The pictures released of Wilson in the hospital show essentially no injuries (very, very minor if any exist), so I just don't buy the argument that there was this massive struggle and fight that led to Wilson needing to kill Brown.  I believe there was some sort of altercation, and Wilson got spooked and shot the kid down.  The gunshot wound at the top of the head could be explained by Brown falling to his knees after being shot several times already.

 I guess there is ultimately no way to know exactly what happened on that day, but I think the larger issue is the presumption of guilt and the inherent threat that police officers see black men as.  Mike Brown very well could have been responsible for stealing those cigars. He might have provoked an altercation with the police.  But the fact is that he had his trial, sentencing, and execution in 90 seconds on the street that afternoon.  That Wilson doesn't even have to stand trial to defend himself is sickening, and is why so many people are responding so angrily. 

Alternatively, Wilson did not know Brown had just committed felony robbery (his assault on the shopkeeper made it such).  Brown did.  He was perceptive enough to note that Wilson was not 100% alert.  He thought he could manhandle him and get away, but things spun out of control.

Why should Wilson go through a trial when the evidence makes his innocence so clear?   What's truly sickening is mobs reacting violently against due process of law.  It's almost like rioting to protest an election.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: CBC on November 26, 2014, 12:21:48 PM
People have short memories and really aren't talking about the right things. People forget that the shooting didn't fuel the original outrage as much as what happened afterwards. My FB feed is really nauseating from both sides of the Spectrum. Too many people willing to say the Police are "pigs" and Wilson was right to shoot Brown because he's a "thug".


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/us/michael-brown-a-bodys-timeline-4-hours-on-a-ferguson-street.html
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: seicer on November 26, 2014, 12:49:47 PM
Re: Facebook. Here is what I just wrote on someone's wall after they were calling out people for being "pieces of shit" for disagreeing with them:

Meh. This is why I don't post anything about current events anymore. No one can take the middle ground or find compromise. It's either all out rage and vitriol in the posts and comments. I've seen in the past two days just some very unexpected words coming from some of my best friends directed at folks that we all respect otherwise.

I hope that people don't think that I'm racist or old fashioned, but I just found the looting and highways blocks to be tasteless. I was held up by some folks the other day who were blocking a freeway ramp (that I was able to go around). I couldn't be late for a meeting with our president and cabinet, and I'm not sure that the protesters would have cared either way.

Just last night, there were folks jumping into traffic on I-75 in Cincinnati. Some began to lay in the middle of the road, which was not only dangerous for them, but for drivers. What if one of them swerved to avoid the kid laying in the highway but hit other protesters? All it did was inflame the situation and draw negative commentary towards their cause.

This bit from Peter Bronson after the 2001 riot in Cincinnati still applies today: http://www.reddit.com/.../what_lessons_ferguson_can.../ (see first comment for full article). I just wish people would tone it down, wait it out a week and then reassess.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on November 26, 2014, 01:13:08 PM
^Charging at someone after they begin shooting at you defies both logic and reason.  I challenge anyone (without any military training, obviously, same as Michael Brown did not have military training) here who has actually had a gun pointed at them from a large distance away to answer if they actually ran at the person who was pointing the gun at them.  If anyone here has actually been shot at, again, I pose the same question.  Did you run towards the attacker while he was shooting at you?

Then I guest the teachers, and others in many school shootings who charged after the shooters defies both logic and reason too.

In is uncommon for the majority of humans to go after someone who is shooting a weapon, but it certainly does happen.

The gunshot wound at the top of the head could be explained by Brown falling to his knees after being shot several times already.


So this is a reason to shoot again?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on November 26, 2014, 01:17:13 PM
I suppose all of you proclaiming Wilson's "innocence" also believe OJ was "innocent"?  Again, people need to learn about applicable burdens of proof

EDIT: don't feel any pressure to answer the question (not that you were going to anyway).  It's rhetorical.  I already know the answer.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on November 26, 2014, 01:51:49 PM
I suppose all of you proclaiming Wilson's "innocence" also believe OJ was "innocent"?  Again, people need to learn about applicable burdens of proof

EDIT: don't feel any pressure to answer the question (not that you were going to anyway).  It's rhetorical.  I already know the answer.

Legally, yes.  The LAPD in general and Mark Fuhrman in particular handled evidence in a way that tampering was certainly a reasonable suspicion.  Both that jury and the Ferguson grand jury made the right call based upon the applicable burdens of proof.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on November 26, 2014, 02:10:43 PM
I think all Hts was going for was the fact that legally "not guilty" does not mean "innocent."  (This is why it was actually a big deal, for example, when the prosecutor who took over for Mike Nifong in the Duke lacrosse fiasco pronounced the players actually innocent rather than simply dropping the charges.  Those are not the same thing.)

But to those who had already convicted Wilson (or OJ) in their minds, though, "not guilty" was still a miscarriage of justice.  People might understand that we have juries, grand juries, and burdens of proof to protect people from the mob, but they often forget that when they're part of the mob.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 26, 2014, 03:00:05 PM
Vox has a lot of good stuff up on its website about the Ferguson situation, one piece that goes over Wilson's statements and his inconsistencies. I guess there's a lot of things about the law that I don't understand, but the fact that this didn't even go into an open trial for manslaughter (at the very least) is a bit mind-boggling. I trust the police and believe that they need to be able to do their jobs, but they're also human beings and make mistakes at times, and I'm not 100% certain that Wilson is being entirely truthful.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on November 26, 2014, 03:06:55 PM
^The inconsistencies between his initial statements and his testimony to the grand jury, while explainable to an extent, would normally raise a huge red flag to a prosecutor.  But this was not just some everyday Joe prosecutor.  I didn't realize the extent of the controversy surrounding his involvement, but it is quite astonishing.  In most police use of deadly force cases (at least here in Ohio), a special prosecutor is appointed.  If one is not, the police union / accused officer usually insists that one be appointed.  The fact that they wanted McCullough on this case speaks volumes.

If the prosecutor did not seek an indictment from the GJ, it is not surprising at all that one was not given.  We may be able to review all of the witness testimony, but I don't believe they will ever release what would be the equivalent of a closing argument.

I also have now read the testimony of Witness 10 (the only witness other than Wilson to say Brown charged at him).  People should read that transcript.  It is very different from the way McCullough described it.  It is still favorable to Wilson, but not nearly to the extent McCullough suggested when delivering his 'speech' on Monday night.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 26, 2014, 04:13:22 PM
^The inconsistencies between his initial statements and his testimony to the grand jury, while explainable to an extent, would normally raise a huge red flag to a prosecutor.  But this was not just some everyday Joe prosecutor.  I didn't realize the extent of the controversy surrounding his involvement, but it is quite astonishing.  In most police use of deadly force cases (at least here in Ohio), a special prosecutor is appointed.  If one is not, the police union / accused officer usually insists that one be appointed.  The fact that they wanted McCullough on this case speaks volumes.

If the prosecutor did not seek an indictment from the GJ, it is not surprising at all that one was not given.  We may be able to review all of the witness testimony, but I don't believe they will ever release what would be the equivalent of a closing argument.

I also have now read the testimony of Witness 10 (the only witness other than Wilson to say Brown charged at him).  People should read that transcript.  It is very different from the way McCullough described it.  It is still favorable to Wilson, but not nearly to the extent McCullough suggested when delivering his 'speech' on Monday night.

Thank you for your take on my question (I haven't been reading this whole thread). By no means do I think that Wilson was guilty of any wrongdoing, nor that Brown was an angel, but I think the way the process played out should concern people. Further, the folks that are basically concluding "well, I guess that's that" seem all-too-ready to ignore the questionable circumstances around how the prosecutor did his job and what some of the witnesses had to say. His speech and arguments for why no charges were issues were well-presented, but I'm not sure that justice was really served.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on November 26, 2014, 05:59:48 PM
A brilliant essay written by NFL tight end Benjamin Watson....

https://m.facebook.com/BenjaminWatsonOfficial/posts/602172116576590

I liked it right up to the end because religion isn't a cure-all. Religion is sometimes used to justify violence and injustice against non-conformists...
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: SixthCity on November 26, 2014, 06:31:43 PM
^ I think that was great, very well done.  Agree with you about the religion though.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on November 26, 2014, 06:58:13 PM
Journalist Trymaine Lee tweets:

I've seen A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving 500 times and never caught Charlie Brown dapping up Franklin. http://t.co/yDMfxofckm
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: CBC on November 27, 2014, 07:00:37 AM
^^^it has been the best thing I have seen written about Ferguson  even with the religious part at the end.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on November 28, 2014, 07:53:39 AM
I think all Hts was going for was the fact that legally "not guilty" does not mean "innocent."  (This is why it was actually a big deal, for example, when the prosecutor who took over for Mike Nifong in the Duke lacrosse fiasco pronounced the players actually innocent rather than simply dropping the charges.  Those are not the same thing.)

But to those who had already convicted Wilson (or OJ) in their minds, though, "not guilty" was still a miscarriage of justice.  People might understand that we have juries, grand juries, and burdens of proof to protect people from the mob, but they often forget that when they're part of the mob.

Exactly.  Did O.J. do it?  I would consider it about 80% likely.

At the time I said that police evidence tampering was a far greater risk than this one man who will now be closely watched for the rest of his life.

All evidence we have seen supports the idea that Wilson feared that his life was endangered.   And even if he overreacted, that's less of a threat than people believing they can attack the police without dire consequences. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on November 28, 2014, 11:07:20 AM
Jackie ‏@thedahlimmama  Nov 26
THIS is #WhitePrivilege !! THIS is why the ANGER! #NoJusticeNoPeace #KnowJusticeKnowPeace #UniteBlue
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3Yg0hfCQAISprd.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on November 28, 2014, 11:22:12 AM
Why would a police officer strike someone when all he was doing was asking for help?  Sounds like charges were proper.  You could not see the differences in the 2 cases?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on November 28, 2014, 11:34:45 AM
Quite frankly, any time someone brings up "white privilege", I know they're not going to convince me of everything. It's a false concept designed to mask the fact that actual racism goes in multiple directions and modern forms of bias are more often focused on behavior.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 28, 2014, 12:08:31 PM
^actually I don't think "white privilege" is a false concept. Blacks are profiled unfairly far too often. That said, the people who are fanning the flames in Ferguson also have an agenda. There's an ends-justifies-the-means mentality that racial justice can be achieved even if it means using dishonest methods. I'll never forget watching the Spike Lee movie "Do the Right Thing" (25 years ago) and noticing a scene with graffiti on a wall that read "Tawana told the Truth," (at least as I remember that was in the film), referring of course to the Tawana Brawley hoax. A number of careers were destroyed in this circus, and Al Sharpton, one of the ringleaders responsible for perpetuating this lie, went on to become a national figure with a lucrative media job, etc. As far as I know he never has apologized (although in fairness, initially, like many others, he may have honestly believed it was true). To this handful of people, like many of the "leaders" instigating the Ferguson-related demonstrations, the truth is irrelevant. There are no shades of grey. Every action by the police is one of "evil" (never mind that the police in Ferguson--as well as in cities and towns all over the nation--have over the years come to the aid of people of all races and diffused thousands of potential conflicts in myriad situations). Unfortunately so many well-meaning people who are seriously concerned about racial justice also fall prey to these falsehoods.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 28, 2014, 12:17:51 PM
wow, I guess his career is over!

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/pharrell-williams-singles-michel-brown-bullyish-acts-article-1.2025733

Pharrell Williams singles out Michael Brown's 'bullyish' behavior
'Why aren't we talking about that?': Pharrell Williams takes aim at the Ferguson teen's actions that led to the fatal confrontation with Police Officer Darren Wilson.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on November 28, 2014, 12:23:39 PM
Thanks guys. It's always good of you to take time out from your goose-stepping drills to get your input on white privilege. March on, fellas.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on November 28, 2014, 12:32:00 PM
Thanks guys. It's always good of you to take time out from your goose-stepping drills to get your input on white privilege. March on, fellas.

As a former journalist, I would think you would want to hear all the facts before speaking, but usually you just speak.  As for goose-stepping, I think that only occurred in Europe, you know, the place you would rather live.

Again, thanks for your insults.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on November 28, 2014, 12:51:45 PM
As a former journalist, I would think you would want to hear all the facts before speaking, but usually you just speak.  As for goose-stepping, I think that only occurred in Europe, you know, the place you would rather live.

Again, thanks for your insults.

It's only an insult when it's untrue. And while the goose-stepping occurred in Europe, the inability to judge people one at a time exists everywhere and in all people.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on November 28, 2014, 12:59:30 PM
Wow, a white guy jumps in to the fray to protect a black guy from Baltimore police. This video is NSFW....

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=237329143133702&fref=nf
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on November 28, 2014, 01:06:54 PM
I suppose you think that was the right thing to do?  You shouldn't be judging those police officers, they were probably in the right.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 28, 2014, 01:08:50 PM
^for anyone living in Baltimore: next time you're the victim of a crime, be sure and call the white guy who attacked the cops! I'm sure he has his own 911 line.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on November 28, 2014, 02:23:00 PM
^for anyone living in Baltimore: next time you're the victim of a crime, be sure and call the white guy who attacked the cops! I'm sure he has his own 911 line.

Increasingly, it seems some people are more apt to trust the white guy who attacked the cops. It's becoming a mixed up world. Maybe we'll start recognizing the disaffected should be listened to rather than dismissing them? You can't keep them at arm's length forever. I for one love to the see some of the turmoil -- I happened to be in downtown Cleveland on Tuesday when the protests were going on and I felt energized by it. Turmoil is the only thing that reorders society. A little revolution now and then is not only inevitable, but necessary.

EDIT: just saw this...
Sean Hannity Chides NYT For Whipping Up A Frenzy That Puts Darren Wilson At Risk http://t.co/CX8TgppPcW http://t.co/aed7ho4zx9
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: eastvillagedon on November 28, 2014, 02:44:20 PM
^I really don't even know how to respond to this. You make it sound like the police/authorities in America are ISUS. Like I said, I do think blacks are unfairly profiled in many cases (and there is white privilege). But they (like all races) commit crimes too; and to constantly second guess the police and put them under a spotlight as the enemy is to advocate anarchy. I guess, as you stated in your comments about "turmoil" and "revolution," that's essentially what you want.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Oldmanladyluck on November 28, 2014, 02:46:34 PM
^actually I don't think "white privilege" is a false concept. Blacks are profiled unfairly far too often. That said, the people who are fanning the flames in Ferguson also have an agenda. There's an ends-justifies-the-means mentality that racial justice can be achieved even if it means using dishonest methods. I'll never forget watching the Spike Lee movie "Do the Right Thing" (25 years ago) and noticing a scene with graffiti on a wall that read "Tawana told the Truth," (at least as I remember that was in the film), referring of course to the Tawana Brawley hoax. A number of careers were destroyed in this circus, and Al Sharpton, one of the ringleaders responsible for perpetuating this lie, went on to become a national figure with a lucrative media job, etc. As far as I know he never has apologized (although in fairness, initially, like many others, he may have honestly believed it was true). To this handful of people, like many of the "leaders" instigating the Ferguson-related demonstrations, the truth is irrelevant. There are no shades of grey. Every action by the police is one of "evil" (never mind that the police in Ferguson--as well as in cities and towns all over the nation--have over the years come to the aid of people of all races and diffused thousands of potential conflicts in myriad situations). Unfortunately so many well-meaning people who are seriously concerned about racial justice also fall prey to these falsehoods.

It's easy to say or feel that "White Privilege" is a false concept if a person is not a minority.  Those of us who are minorities have lived through different circumstances than some who feel we've all been treated equal since the signing of the Civil Rights Act.  The anger felt around the US from the non-indictment in Ferguson didn't spring from nowhere; minorities are targeted much more frequently than some will realize by those who are sworn to protect.  Now granted- there were SOME who used the ruling as an opportunity to loot; but the vast majority of protests across the nation were non-violent, including in Cleveland (and I couldn't be more proud).  Personally, I hope this is just the beginning and that organizers will be able to use the righteous anger felt by people of all races nationwide around this ruling and truly turn it into something positive.   

And I say all races because to me, the beautiful thing about the marches this week was that they were attended by not only blacks- but other races as well, including whites.  And thank God there's folks who actually know that we still, to this day, do not live in an equal society.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on November 28, 2014, 02:49:54 PM
He's not satisfied unless there are cut and dried winners and losers.  It's something that parents understand, there cannot always be winners, sometimes you have to be the loser.  Non-parents struggle with this concept.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on November 28, 2014, 04:16:02 PM
And I say all races because to me, the beautiful thing about the marches this week was that they were attended by not only blacks- but other races as well, including whites.  And thank God there's folks who actually know that we still, to this day, do not live in an equal society.

Yep, I loved that.

He's not satisfied unless there are cut and dried winners and losers.  It's something that parents understand, there cannot always be winners, sometimes you have to be the loser.  Non-parents struggle with this concept.


Except that even if you lose a revolution, you win by having witnessed one (or even participated in one) in which you get to see the powerful -- or merely people who are comfortable in society's status quo -- express fear for the first time. And when it's the dispossessed, the disaffected, the disenchanted gainning a little bit of a voice for the first in their lives by rising up, I think that's a beautiful thing.

We're all either on an assembly line or managing it from the ivory tower. But sometimes I just get bored with assembly line lifestyles. It does my revolutionary soul some good when the supervisors and owners don't know what to think when the rank-n-file decide that they no longer want to be treated like gears in their self-enrichment machine. So when the assembly line is slowed or abandoned due to disinterest or disgust by the little guy, get me a box of popcorn quick! I love me a plot twist.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on November 28, 2014, 04:42:27 PM
^There's nothing wrong with that, it keeps things interesting.  The real problem here, is that there are probably better examples of situations which will only get ignored because of all the support for this criminal.  And yes, regardless of his mother saying he wouldn't hurt anyone, he would.  Early on, when I called him a thug, I didn't realize it was just another word for the n word.  I'm sorry for that, but he was just a common criminal.

Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on November 28, 2014, 05:08:29 PM
Take note.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=832569273423146
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Whipjacka on November 28, 2014, 06:10:02 PM
There is no white privelage... except that overqualified Blacks are less likely to find employment than under-qualified  whites:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/27/white-high-school-drop-outs-are-as-likely-to-land-jobs-as-black-college-students/


And are searched in Missouri at a higher rate than whites while the contraband hit rate is lower than whites.

http://ago.mo.gov/VehicleStops/2013/reports/161.pdf

Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on November 29, 2014, 07:02:26 AM
We're all either on an assembly line or managing it from the ivory tower.

No, we are not on an assembly line or some high level manager.  People are free to choose their own destinies.  Every day there are millions of stories of people who rise above their lot in life through education, drive, hard work and innovation.  This mindset that 'we are all drones in an underclass being controlled by wealthy elite' makes an excuse for those who don't take responsibility to do more, and rise above. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Clevelander17 on November 29, 2014, 08:41:13 AM
We're all either on an assembly line or managing it from the ivory tower.

No, we are not on an assembly line or some high level manager.  People are free to choose their own destinies.  Every day there are millions of stories of people who rise above their lot in life through education, drive, hard work and innovation.  This mindset that 'we are all drones in an underclass being controlled by wealthy elite' makes an excuse for those who don't take responsibility to do more, and rise above. 

Millions of people? Every day? Beyond exaggeration, this sounds like selection bias. While of course it's true that circumstances of birth do not determine destiny, there's no denying that lots of barriers have been put into place to ensure that those people (and their friends/relatives) that hold power remain in power. Not only worldwide, but even here in the United States, the "Land of the Free." Obviously there are some other factors that can determine one's lot in life, such as intelligence, but since we don't live in anything close to a meritocracy, not even these factors can explain away all of the inequity in the world.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on November 29, 2014, 09:54:28 AM
Take note.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=832569273423146

That guy was killed. Did you know that?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on November 29, 2014, 10:01:57 AM
I'm not arguing about the 1% at the top, I'm arguing about people at the bottom, and the decisions they make that keep them at the bottom rather than ascending.  Young Mike Brown was 18 yrs old, not a child.  He made a decision when he walked into the store and chose to blatantly steal.  He didn't steal out of need, or sneak something in his pocket, he did it in a bold manner.  He had to know it would lead to some run-in with the law.  Same as his path home - he chose to walk in the street which would attract law attention vs walking on the sidewalk.  And when the officer pulled up, whatever happened I don't know, but Mike Brown had an active part in escalating the fight which led to his death.

On the flip side, I think Officer Wilson is guilty of some sort of wrongful death.  At the point of conflict he could have retreated, either on foot or in his car, to put some distance between him & Mike Brown, until backup arrived.  He could have used nonlethal force like pepper spray or taser, assuming these were available to him.  Hell he could have used a night stick...  instead he chose lethal force. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on November 29, 2014, 11:45:02 AM
Take note.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=832569273423146

That guy was killed. Did you know that?
After about 5 mins. How long the Brown thing last? 30 seconds? The point is they tried to arrest him. In the brown case it was a insta-kill.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on November 29, 2014, 01:01:54 PM
Take note.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=832569273423146

That guy was killed. Did you know that?
After about 5 mins. How long the Brown thing last? 30 seconds? The point is they tried to arrest him. In the brown case it was a insta-kill.

It was insta-kill for a legitimate reason.  He went after the officers gun, then he charged full speed towards the officer.  Nothing else could have stopped him, he got what he deserved. 

In the video, the guy was submitting to an arrest something Michael Brown never tried.  He'd be alive today had he done that.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Oldmanladyluck on November 30, 2014, 07:39:07 AM
Take note.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=832569273423146

That guy was killed. Did you know that?
After about 5 mins. How long the Brown thing last? 30 seconds? The point is they tried to arrest him. In the brown case it was a insta-kill.

It was insta-kill for a legitimate reason.  He went after the officers gun, then he charged full speed towards the officer.  Nothing else could have stopped him, he got what he deserved. 

In the video, the guy was submitting to an arrest something Michael Brown never tried.  He'd be alive today had he done that.

^Supposedly charged full speed, after being shot at (and shot) already.  Again, there should have been a trial, where ALL witnesses could be cross-examined.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on November 30, 2014, 08:38:26 AM
^why bring a trial, where all jurors would have to agree on a guilty charge, when they couldn't get 9 of the 12 on grand jury to agree on an indictment...?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on November 30, 2014, 09:07:34 AM
^why bring a trial, where all jurors would have to agree on a guilty charge, when they couldn't get 9 of the 12 on grand jury to agree on an indictment...?

By arguing a law that's not even on the books anymore. Oh, and one of the witnesses was shot in the head and set on fire yesterday. No suspects.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on November 30, 2014, 11:21:07 AM
It was insta-kill for a legitimate reason.  He went after the officers gun, then he charged full speed towards the officer.  Nothing else could have stopped him, he got what he deserved. 

In the video, the guy was submitting to an arrest something Michael Brown never tried.  He'd be alive today had he done that.

^Supposedly charged full speed, after being shot at (and shot) already.  Again, there should have been a trial, where ALL witnesses could be cross-examined.
[/quote]

Bosco saw the whole thing happen.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Oldmanladyluck on November 30, 2014, 12:53:49 PM
: http://youtu.be/sblJdLcgXfU

^So did they.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on November 30, 2014, 09:40:12 PM
No, we are not on an assembly line or some high level manager.  People are free to choose their own destinies.  Every day there are millions of stories of people who rise above their lot in life through education, drive, hard work and innovation.  This mindset that 'we are all drones in an underclass being controlled by wealthy elite' makes an excuse for those who don't take responsibility to do more, and rise above.

Still drinking the Kool Aid, I see.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on December 01, 2014, 07:27:02 AM
St. Louis police group demands punishment for Rams players in Ferguson protest http://t.co/DSRqDxyaSD (AP) http://t.co/SqySQh8es2
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on December 01, 2014, 07:34:18 AM
No, we are not on an assembly line or some high level manager.  People are free to choose their own destinies.  Every day there are millions of stories of people who rise above their lot in life through education, drive, hard work and innovation.  This mindset that 'we are all drones in an underclass being controlled by wealthy elite' makes an excuse for those who don't take responsibility to do more, and rise above.

Still drinking the Kool Aid, I see.

Unbelievable.  Its 2014.  We have a black president who was basically raised by a single mom.  And you want to keep beating the drum that nobody can break out of the defined social structure....  keep playing the victim, see where it gets you. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on December 01, 2014, 08:24:49 AM
Unbelievable.  Its 2014.  We have a black president who was basically raised by a single mom.  And you want to keep beating the drum that nobody can break out of the defined social structure....  keep playing the victim, see where it gets you. 

Again you take it to the extremes -- nobody? I didn't say nobody. And Obama is the product of an America that no longer exists. Ask young people today how upwardly mobile many of them feel. And if you're not into anecdotal evidence, show me why this nation's children aren't able to achieve the same financial security that their parents or grandparents enjoyed. That is a fact, my friend.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on December 01, 2014, 09:20:15 AM
(http://i707.photobucket.com/albums/ww75/dougshaw77/uodunce.jpg)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on December 01, 2014, 09:34:14 AM
^I like your complete caricature of young people today.

A lot of people don't trust those companies because of how hard many of them fight to provide lower and lower wages and benefits and limited job security. Job security in manufacturing is not remotely close to what it was "back in the day" when manufacturing was America's heart.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Chris DoorDashian on December 01, 2014, 09:34:58 AM
Quote
To top it off, there are good paying jobs available in manufacturing.  Employers cannot find qualified candidates.  Young people today would rather sit on their ass and aspire to be the Kardashians instead of aspiring to be their grandfather who actually got up & went to work every day...

I'm presuming this is satire?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: mu2010 on December 01, 2014, 09:42:56 AM
show me why this nation's children aren't able to achieve the same financial security that their parents or grandparents enjoyed.

Because selfies and facebook, duh!


To be serious, you are both right to a point. There is definitely a "system" that turns people (of all social classes) into "mindless drones" or "cogs in the machine." School... job... kids... bills... keep up with joneses... death... rinse... repeat. I do not think it is run by an evil master at the top but rather the tyranny of human nature. There is a huge slice of population that never stops to think about or question anything about the life that has been planned out for them by other people. Many of my friends and family are among their ranks, which I find frustrating.

For those who want to enough, and/or are talented enough, there are ways to break out of the defined social structure, as there always have been. Sometimes those ways lie inside the system (working really hard, etc) and sometimes they lie outside the system (alternative lifestyles, asceticism, living off the land, moving to another country, crime, etc).

The problem that I see as a millennial is that in the baby boomer generation "mindless drones" had it relatively easy. Today, it's definitely harder to be a "mindless drone." And the loudest critics of the millennial mindless drones are the boomer mindless drones, which makes perfect sense. They are mindless drones, so of course they haven’t noticed or contemplated the changes to society that have taken place since their youth. So they are annoying.

On the flip side - I call myself liberal but I break with the young liberals who play up the whole victim thing. It's self-defeating to whine and moan about how other people are to blame for their lack of opportunity, thinking the only solutions to their problems can come from political change. It’s just not going to make you happy. Better to take responsibility for your life.

That doesn't mean, however, that the "system" is hunky-dory as is and we shouldn't work to create a more fair society for those who are born of less than fortunate circumstances. We should.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on December 01, 2014, 09:51:30 AM
On the flip side - I call myself liberal but I break with the young liberals who play up the whole victim thing. It's self-defeating to whine and moan about how other people are to blame for their lack of opportunity, thinking the only solutions to their problems can come from political change. It’s just not going to make you happy. Better to take responsibility for your life.

This is a great weakness for liberal, conservative, or any group-centric mindset. Group membership eclipses individuality, often as a detriment to that individual.

Holding oneself up as a representative of a group of people is an unfair, weighted burden that nobody can overcome.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on December 01, 2014, 10:02:28 AM
To top it off, there are good paying jobs available in manufacturing.  Employers cannot find qualified candidates.  Young people today would rather sit on their ass and aspire to be the Kardashians instead of aspiring to be their grandfather who actually got up & went to work every day...

They don't want Millenials working those jobs. They want a Gen-Xer that already has all the training, and 2-3 years experience doing the same job. Those things that Millenials don't have and weren't led to believe would be valued by society when they were choosing their life paths, because manufacturing has/had been falling apart for their entire lifetime. It would be like kids in grade school today pursuing hard journalism careers.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hootenany on December 01, 2014, 11:02:23 AM
To top it off, there are good paying jobs available in manufacturing.  Employers cannot find qualified candidates.  Young people today would rather sit on their ass and aspire to be the Kardashians instead of aspiring to be their grandfather who actually got up & went to work every day...

The first half of your statement is true, but the second half is absurd.  Never in our history has an entry level manufacturing candidate been required to have so much post-secondary education / training.  Generally speaking employers were much more willing to train employees from the ground up 40-50 years ago.  This just doesn't happen as much today.  The company I work for (400 person manufacturing facility) does not train machinists if it requires any substantial effort.  CNC training?  Forget about it.  My belief is that people are no more lazy today than they were 50 years ago it's just that the entrance criteria for what used to be a middle class blue collar job is much higher today.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Chris DoorDashian on December 01, 2014, 11:13:02 AM
Quote
My belief is that people are no more lazy today than they were 50 years ago it's just that the entrance criteria for what used to be a middle class blue collar job is much higher today.

*ding ding*

We have a winner!
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: jmecklenborg on December 01, 2014, 11:45:32 AM
Quote
My belief is that people are no more lazy today than they were 50 years ago it's just that the entrance criteria for what used to be a middle class blue collar job is much higher today.

*ding ding*

We have a winner!

Also there is much too much of a focus today on "lazy" people and not enough on how the wealthy have rewritten the tax laws in their favor.  A wealthy person can buy 100 acres, cut down one tree per year, and declare the land "non-commercial lumber" and pay almost no property tax.  Alternatively they can get two sheep and declare 100 acres "agricultural" and also pay no property tax.  Who is lazier?   


Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: AJ93 on December 01, 2014, 11:55:52 AM
The last few pages of this thread read like a hacky 80's standup routine.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on December 01, 2014, 12:00:07 PM
Unbelievable.  Its 2014.  We have a black president who was basically raised by a single mom.  And you want to keep beating the drum that nobody can break out of the defined social structure....  keep playing the victim, see where it gets you. 

Again you take it to the extremes -- nobody? I didn't say nobody. And Obama is the product of an America that no longer exists. Ask young people today how upwardly mobile many of them feel. And if you're not into anecdotal evidence, show me why this nation's children aren't able to achieve the same financial security that their parents or grandparents enjoyed. That is a fact, my friend.

To this I call Bull Sh*t. It is insulting to millenials like myself. No there are no longer the Union factory jobs there once were but to say you cannot make it is BS. It is about thinking out of the box and taking risks and putting yourself out there. If you follow the tried and true formula you will end up where everyone else is. If you take calculated risks you can achieve your dreams.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Whipjacka on December 01, 2014, 12:06:01 PM
 :roll:
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on December 01, 2014, 12:15:57 PM
It seems that the skeptical voices on this case are moving on. All that is left is Brown deserved to die, or Wilson is a murderer. Always the same people so absolutely sure of something. It must be nice. (I am referring to the world generally and not people on this forum)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: SixthCity on December 01, 2014, 01:05:08 PM
Obama Requests $263 Million for Police Body Cameras, Training

The White House on Monday proposed $263 million in funding for police body cameras and training as the administration wrestles with a federal response to unrest in Ferguson, Missouri.

The program, which would need congressional approval, would offer a total of $75 million over three years to match state funding for the cameras by 50 percent, helping to pay for more than 50,000 of the devices.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/obama-requests-263-million-police-body-cameras-training-n259161


Cleveland has had money budgeting since October and aiming for a 1st quarter of 2015 roll-out.
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/11/cleveland_city_councilman_call.html
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: X on December 01, 2014, 01:42:36 PM
There's also this:

Obama to Toughen Standards on Police Use of Military Gear
By MARK LANDLERDEC. 1, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/us/politics/obama-to-toughen-standards-on-police-use-of-military-gear.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Monday announced that he would tighten standards on the provision and use of military-style equipment by local police departments, but he stopped short of curtailing the transfer of such hardware or weapons to the local authorities.

After a review of the government’s decade-old strategy of outfitting local police forces with military equipment, the White House concluded that the vast majority of these transfers strengthen local policing, but that the government should impose consistent standards in the types of hardware it offers, better training in how to use it and more thorough oversight.


I'm glad to see that while the "national conversation" completely devolved to finger-pointing and vitriolic name calling that he's doing something to try to actually improve the situation.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on December 01, 2014, 01:44:46 PM
To this I call Bull Sh*t. It is insulting to millenials like myself. No there are no longer the Union factory jobs there once were but to say you cannot make it is BS. It is about thinking out of the box and taking risks and putting yourself out there. If you follow the tried and true formula you will end up where everyone else is. If you take calculated risks you can achieve your dreams.

Then you also believe the world is flat.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on December 01, 2014, 01:51:33 PM
The body cameras idea is an excellent one and has proven stunningly effective in some small-scale trial runs; anyone who hasn't read up on the experiment of Rialto, California with such cameras really ought to do so.  Use of force declined by approximately 60% and formal citizen complaints declined 88%(!) in a year.

http://www.policefoundation.org/content/body-worn-cameras-police-use-force

People still argue about the reasons behind the effect, but at some point, you can just accept the results without delving too deeply into the reasons.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: StapHanger on December 01, 2014, 02:11:30 PM
Excellent. Kind of irritating that federal funds are needed for something like this, but it's pretty clear a lot of local governments/police departments are fairly uninterested in police accountability.

Without rigorously confirming, I'd guess an extremely high share of all police brutality cases that are successfully prosecuted, sued on, or even deemed worth investigating are backed by video evidence.  Even if video isn't necessarily dispositive, it definitely shrinks the opportunity for wholesale factual disagreements, like in Ferguson.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on December 01, 2014, 02:26:24 PM
If the Feds have the resources to hand out MRAPs, they have the resources to hand out cameras.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: jmecklenborg on December 01, 2014, 02:29:46 PM
Excellent. Kind of irritating that federal funds are needed for something like this, but it's pretty clear a lot of local governments/police departments are fairly uninterested in police accountability.

Without rigorously confirming, I'd guess an extremely high share of all police brutality cases that are successfully prosecuted, sued on, or even deemed worth investigating are backed by video evidence.  Even if video isn't necessarily dispositive, it definitely shrinks the opportunity for wholesale factual disagreements, like in Ferguson.

The current dash cam and microphone situation is a mess.  The police can and do regularly pull people out of view of the camera and -- oops! -- the microphone stops working. 

Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Cleburger on December 01, 2014, 02:31:08 PM
Excellent. Kind of irritating that federal funds are needed for something like this, but it's pretty clear a lot of local governments/police departments are fairly uninterested in police accountability.

Federal dollars flow like water to most police agencies.   Why wouldn't a municipality wait until there was actual grant money for cameras? 

The problem is, these types of dollars go to cronies in the former-military industrial complex, so federal dollars are spent on humvees and 50 caliber sniper rifles, and not cameras.   The rash of high-profile incidents could tip the grants towards these body cameras if there continues to the political pressure to monitor police actions.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: StapHanger on December 01, 2014, 02:56:49 PM
If the Feds have the resources to hand out MRAPs, they have the resources to hand out cameras.

Of course they do. The point isn't the incidence of the expense, it's that local governments need a financial carrot to be bothered to implement even the low hanging fruit of police accountability. I'd expect that to be particularly annoying in an ironic kind of way to libertarian types.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on December 01, 2014, 03:07:36 PM
If the Feds have the resources to hand out MRAPs, they have the resources to hand out cameras.

Of course they do. The point isn't the incidence of the expense, it's that local governments need a financial carrot to be bothered to implement even the low hanging fruit of police accountability. I'd expect that to be particularly annoying in an ironic kind of way to libertarian types.

In ideological terms, yes.  The ideal would be for local departments to just buy these cameras without the federal carrot.  They're not that expensive, and nor is the amount of data storage needed for large digital archives these days.

In practical terms, well, sometimes you've just got to suck it up and deal with whatever it takes to get the job done.  Police accountability is a major issue and there are hundreds if not thousands of bigger fish to fry in terms of expansive and expensive government.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on December 01, 2014, 06:58:24 PM
Human rights experts tell U.S. to improve on police practices, immigration detention https://t.co/aLdgxwCsWu
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: X on December 01, 2014, 07:15:58 PM
^why bring a trial, where all jurors would have to agree on a guilty charge, when they couldn't get 9 of the 12 on grand jury to agree on an indictment...?

By arguing a law that's not even on the books anymore. Oh, and one of the witnesses was shot in the head and set on fire yesterday. No suspects.

Not a witness, a friend of the man who was walking with Mike Brown:

"His family said Mr. Joshua had never joined the marches and protests over Mr. Brown’s shooting, even though, in a twist of fate, the twin brothers were childhood friends with a crucial figure in the case, the witness who was walking with Mr. Brown when he was killed."

"His death became fodder for online speculation, caught in the fervor over the unrest in Ferguson. People sifting through thousands of pages of redacted grand jury testimony from the Brown case posited that Mr. Joshua was one of the unnamed witnesses.

But Mr. Joshua’s family said he had known nothing about Mr. Brown’s death and never testified before the grand jury. A former girlfriend, Chasity Jones, a student at Southern Illinois University, said she and Mr. Joshua were at a St. Louis-area beauty salon in August when they heard news of Mr. Brown’s death."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/us/another-killing-in-ferguson-leaves-a-family-grappling-with-the-unknown.html?hpw&rref=us&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on December 01, 2014, 07:22:03 PM
Black-on-Black homicides have decreased by 67% in 20 years, a sharper rate of decrease than white-white homicide.
http://t.co/tEihFI0cst
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on December 01, 2014, 07:56:27 PM
the numbers in the article you linked differ quite a bit somehow...  says 2695 black murder victims, 2447 committed by blacks

This FBI link, also for 2011, says 6329 black murder victims... http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-1

Big difference
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on December 01, 2014, 07:56:50 PM
#Yale students #WalkOut for #MikeBrown #Ferguson #handsupwalkout http://t.co/h4H5Q3Djeo via @3ChicsPolitico @OccupyRMN
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: SixthCity on December 01, 2014, 09:00:36 PM
Black-on-Black homicides have decreased by 67% in 20 years, a sharper rate of decrease than white-white homicide.
http://t.co/tEihFI0cst

That's excellent to hear but unfortunately homicide is still a disproportionately huge problem for young black men.

Three-quarters of all victims and nearly 90% of perpetrators are male. Black Americans are only 13% of the population, but over 50% of murder victims. Among black men between 20 and 24, the murder rate is over 100 per 100,000 (see chart). If this group were a country, it would be more violent than Honduras, the world’s most violent nation. (Though the rate for young men in Honduras is much higher.)

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21617019-who-gets-murdered


(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a62/Randigo/da940e2d-d21c-419d-86f7-f0c80ea9e43b_zpsef983541.png) (http://s9.photobucket.com/user/Randigo/media/da940e2d-d21c-419d-86f7-f0c80ea9e43b_zpsef983541.png.html)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on December 01, 2014, 09:35:35 PM
#INFOGRAPHIC A look at racial disparity stats in St Louis vehicle stops @AFP http://t.co/cTkLzLDamY http://t.co/yw6CCHaCGV
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on December 02, 2014, 09:14:04 AM
@GottaLaff Whites wonder why Blacks have a significantly lower level of trust in the police than they do. http://t.co/EJArKScQne
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on December 02, 2014, 09:18:49 AM
Wow, the racial gap in this Ferguson reaction poll. http://t.co/7lsl2WZhpa Not surprising, but astounding. http://t.co/9TlJJKYe9E
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on December 02, 2014, 09:32:57 AM
To this I call Bull Sh*t. It is insulting to millenials like myself. No there are no longer the Union factory jobs there once were but to say you cannot make it is BS. It is about thinking out of the box and taking risks and putting yourself out there. If you follow the tried and true formula you will end up where everyone else is. If you take calculated risks you can achieve your dreams.

Then you also believe the world is flat.


Ken, you point fingers and laugh while I am doing it. It is you who must believe the world is flat because I know from experience it is not.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on December 02, 2014, 09:50:36 AM
Black-on-Black homicides have decreased by 67% in 20 years, a sharper rate of decrease than white-white homicide.
http://t.co/tEihFI0cst

That's excellent to hear but unfortunately homicide is still a disproportionately huge problem for young black men.

Three-quarters of all victims and nearly 90% of perpetrators are male. Black Americans are only 13% of the population, but over 50% of murder victims. Among black men between 20 and 24, the murder rate is over 100 per 100,000 (see chart). If this group were a country, it would be more violent than Honduras, the world’s most violent nation. (Though the rate for young men in Honduras is much higher.)

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21617019-who-gets-murdered


(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a62/Randigo/da940e2d-d21c-419d-86f7-f0c80ea9e43b_zpsef983541.png) (http://s9.photobucket.com/user/Randigo/media/da940e2d-d21c-419d-86f7-f0c80ea9e43b_zpsef983541.png.html)

If I'm not mistaken some cities still do not report crime rates to the feds.  If they did the disproportion would likely be greater.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: StapHanger on December 02, 2014, 10:24:37 AM
^The FBI's UCR program now includes jurisdictions covering 95% of the population (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr_general.html), so I doubt the non-reporters materially skew the data. And in any case, without knowing something about the non-reporting jurisdictions, there's no reason to assume which direction the skew would be.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on December 03, 2014, 08:22:33 PM
So a cop gets caught on video using a restraining hold that nobody uses in any profession that requires you to restrain someone and universally explicitly trained not to use because it kills people and the victim dies as a result. Still nothing.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on December 03, 2014, 08:37:25 PM
Yeah, that's embarrassing. I wonder what evidence was brought to the grand jury. Perhaps the prosecutor didn't even try and didn't let them know that it was illegal or that his death was ruled a homicide.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on December 03, 2014, 09:36:29 PM
what else you see on the video, aside from a cop using a chokehold, is a guy refusing to put his hands behind his back after being told 4 times by officers, resisting arrest, pushing officers away...  how did he think that scenario was going to turn out, aside from getting his ass kicked by the cops?

medical examiner also listed acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease as contributing factors in Garner's death.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on December 03, 2014, 09:40:46 PM
Just so we're clear, you think the officer's use of force was justified? And I'm not asking if you think he had the authority to use force. I'm asking if you think his use of force was justified.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on December 03, 2014, 09:58:52 PM
we saw a murder. Plain and simple. The police are beyond the law.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on December 03, 2014, 10:08:52 PM
After OJ and Casey got off. Nothing surprises me anymore.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on December 04, 2014, 05:34:47 AM
Just so we're clear, you think the officer's use of force was justified? And I'm not asking if you think he had the authority to use force. I'm asking if you think his use of force was justified.

yes I do think it was justified.  I think cops have a tough job to do and when they tell you to freeze, get on the ground, put your hands behind your back, whatever, you better do it or else.  I don't think police are above question, but what message are we sending with these instances of people scuffling with officers, resisting arrest, that it's ok to try and negotiate with the police and disobey their orders?  I've been arrested before and if I had scuffled with the cop and pushed him away etc I would certainly expect to get my face beat in the pavement and a foot on my neck.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Mr Sparkle on December 04, 2014, 05:51:42 AM
So a cop gets caught on video using a restraining hold that nobody uses in any profession that requires you to restrain someone and universally explicitly trained not to use because it kills people and the victim dies as a result. Still nothing.
The whole arrest should have never happened. Selling loose cigarettes? Who Cares, write him a citation or a warning
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: YO to the CLE on December 04, 2014, 06:03:42 AM
Everyone moans and whines about the cops being too aggressive with criminals...then they moan and whine that cops need to be cracking down on criminals and cleaning up the streets. It gets annoying real fast. Let the cops do their job and stop back seat driving. People need to start taking responsibility for themselves and their communities instead of immediately boo-hooing the cops. The lack of personal responsibility is astounding. I'll agree that the New York incident is pretty bad on the cop's part though.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: CBC on December 04, 2014, 06:13:25 AM
How is a DA or prosecutor who routinely works with the local police department and has a vested interest in maintaining that relationship supposed to objectively present a case to a grand jury? That is what bothers me about these cases. Especially Ferguson. They just feel like Kangaroo courts put on as a formality and for appearances. In effect the police know that they have almost no oversight as long as they used the excessive force in the line of duty.

Gottaplan, I am struggling to come up with the parallel to explain why this use of force is wrong. Basically, the chokehold is illegal procedure and generally nonlethal. However, in this set of circumstances, it was lethal. Why should this cop be let off just because it was during the line of duty? You screw up and kill somebody you should be held accountable.

Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: CBC on December 04, 2014, 06:15:03 AM
YO, generally the complaints are the courts are too lenient, not the cops.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on December 04, 2014, 06:26:00 AM
Just so we're clear, you think the officer's use of force was justified? And I'm not asking if you think he had the authority to use force. I'm asking if you think his use of force was justified.

yes I do think it was justified.  I think cops have a tough job to do and when they tell you to freeze, get on the ground, put your hands behind your back, whatever, you better do it or else.  I don't think police are above question, but what message are we sending with these instances of people scuffling with officers, resisting arrest, that it's ok to try and negotiate with the police and disobey their orders?  I've been arrested before and if I had scuffled with the cop and pushed him away etc I would certainly expect to get my face beat in the pavement and a foot on my neck.

I think that's the default belief a lot of us have:  once you resist arrest, especially physically, you are primarily responsible for what happens next.  It's not like they are going to simply go away.   Unless of course they are in Cleveland and you can flee in a car....
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on December 04, 2014, 06:27:06 AM
So a cop gets caught on video using a restraining hold that nobody uses in any profession that requires you to restrain someone and universally explicitly trained not to use because it kills people and the victim dies as a result. Still nothing.
The whole arrest should have never happened. Selling loose cigarettes? Who Cares, write him a citation or a warning

This part I agree with, but it's established at a policy level.  I doubt it's up to officer discretion.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on December 04, 2014, 07:44:24 AM
On the Garner issue, even one of the hardest hardliners at National Review has at least a few misgivings.  Despite the fact that I really don't like the guy (particularly his stances on war-on-terror detention and extrajudicial killing law and policy), he gives a pretty thorough rundown of the legal and factual issues here, including New York's actual law on justified use of force (which it doesn't look like most media outlets actually bothered to look up):

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393933/staten-island-decision-andrew-c-mccarthy

Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on December 04, 2014, 08:13:00 AM
For those of you defending the officer's actions, has there ever been a use of force you don't support?

Did Rodney King have it coming for leading the police on a high speed chase? Was that justified?

I just want to know if there is a line that police can cross in your minds.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: bfwissel on December 04, 2014, 08:51:17 AM
Resisting arrest is violence against a police officer who is risking injury and potentially their life to protect the community.  Officers are injured all the time due to criminals trying to flee or fight their way out of an arrest.  Force needed to complete an arrest requires more force than is being applied against the officer and is warranted most of the time.  If that force is way over the top of what is needed (certainly can be quite a subjective thing) then there is a problem.  However, the burden of proof against an officer is quite high as they are under great stress and they must have greatly exceeded their use of force training to really be at fault to the injuries sustained by the suspect.

If you a) don't commit crimes and b) don't resist arrest you're very, very unlikely to be injured/killed.  If you're engaged in both then you're accepting risk of injury or even death.  Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Mr Sparkle on December 04, 2014, 09:13:25 AM
Quote
Eric Garner's Final Words

Transcript: Get away [garbled] for what? Every time you see me, you want to mess with me. I'm tired of it. It stops today. Why would you...? Everyone standing here will tell you I didn't do nothing. I did not sell nothing. Because everytime you see me, you want to harass me. You want to stop me [garbled] Selling cigarettes. I'm minding my business, officer, I'm minding my business. Please just leave me alone. I told you the last time, please just leave me alone. please please, don't touch me. Do not touch me. [garbled] I can't breathe. I can't breathe. I can't breathe. I can't breathe. I can't breathe. I can't breathe. I can't breathe. I can't breathe. I can't breathe.

Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: bfwissel on December 04, 2014, 09:32:43 AM
So from the transcript of Eric Garner I'm hearing: 1) he illegally sells cigarettes all the time, 2) he feels justified in selling them and has no intention of stopping, and 3) he's stating he's going to resist arrest.  The later complaint that "I can't breathe" is one of many typical responses from criminals to try and keep an officer from executing an arrest (along the lines of "you're hurting my arm" when the suspect is forcibly trying to keep the officer from cuffing him/her).  You wouldn't be forcibly restrained if you weren't resisting arrest.  If you can't breathe (although I would question if you're talking you can at least breathe a little) then stop resisting.  Problem solved.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on December 04, 2014, 09:32:59 AM

The whole arrest should have never happened. Selling loose cigarettes? Who Cares, write him a citation or a warning

Good point.  Except Garner had been participating in underground cigarette market.  He'd been arrested 8 times since 2009 for the same offense.  Something not being mentioned in mainstream media...    Not exactly a stranger to run-ins with the police

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/12/mcquillan-the-real-lesson-from-eric-garners-death/



Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on December 04, 2014, 10:06:46 AM
The arrest should have happened. People who want to play dumb will be like "look see the police are harassing him. The suspect's own words! Why can't the police just leave black people alone instead of killing them?" It's all BS. What's not BS is using what looks like a choke hold; the purpose of which is to collapse a person's airway. What's not BS is piling upon a person's chest further preventing them from breathing. Those are things that people that are employed to restrain individuals know kill people. In your training you hear their names, their stories, sometimes see their faces, and you know they are dead because someone was acting irresponsibly in their duty to restrain.

OK, so maybe it only looked like a choke hold, and maybe the suspect was more responsible for him being piled upon, and maybe due to health reasons a rough, but not illegal confrontation would have killed this gentleman anyway. Why the hell is the grand jury deciding this? Lets have a trial. Get experts in there, and make points and counterpoints and see where this goes.
 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on December 04, 2014, 10:18:12 AM


What if the role was reversed and one of the officers had a heart attack & died in the process of struggling to restrain this 350 lb guy?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on December 04, 2014, 10:26:45 AM

The whole arrest should have never happened. Selling loose cigarettes? Who Cares, write him a citation or a warning

Good point.  Except Garner had been participating in underground cigarette market.  He'd been arrested 8 times since 2009 for the same offense.  Something not being mentioned in mainstream media...    Not exactly a stranger to run-ins with the police

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/12/mcquillan-the-real-lesson-from-eric-garners-death/




Yes, but that's kind of like having eight parking tickets.  I won't say that the quantity of offenses is completely irrelevant, but you have to keep both the quantity and severity of offenses in mind.

Even when it comes to comparing petty crimes, this is small change.  In terms of living in a safe, desirable community, which would you rather know have reported in your neighborhood: eight illegal single cigarette sales, or one aggravated store robbery a la what Michael Brown committed earlier on the day he died?  Heck, I'd rather deal with fifty illegal cigarette sellers than a single kid keying cars or tagging brick walls, let alone bullying a brick-and-mortar business owner and waltzing out with his merchandise.

Also, as even McCarthy notes, "resisting arrest" is a broad category.  Charging an officer, throwing punches at his face, and grabbing at his gun is resisting arrest; so is being generally noncooperative while the police are trying to cuff you.  Nonviolent protesters, when arrested, frequently have "resisting arrest" tacked on to general civil disobedience charges (trespassing/loitering/whatever) because they use the "going limp" tactic and basically make the officers carry them to the police car, even if they make absolutely no violent moves towards the officer whatsoever.  That still qualifies as resisting arrest; it does not qualify as justification for the use of deadly force.  Those are two different things and they only partially overlap.

The officer in this situation had tremendous amounts of backup.  This officer (or, more accurately, the police together) had complete control of the situation in a manner that Darren Wilson never did.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on December 04, 2014, 10:33:29 AM
What if the role was reversed and one of the officers had a heart attack & died in the process of struggling to restrain this 350 lb guy?

If Eric Garner had put the officer in a choke hold and then the officer died of a heart attack as a result of that, I would want Mr. Garner arrested. It's no different. Simply by resisting arrest, I would say Mr. Garner would, in this hypothetical situation, not be liable for the officer's heart attack.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on December 04, 2014, 11:14:15 AM
The Onion is awesome....

Obama Calls For Turret-Mounted Video Cameras On All Police Tanks http://t.co/vU9mzOeJ6S http://t.co/MuIPBXSWnN
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on December 04, 2014, 11:21:45 AM


What if the role was reversed and one of the officers had a heart attack & died in the process of struggling to restrain this 350 lb guy?

Well for one thing the police would've attempted CPR instead of letting him just die there on the sidewalk.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on December 04, 2014, 11:24:47 AM
What if the role was reversed and one of the officers had a heart attack & died in the process of struggling to restrain this 350 lb guy?

If Eric Garner had put the officer in a choke hold and then the officer died of a heart attack as a result of that, I would want Mr. Garner arrested. It's no different. Simply by resisting arrest, I would say Mr. Garner would, in this hypothetical situation, not be liable for the officer's heart attack.

It depends.  If his resisting rose to the level of a felony, then he could and probably would be charged with Felony-Murder, which is pretty much the equivalent on 1st degree.  Felony-Murder is something you can be charged with when someone dies as a result of your commission of a felony.  So, for instance, if someone robs a bank and the teller has a heart attack, it makes no difference that the robber had no intent, or even any means, to kill her.  He would be responsible.  This rule also applies for deaths in high-speed chases.  It even applies sometimes when your accomplice dies, I do believe.

At the very least, he would be culpable of something akin to negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter with peace officer specifications.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: StapHanger on December 04, 2014, 12:08:30 PM
^I don't think the "simply resisting arrest" fact pattern would fit under NY's felony murder statute, actually, which applies only to a narrow list of felonies, and provides a fairly robust affirmative defense.  There's also a question of proximate cause.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: shs96 on December 04, 2014, 01:25:17 PM
Chris Rock - How to avoid getting your ass kicked by the police

http://youtu.be/QUs-kZGpJiQ

I'm particularly fond of "obey the law"and "shut the f*ck up".



Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on December 04, 2014, 01:27:21 PM
Chris Rock - How to avoid getting your ass kicked by the police

http://youtu.be/QUs-kZGpJiQ

I'm particularly fond of "obey the law"and "shut the f*ck up".

Chris Rock gets away with saying a lot of sensible things because he guises it as humor.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: StapHanger on December 04, 2014, 01:54:57 PM
Chris Rock - How to avoid getting your ass kicked by the police


I'm particularly fond of "obey the law"and "shut the f*ck up".


Alas, even that advice doesn't always work with some trigger-happy cops: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/25/justice/south-carolina-trooper-shooting/
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on December 04, 2014, 01:55:51 PM
He didn't die right on the sidewalk, he died hours later in the hospital.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on December 04, 2014, 02:11:33 PM
^I didn't realize someone had to die on the scene for the person responsible to be held accountable. I guess all of those gunshot victims who later died in the hospital from their injuries died a natural death and no one should be held accountable?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Whipjacka on December 04, 2014, 02:56:09 PM
Bosco rides so hard for the cops that it'd be impossible for him to concede an abuse of power.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: CBC on December 05, 2014, 06:13:44 AM
Also the angle of the story that is missing. All that I have seen is the "you aren't in our shoes" stories basically defending the actions.

Elie Mystal: Good cops, how can you be quiet now?
ELIE MYSTAL
3 Dec 06:23 PM

JENNIFER BROWN/FOR NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Will cops speak up?
We are going to hear a lot of talk from people in power — even from liberals in power — about how “most police officers” are hardworking, upstanding, pillars of the community who do not choke unarmed black people to death in broad daylight.

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/elie-mystal-good-cops-quiet-article-1.2032266?cid=bitly#bmb=1
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Ram23 on December 05, 2014, 07:22:28 AM
Also the angle of the story that is missing. All that I have seen is the "you aren't in our shoes" stories basically defending the actions.

Elie Mystal: Good cops, how can you be quiet now?
ELIE MYSTAL
3 Dec 06:23 PM

JENNIFER BROWN/FOR NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Will cops speak up?
We are going to hear a lot of talk from people in power — even from liberals in power — about how “most police officers” are hardworking, upstanding, pillars of the community who do not choke unarmed black people to death in broad daylight.

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/elie-mystal-good-cops-quiet-article-1.2032266?cid=bitly#bmb=1

"Even liberals in power"

Given this is the NY Daily News so I have about as much faith in them as the NY Post (reading them is entertainment, not education), but the irony of that statement on the heels of a lack of charges brought against the NYPD officer recently is almost funny. NYPD is managed and occupied almost entirely by liberals, and has one of the most oppressive police forces in the country.

Looking past the recent few cases, the greater issue of the militarization and overbearing nature of some police forces is something that the far right and left libertarians should seemingly agree on, but the movement (not unlike the Occupy groups) has been hijacked and led by groups of off-putting characters. In Cincinnati (where I would say we don’t have an oppressive force at all since the 2001 riots), the protest are all led by a former boy band member and a ragtag group of perpetual victims, almost all of whom were at the Occupy protests, and few of whom actually know what they’re talking about.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: StapHanger on December 05, 2014, 07:58:16 AM
Looking past the recent few cases, the greater issue of the militarization and overbearing nature of some police forces is something that the far right and left libertarians should seemingly agree on, but the movement (not unlike the Occupy groups) has been hijacked and led by groups of off-putting characters.

In fairness, the issue has been drawing diverse backers for a while now, from both the Cato crowd and the ACLU and NAACP crowds, and far beyond, and long before the recent episodes, but the depth of feeling has probably pretty contained to narrow slices of the electorate. Maybe that's changing now, we'll see.  Even on Fox News there were several commentators who were dissatisfied with the Garner grand jury outcome.

And while I'm sure you're right about the media-anointed leaders being off-putting, I think that's related to another problem: some of the "far right" is partly defined by it's racial paranoia and tribalism, which means obsession over Obama's true religion and birthplace, and with Clive Bundy's cattle, but not a lot of interest in "black issues," and some instant identification with the police side, even among those who might fancy themselves as libertarian-ish in many other contexts.  I'm sure there are similar critiques of the far left on other issues.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Oldmanladyluck on December 05, 2014, 08:22:24 AM
If this is true... 

http://on.msnbc.com/1yjnuBA
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on December 05, 2014, 08:23:18 AM
Also the angle of the story that is missing. All that I have seen is the "you aren't in our shoes" stories basically defending the actions.

Elie Mystal: Good cops, how can you be quiet now?
ELIE MYSTAL
3 Dec 06:23 PM

JENNIFER BROWN/FOR NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Will cops speak up?
We are going to hear a lot of talk from people in power — even from liberals in power — about how “most police officers” are hardworking, upstanding, pillars of the community who do not choke unarmed black people to death in broad daylight.

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/elie-mystal-good-cops-quiet-article-1.2032266?cid=bitly#bmb=1

"Even liberals in power"

Given this is the NY Daily News so I have about as much faith in them as the NY Post (reading them is entertainment, not education), but the irony of that statement on the heels of a lack of charges brought against the NYPD officer recently is almost funny. NYPD is managed and occupied almost entirely by liberals, and has one of the most oppressive police forces in the country.

Looking past the recent few cases, the greater issue of the militarization and overbearing nature of some police forces is something that the far right and left libertarians should seemingly agree on, but the movement (not unlike the Occupy groups) has been hijacked and led by groups of off-putting characters. In Cincinnati (where I would say we don’t have an oppressive force at all since the 2001 riots), the protest are all led by a former boy band member and a ragtag group of perpetual victims, almost all of whom were at the Occupy protests, and few of whom actually know what they’re talking about.


The only thing I’d really disagree with here is that the NYPD consists of liberals, and I’m not even sure you were trying to say their rank and file would qualify as such.  The part of the right that doesn’t really talk to anyone left of John Kasich is extremely concerned about the militarization of police forces, I can assure you of that.  Of course, the idea that "liberal" meant a belief in liberty went away long ago.

As for irony, we’re talking about people blocking traffic to protest police officers firing at a car that was being driven at them.  I’m not sure if what we have here is irony, gross ignorance of the laws of physics, or some weird combination thereof.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on December 05, 2014, 08:26:39 AM
I believe that the far right is much more diverse (or perhaps the factions within it are simply more vocal than their counterparts) than the far left.  The far right is home to Biblical literalists, atheist anarcho-capitalists, outright anarchists, and the most extreme nativists, among other things, some of which only partially overlap, and some of which not only have essentially zero overlap but are viciously opposed to one another, particularly the hardline atheists and the hardline Christian fundamentalists.

You'll find some of the far right that might basically shrug whenever a black man dies (for any reason, not just overzealous policing), but you'll also find another "f*** the police" faction that basically shrugs (or cheers) whenever a private individual kills a police officer.  These are your anarchists that would basically believe, as a matter of moral first principle, that (a) any law that would have allowed the police to attempt to arrest or even interfere with Eric Garner selling cigarettes is null and void as a matter of natural law, (b) it is the responsibility of the police to recognize that and refuse to enforce any law that would interfere with the choices of individuals who are not being immediately and physically violent to the persons or property of others, and (c) to the extent that the police failed to accurately determine (as determined by the f***-the-police hard right) that any law interfering with Eric Garner's loosie sales was unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable and attempted to interfere with him in any way, he was fully within his right to use deadly force against the police officers and any police officers that survived his righteously lethal defense of his freedom should be legally punished for having attempted false imprisonment.  As insane as it sounds, I know a troubling number of the far right who sincerely believe that and have developed a maniacally durable mythos around it (wrapped in the flag, the Constitution, and a lot of Founding Father quotes that I think the actual Founders would be horrified to hear used in defense of such beliefs).
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on December 05, 2014, 08:36:31 AM
Bosco rides so hard for the cops that it'd be impossible for him to concede an abuse of power.

Only when the right..... ummmmmm...... 'circumstances' are presented.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on December 05, 2014, 09:11:19 AM
Here in Cincinnati a few years back. A cop drove through the grass in a public park. He ran over a cover on the ground but had people under it. One died. The cop was never charged.

Frustration is building on both sides. Cops and criminals. Sadly innocents has to pay for it.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on December 05, 2014, 09:12:22 AM
I recall that.  Homeless people who were sleeping in the grass, right?  That was a complicated case.  I'm sure the City/cop were civilly liable for that death.  Not so sure it was a 'criminal' act.  Just because someone dies of unnatural causes 'at the hands of another' does not mean a crime has been committed.  That is especially true when talking about police.

Of course, the idea that "liberal" meant a belief in liberty went away long ago.

Sort of like the idea that 'fiscal conservatism' was somehow connected to conservatives went away long ago, right?

The truth is that the left and the right have very different ideas of what constitutes true liberty.  The right focuses, perhaps to a fault, completely on the idea of 'individual liberty.'  The left focuses more, perhaps to a fault, on the concept of 'liberty for all.'  The right's focus leads its members to concentrate on what will bring them liberty individually, and given the overwhelmingly general homogeneous nature of that group (older, white, Christian), there isn't much thought about deprivations of liberty to others which don't affect them...... and there is even a lot of cheerleading and pining for deprivations of liberty to others (racial profiling, for example).  The left's focus leads its members to try to strike the right balance so that everyone has an equal amount of (or at least the opportunity for) liberty, even if it leads to some deprivations which some would call largely unnecessary or even terribly unjustified to them individually.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on December 05, 2014, 11:07:06 AM
You'll find some of the far right that might basically shrug whenever a black man dies (for any reason, not just overzealous policing), but you'll also find another "f*** the police" faction that basically shrugs (or cheers) whenever a private individual kills a police officer.  These are your anarchists that would basically believe, as a matter of moral first principle, that (a) any law that would have allowed the police to attempt to arrest or even interfere with Eric Garner selling cigarettes is null and void as a matter of natural law, (b) it is the responsibility of the police to recognize that and refuse to enforce any law that would interfere with the choices of individuals who are not being immediately and physically violent to the persons or property of others, and (c) to the extent that the police failed to accurately determine (as determined by the f***-the-police hard right) that any law interfering with Eric Garner's loosie sales was unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable and attempted to interfere with him in any way, he was fully within his right to use deadly force against the police officers and any police officers that survived his righteously lethal defense of his freedom should be legally punished for having attempted false imprisonment.  As insane as it sounds, I know a troubling number of the far right who sincerely believe that and have developed a maniacally durable mythos around it (wrapped in the flag, the Constitution, and a lot of Founding Father quotes that I think the actual Founders would be horrified to hear used in defense of such beliefs).

To be fair, I don't believe there's any way we can know if Garner was breaking any law whatsoever in this instance.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on December 05, 2014, 02:34:27 PM
^I didn't realize someone had to die on the scene for the person responsible to be held accountable. I guess all of those gunshot victims who later died in the hospital from their injuries died a natural death and no one should be held accountable?

When did I say that?  I was responding to the comment by SurfOhio that they should have applied CPR instead of letting him die on the sidewalk.   Well, he didn't.  So, medically, he wasn't choked to death.   If you really can't breath, you can't SAY you can't breath.  You must be breathing to speak.  How could it be proven that the cop didn't let up enough for him to breath?  Anyone actually read the autopsy report.  I haven't seen it.  As I said in the Mike Brown justified shooting, wait until all the data comes out.  I guess I was correct there too.  Anyone apply common sense here at all?

Bosco rides so hard for the cops that it'd be impossible for him to concede an abuse of power.

Only when the right..... ummmmmm...... 'circumstances' are presented.


WOW, just wow.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on December 05, 2014, 03:00:15 PM
When did I say that?  I was responding to the comment by SurfOhio that they should have applied CPR instead of letting him die on the sidewalk.   Well, he didn't.  So, medically, he wasn't choked to death.  If you really can't breath, you can't SAY you can't breath.  You must be breathing to speak.  How could it be proven that the cop didn't let up enough for him to breath?  Anyone actually read the autopsy report.  I haven't seen it.  As I said in the Mike Brown justified shooting, wait until all the data comes out.  I guess I was correct there too.  Anyone apply common sense here at all?

This is flawed logic. Was he supposed to say "I'm having difficulty breathing"? He didn't mean that no air was getting into his lungs. He meant that not enough air was getting in. You know, if you lose the ability to breathe in enough air, you can still breathe and say things, but it quickly limits your ability to function until you don't get enough oxygen and you die.

I'm sick of this argument about not being able to say he can't breathe. If you actually watch the video and listen to him, he speaks very clear and concise until the officers put him in a choke hold. At that point, he speaks very slowly and softly and his speech gets harder to understand. 

I agree with you regarding Mike Brown: in my opinion, there was not enough information to convict Darren Wilson. Despite that, I think it's irresponsible for a grand jury to fail to indict either of the officers and bring them to court. From the beginning I was saying that everyone was coming to conclusions too quickly.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on December 06, 2014, 09:22:24 AM
If I had 30 minutes to cross examine Wilson, the GJ would've indicted for manslaughter in the least. That is the issue I had with the proceedings. Nobody challenged him or the one witness who seemed to slightly corroborate his story. The witnesses who were unfavorable to him were challenged to the extreme by both the police investigators and the prosecutor
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on December 06, 2014, 09:27:21 AM
If you really can't breath, you can't SAY you can't breath.  You must be breathing to speak.

Sorry that's just not true. Ever swim in a pool? You can actually talk under water.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on December 06, 2014, 11:50:08 AM
If you really can't breath, you can't SAY you can't breath.  You must be breathing to speak.

Sorry that's just not true. Ever swim in a pool? You can actually talk under water.

The media is really racing ahead with the "CHOKEHOLD" terminology.  Looked more like a headlock rather than a chokehold to me.  Regardless, the same technique could be used to arrest 1,000 people without any sort of injury.

The autopsy further noted that Garner died thanks to acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity, and heart disease, but that's really not being reported in the media. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: eastvillagedon on December 06, 2014, 12:16:14 PM
If you really can't breath, you can't SAY you can't breath.  You must be breathing to speak.

Sorry that's just not true. Ever swim in a pool? You can actually talk under water.
yeah, if you're one of the Weeki Wachee mermaids, not the average person
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_JNqeqNx8A
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on December 06, 2014, 12:30:48 PM
If you really can't breath, you can't SAY you can't breath.  You must be breathing to speak.

Sorry that's just not true. Ever swim in a pool? You can actually talk under water.

Thanks for bringing common sense back into the discussion!  I think you proved my point.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Cleburger on December 06, 2014, 12:35:47 PM
If you really can't breath, you can't SAY you can't breath.  You must be breathing to speak.

Sorry that's just not true. Ever swim in a pool? You can actually talk under water.

The media is really racing ahead with the "CHOKEHOLD" terminology.  Looked more like a headlock rather than a chokehold to me.  Regardless, the same technique could be used to arrest 1,000 people without any sort of injury.

The autopsy further noted that Garner died thanks to acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity, and heart disease, but that's really not being reported in the media. 

Agreed on all.   I don't feel in this instance the officer had any INTENT to cause this kind of harm.  If this was a young, healthy man this would have ended differently (as it would have it he had just put the cuffs on and not resisted). 

So if the tables are turned, and a police officer dies while trying to subdue a person resisting arrest due to health problems, does that make the suspect a cop killer?   
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on December 06, 2014, 01:04:26 PM

So if the tables are turned, and a police officer dies while trying to subdue a person resisting arrest due to health problems, does that make the suspect a cop killer?

Some here ride so hard AGAINST the cops that it'd be impossible for them to think this was a bad thing.










Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Whipjacka on December 06, 2014, 02:08:49 PM
You saying it doesn't sound as good as when I say it.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: X on December 06, 2014, 02:11:55 PM
If you really can't breath, you can't SAY you can't breath.  You must be breathing to speak.

Sorry that's just not true. Ever swim in a pool? You can actually talk under water.

The media is really racing ahead with the "CHOKEHOLD" terminology.  Looked more like a headlock rather than a chokehold to me.  Regardless, the same technique could be used to arrest 1,000 people without any sort of injury.

The autopsy further noted that Garner died thanks to acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity, and heart disease, but that's really not being reported in the media. 

Agreed on all.   I don't feel in this instance the officer had any INTENT to cause this kind of harm.  If this was a young, healthy man this would have ended differently (as it would have it he had just put the cuffs on and not resisted). 

So if the tables are turned, and a police officer dies while trying to subdue a person resisting arrest due to health problems, does that make the suspect a cop killer?   

I'm pretty sure I've seen that happen before.  But I really hate these "turn the tables" arguments.  There is no equivalence between a police officer making an arrest, and anyone else trying to "subdue" someone.  One is a necessary function of law enforcement, the other is an assault, unless self defense.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: X on December 06, 2014, 02:12:52 PM
You saying it doesn't sound as good as when I say it.

It's really not productive to the discussion when anyone says it.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Whipjacka on December 06, 2014, 02:22:18 PM
It is.  deciding someones biases affects how you should read their posts.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on December 06, 2014, 04:17:01 PM
The media is really racing ahead with the "CHOKEHOLD" terminology.  Looked more like a headlock rather than a chokehold to me.  Regardless, the same technique could be used to arrest 1,000 people without any sort of injury.

Years of wrestling and ju jistsu here. This doesn't look like a headlock.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on December 06, 2014, 04:20:54 PM
If you really can't breath, you can't SAY you can't breath.  You must be breathing to speak.

Sorry that's just not true. Ever swim in a pool? You can actually talk under water.

Thanks for bringing common sense back into the discussion!  I think you proved my point.

You think?

Could have fooled me.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: CBC on December 17, 2014, 05:50:16 AM
So has anybody seen those article floating around that Witness 40, who was a white
woman that's testimony most closely matched Wilson made it up and injected herself into the case?That's  crazy. I believe this is the person that white accounts vs the black accounts referred back to.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/ferguson-witness-40
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Oldmanladyluck on December 17, 2014, 06:04:57 AM
^I have.  And if true, I wonder what consequences that will bring.  Her testimony no doubt influenced the grand jury's decision to not indict Wilson.  If perjury charges could be brought against her (and she is found guilty)- what does that mean for the grand jury?  Would another be called together to hear evidence again? 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on December 17, 2014, 08:22:07 AM
American police shot & killed >458 people in 2013. In England & Wales the police shot & killed no one, zero. The Economist.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: bfwissel on December 17, 2014, 08:49:35 AM
Just as a point of reference for the statement that "American police shot & killed >458 people in 2013" while in "England & Wales the police shot & killed no one"
* The U.S. has five times the population of England/Wales
* 110 officers have died in the line of duty in the U.S. so far this year
* Police shot and killed ~0.00015% of the population in 2013
   By comparison 39,000 people died by suicide in the United States in 2011 ~0.013% (85 times more than police killings)
   Homicide claimed another 17,000 people in 2011 ~0.0057% (~38 times more than police killings)

I'm not saying there aren't reforms needed.  The proliferation of guns (especially illegal ones) in the United States makes it a much more dangerous than in other countries.  There are also reforms needed in many police departments to decrease ethnic biases.  However, there also needs to be some acknowledgement that being involved in illegal activity as well as resisting arrest are not acceptable and can result in injury or even death.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hootenany on December 17, 2014, 08:58:44 AM
^Here are more numbers to clarify the above mentioned 110 officers dying in the line of duty.  Keep in mind that most of those deaths are not related to a suspect shooting or stabbing them.  There is no doubt in my mind that the number of people killed by police can be reduced through some pretty simple reforms and drastically reduced through some not so simple reforms.

http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/causes.html

Additionally, I have no idea what the suicide and homicide statistics have to do with police shootings.  The question remains, why do police in the United States kill so many more people every year than most other countries?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on December 17, 2014, 02:12:29 PM
^I don't think regular patrolmen in England and Wales carry guns.

^I have.  And if true, I wonder what consequences that will bring.  Her testimony no doubt influenced the grand jury's decision to not indict Wilson.  If perjury charges could be brought against her (and she is found guilty)- what does that mean for the grand jury?  Would another be called together to hear evidence again? 

Double jeopardy does not apply to Grand Jury proceedings.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: 8Titles on December 17, 2014, 02:21:29 PM
^I don't think regular patrolmen in England and Wales carry guns.

Civilians don't carry them either.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on December 17, 2014, 02:28:58 PM
^Neither do the victims of our most publicized police shootings.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: X on December 17, 2014, 04:43:09 PM
But the perpetrators of shootings of officers do.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on December 17, 2014, 05:20:49 PM
The US has 5 times the population of England and Wales? So? 5 x 0 = 0. How can a proportional argument be made when the baseline is zero??

More...

Interactive map: US police have killed at least 3,100 people since 2000: http://t.co/6lhNlvUO2R.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: 8Titles on December 17, 2014, 07:22:16 PM
The US has 5 times the population of England and Wales? So? 5 x 0 = 0. How can a proportional argument be made when the baseline is zero??

More...

Interactive map: US police have killed at least 3,100 people since 2000: http://t.co/6lhNlvUO2R.
How many people in England have been killed by civilians with guns, vs the same in the U.S.?  Do police in England have to protect the public against civilians with guns?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: 8Titles on December 17, 2014, 07:29:17 PM
^Neither do the victims of our most publicized police shootings.
What about the unpublicized shootings of innocent victims by professional criminals that the Police are suppose to protect society against?

And a gun that looks like a gun being waved around like a gun is a gun.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on December 17, 2014, 07:36:40 PM
A bottle of pills is also a gun.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on December 19, 2014, 12:43:35 PM
... and another one bites the dust.

Meet the Pro-Slavery Fairview Park Auxiliary Cop
Posted By Doug Brown on Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:57 AM

Aaron McNamara is a young auxiliary officer at the Fairview Park police department [Update: "was" an auxiliary officer with Fairview police; he resigned less than an hour after this story was posted], climbing up the law enforcement ladder as he finishes his college degree this semester with dreams of becoming a federal agent, he says. On social media, he says he's gone through training with the Ohio State Highway Patrol, and this June he tweeted he was "Officially sworn in with the Fairview Park Police Department. Wow, this feels good. #DreamChasing."

He also has many thoughts about African Americans.

Over the past two years, McNamara has been commenting on YouTube videos — mostly about black people and law enforcement — regularly dropping racial and gay slurs, unambiguously expressing hatred towards minorities and anyone who dare not comply with what police say. He calls black people in videos "jungle monkeys," "spooks," and worse. He commented on a video of a young black child swearing, saying "This is how cop killers are raised my friends." He's also a fan of when police officers shoot and rough up non-compliant civilians. The comments appeared on his Youtube

...

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2014/12/19/meet-the-pro-slavery-fairview-park-auxiliary-cop
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: clvlndr on December 19, 2014, 01:06:27 PM
^This is absolutely disgusting and, while most cops are probably decent, the fact that guys like this, and Loehmann, even exist on local police forces says something really foul about this area, racially.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on December 20, 2014, 08:52:11 PM
NYPD AND citizens lining up to honor fallen cops.. More than half are POC... How confused RWNJs must be by this pic. http://t.co/QOuvbwxapg
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on December 20, 2014, 10:37:57 PM
NYPD AND citizens lining up to honor fallen cops.. More than half are POC... How confused RWNJs must be by this pic. http://t.co/QOuvbwxapg

I'm confused....are the police the RWNJ? Or are RWNJ the police-can-do-no-wrong defenders? Or are they the maniacs that shoot police???
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on December 21, 2014, 06:02:32 AM
^They can be all three.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: w28th on December 21, 2014, 08:51:23 AM
What is an RWNJ?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on December 21, 2014, 10:10:32 AM
NYPD AND citizens lining up to honor fallen cops.. More than half are POC... How confused RWNJs must be by this pic. http://t.co/QOuvbwxapg

I'm confused....are the police the RWNJ? Or are RWNJ the police-can-do-no-wrong defenders? Or are they the maniacs that shoot police???

It means "right wing nut job" and the fact is most of the people who the far left calls that would find that picture unsurprising and encouraging.

It's a lot like the Muslims who mourned 9/11.  Leaving aside basic human decency for a moment, these people are far more victimized by the thugs and extremists than any of us white folks will ever be.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on December 23, 2014, 08:54:51 AM
Tweet from @ozchrisrock
Just found a new app that that tells you which one of your friends are racist. It's called Facebook. #FergusonDecision
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on December 23, 2014, 07:31:42 PM
Jon Stewart with lots of Cleveland in this awesome rip job:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OKjlCDh_99M
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on January 05, 2015, 12:49:04 PM
This just keeps getting more and more messy.  No doubt at this point that McCulloch should have handed the case over to a special prosecutor....

Grand juror in Missouri police shooting case sues prosecutor

(Reuters) - A member of the grand jury that declined to indict the white Missouri police officer who fatally shot an unarmed black 18-year-old sued the prosecutor in the case on Monday, criticizing the way evidence was presented to grand jurors and seeking court permission to speak publicly about the way the case was handled.

* * * * *

The lawsuit claims that evidence was presented to the grand jury in a manner markedly different than in previous cases heard by the same grand jury, with the "insinuation" that Brown was the "wrongdoer" rather than Wilson.

It also claims the prosecutor's office presented applicable laws to grand jurors "in a muddled and untimely manner" unlike presentations in other cases.

The grand juror also contends that McCulloch's public statements about the decision not to indict were not "entirely accurate," including the "implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges," the lawsuit stated.


http://news.yahoo.com/grand-juror-missouri-police-shooting-case-sues-prosecutor-170237196.html
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Htsguy on January 05, 2015, 01:09:41 PM
^without any expertise in this area, three things immediately popped into my head   standing, justisability (I know I did not even come close to spelling that right but it relates to standing) and immunity.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on January 05, 2015, 01:21:08 PM
Sounds like the juror is seeking some type of declaratory judgment, not relief in tort, so I doubt any type of immunity applies.  As for standing, it appears that he is seeking a declaration that the state law prohibiting grand jurors from speaking publicly violates his freedom of speech so I don't think standing will be an issue either.  As for 'justiciability'..... assuming the first amendment is the avenue for relief, he/she is not seeking an advisory opinion and the issue is not a political question, so I don't see that as a roadblock either.  The merits of the claim, however, are problematic.  The secrecy of grand jury proceedings is a practice in most, if not all, jurisdictions.  I imagine the government will be able to prove a compelling interest in restricting speech in this instance.  I doubt the courts are going to want to impose a case-by-case basis approach which the juror seems to be seeking.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on January 05, 2015, 01:32:55 PM
I wish I knew more about the ins and outs of grand jury secrecy myself.  But certainly the First Amendment doesn't give an unlimited right to disclose public secrets, and if the government's evidence and the grand jury's deliberations both qualify, the First Amendment won't disturb that.  You are of course free to speak in favor of new laws allowing grand jury members to speak about what happened, especially in cases like this in which the prosecutor asked that the evidence itself be unsealed, but I think the law is constitutional.

In fact, the grand juror in this case may end up reinforcing the rule.  One of the reasons we have that rule is because we don't want individual jurors publicly calling out other individual jurors.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on January 05, 2015, 01:46:34 PM
It's a bit complicated, but the US Supreme Court has actually ruled in the past that, under the First Amendment, a Grand Jury witness may disclose his testimony once the proceedings are final regardless of any state rule to the contrary.  The Federal Rules now allow witnesses to disclose their testimony as soon as they are finished testifying regardless if the proceedings are final.  The difference here is that it is a juror, not a witness, who wishes to make disclosures.  It is one thing to disclose what you knew regardless of whether you were in the room.  It is another to disclose what you learned while in the room.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on January 05, 2015, 01:53:09 PM
Exactly.  Even if in one particular case, you might think it's justified, I can very easily see why they don't want one juror to come out of a high-profile, emotional trial and start saying in front of cameras "I can't believe the rest of those guys let that rapist walk!"
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KyleCincy on January 23, 2015, 02:00:05 PM
Justice Department said ready to clear Ferguson officer,

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department is about to close the investigation into the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, and clear the white police officer involved of any civil rights charges, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.
Related Stories

    Justice Department Said Ready To Clear Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson Huffington Post
    AP source: FBI completes federal probe of Ferguson shooting Associated Press
    Ferguson shooting: why federal charges are unlikely, despite more scrutiny Christian Science Monitor
    Group seeks new grand jury in Ferguson police shooting case Associated Press
    Ferguson grand juror sues to be allowed to talk about case Associated Press

The newspaper quoted law enforcement officials as saying that federal prosecutors had begun work on a legal memo recommending no civil rights charges against the officer, Darren Wilson, after an FBI investigation found no evidence to support charges against him.
http://news.yahoo.com/justice-department-said-ready-clear-ferguson-officer-n-212934267.html
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: BCCLE1 on March 12, 2015, 08:27:28 AM
There was a shooting in Ferguson last night. Two police officers were shot. Where is the outcry from President Obama, Eric Holder, or any other prominent "leader" of the black community? These same people wasted no time speaking up where it was a black person shot vs. a cop.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/12/2-police-officers-reported-shot-outside-ferguson-police-department/
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on March 12, 2015, 08:31:09 AM
Chill. It happened after midnight and it's only 10 am. I'm sure Obama will speak about it.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on March 12, 2015, 08:34:04 AM
There was a shooting in Ferguson last night. Two police officers were shot. Where is the outcry from President Obama, Eric Holder, or any other prominent "leader" of the black community? These same people wasted no time speaking up where it was a black person shot vs. a cop.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/12/2-police-officers-reported-shot-outside-ferguson-police-department/

These people are protesting a decision made by Holder's justice department, i.e. that there is insufficient evidence that Wilson violated any laws.  I would hope one of those two would say something.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on March 12, 2015, 08:58:14 AM
With the anger, thirst for revenge and guns that are out there, it's not surprising this shooting happened. Sadly, there will probably be more.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hootenany on March 12, 2015, 10:08:52 AM
Holder made a statement this morning.

"Also Thursday morning, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder decried the shootings as a "heinous assault (that) was inexcusable and repugnant."

Calling the shooting a "cowardly action," Holder said, "I condemn violence against any public safety officials in the strongest terms, and the Department of Justice will never accept any threats or violence directed at those who serve and protect our communities.""

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/us/ferguson-protests/index.html
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on March 12, 2015, 10:22:51 AM
Holder made a statement this morning.

"Also Thursday morning, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder decried the shootings as a "heinous assault (that) was inexcusable and repugnant."

Calling the shooting a "cowardly action," Holder said, "I condemn violence against any public safety officials in the strongest terms, and the Department of Justice will never accept any threats or violence directed at those who serve and protect our communities.""

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/us/ferguson-protests/index.html

Well, that's nice and all, but he should have said some of that, after Michael Brown attacked Wilson inside his vehicle.  A lot of this could have been avoided, but they went with the "guilty until proven innocent" attack.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on March 12, 2015, 12:32:38 PM
Chill. It happened after midnight and it's only 10 am. I'm sure Obama will speak about it.

I bet he won't
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on March 12, 2015, 12:43:25 PM
Chill. It happened after midnight and it's only 10 am. I'm sure Obama will speak about it.

I bet he won't

Good Call.

"President Barack Obama, in his first public statement after two police officers were shot in Ferguson, Missouri, said Thursday that "violence against police is unacceptable.""

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/obama-ferguson-officer-shooting-violence-against-police-unacceptable-n322311 (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/obama-ferguson-officer-shooting-violence-against-police-unacceptable-n322311)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on March 12, 2015, 12:50:54 PM
Chill. It happened after midnight and it's only 10 am. I'm sure Obama will speak about it.

I bet he won't

Good Call.

"President Barack Obama, in his first public statement after two police officers were shot in Ferguson, Missouri, said Thursday that "violence against police is unacceptable.""

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/obama-ferguson-officer-shooting-violence-against-police-unacceptable-n322311 (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/obama-ferguson-officer-shooting-violence-against-police-unacceptable-n322311)

Wait, are you serious?  A twitter post does not count as a public statement. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on March 12, 2015, 12:53:08 PM
Oh you mean he had to have a public statement in front of reporters with microphones and cameras for it to be a public statement?

How did I know that wouldn't be enough in your eyes? Nothing ever will.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on March 12, 2015, 12:58:45 PM
Would it have counted if he picked up the phone, or walked a hundred feet or so to the nearest reporter and said the same thing? Would that have even registered with the audience that most needs to hear that message from him?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on March 12, 2015, 01:23:03 PM

"President Barack Obama, in his first public statement after two police officers were shot in Ferguson, Missouri, said Thursday that "violence against police is unacceptable.""

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/obama-ferguson-officer-shooting-violence-against-police-unacceptable-n322311 (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/obama-ferguson-officer-shooting-violence-against-police-unacceptable-n322311)

Again, that should have been his statement after the Michael Brown shooting.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on March 12, 2015, 01:27:03 PM
It was. But you don't care.

From a speech on August 14. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/14/statement-president (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/14/statement-president)

Quote
Of course, it’s important to remember how this started.  We lost a young man, Michael Brown, in heartbreaking and tragic circumstances.  He was 18 years old.  His family will never hold Michael in their arms again.  And when something like this happens, the local authorities –- including the police -– have a responsibility to be open and transparent about how they are investigating that death, and how they are protecting the people in their communities.

There is never an excuse for violence against police, or for those who would use this tragedy as a cover for vandalism or looting.  There’s also no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests, or to throw protestors in jail for lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights.  And here, in the United States of America, police should not be bullying or arresting journalists who are just trying to do their jobs and report to the American people on what they see on the ground.  Put simply, we all need to hold ourselves to a high standard, particularly those of us in positions of authority.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on March 12, 2015, 01:35:57 PM
It was. But you don't care.

From a speech on August 14. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/14/statement-president (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/14/statement-president)

Quote
Of course, it’s important to remember how this started.  We lost a young man, Michael Brown, in heartbreaking and tragic circumstances.  He was 18 years old.  His family will never hold Michael in their arms again.  And when something like this happens, the local authorities –- including the police -– have a responsibility to be open and transparent about how they are investigating that death, and how they are protecting the people in their communities.

There is never an excuse for violence against police, or for those who would use this tragedy as a cover for vandalism or looting.  There’s also no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests, or to throw protestors in jail for lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights.  And here, in the United States of America, police should not be bullying or arresting journalists who are just trying to do their jobs and report to the American people on what they see on the ground.  Put simply, we all need to hold ourselves to a high standard, particularly those of us in positions of authority.

Oh ok, he can add a comment about violence against police, and surround it with other comments saying police are bad in general, and that's ok with you.  Then after the grand jury votes, he can go on national TV and imply that the grand jury got it wrong.

Yeah, you really care.

BTW, a Twitter comment doesn't carry the same weight as a real voice whether it includes video or not.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on March 12, 2015, 01:38:26 PM
Oh ok, he can add a comment about violence against police, and surround it with other comments saying police are bad in general, and that's ok with you.  Then after the grand jury votes, he can go on national TV and imply that the grand jury got it wrong.

Yeah, you really care.

BTW, a Twitter comment doesn't carry the same weight as a real voice whether it includes video or not.

He just tweeted at you & me that we don't care, lol.  I don't even have twitter
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on March 12, 2015, 01:45:28 PM
It was. But you don't care.

From a speech on August 14. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/14/statement-president (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/14/statement-president)

Quote
Of course, it’s important to remember how this started.  We lost a young man, Michael Brown, in heartbreaking and tragic circumstances.  He was 18 years old.  His family will never hold Michael in their arms again.  And when something like this happens, the local authorities –- including the police -– have a responsibility to be open and transparent about how they are investigating that death, and how they are protecting the people in their communities.

There is never an excuse for violence against police, or for those who would use this tragedy as a cover for vandalism or looting.  There’s also no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests, or to throw protestors in jail for lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights.  And here, in the United States of America, police should not be bullying or arresting journalists who are just trying to do their jobs and report to the American people on what they see on the ground.  Put simply, we all need to hold ourselves to a high standard, particularly those of us in positions of authority.

Oh ok, he can add a comment about violence against police, and surround it with other comments saying police are bad in general, and that's ok with you.  Then after the grand jury votes, he can go on national TV and imply that the grand jury got it wrong.

Yeah, you really care.

BTW, a Twitter comment doesn't carry the same weight as a real voice whether it includes video or not.
He has alot going on. 11 members of the military just died. How many times did Bush or Clinton make a statement when A police men got shot or killed?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on March 12, 2015, 02:03:05 PM
It was. But you don't care.

From a speech on August 14. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/14/statement-president (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/14/statement-president)

Quote
Of course, it’s important to remember how this started.  We lost a young man, Michael Brown, in heartbreaking and tragic circumstances.  He was 18 years old.  His family will never hold Michael in their arms again.  And when something like this happens, the local authorities –- including the police -– have a responsibility to be open and transparent about how they are investigating that death, and how they are protecting the people in their communities.

There is never an excuse for violence against police, or for those who would use this tragedy as a cover for vandalism or looting.  There’s also no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests, or to throw protestors in jail for lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights.  And here, in the United States of America, police should not be bullying or arresting journalists who are just trying to do their jobs and report to the American people on what they see on the ground.  Put simply, we all need to hold ourselves to a high standard, particularly those of us in positions of authority.

Oh ok, he can add a comment about violence against police, and surround it with other comments saying police are bad in general, and that's ok with you.  Then after the grand jury votes, he can go on national TV and imply that the grand jury got it wrong.

Yeah, you really care.

BTW, a Twitter comment doesn't carry the same weight as a real voice whether it includes video or not.

What do you WANT from him? Does he need to go up to a podium and say, "No one should attack innocent police officers." And then get off the podium?

That's basically what he did with Twitter, but that wasn't good enough. Is he supposed to have 6 press conferences every day? He's a busy guy. Give him a break. And people aren't going to follow his every word. He already told people not to attack police. Do you think if he said it a little more loudly that the person who shot those officers wouldn't have done that because he remembered Obama said not to?

You just keep changing your requirement of him until he doesn't meet your requirement. You're the partisan kind of person that doesn't help any discussion. If you're going to play that game, why don't you just go to the Breitbart comment sections and do that because it isn't helping anything here.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on March 12, 2015, 02:05:54 PM
No, you're wrong.  He always finds time to speak out when it suits him.  You can't deny it!  There are times when no response from the President is warranted.  Of course he is busy, too busy to comment when police break down a door of a professor, or when a young criminal gets shot by the police.  He does have better things to do.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on March 12, 2015, 02:11:44 PM
No, you're wrong.  He always finds time to speak out when it suits him.  You can't deny it!  There are times when no response from the President is warranted.  Of course he is busy, too busy to comment when police break down a door of a professor, or when a young criminal gets shot by the police.  He does have better things to do.

Don't forget that Trayvon Martin could have been his son.  While that incident grabbed national headlines, it really didn't warrant comment from the President.  I can't say what other national events were going on then, but safe to say it was busy then too
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: X on March 12, 2015, 02:16:39 PM
At least you guys aren't concerned about the actual fact that two police officers were shot, just that the President didn't address it in the manner you think he should have.  Glad you have your priorities straight.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on March 12, 2015, 02:22:28 PM
At least you guys aren't concerned about the actual fact that two police officers were shot, just that the President didn't address it in the manner you think he should have.  Glad you have your priorities straight.

I am concerned, I think it's awful, thank goodness they weren't killed.  If they had, I think the President would have made a public comment.  But they weren't killed so he just had someone issue a tweet.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hootenany on March 13, 2015, 07:12:10 AM
It was. But you don't care.

From a speech on August 14. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/14/statement-president (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/14/statement-president)

Quote
Of course, it’s important to remember how this started.  We lost a young man, Michael Brown, in heartbreaking and tragic circumstances.  He was 18 years old.  His family will never hold Michael in their arms again.  And when something like this happens, the local authorities –- including the police -– have a responsibility to be open and transparent about how they are investigating that death, and how they are protecting the people in their communities.

There is never an excuse for violence against police, or for those who would use this tragedy as a cover for vandalism or looting.  There’s also no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests, or to throw protestors in jail for lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights.  And here, in the United States of America, police should not be bullying or arresting journalists who are just trying to do their jobs and report to the American people on what they see on the ground.  Put simply, we all need to hold ourselves to a high standard, particularly those of us in positions of authority.

Oh ok, he can add a comment about violence against police, and surround it with other comments saying police are bad in general, and that's ok with you.  Then after the grand jury votes, he can go on national TV and imply that the grand jury got it wrong.

Yeah, you really care.

BTW, a Twitter comment doesn't carry the same weight as a real voice whether it includes video or not.

Nuance is hard, isn't it Bosco...

People on the right seem to hate this President because he doesn't paint the issues in the beautiful shades of black and white that they're used to.  He's a thoughtful man who actually explains to the American people that these issues are complicated and difficult and for some reason that drives Conservatives up a wall.  You can see it on full display with these Iranian Nuclear talks.  On the other hand look at what we got ourselves into in 2003 when Iraq was evil and absolutely, unequivocally had WMD and was an immediate threat to the United States of America and her allies.  Nuance IS hard in politics.  But it's important that our leaders understand it.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on March 13, 2015, 07:20:11 AM
Wow, you really covered everything.  Believe what you want, but even the Democrats believed that Iraq had WMD.  Here's one quote, you can look up the rest.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on March 13, 2015, 07:28:28 AM
It was. But you don't care.

From a speech on August 14. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/14/statement-president (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/14/statement-president)

Quote
Of course, it’s important to remember how this started.  We lost a young man, Michael Brown, in heartbreaking and tragic circumstances.  He was 18 years old.  His family will never hold Michael in their arms again.  And when something like this happens, the local authorities –- including the police -– have a responsibility to be open and transparent about how they are investigating that death, and how they are protecting the people in their communities.

There is never an excuse for violence against police, or for those who would use this tragedy as a cover for vandalism or looting.  There’s also no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests, or to throw protestors in jail for lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights.  And here, in the United States of America, police should not be bullying or arresting journalists who are just trying to do their jobs and report to the American people on what they see on the ground.  Put simply, we all need to hold ourselves to a high standard, particularly those of us in positions of authority.

Oh ok, he can add a comment about violence against police, and surround it with other comments saying police are bad in general, and that's ok with you.  Then after the grand jury votes, he can go on national TV and imply that the grand jury got it wrong.

Yeah, you really care.

BTW, a Twitter comment doesn't carry the same weight as a real voice whether it includes video or not.

Nuance is hard, isn't it Bosco...

People on the right seem to hate this President because he doesn't paint the issues in the beautiful shades of black and white that they're used to.  He's a thoughtful man who actually explains to the American people that these issues are complicated and difficult and for some reason that drives Conservatives up a wall.  You can see it on full display with these Iranian Nuclear talks.  On the other hand look at what we got ourselves into in 2003 when Iraq was evil and absolutely, unequivocally had WMD and was an immediate threat to the United States of America and her allies.  Nuance IS hard in politics.  But it's important that our leaders understand it.

Perhaps, perhaps not.  But even if this is true, then he overthinks things, and to paraphrase a probably apocryphal comment Churchill made about Chamberlain, couldn't make a timely decision to change his pants if he fouled them.

Say what you want about his predecessors, but from Reagan on they were decisive when necessary.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on March 13, 2015, 07:36:54 AM
The two are not mutually exclusive.

But I'll give him the point that most previous presidents did not make public statements about police shootings, either.  Those are more the domain of local mayors and state governors, not the U.S. president.  In fact, the only reason people are looking to him for it now is because he has occasionally done so in the past, so now people look for selectivity because they know he doesn't have a blanket rule of not commenting on such incidents.  I would hope that a future president--of either party--would learn a lesson from that.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hootenany on March 13, 2015, 07:41:39 AM
^^He over thinks things?  I would say that he simply thinks about things which is a step in the right direction.  And as far as his decisiveness is concerned what would you say about the Osama Bin Laden raid?  That seemed like a pretty bold move and his "over thinking" of the raid led to the insistence of two back up helicopters which were absolutely necessary after one of the primary helicopters crashed.

It's not that he isn't decisive.  You just don't agree with many of his decisions.

And to keep it on topic - Ferguson - Nuance.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on March 13, 2015, 09:59:12 AM
^^He over thinks things?  I would say that he simply thinks about things which is a step in the right direction.  And as far as his decisiveness is concerned what would you say about the Osama Bin Laden raid?  That seemed like a pretty bold move and his "over thinking" of the raid led to the insistence of two back up helicopters which were absolutely necessary after one of the primary helicopters crashed.

And if the rumors are true that he backed off several times and only went ahead because of potential political fallout?

Did he think through his comments about the police "acting stupidly"?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hootenany on March 13, 2015, 11:24:10 AM
^I agree that the reason decisions are made matters.  Re:  Iraq Invasion of 2013 sold to the UN on misinformation and straight up lies.  In the case of the Osama Bin Laden raid I think you're splitting hairs.  The raid was extremely risky and I'm sure the decision to go wasn't easy, but at the end of the day he ordered a raid that was successful in every aspect and he mitigated the risks where necessary.  You're really stretching to critique that decision and it shows.  We could literally do this all day, but we should get back to Ferguson.

I believe that Obama's comments about police "acting stupidly" were deliberate, well thought out, and accurate.  There is an undeniable trend in this country of police militarization and cases of excessive use of force are on the rise.  Again, this is where some of my conservative friends see things as black and white whereas many others, including the President, see it in shades of gray.  Some believe that the police are right and the suspect is wrong.  Period.  End of discussion, there is nothing that can convince them that the police were at all culpable for the injury or death.  In the case of Ferguson the conservative argument against Michael Brown starts with Michael Brown attacking Darren Wilson in the car.  What happened before that?  What led to the confrontation?  Did officer Wilson needlessly escalate the situation?  Sure, he was justified in his use of force after the confrontation began, but what led to the confrontation.  I still don't think we have a clear story on that.  Same questions need to be asked about the Tamir Rice shooting.  Why the aggressive approach to a reportedly armed suspect?  That seems needlessly dangerous, no?

It's clear that there is a problem in this country with the way the police interact with the public.  And falling back on the fact that they are doing things "by the book" might be a defense for a specific police action, but it's also evidence that the book is wrong and needs to be changed.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: SixthCity on March 13, 2015, 12:08:18 PM
In the case of Ferguson the conservative argument against Michael Brown starts with Michael Brown attacking Darren Wilson in the car.  What happened before that?  What led to the confrontation?  Did officer Wilson needlessly escalate the situation?  Sure, he was justified in his use of force after the confrontation began, but what led to the confrontation.  I still don't think we have a clear story on that.  Same questions need to be asked about the Tamir Rice shooting.  Why the aggressive approach to a reportedly armed suspect?  That seems needlessly dangerous, no?

It's clear that there is a problem in this country with the way the police interact with the public.  And falling back on the fact that they are doing things "by the book" might be a defense for a specific police action, but it's also evidence that the book is wrong and needs to be changed.

I think your 100% right and hopefully officers' "soft skills" will be improved.  Many people's lives may depend on it.  Its importance cannot be understated.

But by the same principle, shouldn't the public think about how they may be responsible of needless escalation at times?  It wouldn't be a stretch to say certain segments of the population are openly hostile towards law enforcement.  In some neighborhoods, the unwillingness to work with police and act outwardly hostile is a badge of honor. 

As quick as we are to question how Wilson's behavior may have lead to the confrontation, couldn't Brown have been just as responsible?

That said, police obviously occupy a different space in society than civilians and therefore it is incumbent upon them to act as "the bigger man" in certain situations.  But in the wake of this summer's incidents, it seems that there is endless criticism for the attitudes of police, and although righteous, there is almost nothing discussing ways certain groups may needlessly escalate situations that turn out deadly.  To have a working relationship, it takes two sides.  To be enemies, it takes two sides.

I am also continuously amazed how little people understand the standing legal thresholds that justify use of proportionate nonlethal and lethal force.  This general ignorance leads a lot of people to think decisions by the police and the legal system are entirely arbitrary.  And while there is some discretionary elements that may be abused, self-defense and its application is not an underdeveloped part of the law.  Would like to see some serious discussion about this in the media but it doesn't serve as click bait.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on March 13, 2015, 01:36:06 PM
In the case of Ferguson the conservative argument against Michael Brown starts with Michael Brown attacking Darren Wilson in the car.  What happened before that?  What led to the confrontation?  Did officer Wilson needlessly escalate the situation?  Sure, he was justified in his use of force after the confrontation began, but what led to the confrontation.  I still don't think we have a clear story on that.  Same questions need to be asked about the Tamir Rice shooting.  Why the aggressive approach to a reportedly armed suspect?  That seems needlessly dangerous, no?

It's clear that there is a problem in this country with the way the police interact with the public.  And falling back on the fact that they are doing things "by the book" might be a defense for a specific police action, but it's also evidence that the book is wrong and needs to be changed.

I think your 100% right and hopefully officers' "soft skills" will be improved.  Many people's lives may depend on it.  Its importance cannot be understated.

But by the same principle, shouldn't the public think about how they may be responsible of needless escalation at times?  It wouldn't be a stretch to say certain segments of the population are openly hostile towards law enforcement.  In some neighborhoods, the unwillingness to work with police and act outwardly hostile is a badge of honor. 

As quick as we are to question how Wilson's behavior may have lead to the confrontation, couldn't Brown have been just as responsible?

That said, police obviously occupy a different space in society than civilians and therefore it is incumbent upon them to act as "the bigger man" in certain situations.  But in the wake of this summer's incidents, it seems that there is endless criticism for the attitudes of police, and although righteous, there is almost nothing discussing ways certain groups may needlessly escalate situations that turn out deadly.  To have a working relationship, it takes two sides.  To be enemies, it takes two sides.

I am also continuously amazed how little people understand the standing legal thresholds that justify use of proportionate nonlethal and lethal force.  This general ignorance leads a lot of people to think decisions by the police and the legal system are entirely arbitrary.  And while there is some discretionary elements that may be abused, self-defense and its application is not an underdeveloped part of the law.  Would like to see some serious discussion about this in the media but it doesn't serve as click bait.

Do we have any regular posters that are police officers?  Active or retired, military or civilian?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on March 13, 2015, 03:34:19 PM
If this does not wake some of you up. Nothing will.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-do-us-police-kill-so-many-people-2014-8
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: SixthCity on March 13, 2015, 04:14:02 PM
If this does not wake some of you up. Nothing will.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-do-us-police-kill-so-many-people-2014-8

Not to be a jerk but isn't the thrust of the article/blurb completely unoriginal and obvious?  Police killings are much more prevalent in the United States because the citizenry is armed as opposed to almost everywhere else in Western Europe where this is not the case.  I thought that was long understood.  That is far from an edgy opinion that threatens to "wake us up."
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 04, 2015, 08:49:49 AM
@Reuters Ferguson, Missouri, releases racist emails from former officials http://t.co/ygkG4s9Z1f
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 05, 2015, 09:15:09 AM
US police killed more people in one month than UK police did in more than a century...

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/04/police-killings-us-vs-uk-infographic/
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Htsguy on April 05, 2015, 09:26:21 AM
^I would be curious to see the stats on how many police officers have been killed in the US in the line of duty versus the UK during the last century.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 05, 2015, 09:33:53 AM
Probably a lot more too, considering we're a more violent, heavily armed nation.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on April 07, 2015, 04:47:17 PM
South Carolina Officer Is Charged With Murder in
Black Man’s Death

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and MATT APUZZO APRIL 7, 2015

WASHINGTON — A white police officer has been charged with murder, the
mayor of North Charleston, S.C., said Tuesday, after a video surfaced showing
him shooting and killing an apparently unarmed black man in the back while
he ran away.

The officer, Michael T. Slager, had said he feared for his life because the
man took his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video,
however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man fled. The state charges
were announced in a news conference Tuesday evening.

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html?_r=0
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: StapHanger on April 07, 2015, 04:50:01 PM
Seems inevitable that the growing ubiquity of video footage is going to lead to many more successful prosecutions of police officers, notwithstanding the Eric Garner acquittal. Much harder for perps and cops to get away with lying than it used to be.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on April 07, 2015, 05:42:43 PM
There are some circumstances where shooting a suspect in the back as he flees is justifiable. Limited circumstances, but it is a misconception to believe they don't exist
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on April 08, 2015, 08:08:56 AM
If the suspect is wanted for murder, maybe.  If the suspect is wanted on a bench warrant for a traffic violation, no.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on April 08, 2015, 08:23:46 AM
That cop is screwed.  The video shows everything.  I have no idea why some damn fool would try & take an officer's gun or taser, but he was clearly running away.  The cop's life was not in danger.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Urbanophile on April 08, 2015, 08:27:35 AM
It's scary to think that this officer would have likely gotten away with it if the incident wasn't filmed. Before this video surfaced, authorities seemed to believe the cop's story. It's also creepy how quickly and naturally the cop planted the taser next to the man. It looked like he had done it before. This is why all officers need to wear cameras.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: StapHanger on April 08, 2015, 08:33:29 AM
I have no idea why some damn fool would try & take an officer's gun or taser, but he was clearly running away.

Is there any credible reason to think this guy was trying to take the officer's gun or taser? 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Cleburger on April 08, 2015, 08:37:03 AM
It's scary to think that this officer would have likely gotten away with it if the incident wasn't filmed. Before this video surfaced, authorities seemed to believe the cop's story. It's also creepy how quickly and naturally the cop planted the taser next to the man. It looked like he had done it before. This is why all officers need to wear cameras.

Yes thankfully that video was taken.     But then again, an officer fires off an entire clip (I counted 8-9 shots) and hits a suspect in the back????    That is reason to suspect the officers story with or without a video!
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on April 08, 2015, 09:19:32 AM
The suspected crime would be one small factor.  But it more depends on the danger the fleeing suspect poses to the public in his attempt to flee.  Desperate people, even those who simply have a capias out on them, can't go to drastic measures to escape capture.  Like I said, it is limited..... but there is certainly no blanket rule that a shooting in the back is unjustified.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: StapHanger on April 08, 2015, 09:33:33 AM
^Are you suggesting there's evidence to support a reasonable belief this suspect posed a danger to the public or just providing a general reminder about Garner?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 08, 2015, 09:45:48 AM
If #Ohio allows citizens to openly carry guns, why was Tamir Rice killed? http://t.co/xgmv0Jqbo8”
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on April 08, 2015, 10:00:27 AM
^Are you suggesting there's evidence to support a reasonable belief this suspect posed a danger to the public or just providing a general reminder about Garner?

The latter, just to add to the discussion.  I know nothing about this case. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on April 08, 2015, 10:13:39 AM
If #Ohio allows citizens to openly carry guns, why was Tamir Rice killed? http://t.co/xgmv0Jqbo8”

You can carry them, but you can't wave them in front of and frighten people with them without subjecting yourself to scrutiny. 

You know that, you're just stirring the pot.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 08, 2015, 10:18:21 AM
You can carry them, but you can't wave them in front of and frighten people with them without subjecting yourself to scrutiny. 

You know that, you're just stirring the pot.

You're only frightened because you're old and white and he's young and black.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on April 08, 2015, 10:20:26 AM
You can carry them, but you can't wave them in front of and frighten people with them without subjecting yourself to scrutiny. 

You know that, you're just stirring the pot.

You're only frightened because you're old and white and he's young and black.

you got the old part right!
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: SixthCity on April 08, 2015, 10:34:47 AM
^Are you suggesting there's evidence to support a reasonable belief this suspect posed a danger to the public or just providing a general reminder about Garner?

The latter, just to add to the discussion.  I know nothing about this case.

For those wondering what the Garner rule is here is an article explaining some of the very basic legal standards.  This is by no means an endorsement of the National Review as a whole (somewhat polarizing publication) but I think Charles Cooke does a good job here.

A Camera Will Mean Justice for Walter Scott


...Quite what justification could possibly be marshaled in defense of this behavior is unclear — to the point at which we might say confidently, “There is none.” Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court case that governs how police officers must treat those who flee, holds that an agent of the state may use lethal force against an escaping suspect only in such cases as he reasonably concludes that the suspect poses “a significant threat of death or serious physical injury” to himself or to another. To watch the Times’ video is to understand that, at the time he was killed, Walter Scott posed no threat to anybody at all. When Slager raises his gun to shoot, Scott is not only a long, long way away from him, but he also seems to be unarmed. From his position, there is simply no way that he could have delivered a meaningful blow to Slager — or to anyone else, for that matter.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416645/camera-will-mean-justice-walter-scott-charles-c-w-cooke
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 08, 2015, 02:40:13 PM
Someone who forgot the Golden Rule....

Wesley Lowery ‏@WesleyLowery  2m2 minutes ago
Ferguson court clerk who was fired over racist emails says emails weren't racist, they were funny
http://www.kmov.com/story/28745448/former-ferguson-city-court-clerk-who-sent-racist-emails-speaks-out
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 11, 2015, 08:44:03 PM
Wow...
Shot & killed by a guy made a "reserve deputy" because he donated money to the Tulsa PD! http://t.co/jKxn7NWufP http://t.co/OSa57XU4zr
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 12, 2015, 11:50:42 AM
54 officers have been charged after a fatal shooting since 2005. Where each case stands: http://t.co/XBwwZjTlAK http://t.co/Sp71VJPrDn
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on April 12, 2015, 11:57:38 AM
Updated the topic to be broader. Changed the name to Police Use of Force
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ck on April 12, 2015, 01:31:24 PM
You can carry them, but you can't wave them in front of and frighten people with them without subjecting yourself to scrutiny. 

You know that, you're just stirring the pot.

You're only frightened because you're old and white and he's young and black.

Holy batman - maybe I'm misreading what you wrote (or the tone of it), and if so apologies, but that seems like a really ridiculous thing to say.

1. Open carry laws certainly don't allow for the aiming of your gun at people or waving it around.
2. I'm pretty sure anyone would be just a bit nervous if anyone else had a gun out and was waving it around or pointing it at someone.  This has nothing to do with age or race. 
3. Including age and race is counterproductive and fairly offensive.

I'm not for open carry laws.  I think the police can be brutal and need to all have body cams.  I think the police should have oversight by entities outside of law enforcement.  I think they are also faced with tough situations because of how pervasive the gun culture is in the US and whenever someone feels like their life is in danger (whether it be because of getting beaten up or because a gun is aimed at them) their reaction, if they have a gun available to them, can pretty easily be understood.  With that said, there does seem to be a lack of trying to diffuse situations overall.  But really, I'm no expert and this is based off of what the media has fed me and not a thorough examination of police use of force nationwide.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 12, 2015, 02:06:18 PM
Yep, you're misreading the tone. It was intended for only one person who seems to take a "I'm scared of you because you're young and black while I'm old and white" approach to such interactions.

So when does kids playing cops and robbers at the playground become a capital crime?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: eastvillagedon on April 12, 2015, 02:10:38 PM
54 officers have been charged after a fatal shooting since 2005. Where each case stands: http://t.co/XBwwZjTlAK http://t.co/Sp71VJPrDn
Of course it's totally wrong when someone is unjustifiably killed by a police officer, and nothing illustrates this more than the tragic Walter Scott shooting, but we live in a nation of nearly 320,000,000 people with 900,000 law enforcement officers, which, since 2005, averages to 5.4 such incidents annually. As bad as even one incident is, fortunately this sort of thing is extremely rare.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on April 12, 2015, 02:17:09 PM
Part of the issue is that a lot of those crimes go uncharged since there are no other witnesses and cops rarely get indicted.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 12, 2015, 02:18:31 PM
And it's even more rare in more civilized nations. I would feel more hopeful if we were trying to be better than them than being dismissive of ourselves.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 17, 2015, 05:01:02 PM
National Guard called Ferguson protesters 'enemy forces' http://t.co/yymG6iQ45P -- @sarasidnerCNN reports #TheLead http://t.co/1f7wIQmIEf
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on April 17, 2015, 07:13:29 PM
Police violence is a major issue but it takes two to tango.  Common denominator in all these cases from Mike Brown on is a chicken/punk cop and a guy who was running/resisting arrest.  Tamir Rice exception, he was shot plain & simple
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on April 18, 2015, 06:32:08 AM
Certainly. Otherwise it would be cold blooded murder, plain and simple
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on April 20, 2015, 08:12:16 AM
Police violence is a major issue but it takes two to tango.  Common denominator in all these cases from Mike Brown on is a chicken/punk cop and a guy who was running/resisting arrest.  Tamir Rice exception, he was shot plain & simple

And what about these folks?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417155/wisconsins-shame-i-thought-it-was-home-invasion-david-french
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on April 20, 2015, 08:32:14 AM
Police violence is a major issue but it takes two to tango.  Common denominator in all these cases from Mike Brown on is a chicken/punk cop and a guy who was running/resisting arrest.  Tamir Rice exception, he was shot plain & simple

And what about these folks?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417155/wisconsins-shame-i-thought-it-was-home-invasion-david-french

Interesting article but no real background on the people involved, what the police were searching for, if the suspects were ever charged, etc.  Also, nobody was shot or killed in that article
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on April 27, 2015, 07:24:13 PM
Dozens of videos online showing the riots & violence in Baltimore.  Rioting and assaults outside the Orioles game the other night, video of cops being assaulted with rocks & bricks...  The police there seem to be under strict orders to not engage or retaliate
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on April 27, 2015, 07:33:46 PM
^ It seems now worse than what I saw in Vancouver, UK last month or in New Hampshire in October.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 27, 2015, 08:36:22 PM
Love, educate & employ the disaffected so they have a reason to care about the future.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on April 28, 2015, 05:46:31 AM
Sad sad science but encouraging to see so many private citizens out on the street doing what they can to stop it

Worst part is some of the fires appear to have been strategically lit
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on April 28, 2015, 06:35:20 AM
CNN talking this morning about high school students planning violence, referring to it as "the purge" based on the movie where violence & crime is legal for 1 night.   Video showed teens slashing the fire hoses of firefighters trying to extinguish the blazes...   senseless
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: seicer on April 28, 2015, 06:41:31 AM
I'm not sure I would ever employ anyone who was participating in that. Or love. It's one thing to protest; it's another to harm firefighters, to set people's homes and businesses ablaze for no reason; to loot and steal what's not yours.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on April 28, 2015, 07:06:21 AM
It's a tantrum.   A particularly destructive one, but effectively a tantrum.

As any parent knows, tantrums cannot be allowed to work.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on April 28, 2015, 07:53:38 AM
it's really a catch-22 for the police in these situations.  If they hang back and allow the riots to occur, they are criticized for allowing the destruction of property and violence to go on.  If they come in to squash the riots and restore order, they are criticized for being too aggressive, to militant. 

EDIT:  Article here questioning the response to riots was too slow...  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/04/28/riots_raise_question_about_delayed_police_response_126414.html
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on April 28, 2015, 08:04:26 AM
it's really a catch-22 for the police in these situations.  If they hang back and allow the riots to occur, they are criticized for allowing the destruction of property and violence to go on.  If they come in to squash the riots and restore order, they are criticized for being too aggressive, to militant. 

EDIT:  Article here questioning the response to riots was too slow...  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/04/28/riots_raise_question_about_delayed_police_response_126414.html


It's fundamentally a political decision, and whether or not the mayor intentionally let them "blow off steam" (I suspect she did to a degree, but it was more of a slow reaction), that's now the perception.

The irony is Gray likely injured himself trying to escape, and a similar dilemna applies.   Do you secure him so tightly it may seem abusive in its own right, or not?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: IAGuy39 on April 28, 2015, 08:04:54 AM
Yes not good for Baltimore.  It is sad that the young folks participating can't see a future for themselves, and also sad that some of the parents aren't there to tone it down.  They are destroying parts of the city that I am sure took years to turn around. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on April 28, 2015, 08:07:59 AM
Police violence is a major issue but it takes two to tango.  Common denominator in all these cases from Mike Brown on is a chicken/punk cop and a guy who was running/resisting arrest.  Tamir Rice exception, he was shot plain & simple

And what about these folks?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417155/wisconsins-shame-i-thought-it-was-home-invasion-david-french

Interesting article but no real background on the people involved, what the police were searching for, if the suspects were ever charged, etc.  Also, nobody was shot or killed in that article

Perhaps because no one actively resisted.

It was a political witchhunt where no one was ever indicted.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Cleburger on April 28, 2015, 08:27:45 AM

As any parent knows, tantrums cannot be allowed to work.[/color]

And most of these kids have had very little parenting.   You want to fix that community?  You have to start there.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on April 28, 2015, 08:47:22 AM
Did anyone see the mother pull her son out of that mess, and start smacking him around as she pulled him away?  They need more mothers like that.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Urbanophile on April 28, 2015, 09:03:16 AM
It's a tantrum.   A particularly destructive one, but effectively a tantrum.

As any parent knows, tantrums cannot be allowed to work.

I don't understand what you're saying here. These types of riots are cause by many underlying social problems, including poverty, institutionalized racism, and police brutality/corruption. So, we shouldn't address any of the underlying causes after a major riot happens because you'd like to teach the rioters a lesson? That's how you get more riots. If you want to actually make a difference, then we need to have a serious national discussion about all the underlying issues that lead to these riots. You can condemn the rioters as much as you want, but in the end that will change nothing.

Here's what MLK Jr. had to say: "It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard."
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: 327 on April 28, 2015, 09:03:34 AM
Did anyone see the mother pull her son out of that mess, and start smacking him around as she pulled him away?  They need more mothers like that.

Because nothing says "don't commit violence" like some good old fashioned violence!
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on April 28, 2015, 09:15:04 AM
Did anyone see the mother pull her son out of that mess, and start smacking him around as she pulled him away?  They need more mothers like that.

To be fair, once she has three or four boys and dad's nowhere around, even the best mom is going to be in over her head.

That's where my old downstate-farms proposal kicks in.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on April 28, 2015, 09:28:18 AM
There were rumors going around that the Baltimore gangs had formed a truce and teamed up against the police to create more violence. Apparently that was completely unfounded.

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/gang-members-we-did-not-make-truce-to-harm-cops/32609810
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: 327 on April 28, 2015, 09:40:15 AM
Did anyone see the mother pull her son out of that mess, and start smacking him around as she pulled him away?  They need more mothers like that.

To be fair, once she has three or four boys and dad's nowhere around, even the best mom is going to be in over her head.

That's where my old downstate-farms proposal kicks in.

Downstate farms where the dads can find work that pays them enough to support a family?  You might be onto something.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on April 28, 2015, 09:44:43 AM
Yeah, everyone knows rural America is where the jobs are.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 28, 2015, 09:50:32 AM
Imagine being a minority who is trying to do the right thing. You graduated high school. You took some advanced manufacturing training at the community college. Yet you have to take three buses during a 90-minute commute each way to a reach an unskilled minimum-wage suburban factory job.

Every so often a suburban cop picks you up during your walk from the bus stop to your job. Sometimes you're put in custody until they verify you have no warrants for your arrest. Other times the police drive you back to the city limits, yet far from any bus stop. So you walk miles back to your home and have to call in sick to work.

Sometimes, you begin to wonder why it's worth it, as only 25% of available jobs in your metro area are within a 90-minute transit trip. Then your employer lays you off because the plant is moving to Malaysia. It wouldn't have mattered anyway as your state is cutting transit funding and your route is on the chopping block.

So you feel even more isolated, disaffected and disillusioned about the future. No one cares what happens to you. So you don't care what happens to you or anything around you. Like some of your former classmates, you wonder if you'll live to see 30. Sometimes you wonder why surviving beyond 30 is a good thing.

Then a neighbor is killed by police and there's a riot....
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: 327 on April 28, 2015, 10:03:10 AM
Yeah, everyone knows rural America is where the jobs are.

You're right.  A jobs program where the dads actually live would be much more effective.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on April 28, 2015, 10:07:30 AM
^^ You are always great at the victim card. Regardless of the situation, there is nothing that justifies what is going on in Baltimore right now.
If everyone plays the victim card, nothing will ever get accomplished. People need to quit making excuses and accept their responsibility in everything. Just because an unarmed person may be killed by the police does not give you an excuse to riot.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: 327 on April 28, 2015, 10:15:38 AM
People need to quit making excuses and accept their responsibility in everything.

I'm struck by how similar your point is to that of the rioters.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: old edale on April 28, 2015, 10:21:49 AM
Watching the coverage of Baltimore last night, I was reminded of Cincinnati in 2001.  The situation appeared a little more severe in Baltimore, but the roaming crowd and skirmishes with the police looked much more similar to Cincy than Ferguson, IMO.  I think Cincinnati actually should be used more as a model for what to do following a race riot.  The collaborative agreement reached between the community and the police force seemed to create some real departmental change, and satisfied the black community as well.  Crime spiked in the years following the riots, mostly due to more guns being on the street and the police being way more hesitant to act, but since that spike crime has continuously declined in the city.  We've only had African American police chiefs since Striecher resigned, and I think the culture of the CPD has changed for the better.  The good ole boy West Sider/Elder High School grad is probably less representative of the force as a whole than has ever existed in the police force.

All of that said, I think one of these type of disturbances could happen anywhere in Ohio, and probably just about anywhere in the country. I can't remember a time when race relations were more strained in my lifetime.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on April 28, 2015, 10:22:10 AM
327 - my comment was to Ken's post, but your post jumped in front of mine.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 28, 2015, 10:35:41 AM
The Economist        ✔ @TheEconomist
Deaths from police shootings:
America 458
Germany 8
Britain 0
Japan 0
http://econ.st/1Aatn2t
#BaltimoreRiots pic.twitter.com/sYYNzBbTZR

^^ You are always great at the victim card. Regardless of the situation, there is nothing that justifies what is going on in Baltimore right now.
If everyone plays the victim card, nothing will ever get accomplished. People need to quit making excuses and accept their responsibility in everything. Just because an unarmed person may be killed by the police does not give you an excuse to riot.

And you're always great at over-simplifying and incapable of exercising understanding and empathy. Be raised by a low-income urban minority, go to their schools, spend some time around them. Walk in their shoes for a while. Then form an opinion.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on April 28, 2015, 10:53:40 AM
All the same opportunities as everyone else.  All that's asked is not to be a criminal.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bookman on April 28, 2015, 10:57:48 AM
Just to east the tension...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR465HoCWFQ
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 28, 2015, 11:28:11 AM
All the same opportunities as everyone else.  All that's asked is not to be a criminal.

Says the white male. More criminals are created by their environments -- environments that are created by people more powerful than they. And the only time the balance of power shifts is when the powerful fail to adapt.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on April 28, 2015, 11:32:38 AM
Everyone has the power to control their personal environment.  What they lack is the personal fortitude.

You keep calling me white.  That would probably offend my mother.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: 327 on April 28, 2015, 11:42:45 AM
327 - my comment was to Ken's post, but your post jumped in front of mine.

My comment was not personal in nature, just an observation that these riots tend to happen when police officers decline responsibility for their own violent acts.  There is no small irony in holding private citizens to standards from which their sworn protectors are exempt.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on April 28, 2015, 11:44:36 AM
what ive seen reported was that its been a police tactic to purposely injure people by leaving them handcuffed- but not secured in the back of a van.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Whipjacka on April 28, 2015, 11:45:42 AM
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/

"Over the past four years, more than 100 people have won court judgments or settlements related to allegations of brutality and civil rights violations. Victims include a 15-year-old boy riding a dirt bike, a 26-year-old pregnant accountant who had witnessed a beating, a 50-year-old woman selling church raffle tickets, a 65-year-old church deacon rolling a cigarette and an 87-year-old grandmother aiding her wounded grandson ....

And in almost every case, prosecutors or judges dismissed the charges against the victims—if charges were filed at all. In an incident that drew headlines recently, charges against a South Baltimore man were dropped after a video showed an officer repeatedly punching him—a beating that led the police commissioner to say he was “shocked.”"

People in Baltimore are expected to respect the police when people become paralyzed and die in their custody?

Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on April 28, 2015, 12:00:21 PM
The Economist        ✔ @TheEconomist
Deaths from police shootings:
America 458
Germany 8
Britain 0
Japan 0
http://econ.st/1Aatn2t
#BaltimoreRiots pic.twitter.com/sYYNzBbTZR

^^ You are always great at the victim card. Regardless of the situation, there is nothing that justifies what is going on in Baltimore right now.
If everyone plays the victim card, nothing will ever get accomplished. People need to quit making excuses and accept their responsibility in everything. Just because an unarmed person may be killed by the police does not give you an excuse to riot.

And you're always great at over-simplifying and incapable of exercising understanding and empathy. Be raised by a low-income urban minority, go to their schools, spend some time around them. Walk in their shoes for a while. Then form an opinion.

Ken - instead of accusing me of oversimplifying things and being incapable of understanding as you like to put it, I would like to challenge you to do the same thing. You seem pretty quick to make an opinion of me considering you know nothing about me, where I came from or my upbringing, etc. I guess what you mean to say is that if I disagree with you, then I am an entitled elitest, but your opinion is the only one that is right. 

Fact is Ken, I think if we have a debate on this, most people will admit the cops have a role to play in this and that there are important reforms that could take place to help the situation. The Leadership in Baltimore is poor and the mayor is an absolute moron. This stuff should all occur to help prevent this from happening in the future. However, on the other end, there has been a decay in the respect for authority that people have which has led to the escalation of violence we see today. Bottom line, instead of rioting, people need to learn how to be citizens and take the good with the bad, and to fight for change the right way, not by rioting.   
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 28, 2015, 12:04:59 PM
Thanks for proving my point. This is a national problem, and its depth is unique to America. Follow the leadership and example of the civilized world.

This is not a debate. It's cause and effect. Smoke and you will get cancer. Eat poorly and you will get fat. Isolate, neglect and abuse minorities and you will get urban violence.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on April 28, 2015, 12:09:46 PM
But I also believe the people who are rioting need to be held responsible for their behavior, not to use this as a crutch or an excuse that the system failed them. There are problems yes, and there will be a time for fixing them, but if you are rioting you should not be celebrated or even sympathized with, you need to go to jail for a long time, no excuses
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on April 28, 2015, 12:18:34 PM
and also sad that some of the parents aren't there to tone it down. 

Oh.... there were plenty of people out there trying to tone it down.  But mob mentality had taken over.  I saw members of the Nation of Islam helplessly trying to stop kids from looting a store.  I saw preachers and military veterans standing between the crowds and the police.  I saw black fraternity members protecting businesses.  There was certainly an effort, at least.

Sad part is that I highly doubt many, if any, of the looters were even the slightest bit upset about the guy who died in police custody.  This is a different situation from Ferguson it seems.  It is what might be properly called organized chaos.  Set a fire on one side of the neighborhood to divert forces and loot a store on the other side.  The high school kids are just caught up in the moment, much like college football or NHL fans might leave a path of destruction for, sad to say it, the f*ck of it.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on April 28, 2015, 12:18:59 PM
But I also believe the people who are rioting need to be held responsible for their behavior, not to use this as a crutch or an excuse that the system failed them. There are problems yes, and there will be a time for fixing them, but if you are rioting you should not be celebrated or even sympathized with, you need to go to jail for a long time, no excuses

Not to speak for anyone else, but I don't think anyone has come out in support of the rioting here; just that it's understandable given the weight of the entire issue at hand.

Question, do you think the rioting is a more serious problem than the police abuses that have been going on?

Me personally, I hold the police to higher standard of conduct than normal citizens. So to me the allegations, the occurrences and the perception of widespread police abuse are actually more damaging for society than the rioting. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on April 28, 2015, 12:19:37 PM
and also sad that some of the parents aren't there to tone it down. 

Oh.... there were plenty of people out there trying to tone it down.  But mob mentality had taken over.  I saw members of the Nation of Islam helplessly trying to stop kids from looting a store.  I saw preachers and military veterans standing between the crowds and the police.  I saw black fraternity members protecting businesses.  There was certainly an effort, at least.

Sad part is that I highly doubt many, if any, of the looters were even the slightest bit upset about the guy who died in police custody.  This is a different situation from Ferguson it seems.  It is what might be properly called organized chaos.  Set a fire on one side of the neighborhood to divert forces and loot a store on the other side.  The high school kids are just caught up in the moment, much like college football or NHL fans might leave a path of destruction for, sad to say it, the f*ck of it.

agreed
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 28, 2015, 12:26:48 PM
Agreed, as well. With that, I'm on to other stuff.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on April 28, 2015, 12:30:36 PM
But I also believe the people who are rioting need to be held responsible for their behavior, not to use this as a crutch or an excuse that the system failed them. There are problems yes, and there will be a time for fixing them, but if you are rioting you should not be celebrated or even sympathized with, you need to go to jail for a long time, no excuses

Not to speak for anyone else, but I don't think anyone has come out in support of the rioting here; just that it's understandable given the weight of the entire issue at hand.

Question, do you think the rioting is a more serious problem than the police abuses that have been going on?

Me personally, I hold the police to higher standard of conduct than normal citizens. So to me the allegations, the occurrences and the perception of widespread police abuse are actually more damaging for society than the rioting. 

I would not hold the police to a higher standard than the rioters. It is two completely different issues. 

There is NEVER an excuse to riot or behave like this. No matter what laws exist or do not exist, there is a moral code that exists where we take care of our neighbor, we do not bring harm to others or their property. It is called being a citizen. No matter what your lot in life is, you have the responsibility to act civilly and with a basic sense of decorum. The bar here is pretty low. It does not require much to be a citizen, it is not a hard thing to do, but does require a choice. The rioters have chosen to disregard any responsibilities and tenets of citizenship, which is why I hold them to a higher standard.

There may be issues with the cops, but that is above the basic tenet of citizenship. These issues can be corrected by laws and rules, regulations and training. That is correctable and trainable. 

If you refuse to act as a citizen, there is no hope for you and I have no pity for you either.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on April 28, 2015, 12:41:08 PM
But I also believe the people who are rioting need to be held responsible for their behavior, not to use this as a crutch or an excuse that the system failed them. There are problems yes, and there will be a time for fixing them, but if you are rioting you should not be celebrated or even sympathized with, you need to go to jail for a long time, no excuses

Not to speak for anyone else, but I don't think anyone has come out in support of the rioting here; just that it's understandable given the weight of the entire issue at hand.

Question, do you think the rioting is a more serious problem than the police abuses that have been going on?

Me personally, I hold the police to higher standard of conduct than normal citizens. So to me the allegations, the occurrences and the perception of widespread police abuse are actually more damaging for society than the rioting. 

I would not hold the police to a higher standard than the rioters. It is two completely different issues. 

There is NEVER an excuse to riot or behave like this. No matter what laws exist or do not exist, there is a moral code that exists where we take care of our neighbor, we do not bring harm to others or their property. It is called being a citizen. No matter what your lot in life is, you have the responsibility to act civilly and with a basic sense of decorum. The bar here is pretty low. It does not require much to be a citizen, it is not a hard thing to do, but does require a choice. The rioters have chosen to disregard any responsibilities and tenets of citizenship, which is why I hold them to a higher standard.

There may be issues with the cops, but that is above the basic tenet of citizenship. These issues can be corrected by laws and rules, regulations and training. That is correctable and trainable. 

If you refuse to act as a citizen, there is no hope for you and I have no pity for you either.

I'm not sure why in your example that police are above the basic tenet of citizenship. Or that you would hold rioters to a higher standard than a government official.

But thanks for your response.


Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: eastvillagedon on April 28, 2015, 12:42:16 PM
mayor of Baltimore: "We also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well." I can't imagine why this got so out of hand, can you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqncWcpwmCs
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on April 28, 2015, 12:49:31 PM
But I also believe the people who are rioting need to be held responsible for their behavior, not to use this as a crutch or an excuse that the system failed them. There are problems yes, and there will be a time for fixing them, but if you are rioting you should not be celebrated or even sympathized with, you need to go to jail for a long time, no excuses

Not to speak for anyone else, but I don't think anyone has come out in support of the rioting here; just that it's understandable given the weight of the entire issue at hand.

Question, do you think the rioting is a more serious problem than the police abuses that have been going on?

Me personally, I hold the police to higher standard of conduct than normal citizens. So to me the allegations, the occurrences and the perception of widespread police abuse are actually more damaging for society than the rioting. 

I would not hold the police to a higher standard than the rioters. It is two completely different issues. 

There is NEVER an excuse to riot or behave like this. No matter what laws exist or do not exist, there is a moral code that exists where we take care of our neighbor, we do not bring harm to others or their property. It is called being a citizen. No matter what your lot in life is, you have the responsibility to act civilly and with a basic sense of decorum. The bar here is pretty low. It does not require much to be a citizen, it is not a hard thing to do, but does require a choice. The rioters have chosen to disregard any responsibilities and tenets of citizenship, which is why I hold them to a higher standard.

There may be issues with the cops, but that is above the basic tenet of citizenship. These issues can be corrected by laws and rules, regulations and training. That is correctable and trainable. 

If you refuse to act as a citizen, there is no hope for you and I have no pity for you either.

I'm not sure why in your example that police are above the basic tenet of citizenship. Or that you would hold rioters to a higher standard than a government official.

But thanks for your response.


I never said they were above the basic level of citizenship, but what the police did not have a problem of acting like bad citizen, they meet that basic citizenship test.  Their problem is more of a systemic problem that can be corrected with training, new regulations, etc. In a sense the police problem is correctable. However, when you riot, you essentially say screw it, I am no longer going to give a damn about humanity and my fellow neighbor. That is the difference. If you don't care, the problem cant be corrected.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on April 28, 2015, 01:15:06 PM
^So you are suggesting we say 'screw it, I am no longer going to give a damn about humanity and my fellow neighbor'?  All problems can be corrected, albeit some problems are extremely complex and their root causes are not singular (bad parenting, police brutality, poverty, despair, etc.)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on April 28, 2015, 01:50:21 PM
Not what I said at all. I said the rioters are saying screw it, they are saying we do not give a damn about our neighbor, etc. They have essentially traded in their citizen card.

I am saying if they want to be part of the system and work for change we are welcome to have you. If you want to act like a petulant child, then I hope they enjoy thinking about it for a long time in a jail cell.

The rioters are saying I do not want to be part of the solution anymore. So to that I have little sympathy.

Listen, I am not naïve to bigger systematic problems, but at the end of the day, each individual is responsible for a basic set of actions. Their failure in that area is completely up to them. This is not a high standard, but it is at least a standard.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on April 28, 2015, 02:19:00 PM
....and water is wet.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on April 28, 2015, 02:22:21 PM
^ are you saying that the rioters should not have any responsibility here and that this is primarily because of the police?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on April 28, 2015, 02:56:51 PM
Not at all.  Are you saying water is not wet?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 28, 2015, 03:11:21 PM
How do you build a powder keg?

This is what Freddie Gray's neighborhood is like:
http://fusion.net/story/127163/just-42-percent-of-the-residents-in-freddie-grays-neighborhood-are-employed
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDtI78HUUAAGlDU.png)

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/14029_10204664929837280_6313559544239212679_n.jpg?oh=76b8b7bab5dbdf0f66a7644f2a6f62a3&oe=55D41F9A&__gda__=1439139537_0478704e94b879e597df57c962adb2bb)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 28, 2015, 09:12:49 PM
Saw this on Twitter:

If violence doesnt solve anything why do we continue to go to war then?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: SixthCity on April 28, 2015, 09:18:09 PM
Saw this on Twitter:

If violence doesnt solve anything why do we continue to go to war then?

Yup, there's a lot of crap on Twitter.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 28, 2015, 09:22:32 PM
More:

"@THEREALBANNER: Where are all the elected officials that say they are for the people? You wonder why these kids don't respect the system. It's bullsh!t!"
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on April 29, 2015, 11:52:59 AM
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/cleveland-police-ordered-to-carry-riot-gear-at-all-times

The suspicion I have had, which I have not shared because it's purely speculation, is looking likely.

Judge O'Donnell did not continue Officer Brelo's trial because the defense needed to rebut anything.  He's going to acquit him, and has advised city officials that is his intention. 

The trial is continuing in order to:

1) Place additional exculpatory evidence into the public domain.

2) Allow city officials to prepare for disorder.

I don't think we're going to see anything like Ferguson or Baltimore here.   The black community has leaders that are smarter than that.  Tearing up poor black neighborhoods is counterproductive, trying to venture into other neighborhoods in a state with loose gun laws will get people killed.

Maybe that's wishful thinking on my part, but that's how I'm seeing it.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on April 29, 2015, 12:42:59 PM
^Judge O'Donnell is not that type of judge.  He wouldn't reach a decision prior to the close of all the evidence.  He is one of the county's better judges.  What you are suggesting he is doing could be considered an abuse of process.  Him having dialogue with the City mid-trial about his intentions would be a huge no-no

The reasons why this won't turn into Ferguson or Baltimore are mostly due to lapse of time and the fact that the officer was in fact brought to trial. 

If police have been advised to carry riot gear and that order is related to the ongoing Brelo trial, it is because the City is wisely planning in advance for a decision, which could come any day when the defense rests and again moves for a directed verdict.  Hopefully Mayors across the nation have learned something from this fiasco in Baltimore.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: old edale on April 29, 2015, 12:45:04 PM
Not what I said at all. I said the rioters are saying screw it, they are saying we do not give a damn about our neighbor, etc. They have essentially traded in their citizen card.


So what exactly do residents in inner-city Baltimore gain from their citizen card? The state (via the police force) has been telling these people that their lives and futures don't matter for generations.  When they are killed by the state they are just supposed to sit back and expect the system to magically start working for them?  In my opinion, the rioting we have seen is a desperate plea from a population that has long been denied a voice. There is a lot of pain in these communities- poor schools, dim economic prospects, high rates of violence within the community, poor health outcomes, harassment from the police, and a federal government that seems intent on making the rise out of poverty harder than ever to achieve.  The community was pushed to its limit, and some members (decidedly a minority of the overall protestors) decided to act out in a way that isn't very palatable to Average Joe in Flyover, USA.  Too bad for Joe.  Windows can and will be replaced.  You best believe that the liquor will be restocked at the liquor stores that were looted, and the check cashing places will be back to predatory lending practices in no time.  Meanwhile, the lives that are taken will never come back, and there will largely be no justice for their families or loved ones.  Why do so many people care more about property damage than the unjust murder of US citizens by the state? How ridiculous to call for these people to respect their duties as citizens of this country, when they are literally being murdered and having their rights that are supposedly inherent as citizens of the USA completely subverted. FOH.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on April 29, 2015, 12:47:58 PM
Where do I obtain a 'citizen card'?

^The 'rioting' has very little to do with being denied a voice.  The protests are a result of being denied a voice.  The rioting is mostly the result of ignorant young kids seizing what they see as an opportunity to go buck wild.  Did OSU's fans feel like they had been denied a voice during the national championship and then decided to destroy other people's property?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on April 29, 2015, 12:52:52 PM
David Simon on Baltimore’s Anguish
Freddie Gray, the drug war, and the decline of “real policing.”
By BILL KELLER

David Simon is Baltimore’s best-known chronicler of life on the hard streets. He worked for The Baltimore Sun city desk for a dozen years, wrote “Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets” (1991) and with former homicide detective Ed Burns co-wrote “THE CORNER: A YEAR IN THE LIFE OF AN INNER-CITY NEIGHBORHOOD”1 (1997), which Simon adapted into an HBO miniseries. He is the creator, executive producer and head writer of the HBO television series “The Wire” (2002–2008). Simon is a member of The Marshall Project’s advisory board. He spoke with Bill Keller on Tuesday.

BK: What do people outside the city need to understand about what’s going on there — the death of Freddie Gray and the response to it?

DS: I guess there's an awful lot to understand and I’m not sure I understand all of it. The part that seems systemic and connected is that the drug war — which Baltimore waged as aggressively as any American city — was transforming in terms of police/community relations, in terms of trust, particularly between the black community and the police department. Probable cause was destroyed by the drug war. It happened in stages, but even in the time that I was a police reporter, which would have been the early 80s to the early 90s, the need for police officers to address the basic rights of the people they were policing in Baltimore was minimized. It was done almost as a plan by the local government, by police commissioners and mayors, and it not only made everybody in these poor communities vulnerable to the most arbitrary behavior on the part of the police officers, it taught police officers how not to distinguish in ways that they once did.

...

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/04/29/david-simon-on-baltimore-s-anguish?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share-tools&utm_source=twitter&utm_content=post-top
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: eastvillagedon on April 29, 2015, 01:02:09 PM
Where do I obtain a 'citizen card'?


you forfeited yours for too many loud parties :drunk:
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: old edale on April 29, 2015, 01:09:01 PM
Where do I obtain a 'citizen card'?

^The 'rioting' has very little to do with being denied a voice.  The protests are a result of being denied a voice.  The rioting is mostly the result of ignorant young kids seizing what they see as an opportunity to go buck wild.  Did OSU's fans feel like they had been denied a voice during the national championship and then decided to destroy other people's property?

I wish people would stop making the false equivalence of comparing what is happening in Baltimore to post sporting event celebrations.  Were people throwing rocks and bottles at the cops following the OSU game? Other than some couch fires and lingering on High Street, what damage was done in Columbus? Did these disturbances continue for multiple days? Was the National Guard called in?

I get the point that people are trying to make with these comparisons.  White people riot too, and we use different language to describe the events and the participants.  I get it.  Doesn't make the comparison correct or useful in the slightest.  They are totally different events in terms of purpose, severity, duration, and response.  I do think the riot is the voice of the unheard, and I think it trivializes the message to say that damage was only done by ignorant kids who wanted to act 'buck wild'.  Riots can wake people up to issues that they don't want to talk about.  It happened in LA and it happened in Cincinnati, and I think both cities are better now as a result of them.  Protests don't command the same conversations.

Even in MLKs time, violence and disruption was a key tactic used in the quest for civil rights.  The movie Selma demonstrated this very clearly.  MLK and other civil rights leaders could have marched through Birmingham or Mobile or Atlanta, but they chose Selma because it was the type of backwater place that would respond to their protests and marches with the shocking brutality that eventually would trigger calls for reform from outside the black community. Debate the methods all you want, but at least this riot is going to force the Baltimore area to confront some of the systemic issues that plague the city.  A peaceful protest would not do the same.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on April 29, 2015, 01:34:24 PM
Trivializes the message?  Is that message folded up into one of the glass bottles being thrown at the police?  Maybe it is written across one of the bricks thrown through the windows of a locally, minority owned business?

I will never condone rioting in the manner we have seen in Baltimore.  Civil disobedience is one thing.  Active violence and destruction is another.

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
 begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
 Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
 Through violence you may murder the liar,
 but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
 Through violence you may murder the hater,
 but you do not murder hate.
 In fact, violence merely increases hate.
 So it goes.
 Returning violence for violence multiplies violence,
 adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
 Darkness cannot drive out darkness:
 only light can do that.
 Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on April 29, 2015, 01:36:29 PM
^Judge O'Donnell is not that type of judge.  He wouldn't reach a decision prior to the close of all the evidence.  He is one of the county's better judges.  What you are suggesting he is doing could be considered an abuse of process.  Him having dialogue with the City mid-trial about his intentions would be a huge no-no

The reasons why this won't turn into Ferguson or Baltimore are mostly due to lapse of time and the fact that the officer was in fact brought to trial. 

If police have been advised to carry riot gear and that order is related to the ongoing Brelo trial, it is because the City is wisely planning in advance for a decision, which could come any day when the defense rests and again moves for a directed verdict.  Hopefully Mayors across the nation have learned something from this fiasco in Baltimore.

This would not be misconduct, per se. Or even unethical.   If he feels that the prosecution has not presented a valid case, he has heard enough evidence to make a decision.  If he feels the city is not prepared, he could indeed do something like that.  These are, potentially, special circumstances.  That would be the smart play.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on April 29, 2015, 01:49:23 PM
Trivializes the message?  Is that message folded up into one of the glass bottles being thrown at the police?  Maybe it is written across one of the bricks thrown through the windows of a locally, minority owned business?

I will never condone rioting in the manner we have seen in Baltimore.  Civil disobedience is one thing.  Active violence and destruction is another.

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
 begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
 Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
 Through violence you may murder the liar,
 but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
 Through violence you may murder the hater,
 but you do not murder hate.
 In fact, violence merely increases hate.
 So it goes.
 Returning violence for violence multiplies violence,
 adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
 Darkness cannot drive out darkness:
 only light can do that.
 Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.


One of American history’s most brutal ironies is that when James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King, Jr., he silenced the one voice whom would have carried the credibility within the black American community to say “Stop. This. BS. Now.”.    And be heeded.  I don’t think there’s much doubt that at some point, he would have.

Jesse Jackson has tried, from time to time, without much success.  Conservative blacks have been, for the most part, marginalized within the community. 

One major difference between the fifties and today is that then, a black person might not be accepted by the general white community no matter how much they adopted the values and demeanor of same.  That was true "racism"  Today, that acceptance is commonplace by whites, and vilified by some black "leaders".

We're getting off into the "race" topic, but I don't think it can really be separated from this issue.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: mrnyc on April 29, 2015, 02:58:12 PM
(http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/o725/NYCnMore/random2/8EA36AE8-A672-416B-9EAF-062B3831D833_zpsoxjcsis9.jpg) (http://s1340.photobucket.com/user/NYCnMore/media/random2/8EA36AE8-A672-416B-9EAF-062B3831D833_zpsoxjcsis9.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 29, 2015, 04:42:33 PM
Fox News' Shepard Smith slams cohosts covering Baltimore riots

http://egbertowillies.com/2015/04/28/fox-news-shepard-smith-slams-cohosts-covering-baltimore-riots-video/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=EgbertoWillies.com&utm_content=Fox%20News%27%20Shepard%20Smith%20slams%20cohosts%20covering%20Baltimore%20riots%20(VIDEO)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on April 29, 2015, 05:04:22 PM
^Judge O'Donnell is not that type of judge.  He wouldn't reach a decision prior to the close of all the evidence.  He is one of the county's better judges.  What you are suggesting he is doing could be considered an abuse of process.  Him having dialogue with the City mid-trial about his intentions would be a huge no-no

The reasons why this won't turn into Ferguson or Baltimore are mostly due to lapse of time and the fact that the officer was in fact brought to trial. 

If police have been advised to carry riot gear and that order is related to the ongoing Brelo trial, it is because the City is wisely planning in advance for a decision, which could come any day when the defense rests and again moves for a directed verdict.  Hopefully Mayors across the nation have learned something from this fiasco in Baltimore.

This would not be misconduct, per se. Or even unethical.   If he feels that the prosecution has not presented a valid case, he has heard enough evidence to make a decision.  If he feels the city is not prepared, he could indeed do something like that.  These are, potentially, special circumstances.  That would be the smart play.

In addition to the fact that you are once again going off on one of your speculative tangents, your first two sentences don't make sense .... per se
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on April 29, 2015, 09:59:36 PM
Debate the methods all you want, but at least this riot is going to force the Baltimore area to confront some of the systemic issues that plague the city.  A peaceful protest would not do the same.

Maybe, maybe not.  The police will say they need more officers on the job, they need more training, etc.  They will probably get it.  But fundamentally, not much is going to change.  Everyone is focusing on the riots, the discussion on police brutality, etc but staying focused on Freddy Gray, he had an arrest record several pages long for drug possession & trafficking.  Officers recognized him by face immediately.  Probably some of the same officers accused of injuring him had arrested him previously.  Talk to some cops and they will tell you how demoralizing it is to put in the work to arrest a suspect with evidence and see them back out on the street doing it again in no time.  That was the case with Freddy Gray.  My suspicion is they were tired of seeing him selling drugs on the street, tired of chasing him, tired of seeing him tossed back out by the courts and took out some frustration on him which led to his injuries.

And for those saying that society has failed all these young black men, that they need more opportunities for jobs, education, etc.  Maybe society does owe them more, but maybe they owe society more as well.  How many of these young men worked hard in school, took a crappy low paying job and got up and went to it every day anyhow.  How many turned to a life of drugs and crime because it was easy.  How much can you help someone who won't help themselves.  I think that's what this situation illustrates more than anything is the breakdown of society and who is owed what, by whom in that "contract of society"
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: 327 on April 29, 2015, 10:21:22 PM
I missed the part where we passed a death penalty for drug dealing.  If laws count, then they do.  There's no picky-choosy.  That's what this is all about.   

And there is no way I'm ever walking into an impoverished neighborhood and thinking that they owe me more.  That would be... no.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 30, 2015, 12:57:18 AM
THIS JUST IN: Rand Paul blames violent crime on absentee fathers!

RELATED: Rand Paul's drunk son arrested for airport assault.

Oops....
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Cleburger on April 30, 2015, 01:06:04 AM
THIS JUST IN: Rand Paul blames violent crime on absentee fathers!

RELATED: Rand Paul's drunk son arrested for airport assault.

Oops....

Funny...but true.   Paul could be very effective by illustrating his theory has nothing to do with race.  And black children are overwhelmingly more likely to grow up with no consistent presence of their fathers in their lives.   
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on April 30, 2015, 06:25:05 AM
Are children raised by lesbian mothers more prone to crime?  I honestly don't know, but I would be surprised if that is true

The issue IMO has more to do with teen pregnancy than 'absentee fathers' and right now we are experiencing a time in which the age group most prone to crime during any era was born during the time when teen pregnancy had spiked.  I'd also think that a lot of the absentee fathers wouldn't have made good dads.  A bad, abusive dad is worse than no dad.

As for the cops being fed up with repeat drug offenders, I agree.  Even more reason to stop this destructive "war"
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 30, 2015, 07:52:11 AM
Powerful, TIME. http://t.co/hERLY1g496 http://t.co/eQxpLuk7kE
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on April 30, 2015, 08:11:52 AM
Baltimore may explode again on Friday - medical examiner is going to announce that Freddy Gray snapped his own neck while struggling in the back of the police van.  Police will be acquitted.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on April 30, 2015, 08:16:27 AM
^Source?

I didn't realize the cops had even been charged, much less indicted.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Urbanophile on April 30, 2015, 08:49:49 AM
^^ Do you have any sources for that, gottaplan? I'm not a medical expert in the least, but it seems pretty crazy that he snapped his own neck. I'm sure it's possible, but it's a little hard to believe.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on April 30, 2015, 08:57:23 AM
^^ Do you have any sources for that, gottaplan? I'm not a medical expert in the least, but it seems pretty crazy that he snapped his own neck. I'm sure it's possible, but it's a little hard to believe.

It is bizarre that a person could do such a thing.  I was on a conf call this morning with an attorney in Baltimore - he's close to some contacts at Baltimore City Hall.  Not a hard fact yet but he seemed pretty sure the cops were not going to be charged and medical evidence was strong enough to show what had happened
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on April 30, 2015, 09:14:04 AM
All the medical evidence has to do is cast some doubt on what happened to prevent criminal charges from being filed against the cops.  Administrative charges on the other hand.... they are probably justified given that he was not properly restrained, which seems to have been a regular practice for the Baltimore PD..... some kind of twisted punishment for those who they didn't like.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on April 30, 2015, 09:34:28 AM
CNN reporting another prisoner who was in the van said Freddy Gray was trying to injure himself 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on April 30, 2015, 09:35:52 AM
^^ Do you have any sources for that, gottaplan? I'm not a medical expert in the least, but it seems pretty crazy that he snapped his own neck. I'm sure it's possible, but it's a little hard to believe.

It is bizarre that a person could do such a thing.  I was on a conf call this morning with an attorney in Baltimore - he's close to some contacts at Baltimore City Hall.  Not a hard fact yet but he seemed pretty sure the cops were not going to be charged and medical evidence was strong enough to show what had happened

Between that and the witness report, yeah that's conclusive.  It was negligence, not (provably) malice.   Administrative discipline, but not criminal charges.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Cleburger on April 30, 2015, 10:28:46 AM
On a more local note, what's the over/under on Michael Brelo being acquitted?   I've been so busy I have had time to closely follow.   
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on April 30, 2015, 09:23:16 PM
Sounds like recent violence in Ferguson and Baltimore may actually be the result of younger, more radical leaders. Not a good sign for a peaceful response to police violence...

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/rise_of_the_new_black_radicals_20150426
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on May 01, 2015, 09:15:35 AM
This might calm things...

NOW: All 6 #Baltimore officers charged in the death of #FreddieGray.
@nbcwashington
http://t.co/33rDHOFCXk
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 01, 2015, 09:20:20 AM
^Is that 'conclusive'? ;)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Ram23 on May 01, 2015, 09:47:49 AM
^Is that 'conclusive'? ;)

No, and I feel that given these charges the best the prosecution can hope for is a plea deal of some sort, though I highly doubt the cops are going to plea to any jail time whatsoever. These seem to be trumped up charges, and it makes me think this is nothing but bread and circuses to keep the rioters calm for the time being. The AD seemed to really love the spotlight, though. It's been awhile since I've seen that type of grandstanding.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 01, 2015, 09:56:23 AM
Did you not watch the Ferguson Prosecutor's primetime address?

You think the purpose of these charges are to keep the rioters calm?  Seriously?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: 327 on May 01, 2015, 10:07:24 AM
^Is that 'conclusive'? ;)

No, and I feel that given these charges the best the prosecution can hope for is a plea deal of some sort, though I highly doubt the cops are going to plea to any jail time whatsoever. These seem to be trumped up charges, and it makes me think this is nothing but bread and circuses to keep the rioters calm for the time being. The AD seemed to really love the spotlight, though. It's been awhile since I've seen that type of grandstanding.

Under similar circumstances, I'm not sure you or I would have any shot at a plea deal.  Causing grievous bodily harm is a 2nd degree felony in Ohio.  We'd be looking at 2-8, and that's if he lived.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Ram23 on May 01, 2015, 10:08:21 AM
Did you not watch the Ferguson Prosecutor's primetime address?

You think the purpose of these charges are to keep the rioters calm?  Seriously?

No to the first question, Ferguson contained to drag on for too long and I stopped paying attention, much like I'll do to this Baltimore situation over the next few days.

Though the prosecutor here seems to feel these charges are legit, I think it is the systematic equivalent of quelling the masses. Utilize a gung-ho prosecutor to deliver exactly what the public is rioting for, knowing almost full well that the charges aren't going to last. The state representative I heard on NPR this morning almost hinted at that.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 01, 2015, 10:16:25 AM
So the prosecutor feels the charges filed are legit but filed them simply to quiet the rioters knowing they won't last?  Ummmm...... ok

To be clear, 'trumping up' charges, even on police, is fairly routine.  It gives the prosecutor room to bargain for a plea deal.  But I think, as usual, everyone is rushing to judgment.  Let the process play out.  There is already a ton of misinformation out there, such as the false reports of a witness account which the conservative media is treating as 'conclusive', and the police have been relatively quiet.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Ram23 on May 01, 2015, 10:21:17 AM
So the prosecutor feels the charges filed are legit but filed them simply to quiet the rioters knowing they won't last?  Ummmm...... ok

Sorry, I thought I had made my point more clear - the state is glad to have this prosecutor because the result is the people get exactly what they want, and the chance for riots diminishes (at least in the mean time). She's more or less a pawn that was located in a very convenient spot.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 01, 2015, 11:03:10 AM
What makes you have such suspicion about this prosecutor?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Whipjacka on May 01, 2015, 11:04:39 AM
So the prosecutor feels the charges filed are legit but filed them simply to quiet the rioters knowing they won't last?  Ummmm...... ok

To be clear, 'trumping up' charges, even on police, is fairly routine.  It gives the prosecutor room to bargain for a plea deal.  But I think, as usual, everyone is rushing to judgment.  Let the process play out.  There is already a ton of misinformation out there, such as the false reports of a witness account which the conservative media is treating as 'conclusive', and the police have been relatively quiet.

wasn't the false witness account from the Washington Post?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on May 01, 2015, 11:11:01 AM
^Is that 'conclusive'? ;)

No, and I feel that given these charges the best the prosecution can hope for is a plea deal of some sort, though I highly doubt the cops are going to plea to any jail time whatsoever. These seem to be trumped up charges, and it makes me think this is nothing but bread and circuses to keep the rioters calm for the time being. The AD seemed to really love the spotlight, though. It's been awhile since I've seen that type of grandstanding.

From what I heard of the press conference, it seemed like a laundry list of very clear procedural violations. So I'm not sure how much you can "trump" those up.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 01, 2015, 12:09:25 PM
wasn't the false witness account from the Washington Post?

Reported by the Washington Post.  Treated as 'conclusive' evidence by the conservative media.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Ram23 on May 01, 2015, 12:56:19 PM
wasn't the false witness account from the Washington Post?

Reported by the Washington Post.  Treated as 'conclusive' evidence by the conservative media.

The guy changed his story now that the police are using him as a witness for their version of events. He's on the record saying he fears for his life - he's afraid members of the community will kill him, so he's reneging his original statement. It's a classic case of "snitches get stitches." As much as you want to distrust the original statement, the fact that the narrative is being changed now is absurd.

I don't think anyone considers the statement to be "conclusive," in fact far from it, the question is does it contribute to reasonable doubt? For second-degree depraved heart murder I'd say it does, which is why I think the charges are trumped.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 01, 2015, 01:04:45 PM
The guy changed his story now that the police are using him as a witness for their version of events. He's on the record saying he fears for his life - he's afraid members of the community will kill him, so he's reneging his original statement. It's a classic case of "snitches get stitches." As much as you want to distrust the original statement, the fact that the narrative is being changed now is absurd.

I don't distrust anything.  I am just going off what he actually said, not the hearsay of what he supposedly said.  Regardless, what he would say either way doesn't seem to have much probative value since there was a partition between him and Gray so he couldn't see anything.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on May 01, 2015, 01:09:14 PM
wasn't the false witness account from the Washington Post?

Reported by the Washington Post.  Treated as 'conclusive' evidence by the conservative media.

Wait & see what else comes out.  If the guy was whacking his head against the inside of the police van, should be some pretty clear evidence of that...
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on May 01, 2015, 01:13:08 PM
wasn't the false witness account from the Washington Post?

Reported by the Washington Post.  Treated as 'conclusive' evidence by the conservative media.

Wait & see what else comes out.  If the guy was whacking his head against the inside of the police van, should be some pretty clear evidence of that...

Plausible scenario: he continued to have trouble breathing and was desperately flailing around in a panic.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: SixthCity on May 01, 2015, 02:01:57 PM
Here's the other prisoner speaking about his ride in the paddy wagon.

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh83N0kpgh5taX6h6N
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 01, 2015, 02:18:24 PM
Wait & see what else comes out.  If the guy was whacking his head against the inside of the police van, should be some pretty clear evidence of that...

Of course.... we are all in 'wait & see' mode..... which is why I was critical of anyone thinking that any conclusions can be drawn with the limited information available to the public.

But on your second point, I'm not so sure about that.  I don't know how it would/could be determined that the injuries were self-inflicted.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: 327 on May 01, 2015, 04:02:02 PM
I'm not sure how whacking your own head in a van could damage your spine anyway, let alone kill you.  That doesn't even begin to sound rational.  And even if it's absolute fact, it's not a legal defense.  It just means they abused an insane person.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on May 01, 2015, 04:54:35 PM
Meanwhile you have stuff like this from people of authority.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/28953864/wayne-county-assist-prosecutor-resigns-after-controversial-facebook-post
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on May 01, 2015, 07:06:18 PM
Meanwhile you have stuff like this from people of authority.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/28953864/wayne-county-assist-prosecutor-resigns-after-controversial-facebook-post
"...15 in the hospital already. Solution. Simple. Shoot em. Period. End of discussion. I don't care what causes the protestors to turn violent...what the 'they did it because' reason is...no way is this acceptable. Flipping disgusting."

I think it's ironic that she openly endorsed shooting people, then used the benign, Ned Flanders term "flipping" as if in fear of using a curse word.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on May 01, 2015, 08:57:17 PM
Seen on Twitter...

@rustbeltrants When the Bloods and Crips can get along and get sh!t done but our Congress can't agree on a single godd@mned thing, there is a big problem.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on May 02, 2015, 08:57:01 AM
15 Baltimore neighborhoods have lower life expectancies than North Korea http://t.co/DXRDqZEzfL http://t.co/c5eDEXu4A0
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on May 02, 2015, 09:35:18 AM
Three of the six officers charged are black.   One, the sergeant involved, is a black woman. 

This goes back to the idea that things like this are cultural, not racial. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Cleburger on May 02, 2015, 10:10:30 AM
Three of the six officers charged are black.   One, the sergeant involved, is a black woman. 

This goes back to the idea that things like this are cultural, not racial. 

I saw this too--but also saw the charges against the 6 range from plain old felony assault to murder.   Anyone know who got what charge?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on May 02, 2015, 11:02:53 AM
Three of the six officers charged are black.   One, the sergeant involved, is a black woman. 

This goes back to the idea that things like this are cultural, not racial. 

I saw this too--but also saw the charges against the 6 range from plain old felony assault to murder.   Anyone know who got what charge?

The driver (black) got the 2nd degree murder charge, but there is allegedly audio of him asking the other officers to secure Gray.

This was rushed through.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on May 02, 2015, 01:25:17 PM

This was rushed through.[/color]
The charges? Or not securing the prisoner?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on May 04, 2015, 04:21:43 AM

This was rushed through.[/color]
The charges? Or not securing the prisoner?

Well, both really.

But primarily the charges.  This looks more like negligence than malice.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 04, 2015, 06:27:27 AM
So then you agree with at least some of the charges.....
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on May 04, 2015, 06:36:26 AM
The only thing that will save these guys is a sustained denial that rough rides exist, and then we will know the true nature of the Baltimore police.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on May 04, 2015, 06:56:24 AM
So then you agree with at least some of the charges.....

The ones involving negligence have merit.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on May 04, 2015, 08:36:48 AM
Going to be an interesting trial.  Plenty of evidence yet to come out on how he was initially injured, why he was apprehended/arrested, how he was secured in the van, how/when he was likely injured.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on May 04, 2015, 08:40:25 AM
There was another guy in that van but he didn't get hurt.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 04, 2015, 08:54:20 AM
So then you agree with at least some of the charges.....

The ones involving negligence have merit.

Neither you nor I have seen the evidence, so it is hard to make that call at this juncture.  I am not even sure if those charges you would agree have merit.... involuntary manslaughter, second degree assault, (perhaps) misconduct in office....... do indeed have the proper evidentiary basis.  The grand jury will vet the charges, but that won't be in a public forum.

I think the important thing, which everyone, no matter how you lean on the issue of police use of force, should appreciate is that the evidence will be closely examined in the proper forum.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 04, 2015, 08:58:13 AM
There was another guy in that van but he didn't get hurt.

I'm not sure whether that other prisoner, who was placed on the other side of the partition, was secured or how he was shackled.  At least some media outlets are reporting that sources have told them Gray was already unconscious by the time this other prisoner was loaded in the van...... which would infer that the other prisoner was not aboard for the "rough ride" given to Gray, if there indeed was one.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on May 04, 2015, 10:33:17 AM
the "rough ride" scenario seems hard to understand.  Perhaps I've never been in shackled in a paddy wagon, but if you were and not restrained, the first turn you fell on your face, what then?  you rolled around on the floor?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on May 04, 2015, 10:53:05 AM
the "rough ride" scenario seems hard to understand.  Perhaps I've never been in shackled in a paddy wagon, but if you were and not restrained, the first turn you fell on your face, what then?  you rolled around on the floor?

I'm guessing sliding around is more like it.

note: rode in back of moving truck before
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on May 04, 2015, 02:07:03 PM
It's possible that the prosecutor did to the charged officers here what prosecutors do far too often to all other defendants (sympathetic or otherwise), which is to overcharge in anticipation of plea negotiations.  I could enjoy a moment of Schadenfreude, but overcharging remains a serious issue (and I said as much earlier on this thread when it was still just the Ferguson thread) and I hate to see it anywhere.

But I agree with E Rocc that the negligent homicide charges seem much more likely to stick.  And who knows?  Maybe there is even more evidence yet to come to light that will actually justify the harsher charges (not that negligent homicide lacks teeth, of course--it's still a major felony, to put it mildly).
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Brutus_buckeye on May 04, 2015, 02:34:36 PM
I would hate to see what the rioting is going to be like if these officers are found not guilty or if they are only convicted on a minor offense.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 04, 2015, 02:58:05 PM
I would guess the greatest threat of rioting would have been if they were not charged at all, without sufficient explanation.  What the City does while the charges are pending, in terms of correcting some poor police practices, might make a world of difference in how the public reacts to the outcome
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on May 10, 2015, 07:21:27 PM
Over 2K people brought to Baltimore city jail 2012-2015 with injuries too severe to be admitted, records show: http://t.co/MA36Wap7TN
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on May 18, 2015, 12:04:10 PM
The Cleveland Post ‏@ClevelandPost  31s31 seconds ago
"you wouldn't stop me if I was a polar bear"
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-inodqIcAAOs7i.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on May 18, 2015, 01:43:29 PM
Obama Limits Military-Style Equipment for Police Forces

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/us/politics/obama-to-limit-military-style-equipment-for-police-forces.html?_r=0

Still leaves a lot on the table in terms of available military-style equipment, but it's nice to see some of the worst offenders (no pun intended) getting taken off the menu.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on May 18, 2015, 01:44:47 PM
Obama Limits Military-Style Equipment for Police Forces

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/us/politics/obama-to-limit-military-style-equipment-for-police-forces.html?_r=0

Still leaves a lot on the table in terms of available military-style equipment, but it's nice to see some of the worst offenders (no pun intended) getting taken off the menu.

There's some speculation one of the goals here is to lay the groundwork for a federal police force.   
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on May 18, 2015, 01:45:51 PM
There's some speculation one of the goals here is to lay the groundwork for a federal police force.   

 :roll:
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 18, 2015, 01:48:06 PM
Don't roll your eyes.  You know we've been discussing that in our meetings for weeks now.  Only reason the process has been slowed is because too many resources have been directed to Jade Helm 15
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on May 18, 2015, 02:07:08 PM
With the country's federal law enforcement apparatuses lost to the cause of "homeland security" a new agency would be sensible. The FBI is way too busy providing material support to terrorists.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on May 18, 2015, 02:09:18 PM
Obama Limits Military-Style Equipment for Police Forces

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/us/politics/obama-to-limit-military-style-equipment-for-police-forces.html?_r=0

Still leaves a lot on the table in terms of available military-style equipment, but it's nice to see some of the worst offenders (no pun intended) getting taken off the menu.

There's some speculation one of the goals here is to lay the groundwork for a federal police force.   

Heh.  There's pushing in the other direction, too, though it has lost its legal argument for the moment.  But a Nevada family actually attempted to raise a Third Amendment issue when municipal police occupied her home for nine hours to gain a tactical advantage over suspected criminals in a neighboring house.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/23/federal-court-rejects-third-amendment-claim-against-police-officers/

The key questions in the almost-never-litigated Third Amendment are (a) what counts as a "soldier" and (b) what counts as "quartering."  While the judge held categorically that police are not soldiers and also indicated that if he reached the issue of what counts as quartering, that taking over someone's home for nine hours would not quality, as you can see, at least one Washington Post blogger thinks that it's at least an interesting enough question to warrant discussion.  In the time of the Founding, there was no separate municipal police force, so the police-soldier distinction is a new element in the analysis and it's at least possible that some modern police forces have sufficient characteristics of Founding-era soldiers to be considered "soldiers" in Third Amendment language.  As for quartering, I have to admit that I share Prof. Somin's view that it looks like quartering, if only for a brief time, which is still forbidden just like brief restrictions on constitutionally protected speech are still banned.  There are no minimum-threshold exceptions in the Bill of Rights.  Also, while Somin didn't mention it, I'm skeptical of the judge's thought that the Fourth Amendment is the better vehicle for protecting the homeowners here, because everyone agrees that the police weren't searching for anything in the occupied home; you don't get a warrant to go look for a good lookout post in someone else's home, that's not what it's for.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: StapHanger on May 18, 2015, 02:35:16 PM
^Why isn't the 5th Amendment an even better vehicle? Sounds like a temporary taking more than anything.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 18, 2015, 02:40:07 PM
Fun exercise with self-proclaimed "2nd Amendment believers" is to ask them what the 3rd Amendment says.....
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Gramarye on May 18, 2015, 02:49:10 PM
In fairness, I doubt their ignorance of its text is any higher than that of the general population's.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: GCrites80s on May 18, 2015, 04:03:09 PM
But they claim to know a lot more about the document than the general population.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: jmecklenborg on May 18, 2015, 05:07:17 PM
When I listen to extreme right wing talk radio like Mark Levine there are advertisements for "pocket constitutions".  They're definitely trying to posit the U.S. Constitution in the same league as The Holy Bible. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on May 18, 2015, 05:12:56 PM
When I listen to extreme right wing talk radio like Mark Levine there are advertisements for "pocket constitutions".  They're definitely trying to posit the U.S. Constitution in the same league as The Holy Bible. 

Scary stuff.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: 327 on May 18, 2015, 06:17:14 PM
Most of them would prefer a pocket Articles of Confederation, if they knew what that was.  The more they learn about America, i.e. the federal system, the more they hate it.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on May 18, 2015, 08:51:40 PM
Sent to me by a police officer who wrote "pretty hard to justify the disparity"...

Why race is the main reason the murderous bloodbath in Waco was handled with velvet gloves http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/18/1385588/-Why-race-is-the-main-reason-the-murderous-bloodbath-in-Waco-was-romanticized-w-velvet-gloves
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on May 19, 2015, 04:55:31 AM
Fun exercise with self-proclaimed "2nd Amendment believers" is to ask them what the 3rd Amendment says.....

Quartering troops in houses, and no I did not look it up.

It's actually been an issue with some "drug war" stakeout situations.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on May 19, 2015, 04:56:42 AM
When I listen to extreme right wing talk radio like Mark Levine there are advertisements for "pocket constitutions".  They're definitely trying to posit the U.S. Constitution in the same league as The Holy Bible. 

In this nation, it is.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: MyTwoSense on May 19, 2015, 07:46:08 AM
Fun exercise with self-proclaimed "2nd Amendment believers" is to ask them what the 3rd Amendment says.....

Quartering troops in houses, and no I did not look it up.

It's actually been an issue with some "drug war" stakeout situations.

You can see the difference in how white that "rampage" and people of color "march" are perceived different.  Where was the riot gear?   Where was the national guard? Where were the armored vehicles?  Where are the white people complaining about the white community and how they need to step up and "act" right?  Why are these people NOT considered a threat?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 19, 2015, 08:03:35 AM
^I think you are responding to the wrong post there.

What I found amusing yesterday was turning on Fox News and watching it for about 30 minutes without one mention of the "thug" riot in Waco.  Had this involved people of color, it would have been wall-to-wall coverage and hysteria.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Ram23 on May 19, 2015, 08:25:26 AM
Sent to me by a police officer who wrote "pretty hard to justify the disparity"...

Why race is the main reason the murderous bloodbath in Waco was handled with velvet gloves http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/18/1385588/-Why-race-is-the-main-reason-the-murderous-bloodbath-in-Waco-was-romanticized-w-velvet-gloves

Are people really that blinded by race that they don’t see what the actual disparity is? For a lawless motorcycle gang, they seem to be peacefully surrendered to the authorities. There was a shootout, at which no bystanders or police were injured. That’s a big difference between what happened in Baltimore, were police were directly targeted, as were bystanders, with the major crime being wide scale property damage and looting. I’m the last one to suggest submission to authorities, but when you’re caught red-handed, it’s probably best to comply and lawyer up later. That is what the majority in Waco did, while the majority in Baltimore did the exact opposite.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on May 19, 2015, 08:28:29 AM
^I think you are responding to the wrong post there.

What I found amusing yesterday was turning on Fox News and watching it for about 30 minutes without one mention of the "thug" riot in Waco.  Had this involved people of color, it would have been wall-to-wall coverage and hysteria.

It was top story across every morning news program today - ABC, CBS, NBC... 

And it wasn't really a "riot".  It was an organized fight/attack on other bikers, not on police or public property or innocent civilians.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: SixthCity on May 19, 2015, 08:33:45 AM
Had this involved people of color, it would have been wall-to-wall coverage and hysteria.

It's all I've heard about since it happened.  Twitter won't shut up.

Also, I'm confused by the stream of claims that everyone's going easy on the biker gangs.  Everytime I've read something they've been referred to as criminal gangs and thugs...not misunderstood heroes or whatever else.  Also, all 170 of them were charged with participation in a criminal gang connected to capital murder and all were held on $1 million bond, individually.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on May 19, 2015, 08:38:02 AM
^I think you are responding to the wrong post there.

What I found amusing yesterday was turning on Fox News and watching it for about 30 minutes without one mention of the "thug" riot in Waco.  Had this involved people of color, it would have been wall-to-wall coverage and hysteria.

You must not have been watching one of their news programs, probably just an opinion show. You wouldn't admit that anyway.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 19, 2015, 09:05:03 AM
^I don't know what qualifies as a news show and what qualifies as an opinion show on Fox, but it was mid-day during my lunch break that I watched.  The topic of conversation was all about Hillary Clinton and then the discussion turned to some high school student who was told he couldn't fly the American Flag from the back of his truck.  Not a peep about Waco.

^^I wasn't commenting on the law enforcement response or attitude of the general public towards it.

It was top story across every morning news program today - ABC, CBS, NBC... 

And it wasn't really a "riot".  It was an organized fight/attack on other bikers, not on police or public property or innocent civilians.

Of course it was a top story on the major broadcast networks.  It was very newsworthy.  My comment was limited to FNC.  And if that wasn't a riot, I don't know what is.  I would bet the employees at that restaurant where the fracas started have a different perspective than you.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: GCrites80s on May 19, 2015, 09:22:01 AM
Fun exercise with self-proclaimed "2nd Amendment believers" is to ask them what the 3rd Amendment says.....

Quartering troops in houses, and no I did not look it up.

It's actually been an issue with some "drug war" stakeout situations.

You can see the difference in how white that "rampage" and people of color "march" are perceived different.  Where was the riot gear?   Where was the national guard? Where were the armored vehicles?  Where are the white people complaining about the white community and how they need to step up and "act" right?  Why are these people NOT considered a threat?

They are indeed considered a threat. White people, including the media, are terrified of bikers. There's always the perception that they are going to "come get you" and that they're all DGAFs. They're seen as a closer, more vengeful threat than minorities.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: MyTwoSense on May 19, 2015, 09:25:17 AM
Fun exercise with self-proclaimed "2nd Amendment believers" is to ask them what the 3rd Amendment says.....

Quartering troops in houses, and no I did not look it up.

It's actually been an issue with some "drug war" stakeout situations.

You can see the difference in how white that "rampage" and people of color "march" are perceived different.  Where was the riot gear?   Where was the national guard? Where were the armored vehicles?  Where are the white people complaining about the white community and how they need to step up and "act" right?  Why are these people NOT considered a threat?

They are indeed considered a threat. White people, including the media, are terrified of bikers. There's always the perception that they are going to "come get you" and that they're all DGAFs. They're seen as a closer, more vengeful threat than minorities.

OK.  They when are they treated different from protestors?  If that was a black group, I can guarantee the way this would be approached would be very different manner.  The double standard is obvious!
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 19, 2015, 09:38:42 AM
And it wasn't really a "riot".  It was an organized fight/attack on other bikers, not on police or public property or innocent civilians.

An altercation in the bathroom seems to have sparked the violence. Shots were fired inside the eatery and a brawl spilled onto the patio area, before scores of men flooded the parking lot in broad daylight. Some bikers were beaten with brass knuckles, clubs and chains, while others were stabbed or shot, Swanton said.

When police responded -- within 30 to 45 seconds because of their proximity -- the bikers turned their weapons on law enforcement, he said.

"Our officers took fire and responded appropriately, returning fire," the sergeant said.

* * * * *

Swanton called it "the most violent and gruesome scene that I have dealt with" in three and a half decades of law enforcement.


http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/18/us/texas-biker-gang-brawl-shooting/index.html
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on May 19, 2015, 09:42:00 AM
^I don't know what qualifies as a news show and what qualifies as an opinion show on Fox, but it was mid-day during my lunch break that I watched.  The topic of conversation was all about Hillary Clinton and then the discussion turned to some high school student who was told he couldn't fly the American Flag from the back of his truck.  Not a peep about Waco.

^^I wasn't commenting on the law enforcement response or attitude of the general public towards it.

It was top story across every morning news program today - ABC, CBS, NBC... 

And it wasn't really a "riot".  It was an organized fight/attack on other bikers, not on police or public property or innocent civilians.

Of course it was a top story on the major broadcast networks.  It was very newsworthy.  My comment was limited to FNC.  And if that wasn't a riot, I don't know what is.  I would bet the employees at that restaurant where the fracas started have a different perspective than you.

Yeah well they didn't loot the property or burn the place down so I guess that's the difference in whether or not it's classified as a "riot"
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: GCrites80s on May 19, 2015, 09:54:25 AM
Fun exercise with self-proclaimed "2nd Amendment believers" is to ask them what the 3rd Amendment says.....

Quartering troops in houses, and no I did not look it up.

It's actually been an issue with some "drug war" stakeout situations.

You can see the difference in how white that "rampage" and people of color "march" are perceived different.  Where was the riot gear?   Where was the national guard? Where were the armored vehicles?  Where are the white people complaining about the white community and how they need to step up and "act" right?  Why are these people NOT considered a threat?

They are indeed considered a threat. White people, including the media, are terrified of bikers. There's always the perception that they are going to "come get you" and that they're all DGAFs. They're seen as a closer, more vengeful threat than minorities.

OK.  They when are they treated different from protestors?  If that was a black group, I can guarantee the way this would be approached would be very different manner.  The double standard is obvious!

The cops are more scared of bikers than protesters. But I can see a difference in the types of bikes owned. If it was a group of black sportbike owners it would probably be handled differently than a group of black Harley riders in that the sportbikers would be handled more violently. The sportbikers would be called "thugs" whereas the Harley riders "badasses".
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 19, 2015, 10:03:55 AM
Yeah well they didn't loot the property or burn the place down so I guess that's the difference in whether or not it's classified as a "riot"

Yeah well your definition of riot is different from the legal definitions or most standard definitions of the term. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Cleburger on May 19, 2015, 10:54:02 AM
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.   

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/texas-biker-gang-gun-bloodbath-5716244

From this news outlet, you can clearly see the aftermath photos where at least one cop ran home to don his camouflage uniform (a necessity after a shoot out at Bed, Bath & Beyond).    It's about the same as Baltimore, without the Bed, Bath & Beyond.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: MyTwoSense on May 19, 2015, 11:11:27 AM
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.   

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/texas-biker-gang-gun-bloodbath-5716244

From this news outlet, you can clearly see the aftermath photos where at least one cop ran home to don his camouflage uniform (a necessity after a shoot out at Bed, Bath & Beyond).    It's about the same as Baltimore, without the Bed, Bath & Beyond.

The Mirror is worst than the National Enquiror or NY Daily News.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Cleburger on May 19, 2015, 11:16:40 AM
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.   

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/texas-biker-gang-gun-bloodbath-5716244

From this news outlet, you can clearly see the aftermath photos where at least one cop ran home to don his camouflage uniform (a necessity after a shoot out at Bed, Bath & Beyond).    It's about the same as Baltimore, without the Bed, Bath & Beyond.

The Mirror is worst than the National Enquiror or NY Daily News.

Don't read too much into the source.  I just used it for the pictures.  (facepalm)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: MyTwoSense on May 19, 2015, 11:44:17 AM
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.   

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/texas-biker-gang-gun-bloodbath-5716244

From this news outlet, you can clearly see the aftermath photos where at least one cop ran home to don his camouflage uniform (a necessity after a shoot out at Bed, Bath & Beyond).    It's about the same as Baltimore, without the Bed, Bath & Beyond.

The Mirror is worst than the National Enquiror or NY Daily News.

Don't read too much into the source.  I just used it for the pictures.  (facepalm)
I would not suggest using the mirror as a "credible" source.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: SixthCity on May 19, 2015, 11:50:31 AM
The Mirror photoshopped the pictures. /s
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: MyTwoSense on May 19, 2015, 12:19:12 PM
anywhooo...Where are these bikers parents?  What do you do with thuggish biker/WT culture?  What would Reverend Jonathan Gentry say about this?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on May 19, 2015, 12:21:40 PM
I know you can tell the difference, but its okay if you want to pretend.  These weren't 14 and 15 year old boys who need parents. 

Not everyone is condoning what they did, but at least it didn't spread out into the street.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: SixthCity on May 19, 2015, 12:28:55 PM
anywhooo...Where are these bikers parents?  What do you do with thuggish biker/WT culture?  What would Reverend Jonathan Gentry say about this?

Condemn it/them.  I'm yet to see anyone make excuses or call for sympathy for the behavior of criminal biker gangs. 

I'm yet to see anyone do anything other than condemn them.  And I'm yet to see anyone talk about the shooting as anything other than what it was - a gangland style shoot out.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: MyTwoSense on May 19, 2015, 12:32:09 PM
I know you can tell the difference, but its okay if you want to pretend.  These weren't 14 and 15 year old boys who need parents. 

Not everyone is condoning what they did, but at least it didn't spread out into the street.

No this is a bunch of hoodlums who felt as though they were above the law.

It's time for white Americans to speak out and condemn what took place.

White on White crime is overwhelming and destroying great communities in America.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: SixthCity on May 19, 2015, 12:46:30 PM
White on White crime is overwhelming and destroying great communities in America.

I started seeing the "where's the outrage over white on white crime" thing pop up, particularly on Twitter, and I first thought it was just tongue and cheek.  Now it appears there actually some confusion.

The phrase and concern for "black on black crime" did not come about due to the mere racial relationship between aggressor and victim.  The vast majority of crime is intraracial.  The concern for black on black crime is the astronomical disproportionate instances of black on black violent crime as related to the instances of all such crime and the size of the black population.  Black on black violence ,particularly among young men, is astonishingly prevlant.  The causes for this are an entirely different debate.  But that's where the term and the concern comes from.  I never really understood the push to marginalize or mock the discussion of this.  It seems this is where our society's efforts should be directed.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 19, 2015, 01:30:44 PM
at least it didn't spread out into the street.

Actually, it did spill out onto the street. It was there that the weapons were turned on the police

Victims of brutal beatings were found in the surrounding area as well
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on May 19, 2015, 01:36:32 PM
The manager who repeatedly allowed the gangs to meet up there must be a real piece of work. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on May 19, 2015, 02:26:00 PM
Official Russian news coverage...

Waco shootout: Media & cops treat whites better than blacks, Twittersphere claims http://t.co/GxAQqgF9Q6 http://t.co/hR1ZgTA7Bv
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on May 19, 2015, 03:59:20 PM
Official Russian news coverage...

Waco shootout: Media & cops treat whites better than blacks, Twittersphere claims http://t.co/GxAQqgF9Q6 http://t.co/hR1ZgTA7Bv

Well then it must be true.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on May 19, 2015, 04:01:24 PM
at least it didn't spread out into the street.

Actually, it did spill out onto the street. It was there that the weapons were turned on the police

Victims of brutal beatings were found in the surrounding area as well

I'll be like you,  what I meant to say was they didn't go out into the street and attack others not involved, nor did they burn down other businesses.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 19, 2015, 04:08:22 PM
Dont be so sensitive
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Clevelander17 on May 19, 2015, 04:35:30 PM
Not to make light of any of the recent violent news stories, but I was thinking just the other day that this biker story sounds like a true-to-life version of something that could have happened in Sons of Anarchy, and the Baltimore protests/riots sounds like something that could have happened in The Wire.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on May 19, 2015, 08:41:08 PM
Don Lemon of CNN covering this alleged double standard right now. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: MyTwoSense on May 20, 2015, 06:01:45 AM
White on White crime is overwhelming and destroying great communities in America.

I started seeing the "where's the outrage over white on white crime" thing pop up, particularly on Twitter, and I first thought it was just tongue and cheek.  Now it appears there actually some confusion.

The phrase and concern for "black on black crime" did not come about due to the mere racial relationship between aggressor and victim.  The vast majority of crime is intraracial.  The concern for black on black crime is the astronomical disproportionate instances of black on black violent crime as related to the instances of all such crime and the size of the black population.  Black on black violence ,particularly among young men, is astonishingly prevlant.  The causes for this are an entirely different debate.  But that's where the term and the concern comes from.  I never really understood the push to marginalize or mock the discussion of this.  It seems this is where our society's efforts should be directed.

Inter-racial?

I feel as though these are perceptions, not reality.

According to 2011 FBI stats:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6#disablemobile

I'm not marginalizing anything, I just want to show how the various groups are shown and treated.  There is a huge and obvious difference.

When POC are shown to have commit a crime, people look at upbringing, social status, residency, education, etc.  And they are always assumed to be the lowest of the low.  Double standard. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 20, 2015, 08:19:33 AM
Of course there are different characteristics to a riot when one stems from perceived (real or not) systemic injustice and the other stems from a foot getting run over.  And I, for one, do not see a double standard in law enforcement response.  What I do see a double standard in is the public perception and media coverage of the two different events.  In only one is a certain so-called "community" (the black community) blamed and expected to 'step up'.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: jam40jeff on May 20, 2015, 09:02:17 AM
White on White crime is overwhelming and destroying great communities in America.

I started seeing the "where's the outrage over white on white crime" thing pop up, particularly on Twitter, and I first thought it was just tongue and cheek.  Now it appears there actually some confusion.

The phrase and concern for "black on black crime" did not come about due to the mere racial relationship between aggressor and victim.  The vast majority of crime is intraracial.  The concern for black on black crime is the astronomical disproportionate instances of black on black violent crime as related to the instances of all such crime and the size of the black population.  Black on black violence ,particularly among young men, is astonishingly prevlant.  The causes for this are an entirely different debate.  But that's where the term and the concern comes from.  I never really understood the push to marginalize or mock the discussion of this.  It seems this is where our society's efforts should be directed.

Inter-racial?

I feel as though these are perceptions, not reality.

According to 2011 FBI stats:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6#disablemobile

I'm not marginalizing anything, I just want to show how the various groups are shown and treated.  There is a huge and obvious difference.

When POC are shown to have commit a crime, people look at upbringing, social status, residency, education, etc.  And they are always assumed to be the lowest of the low.  Double standard. 

MTS, you know from my discussions a while back over on the Race thread that I'm the last one to imply that there is any causality between race and crime.  However, there is definitely a correlation, and everyone here could go round and round (and has) about why that is.  (I won't get into that because it is probably more appropriate for the Race thread, and I think we beat that dead horse long ago, but my opinions probably tend to align more with you and Hts than some others.)  But I don't think it does anyone good to try and deny the correlation.  Sure, people use that correlation to try and justify or strengthen their racism, but I don't think the appropriate defense is to try to pretend it doesn't exist.  There are reasons (mostly historical and socioeconomic IMO) that things have turned out this way, and I believe we as a country as a whole, not as "our community" or "those people", should be trying to do whatever we can to make things more equal.  In order to do that, though, we have to be able to accurately identify the current situation.  And the current situation is without a doubt that black males (and especially young black males) are astronomically more likely to be involved in violent crimes, either as offenders or victims.

The stats you posted do show that there isn't a huge (although still statistically significant) disparity in the percentages of victims whose offender was of the same race.  But as SixthCity mentioned above, the reason black-on-black crime gets more attention than white-on-white crime is because of the difference in probability between a black person or a white person being on either end of the crime.  What the stats you posted also show is that there were actually more single offender/single victim murders committed by blacks in 2011 than whites, although the totals were very close.  However, there are six times as many white people in the United States as black people.  Thus, if you look at a fairly homogeneous racial community (unfortunately of which there are still too many) of 10,000 black people and a similarly sized white community, the black community will on average have 6 times as many homicides.  And this doesn't even touch on other felonies, which I believe show an even bigger disparity.  This is the reason that, even by African American leaders, there is more of a discussion of black-on-black crime than there is of white-on-white crime.

Personally, I think the bigger sign of racism among whites is the complete ignoring of black-on-black crime, as some people (especially in secluded lily white suburbs) tend to have the attitude of "who cares if they kill each other off" or the relief of "it's not near me" that is similar to how people look at killings in third world countries.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on May 20, 2015, 09:04:38 AM
Of course there are different characteristics to a riot when one stems from perceived (real or not) systemic injustice and the other stems from a foot getting run over.  And I, for one, do not see a double standard in law enforcement response.  What I do see a double standard in is the public perception and media coverage of the two different events.  In only one is a certain so-called "community" (the black community) blamed and expected to 'step up'.

I don't think the community is blamed, at least not directly.   I do believe there's a perception (real or not) that they are more likely to make excuses for rioting, or destructive behavior in general.  You don't really see white people making excuses for rioting bikers, or for that matter "our own" when they act badly.

I've noticed a real difference between white and black Christian churches, best summarized by the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin".  It seems to me that the black church emphasizes the former, the white the latter. 

This can lead to a perception that black Americans are more willing to cut black miscreants slack than white Americans are willing to cut white ones any.  I don't believe that's true, but I do see a tendency to "keep it in the family".   I don't think that's going to cut it.   

When DuBois's views prevailed over Washington's, a separatist mindset came about.   I think we've already shown that separate can't be equal.   

Ironically, an increasing number of black Americans have defected from that mindset.   They have been very welcome. I'm hoping this trend will spread, but the "talented tenth" is not.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 20, 2015, 09:30:50 AM
Maybe not excuses, but what you see more of is "kids will be kids" and "bikers will be bikers".  But, to me, it is more about what you don't see.  You don't see the anger, the hysteria, the outrage. 

my opinions probably tend to align more with you and Hts than some others

I'd say your views fall fairly firmly in line with mine, so long as you don't let others characterize what my views actually are.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: smith on May 20, 2015, 09:32:30 AM
You don't really see white people making excuses for rioting bikers, or for that matter "our own" when they act badly.


That's because the entire white race isn't condemned when white people act badly, but when black people do, the entire race is.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: jam40jeff on May 20, 2015, 09:44:23 AM
I do believe there's a perception (real or not) that they are more likely to make excuses for rioting, or destructive behavior in general.  You don't really see white people making excuses for rioting bikers, or for that matter "our own" when they act badly.

I think the perception is blown out of proportion from the reality, but even if there is some disparity there, I think it can mostly be pinned on the fact that black people make up a small percentage of the population relative to white people.  Whenever a group is a minority like that, the majority tends to "lump them together" and view them as fairly homogeneous, whereas it is almost universally understood (especially among the majority population itself) that the majority population is made up of many different subgroupings of people.  Black people know and experience this attitude every day, and it inevitably causes a more defensive reaction as criticism of anyone within their race often times means indirect criticism of themselves as well, even if they didn't participate or even agree with the actions.

EDIT: Or put more simply, what smith said. :)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on May 20, 2015, 10:01:21 AM
I do believe there's a perception (real or not) that they are more likely to make excuses for rioting, or destructive behavior in general.  You don't really see white people making excuses for rioting bikers, or for that matter "our own" when they act badly.

I think the perception is blown out of proportion from the reality, but even if there is some disparity there, I think it can mostly be pinned on the fact that black people make up a small percentage of the population relative to white people.  Whenever a group is a minority like that, the majority tends to "lump them together" and view them as fairly homogeneous, whereas it is almost universally understood (especially among the majority population itself) that the majority population is made up of many different subgroupings of people.  Black people know and experience this attitude every day, and it inevitably causes a more defensive reaction as criticism of anyone within their race often times means indirect criticism of themselves as well, even if they didn't participate or even agree with the actions.

EDIT: Or put more simply, what smith said. :)

Perhaps, though some of the mindset is internalized as well.  Other racial and religious minorities seem far less focused on their minority status.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 20, 2015, 11:12:34 AM
Perhaps, though some of the mindset is internalized as well.  Other racial and religious minorities seem far less focused on their minority status.

Perhaps, but there would be reasons for that.  More likely is that other racial and religious minorities are not focused on because of their minority status, and that is rather recent phenomenon.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Loretto on May 20, 2015, 03:35:25 PM
I kept meaning to post this article, but my ADD kept getting the better of me. Anyway, I think it might be a better representation of the minority perspective in regard to the racial bias conversation that was going on in this thread regarding the Waco gang shooting. The effort to define "riot" just seemed to take the conversation nowhere.

Media coverage of gang violence sure looks different when the perpetrators are white
Updated by Jenée Desmond-Harris on May 19, 2015, 7:00 a.m.

Over the weekend, a shootout between three rival biker gangs at a bar in Waco, Texas, left at least nine gang members dead and 18 others hospitalized with gunshot and stab wounds.

It was a huge, devastating tragedy. The New York Times reported that law enforcement sources called it "the worst violence in the Waco area since the siege on the Branch Davidian compound in 1993 that left 86 people dead."

But if you follow the social media conversations around the incident, you'll see something in addition to the predictable shock, curiosity, and mourning for the victims: there's frustration and anger over how the Waco shootout (whose perpetrators appear to be mostly white) is being talked about — and, specifically, how that contrasts with the coverage and commentary of crimes when the people involved are black.

...

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/19/8620357/waco-biker-shootout-race
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: GCrites80s on May 20, 2015, 04:12:44 PM
That "where are their fathers" stuff as it applies to the biker incident is a little different in this case. Most Harley riders are so old that their fathers have already died from being old.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: eastvillagedon on May 20, 2015, 06:38:13 PM
ummm...before everyone starts stereotyping bikers into a predetermined racial group (oops! too late), it might be worth noting that not all of the (alleged :police:) participants in the Waco incident are white. A snapshot of some of them:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8764/17728099649_134d9f2516_o.png)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on May 20, 2015, 11:03:15 PM
Why are they all not charged with murder? Because if you are in the commission of a crime and someone dies you canbe charged with murder even if you didn't do it. At least that is how it is in Ohio.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: 327 on May 21, 2015, 05:58:28 AM
Perhaps, though some of the mindset is internalized as well.  Other racial and religious minorities seem far less focused on their minority status.

Perhaps, but there would be reasons for that. 

For example, in a nod to the Constitution-carrying crowd, no other racial or religious minority has been categorized as chattel or as 3/5 of a person under American law.  Nor has any other minority borne the brunt of Police Use of Force to quite the same degree.  If they're now expected to sweep all that under the rug and suddenly pretend they've been treated the same as Koreans or something, perhaps they're not yet angry enough.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on May 21, 2015, 06:46:58 AM
Perhaps, though some of the mindset is internalized as well.  Other racial and religious minorities seem far less focused on their minority status.

Perhaps, but there would be reasons for that. 

For example, in a nod to the Constitution-carrying crowd, no other racial or religious minority has been categorized as chattel or as 3/5 of a person under American law.  Nor has any other minority borne the brunt of Police Use of Force to quite the same degree.  If they're now expected to sweep all that under the rug and suddenly pretend they've been treated the same as Koreans or something, perhaps they're not yet angry enough.

It has been 150 years since this was removed from our laws.  It’s not really relevant anymore except as an excuse.

More relevant is the Washington-DuBois debates.  Washington was actually born into slavery, but he advocated the assimilation of black Americans similar to the path immigrant groups were following, and would follow.  DuBois advocated a separate approach that would actually turn the black community into an oligarchy led by a “Talented Tenth”. 

Washington did not discount the effects of racism.  He proposed laying a groundwork that would gradually make such bigotry look ridiculous.  He even warned that DuBois’s separatist approach would lead to an “empirical basis for racism” and the development of groups that would seek to exploit rather than end racism.   He was prophetic in these regards.

This separatist mindset has much more to do with current issues facing the community than the other remnants of slavery.

Police force?   Note the crime statistical breakdowns mentioned above.  When a separatist community generates such issues, reaction and even overreaction by police agencies is likely inevitable.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 21, 2015, 08:10:54 AM
(http://tinyhouseontario.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/borg.gif)

ummm...before everyone starts stereotyping bikers into a predetermined racial group (oops! too late), it might be worth noting that not all of the (alleged :police:) participants in the Waco incident are white. A snapshot of some of them:

And not all of the anarchists involved in Baltimore or Ferguson were black.

Regardless, take a look at some of the pics which capture a larger portion of the 170 or so arrested and you would see that 'snapshot' is a bit misleading...... I suspect intentionally.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: old edale on May 21, 2015, 09:02:44 AM
Comparing this incident to Ferguson or Baltimore is ridiculous.  This was a relatively short, though extremely violent, fight that was essentially contained to one restaurant and its parking lot.  There were no roving crowds, no fires, no looting, and it was an isolated event rather than a multi day saga.  The riots in Ferguson and Baltimore also didn't have the fatalities that this incident had, because the Waco event was a FIGHT not a RIOT.

The reason the media reacted differently to this incident than the riots in MD and MO is because they were entirely different incidents.  There are shootouts that happen in the streets pretty frequently, and I think those would be the type of scenes that are more comparable to Waco.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 21, 2015, 09:24:38 AM
A fight can be a riot.  A riot is defined as a group of people (usually 4 or more) engaged in an act of violence.  This easily qualifies as a riot.  The participants qualify as thugs.  The factions involved qualify as gangs.

And I highly, highly doubt this will be an isolated incident.  The aftermath of this is going to be ugly.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on May 21, 2015, 09:28:18 AM
And I highly, highly doubt this will be an isolated incident.  The aftermath of this is going to be ugly.

You think the gangs will retaliate against each other or against the police?   I saw some bikers interviewed on CNN saying the last thing they wanted was more attention from the police and that both bike "gangs/thugs" had been communicating with police & agreed to stop all retaliation....
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 21, 2015, 09:38:48 AM
Each other for the most part, but there might be some wild cards who go after the police.  Just like we saw in Baltimore, all it takes is one psycho to take a shot.

Gangs/thugs can hold hands and proclaim peace in front of the camera.  We've seen that before.  It doesn't usually work out.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: old edale on May 21, 2015, 09:48:00 AM
A fight can be a riot.  A riot is defined as a group of people (usually 4 or more) engaged in an act of violence.  This easily qualifies as a riot.  The participants qualify as thugs.  The factions involved qualify as gangs.

And I highly, highly doubt this will be an isolated incident.  The aftermath of this is going to be ugly.

Do you honestly think the events in Baltimore and Waco were similar? You really don't see any differences?

Of course the people involved were gang members-- this was a fight between BIKER GANGS. Gang is literally in their title.  Yes they are also thugs, though I really don't understand why people have latched on so tightly to the use of that word.  I understand that it gets used to describe blacks more than whites, but I think that is more due to its widespread use in rap.  In contemporary uses, the word thug brings to mind rap before some menacing, violent figure that the word actually was created for, at least for me.  So yes, the biker gang members were thugs.  No one has defended them, no one has said that they stand for a cause, and no one is asking where their fathers are because they are fully grown men.  Can we stop with the straw arguments?

I am very sympathetic to the protests in Baltimore, Ferguson, and elsewhere.  I acknowledge that police brutality and racism in the criminal justice system in our country are two very big issues that must be changed.  I also realize that the media is not always fair in its reporting of the protests and events that lead up to them.  That doesn't mean that I have to view this isolated shootout incident in Waco, TX as being indicative of a same type of event that was just reported differently.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 21, 2015, 11:21:35 AM
When did I ever say I don't see any differences?  Can you provide me with my post where you got that from so I would have some context for a response? 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: old edale on May 21, 2015, 11:33:14 AM
You don't see the outrage like there was over Baltimore. You point out what the legal definition of a riot is to categorize the event in Waco in with the disturbances in Ferguson and Baltimore.  You mention that the fight spilled out into the street so as to suggest it wasn't a contained incident.  All of these things indicate that you think the Waco and Baltimore/Ferguson issues are similar, yet received different degrees of media attention and scrutiny. What I am saying is that I don't think the incidents are similar, and thus meaningful conclusions really can't be gained by comparing their coverage.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: eastvillagedon on May 21, 2015, 11:36:35 AM


ummm...before everyone starts stereotyping bikers into a predetermined racial group (oops! too late), it might be worth noting that not all of the (alleged :police:) participants in the Waco incident are white. A snapshot of some of them:

And not all of the anarchists involved in Baltimore or Ferguson were black.

Regardless, take a look at some of the pics which capture a larger portion of the 170 or so arrested and you would see that 'snapshot' is a bit misleading...... I suspect intentionally.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8867/17751270110_7c19de68bf.jpg)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 21, 2015, 11:41:51 AM
^I didn't mean to imply that you altered the screenshot

You don't see the outrage like there was over Baltimore. You point out what the legal definition of a riot is to categorize the event in Waco in with the disturbances in Ferguson and Baltimore.  You mention that the fight spilled out into the street so as to suggest it wasn't a contained incident.  All of these things indicate that you think the Waco and Baltimore/Ferguson issues are similar, yet received different degrees of media attention and scrutiny. What I am saying is that I don't think the incidents are similar, and thus meaningful conclusions really can't be gained by comparing their coverage.

Just a second there, Professor.  I do indeed see similarities, as you've pointed out.  That doesn't mean I do NOT see differences.  Two different inquiries there.  I see similarities in my children.  That doesn't mean they are not totally different.

As for media coverage, my comment was limited to Fox News.  And, yes, you da&^ well know that if this had been a shootout/riot between nearly 200 bloods and the crips at a restaurant with waitresses ducking for cover, that 'news' outlet would have been all over it with wall-to-wall coverage. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on May 21, 2015, 09:38:27 PM
"The bikers say police shot "their brothers," and they want revenge, a police bulletin warns."
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: GCrites80s on May 22, 2015, 09:15:30 AM
I think what happened is some kind of trade happened with "thug" and "bro". "Bro" got detached from any racial meaning it once had where "thug" became attached to race in that time.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on May 22, 2015, 11:51:02 AM
I think what happened is some kind of trade happened with "thug" and "bro". "Bro" got detached from any racial meaning it once had where "thug" became attached to race in that time.

"Thug" actually came from hip hop in its current context.   2Pac in particular used the word a lot.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 22, 2015, 12:16:17 PM
^True.  But also true is that it has happily been adopted by people who don't listen to hip-hop as a 'safe' alternative to the N-word.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Chris DoorDashian on May 22, 2015, 12:40:24 PM
^This.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on May 22, 2015, 12:46:34 PM
^True.  But also true is that it has happily been adopted by people who don't listen to hip-hop as a 'safe' alternative to the N-word.

More like an attempt at distinguishing between adherents of a certain subculture, and black Americans as a whole.  Which, of course, is close to its original hip hop meaning.

Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 22, 2015, 12:57:41 PM
A piss poor attempt if that is what it really is.  Doubt it.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: DeanSheen on May 22, 2015, 01:07:45 PM
^True.  But also true is that it has happily been adopted by people who don't listen to hip-hop as a 'safe' alternative to the N-word.

More like an attempt at distinguishing between adherents of a certain subculture, and black Americans as a whole.  Which, of course, is close to its original hip hop meaning.



I agree with EROC.

And I ask all those that oppose, provide a PC 'word' to use.  My guess, no word exists as whatever word is used will be decried as being racist, so in reality it's a pointless exercise.

Its a real question.  How does one describe AA criminals in an agreeable acceptable manner?   
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on May 22, 2015, 01:22:13 PM
You could call them criminals?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 22, 2015, 01:28:14 PM
How does one describe AA criminals in an agreeable acceptable manner?   

That about sums it up, folks.  Nothing further.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: DeanSheen on May 22, 2015, 01:38:51 PM
How does one describe AA criminals in an agreeable acceptable manner?   

That about sums it up, folks.  Nothing further.

Thanks for the conviction prosecutor. 

So in these things your either a racist or anti-police.

/that about sums it up folks.



Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Oldmanladyluck on May 22, 2015, 01:54:05 PM
https://youtu.be/GXrh6wAxJlw
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: 327 on May 22, 2015, 06:07:05 PM
I think what happened is some kind of trade happened with "thug" and "bro". "Bro" got detached from any racial meaning it once had where "thug" became attached to race in that time.

"Thug" actually came from hip hop in its current context.   2Pac in particular used the word a lot.

He did, but context is a funny thing.  Equating his usage with current white racist usage is almost like posting an Onion article as fact.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Whipjacka on May 22, 2015, 06:26:47 PM
That was also 20 years ago
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: SixthCity on May 22, 2015, 06:35:41 PM
Young Thug is the hottest rapper out right now and one of my favorites.  "Thug" as a hip hop term/identity is far from stale.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: GCrites80s on May 22, 2015, 09:08:08 PM
Since 2Pac was so theatrically-oriented, I feel he was evoking the West Side Story and old cartoon usage of thug and applying it to what was going on in the 'hood. At the time of course.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: SixthCity on May 22, 2015, 10:53:08 PM
^ Oh jeez.  I've listened to a lot of Tupac and I think you're really stretching there.

This national debate is now reaching the absolute height of absurdity.  The word "Thug" has its own meaning independent of race:

thug
THəɡ/
noun
noun: thug; plural noun: thugs; noun: Thug
1.
a violent person, especially a criminal.
synonyms:   ruffian, hooligan, vandal, hoodlum, gangster, villain, criminal; More
2.
historical
a member of a religious organization of robbers and assassins in India. Devotees of the goddess Kali, the Thugs waylaid and strangled their victims, usually travelers, in a ritually prescribed manner. They were suppressed by the British in the 1830s.


Here's the test: If someone fits the above definition, they can be called a thug, plain and simple and regardless the skin color.  If the person doesn't fit the definition, then they shouldn't be called a thug.

If you find that someone is calling a person a thug who does not fit the above definition - then it can be considered an over application of the term.  If the person improperly being called a thug is black, then it can raise an inference of racial animus.

That's it.  That's all you have to do.  When someone uses the term thug, apply the above test.  Or you could hear the term and crap your pants - that seems to be the current response.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: GCrites80s on May 22, 2015, 11:04:00 PM
I know people don't like to hear tupac "reduced" to a generalist but he really was. I look at generalism as a virtue.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: jam40jeff on May 23, 2015, 06:10:42 AM
^ Oh jeez.  I've listened to a lot of Tupac and I think you're really stretching there.

This national debate is now reaching the absolute height of absurdity.  The word "Thug" has its own meaning independent of race:

thug
THəɡ/
noun
noun: thug; plural noun: thugs; noun: Thug
1.
a violent person, especially a criminal.
synonyms:ruffian, hooligan, vandal, hoodlum, gangster, villain, criminal; More
2.
historical
a member of a religious organization of robbers and assassins in India. Devotees of the goddess Kali, the Thugs waylaid and strangled their victims, usually travelers, in a ritually prescribed manner. They were suppressed by the British in the 1830s.


Here's the test: If someone fits the above definition, they can be called a thug, plain and simple and regardless the skin color.  If the person doesn't fit the definition, then they shouldn't be called a thug.

If you find that someone is calling a person a thug who does not fit the above definition - then it can be considered an over application of the term.  If the person improperly being called a thug is black, then it can raise an inference of racial animus.

That's it.  That's all you have to do.  When someone uses the term thug, apply the above test.  Or you could hear the term and crap your pants - that seems to be the current response.
The flip side of your litmus test is white people that fit the description NOT being called thugs.  That is the most prevalent form of racism today from what I've seen.  We tend to be way more lenient with white people when they do something wrong.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: 327 on May 23, 2015, 06:59:09 AM
Apparently they're announcing the Brelo verdict at 10:00 today.  Not a bad move, timing wise.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: old edale on May 23, 2015, 09:17:07 AM
What is happening with the Tamir Rice case? All this time I thought references to Brelo were about that case, but I just googled it and saw it's actually about the shooting of two other individuals by the police. With two pretty high profile cases, it seems Cleveland could be the next city to erupt in violence and rioting. The Tamir Rice video is sickening and way worse than either the Mike Brown or Freddie Gray incidents IMO.

Edit: Brelo found not guilty on all charges.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Klingaling87 on May 23, 2015, 09:35:33 AM
Apparently they're announcing the Brelo verdict at 10:00 today.  Not a bad move, timing wise.

I think it's bad timing wise... Cavs home game tomorrow on national television. hetrs to hoping nothing happens to our city...
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on May 23, 2015, 10:05:29 AM
Protests already in Cleveland.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Clevelander17 on May 23, 2015, 10:19:23 AM
Well, yesterday was the last day of school for CMSD, so in that regard I do like the timing of the verdict.

Hopefully this thing remains small and peaceful. The eyes of the world are, for at least the moment, on Cleveland.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: StapHanger on May 23, 2015, 10:46:05 AM
^^FYI, there were organized Rice-related protests scheduled for today even before the Brelo verdict timing was announced.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Urbanophile on May 23, 2015, 11:08:15 AM
I'm out of town for the weekend, but I'll be following updates on this. I hope everything stays peaceful. I'm not okay with the not guilty verdict (though it's not surprising), but violent riots would only make things worse.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on May 23, 2015, 11:34:11 AM
Why did a judge give the verdict? No jury trial?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on May 23, 2015, 11:38:44 AM
I'm out of town for the weekend, but I'll be following updates on this. I hope everything stays peaceful. I'm not okay with the not guilty verdict (though it's not surprising), but violent riots would only make things worse.

If its not surprising, why aren't you okay with it?  Glad you weren't the judge!
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Urbanophile on May 23, 2015, 11:44:40 AM
It's not surprising because the police are rarely ever charged to the full extent of crimes they commit on duty. I also think this case was just doomed from the start. It wasn't wise to just single out Brelo, when there were multiple other officers involved. But, on the other hand, it would have been nearly impossible to actually charge every officer involved.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on May 23, 2015, 12:31:29 PM
Fair enough.  I just didn't see it as a crime.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: MuRrAy HiLL on May 23, 2015, 02:33:02 PM
Interesting quotes/initial responses:

http://www.startribune.com/comments-on-officer-s-acquittal-in-cleveland-police-killing/304820231/

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/05/cleveland_mayor_frank_jackson_24.html
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: DeanSheen on May 23, 2015, 03:14:48 PM
^ "our lives have no value"  From a congresswoman.  Way to go Marcia. 



Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: westerninterloper on May 23, 2015, 06:20:19 PM
The verdict is the damage to the city, though many people will look at any civil unrest and property damage as a bigger problem than what instigated it.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 24, 2015, 05:16:27 AM
Why did a judge give the verdict? No jury trial?

Brelo waived his right to a jury and requested a bench trial. The prosecution objected but it is customarily the choice of a criminal defendant whether or not a jury is used. For police, bench trials are sometimes preferred because they fear jury nullification. A judge will strictly apply beyond a reasonable doubt

For anyone upset, some comfort might be found in that Brelo will never be a cop again
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on May 24, 2015, 07:20:04 AM
Boy the media is so disappointed there wasnt any rioting or more violence to break out last night. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: TBideon on May 24, 2015, 07:56:13 AM
East 4th wasn't exactly a picnic last night, got close to getting out of hand at Greenhouse. From what I hear, cleveland.com is sanitizing the violence and menacing behavior at Greenhouse and other areas quite a bit.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Klingaling87 on May 24, 2015, 07:58:59 AM
^ there was a video on Cleveland.com of the altercation on E4th and it was anything but pleasant. Made me sick watching it, to be honest. Just very disappointing that things are the way they are. On both ends...

Video was here:
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/05/four_more_cleveland_protestors.html#incart_maj-story-1
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: 327 on May 24, 2015, 09:56:06 AM
All in all, we came off looking pretty strong as a community.  Stuff did happen but not on a large scale.  The PD had a nice piece about how people living in the neighborhoods here just want to prosper, and they don't see a point in tearing things up.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 24, 2015, 10:01:55 AM
Unusual for 4th Street but not any more disturbing than what you may see on W6 any given Saturday night unfortunately
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Clevelander17 on May 24, 2015, 01:52:14 PM
Unusual for 4th Street but not any more disturbing than what you may see on W6 any given Saturday night unfortunately

Nope.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on May 26, 2015, 04:48:38 AM
The guy who chucked a sign through the window of Harry Buffalo may be safer in jail....
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on May 26, 2015, 07:58:00 PM
Wow, Rachel Maddow on msnbc, is reading a report on Cleveland Police practices. This is very embarrassing for the city.

"Cleveland Police promise they will actually read applicant personnel files during the hiring new officers."

Incredible.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on May 27, 2015, 05:23:26 AM
I'm on a Facebook Cleveland area discussion board that seems to be mostly black, and the consensus among posters of all races is that Al Sharpton is neither necessary nor welcome. 

He never showed up in Beavercreek to address the (IMO much worse) John Crawford III case.   Could this be why?

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/03/walmart-funding-al-sharpton-john-crawford/
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Cleburger on May 27, 2015, 06:13:56 AM
I'm on a Facebook Cleveland area discussion board that seems to be mostly black, and the consensus among posters of all races is that Al Sharpton is neither necessary nor welcome. 

He never showed up in Beavercreek to address the (IMO much worse) John Crawford III case.   Could this be why?

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/03/walmart-funding-al-sharpton-john-crawford/

I would have a million times more respect if he showed up in the thick of things, instead of waiting until everything was safe and his trip was well-planned for the cameras. 

Lead the non-violent protesters and block the violent looters.   Be a presence and a leader, instead of a late-comer.   You'd show a lot more courage than fanning the flames of an already lit fire....
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 27, 2015, 09:12:50 AM
Who actually likes Sharpton?  Show of hands?  It seems most of his 'fame' is due to the people he antagonizes making him a media sensation.  They are the only people I ever hear even mention his name.  In that vein, he is kind of like Sean Hannity, I suppose.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on May 27, 2015, 09:43:13 AM
Who actually likes Sharpton?  Show of hands?  It seems most of his 'fame' is due to the people he antagonizes making him a media sensation.  They are the only people I ever hear even mention his name.  In that vein, he is kind of like Sean Hannity, I suppose.

I guess the President does,  he carries a bit more weight than Hannity, I suppose.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704588404575123404191464126
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 27, 2015, 10:14:36 AM
Interesting.  So Sharpton has been used by the President as a push-back against some in the black community who claim the President has not done anything special to help black Americans...... exactly what some outspoken conservatives feared would be the focus of his presidency.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on May 27, 2015, 10:33:29 AM
Who actually likes Sharpton?  Show of hands?  It seems most of his 'fame' is due to the people he antagonizes making him a media sensation.  They are the only people I ever hear even mention his name.  In that vein, he is kind of like Sean Hannity, I suppose.

I guess the President does,  he carries a bit more weight than Hannity, I suppose.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704588404575123404191464126

Hmm....I believe that is Valerie Jarrett and Newt Gingrich sitting with Sharpton in that pic.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: DeanSheen on May 27, 2015, 11:38:08 AM
Can anyone explain how this works?  Seems quite embarrassing for the city to go begging for money to provide what should be a basic service.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/05/cleveland_consent_decree_provi.html#incart_m-rpt-1

An independent monitor will track how Cleveland complies with the consent decree. The city is responsible for paying the monitor's salary and untold other costs related to instituting the required changes. Jackson estimated Tuesday during a City Hall news conference that he will seek support from business and philanthropic leaders.

"What we will not do is get to the point where we have to shut down divisions of the city of Cleveland, because you're going to still demand the services that you expect and should expect of the city of Cleveland," the mayor said. "And we will not get to the point where we close up all of our recreation centers in order to do this.
Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson on consent decree Jackson said this is a "defining moment for our city" at a press conference on Tuesday, May 26, 2015.

"So I believe, as we move ahead, that we will have partners external to the city who will help us even though there will be some cost that we will have to bear ourselves."
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on May 27, 2015, 11:59:28 AM
^How what works?  The independent monitor?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: DeanSheen on May 28, 2015, 01:50:37 PM
^How the city gets private entities to pay for training police.

I guess this explains it somewhat. 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/05/financial_and_moral_support_on.html
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: MyTwoSense on May 30, 2015, 09:58:49 AM
Who actually likes Sharpton?  Show of hands?  It seems most of his 'fame' is due to the people he antagonizes making him a media sensation.  They are the only people I ever hear even mention his name.  In that vein, he is kind of like Sean Hannity, I suppose.

As a person, I do.  He's quite intelligent and eloquent.  He's great at a dinner party or event.

Put as a "speaker" for the unheard, I don't agree with all he says or the way he chooses his battles.  He has the right idea, it's the execution I disagree with. 

In addition, I hate that so many people assume he is the voice of all people of color.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: westerninterloper on May 31, 2015, 11:36:51 AM
Who actually likes Sharpton?  Show of hands?  It seems most of his 'fame' is due to the people he antagonizes making him a media sensation.  They are the only people I ever hear even mention his name.  In that vein, he is kind of like Sean Hannity, I suppose.

As a person, I do.  He's quite intelligent and eloquent.  He's great at a dinner party or event.

Put as a "speaker" for the unheard, I don't agree with all he says or the way he chooses his battles.  He has the right idea, it's the execution I disagree with. 

In addition, I hate that so many people assume he is the voice of all people of color.

I like Sharpton too. I'm willing to forgive a few odd character traits and mistakes in the past when someone generally speaks on the side of justice.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on May 31, 2015, 01:35:38 PM
385 ppl have been shot + killed by police so far this year. nearly 50 were unarmed -> http://t.co/080Ho9iQLT great work by @washingtonpost
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on June 01, 2015, 12:38:34 PM
Washington Post ‏@washingtonpost  2m2 minutes ago
Police commit 1 in 13 gun deaths in the U.S. http://wapo.st/1HHjwnx 

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGbzl7qUQAAH_lq.png:large)
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on June 03, 2015, 10:00:36 AM
@19actionnews
This Just In: CPD Officer Michael Brelo charged with assault, warrant issued
http://t.co/Zc2LpGCnOg
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on June 03, 2015, 06:37:39 PM
Whoa, I was afraid this would happen:

A terror suspect fatally shot in Boston on Tuesday had allegedly planned to randomly kill police officers https://t.co/Mu39begxmu

And the USA doesn't track police killings? Really??

Outrageous that we don't track Americans killed by police. Thank you Guardian for counting. http://t.co/TM2ytTHqV1 http://t.co/TM2ytTHqV1
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on June 08, 2015, 07:55:16 PM
The New York Times ‏@nytimes  1h1 hour ago
Community leaders will bypass prosecutors to seek charges against officers in Tamir Rice case http://nyti.ms/1QjGk6X 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on June 09, 2015, 08:18:02 PM
Cop caught on video dragging bikini-clad girl, 14, to ground resigns.

VIDEO: http://t.co/gOMSA5Oye3 http://t.co/aVZzhyj4fN
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on June 09, 2015, 10:15:42 PM
Black America Rages as Murder Rate Soars

Across America gun violence and murders are up this year in what many see as the first alarming sign that a 20-year trend of declining crime is being reversed.

The number of murders has surged by 103% in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and 59% in Houston, Texas.  In New York murders have risen by 20%. In St Louis shootings are up 39%, robberies 43% and killings 25%. Last year 57 police officers were murdered, up from 27 in 2013. The sharp rise in crime comes against the backdrop of nationwide protests over a series of high-profile incidents in which police officers killed unarmed black suspects.

Leading criminologists believe the upsurge in crime is due to what Sam Dotson, the St Louis police chief, has described as the “Ferguson effect” — a reluctance by police officers to make arrests or confront criminals for fear of being prosecuted if they make an error.

In the first two weeks of last month arrests by Baltimore police were down 57% on 2014. There were 42 murders, making it the deadliest month in the city since 1972, when its population was nearly twice the present size. During the protests over Gray’s death there was widespread looting and rioting.  Fears that a “media feeding frenzy” over killings by police, the ubiquity of mobile phone cameras and protests against action by law enforcement officers have led to “a lot of police now who are wanting to avoid doing police work and who are hesitant to be very assertive or aggressive”.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/09/black_america_rages_as_murder_rate_soars_126911.html
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: jmecklenborg on June 10, 2015, 11:12:34 AM
Cop caught on video dragging bikini-clad girl, 14, to ground resigns.

VIDEO: http://t.co/gOMSA5Oye3 http://t.co/aVZzhyj4fN

I listened to Glen Beck for about 15 minutes this morning.  He blamed the incident on the girl since people were "jumping fences" and "having sex in the pool", then said it got blown way out of proportion for an incident in which nobody got hurt.   
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on June 10, 2015, 11:16:08 AM
Cop caught on video dragging bikini-clad girl, 14, to ground resigns.

VIDEO: http://t.co/gOMSA5Oye3 http://t.co/aVZzhyj4fN

I listened to Glen Beck for about 15 minutes this morning.  He blamed the incident on the girl since people were "jumping fences" and "having sex in the pool", then said it got blown way out of proportion for an incident in which nobody got hurt.   

so much not captured in the video, but it's pretty clear the cop has his hands full trying to get control of the situation.  When an officer tells you to sit down, hands behind your back, that's it.  Anything else is disobeying a police order and what happens next is not going to be good.  The two young men were coming up along side the officer for what - possibly try & get his gun?  Obviously not trying to help the situation
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on June 10, 2015, 11:37:06 AM
Cop caught on video dragging bikini-clad girl, 14, to ground resigns.

VIDEO: http://t.co/gOMSA5Oye3 http://t.co/aVZzhyj4fN

I listened to Glen Beck for about 15 minutes this morning.  He blamed the incident on the girl since people were "jumping fences" and "having sex in the pool", then said it got blown way out of proportion for an incident in which nobody got hurt.   

so much not captured in the video, but it's pretty clear the cop has his hands full trying to get control of the situation.  When an officer tells you to sit down, hands behind your back, that's it.  Anything else is disobeying a police order and what happens next is not going to be good.  The two young men were coming up along side the officer for what - possibly try & get his gun?  Obviously not trying to help the situation

The cop had every right to draw on them, indeed he displayed restraint by not even aiming, let alone shooting.   He couldn't see the guy in blue's hand, what is he supposed to assume?

On the other hand, clearly he lost self control and the result is he took his anger out on someone who didn't really deserve it.  Though the black man in the pink shirt and tan pants who spoke to the girl a couple times didn't seem too irate about it all.  Rumor is he is a minister and a resident.   

It should be kept in mind that the arriving kids had no way of knowing that the use of the pool was never authorized, and most seemed to be passive or even calm.  There's always going to be a few troublemakers when teens gather, and that's what happened.  Boys showing off for girls, mostly.  And yes, harder edged hip hop will make listeners in groups more aggressive.   On many occasions, I had our DJ change up the music when stupidity was brewing.

Primary blame rests on the "promoter", her mom, and the DJ who were trying to use the facilities for (virtually) free to promote an admission-charging event in a couple weeks.  Secondary blame to the showoff teens who were trying to agitate the cops.   Tertiary to the cop for losing his cool.

But the worst thing I saw was the venom aimed online at the black residents who stuck up for complex management and the cops.  Wow.   They say the black community is contentious and ununified, but PC has nothing on what the separatists say to those who reject their agenda. 

The thing is, as the Supreme Court found sixty years ago, separate can't be equal.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: jmecklenborg on June 10, 2015, 11:50:35 AM
The thing is that Beck was bringing up these examples of things that supposedly happened in past incidents as a free pass for the police to flip out on people at that particular event.  That kind of thinking is incredibly dangerous. 

There were all kinds of things that happened at our neighborhood's pool that if there had been a racial element people would have jumped to conclusions and blown these incidents out of proportion.  For example there were 2-3 times right after it was built that somebody threw paint into the pool and it had to be drained.  I myself got into 2-3 fistfights at the pool over the years which were just 2-3 of the dozens of showdowns that happened there.  Also somebody slashed my mom's tires one time.  Growing up on the west side of Cincinnati at that time was growing up in a culture where fighting and vandalism and the occasional waving or firing of a handgun was recognized as normal behavior and nobody really thought much of it.  There would be an incident, then it was over.  People didn't go to the police.  And this was a mostly white area.  So when Beck gets out there and pretends that this sort of thing doesn't happen in "good" (white!) neighborhoods he's totally wrong.   
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: SixthCity on June 10, 2015, 12:00:26 PM
No offense dude, but it doesn't sound like you grew up in a "good" neighborhood. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on June 10, 2015, 12:16:51 PM
I myself got into 2-3 fistfights at the pool over the years which were just 2-3 of the dozens of showdowns that happened there.  Also somebody slashed my mom's tires one time.  Growing up on the west side of Cincinnati at that time was growing up in a culture where fighting and vandalism and the occasional waving or firing of a handgun was recognized as normal behavior and nobody really thought much of it.  There would be an incident, then it was over.  People didn't go to the police.  And this was a mostly white area.  So when Beck gets out there and pretends that this sort of thing doesn't happen in "good" (white!) neighborhoods he's totally wrong.   

Waving a gun?  Nobody called police?  WTF...
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: GCrites80s on June 10, 2015, 02:17:07 PM
A lot of suburbs and exurbs have a hypermasculine element to them or did before nerddom took over in the mid-2000s. That kind of stuff threw down all the time in the Columbus suburbs that are south of I-70 or way out east such as Groveport, Grove City and Reynoldsburg.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on June 13, 2015, 03:31:27 PM
Witnesses did not hear Cleveland police officer order #TamirRice to show his hands before shooting http://t.co/KE9i74ou5y @clevelanddotcom
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on June 14, 2015, 10:03:46 PM
The picture in that article has a man holding up a sign of people killed by police with a weblink below "www.revcom.us" which is the website for communist revolution.

Not so ironically, rt.com has been very active in tweeting this stuff. It's really too bad because there is a serious social issue in which too many police and too many residents think the other party can't be trusted. This needs to be addressed but risks getting lost in such political and international obfuscations.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on June 15, 2015, 08:09:02 AM
Witnesses did not hear Cleveland police officer order #TamirRice to show his hands before shooting http://t.co/KE9i74ou5y @clevelanddotcom

seems very hard to believe the police didn't yell "drop the gun" or "freeze" or "show your hands" before shooting.  I mean, that's just basic training, I would think the officer would instinctively yell it
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: StapHanger on June 15, 2015, 08:43:56 AM
^Eyewitness accounts are inherently dubious, IMO, so can't say I put any stock in that.  But not sure anything about the officers' conduct screams "following basic training," so it's definitely not hard for me to believe.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on June 15, 2015, 08:46:26 AM
^Eyewitness accounts are inherently dubious, IMO, so can't say I put any stock in that.  But not sure anything about the officers' conduct screams "following basic training," so it's definitely not hard for me to believe.

I've been wondering for awhile if they said anything over the PA system as they pulled up.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on June 15, 2015, 08:48:29 AM
Witnesses did not hear Cleveland police officer order #TamirRice to show his hands before shooting http://t.co/KE9i74ou5y @clevelanddotcom

seems very hard to believe the police didn't yell "drop the gun" or "freeze" or "show your hands" before shooting.  I mean, that's just basic training, I would think the officer would instinctively yell it

Are you forgetting who we're talking about here?

http://www.rawstory.com/2014/12/cop-who-killed-tamir-rice-was-fired-from-old-job-after-emotional-meltdown-on-gun-range/
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Cleburger on June 15, 2015, 08:54:10 AM
Witnesses did not hear Cleveland police officer order #TamirRice to show his hands before shooting http://t.co/KE9i74ou5y @clevelanddotcom

seems very hard to believe the police didn't yell "drop the gun" or "freeze" or "show your hands" before shooting.  I mean, that's just basic training, I would think the officer would instinctively yell it

Are you forgetting who we're talking about here?

http://www.rawstory.com/2014/12/cop-who-killed-tamir-rice-was-fired-from-old-job-after-emotional-meltdown-on-gun-range/

This would seem to be an easy one if the details as reported by eyewitnesses hold up in court.     No one but the CP union seems to be very willing to step up and support this guy. 

IMO the protesters should be taking aim at how this guy managed to get hired, after getting fired from the suburban department.   
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on June 15, 2015, 09:31:33 AM
Cleveland police aren't very well trained and incredibly lazy, unfortunately. Who told me that? Steve Loomis. Furthermore, in eight years on the Cleveland news beat, I encountered way too many incidents of them cutting corners, ignoring information for the sake of convenience and trying to do the least amount possible. Detail-oriented and hard-working they are not. If you see a non-life threatening crime occurring, it's not even worth reporting it to the Cleveland police. Even then, I've seen them make assumptions where they've blamed the victim and later had to recant their position. By then, the perpetrator was long gone. It's why certain Cleveland residents fear the police as much or more than they fear the criminals.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hootenany on June 15, 2015, 09:44:39 AM
While everyone seems to be focusing on the cop that fired the shots that killed Tamir I think the driver of the police car is just as much to blame, if not more so, for the shooting.  The driver put his partner is an incredibly bad position and escalated the situation unnecessarily.  In my opinion, the driver of the car is more responsible for Tamir's death than his partner.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on June 15, 2015, 09:58:03 AM
While everyone seems to be focusing on the cop that fired the shots that killed Tamir I think the driver of the police car is just as much to blame, if not more so, for the shooting.  The driver put his partner is an incredibly bad position and escalated the situation unnecessarily.  In my opinion, the driver of the car is more responsible for Tamir's death than his partner.

Agreed. I have no idea what proper procedure is in this whole thing, but the way the police immediately and awkwardly put themselves in possible danger can not possibly be the right way.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on June 15, 2015, 10:19:43 AM
Witnesses did not hear Cleveland police officer order #TamirRice to show his hands before shooting http://t.co/KE9i74ou5y @clevelanddotcom

seems very hard to believe the police didn't yell "drop the gun" or "freeze" or "show your hands" before shooting.  I mean, that's just basic training, I would think the officer would instinctively yell it

I would too.  I just don't know when they would've done so.  There is no indication that the PA was used.  And even if they did yell drop the gun, wouldn't Tamir's actions be consistent with complying with that command?  It was in his waistband.  He reached for his waistband and he was shot dead immediately.

The problem for these cops is there was no clear and present danger.  You just don't roll up on an armed suspect like that when there is no such danger.  You 'approach with extreme caution' both for your own safety and the suspect's safety.

With the facts as we know them, this screams of extreme neglect and recklessness.  Certainly not pre-meditated and probably not enough for second degree murder.

There are really only two scenarios in my mind.  Either they ordered him to drop the gun and he was complying or he panicked and was trying to dump the gun when he was shot.  This 12 year old kid certainly was not reaching for the pellet gun to use it to threaten the cops in any way. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Cleburger on June 15, 2015, 10:48:39 AM
^Or they ordered him "Hands Up!" and he reached in his waistband instead.   It's a 12 year old kid--he probably wasn't going to pull it on the cops, rather was scared and his first instinct was to get rid of it.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Bosco4789 on June 15, 2015, 12:16:59 PM

I encountered way too many incidents of them cutting corners, ignoring information for the sake of convenience and trying to do the least amount possible.


Sounds like the media.

You really shouldn't generalize and condemn the entire Cleveland Police Department on such limited information.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on June 16, 2015, 05:05:03 AM
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/06/cleveland_police_union_head_em.html#incart_m-rpt-1

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The head of Cleveland's police union blamed Sunday's West Side gunfire involving police and gun-related arrests near the scene on an ever-expanding anti-police narrative that will make officers targets.

Steve Loomis, head of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association, said that federally mandated police reforms, a Cleveland judge's finding of probable cause for charges against the officers involved in the Tamir Rice shooting and the Cuyahoga County prosecutor's release of the investigation materials in that case were "politically motivated."

"What it's doing, and what all these sideshows and unprecedented events are doing, is emboldening the criminal element," Loomis said. "Like I said before, it absolutely is going to get somebody killed; one of us or one of them. Neither is a good thing."
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on June 22, 2015, 11:56:29 AM
Insecure, Frustrated Bully With Something To Prove Considering Career In Law Enforcement http://t.co/EofpzGpRD6 http://t.co/trgzuk5bsK
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on June 22, 2015, 12:05:50 PM
There's a rumor going around in rightist internet circles that a prayer vigil for Officer Sonny Kim was interrupted by some people who thought Hummons should also be included.  The Cincinnati media isn't directly confirming it, so I'm taking it with a grain of salt.

Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Ram23 on June 22, 2015, 12:33:16 PM
There's a rumor going around in rightist internet circles that a prayer vigil for Officer Sonny Kim was interrupted by some people who thought Hummons should also be included.  The Cincinnati media isn't directly confirming it, so I'm taking it with a grain of salt.


It sounds like it might just stem from this (http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/06/22/police-man-interrupts-church-threatens-to-kill-police/29098553/) story, which is basically a non-issue. It was isolated, and just one of the local crazies yelling crap. He has a pretty big rap sheet and it’s mostly just trespassing, disorderly conduct, obstruction, etc. Having seen him around a few times, I’m surprised he had the cognizance to even know there was a shooting, though the paranoid rant is in-character.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on June 22, 2015, 12:44:46 PM
There's a rumor going around in rightist internet circles that a prayer vigil for Officer Sonny Kim was interrupted by some people who thought Hummons should also be included.  The Cincinnati media isn't directly confirming it, so I'm taking it with a grain of salt.


It sounds like it might just stem from this (http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/06/22/police-man-interrupts-church-threatens-to-kill-police/29098553/) story, which is basically a non-issue. It was isolated, and just one of the local crazies yelling crap. He has a pretty big rap sheet and it’s mostly just trespassing, disorderly conduct, obstruction, etc. Having seen him around a few times, I’m surprised he had the cognizance to even know there was a shooting, though the paranoid rant is in-character.

Personally, I won't be surprised if someone put him up to it.  Too much doesn't add up.  It could have been anyone:  ISIS, Al Qaeda, foreign intelligence, and keep going.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on June 22, 2015, 01:08:04 PM
There's a rumor going around in rightist internet circles that a prayer vigil for Officer Sonny Kim was interrupted by some people who thought Hummons should also be included.  The Cincinnati media isn't directly confirming it, so I'm taking it with a grain of salt.


It sounds like it might just stem from this (http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/06/22/police-man-interrupts-church-threatens-to-kill-police/29098553/) story, which is basically a non-issue. It was isolated, and just one of the local crazies yelling crap. He has a pretty big rap sheet and it’s mostly just trespassing, disorderly conduct, obstruction, etc. Having seen him around a few times, I’m surprised he had the cognizance to even know there was a shooting, though the paranoid rant is in-character.

Could be, though the rumor said a vigil not a church service.   You never know, the way stories get spread.

But considering that people have held "vigils" for attempted armed robbers that got killed, at the business where they were killed, one wonders...
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on July 01, 2015, 07:15:26 AM
Six months into 2015, The Post found more fatal police shootings than the FBI recorded in any single year since 1976. http://t.co/a2hEuwVVVj
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on July 09, 2015, 08:41:24 AM
Police officers shot and killed more people in the first week of July than during any other week this year http://wpo.st/SxwP0
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: DeanSheen on July 09, 2015, 09:24:16 AM
Would be nice to have national normalized mandated collection of data.

Headline is just pure sensation.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on July 18, 2015, 01:11:44 PM
The mothers of Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner at a vigil for Mr. Garner in NYC. http://t.co/pdZskZtlYf
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on July 22, 2015, 09:03:04 AM
BREAKING UPDATE: Hip hop artist was beaten by NYPD cops while trying to surrender...

WATCH: http://t.co/zohc2A5x57 http://t.co/hiixmUCZAd
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on July 23, 2015, 08:20:04 AM
"How about letting African-American youth train police on how to better interact with their communities?" http://t.co/JdiWX1bBr4
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on July 23, 2015, 08:24:48 AM
Police in Cincinnati shoot unarmed black man in head during routine traffic stop: http://t.co/h6ahalB8dW
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: thebillshark on July 23, 2015, 08:30:33 AM
Police in Cincinnati shoot unarmed black man in head during routine traffic stop: http://t.co/h6ahalB8dW

From the information that is avaliable to the public and media at this point, that is a completely irresponsible and incendiary description. 
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Ram23 on July 23, 2015, 08:38:03 AM
From the information that is avaliable to the public and media at this point, that is a completely irresponsible and incendiary headline.   

The article was written by German Lopez. I recognize the name. He used to work for an alt weekly in Cincinnati. He has a history of being purposefully incendiary. Take anything written by him with a grain of salt, and by all means verify with other sources. Better yet, don't read his version at all. There is plenty of informed discussion about this in the Cincinnati Crime thread:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3152.2555.html

Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on July 27, 2015, 11:03:34 AM
Woman dies at Cleveland Heights jail #RalkinaJones http://t.co/GHp5GixMSN
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: E Rocc on July 28, 2015, 05:02:12 AM
http://www.cleveland.com/naymik/index.ssf/2015/07/police_and_movement_for_black.html#incart_m-rpt-1
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on July 28, 2015, 12:22:02 PM
Too many police live in their own world....

‘A sick joke': #Cleveland police union fundraises for cop by raffling off gun like one that killed unarmed man http://t.co/FmvUGe9FMw
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on July 28, 2015, 12:26:54 PM
http://www.cleveland.com/naymik/index.ssf/2015/07/police_and_movement_for_black.html#incart_m-rpt-1

All you saw on the news was the cop macing the crowd.  Not saying whether it was justified or not, but it's a tough time to be a police officer.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on July 28, 2015, 12:41:12 PM
The crowd had surrounding a squad car in which the police had placed a juvenile who was rightfully under arrest.  If the crowd was ordered to disperse, was given proper warning, and failed to obey that lawful order, there is nothing wrong with the cop using pepper spray to compel compliance.  If the cop lost his temper and sprayed the crowd without first issuing the order to clear the path, then that is another story.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on July 28, 2015, 06:48:03 PM
In Cincinnati....

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/28/1406408/-The-video-of-the-police-murder-of-Sam-Dubose-is-apparently-so-bad-Cincinnati-is-preparing-for-riots
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Ram23 on July 28, 2015, 09:06:18 PM
In Cincinnati....

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/28/1406408/-The-video-of-the-police-murder-of-Sam-Dubose-is-apparently-so-bad-Cincinnati-is-preparing-for-riots

If the video is as bad as the clowns at Daily Kos make it out to be, the cop will be indicted and the announcement of the indictment will accompany the release of the video. One would assume that justice served wouldn't result in riots. The only scenario that would result in riots is that the video clearly shows the cop had reason to kill the suspect, and the grand jury agreed. As we've seen in places like Ferguson and with the Zimmerman case and Bland suicide - facts aren't very important if they conflict with the narrative.

Without seeing the video, I believe the cop will be indicted. Whether he's found guilty or not will be the real hurdle.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Clevelander17 on July 28, 2015, 09:12:42 PM
In Cincinnati....

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/28/1406408/-The-video-of-the-police-murder-of-Sam-Dubose-is-apparently-so-bad-Cincinnati-is-preparing-for-riots

If the video is as bad as the clowns at Daily Kos make it out to be, the cop will be indicted and the announcement of the indictment will accompany the release of the video. One would assume that justice served wouldn't result in riots. The only scenario that would result in riots is that the video clearly shows the cop had reason to kill the suspect, and the grand jury agreed. As we've seen in places like Ferguson and with the Zimmerman case and Bland suicide - facts aren't very important if they conflict with the narrative.

Without seeing the video, I believe the cop will be indicted. Whether he's found guilty or not will be the real hurdle.

"Clowns"? Most of that piece is quotes from authorities and fact-based.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on July 29, 2015, 05:05:04 AM
Missed this story when it came out two months ago...

http://thegrio.com/2015/05/12/fbi-white-supremacists-law-enforcement/
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: ryanlammi on July 29, 2015, 06:28:29 AM
In Cincinnati....

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/28/1406408/-The-video-of-the-police-murder-of-Sam-Dubose-is-apparently-so-bad-Cincinnati-is-preparing-for-riots

If the video is as bad as the clowns at Daily Kos make it out to be, the cop will be indicted and the announcement of the indictment will accompany the release of the video. One would assume that justice served wouldn't result in riots. The only scenario that would result in riots is that the video clearly shows the cop had reason to kill the suspect, and the grand jury agreed. As we've seen in places like Ferguson and with the Zimmerman case and Bland suicide - facts aren't very important if they conflict with the narrative.

Without seeing the video, I believe the cop will be indicted. Whether he's found guilty or not will be the real hurdle.

"Clowns"? Most of that piece is quotes from authorities and fact-based.

I would agree with clowns. The author is making some assumptions and graphic narrative of an event he hasn't seen.

Quote
Sam Dubose ended up dead with his face blown off

Quote
but the city refuses to release the video

It's the county prosecutor, not the city, and he has repeatedly said they will release the video after a grand jury makes a decision this week, but, you know, when you've got an agenda to push, you skip some details
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: gottaplan on July 29, 2015, 07:02:48 AM
Horrific end result of a man being shot in the face.  What nobody knows yet is what led to that end result.  An argument? Failure to comply with police order?  Physical confrontation?  Under the influence of drugs/alcohol?  So much yet unknown.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on July 29, 2015, 08:19:26 AM
Arguments never warrant the use of deadly force.

Most failures to comply with police orders don't warrant the use of deadly force. 

Many physical confrontations don't warrant the use of deadly force.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on July 29, 2015, 09:06:40 AM
@TanaWeingartner: UC says decision to close at 11am is in anticipation of today’s announcement of the Hamilton County grand jury’s decision re: Samuel Dubos
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on July 29, 2015, 09:09:24 AM
Watch a black man and his white mom discuss how he was beaten by police http://t.co/Q29AUCKQtV
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on July 29, 2015, 04:17:36 PM
A very alarming thing about the #SamDubose case: The lengths to which Tensing's fellow officer went to protect him. http://t.co/nSekA3CLyi

Gawker Video of Sam DuBose’s Death Drastically Different From the Police Report | io9 Here’s Every C http://t.co/YFmLDCniyY
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on July 29, 2015, 04:35:55 PM
A very alarming thing about the #SamDubose case: The lengths to which Tensing's fellow officer went to protect him. http://t.co/nSekA3CLyi

Gawker Video of Sam DuBose’s Death Drastically Different From the Police Report | io9 Here’s Every C http://t.co/YFmLDCniyY

Indefensible.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: StapHanger on July 29, 2015, 04:41:14 PM
^Yep. Will be interesting to see how increasing use of cameras change not only the behavior of cops engaged in confrontations, but also the corrosive wagon-circling and covering up by fellow officers.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: GCrites80s on July 29, 2015, 05:06:08 PM
Cops are so used to being lied to that they know all the tricks liars use.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: jmecklenborg on July 29, 2015, 09:19:46 PM
Cops are so used to being lied to that they know all the tricks liars use.

They're so used to being lied to that when you tell them the truth they suspect you're lying. 

One time I saw a guy fire a shot into the ground at a college party in a stand-off with some other dude.  I didn't have my cell phone with me but by total chance a police officer was sitting in his squad car around the corner.  I told him about the gunfire and he just shrugged his shoulders.  Did he think I was lying?!!!
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 01, 2015, 09:20:53 AM
Wow. What is the f*ck is the matter with people?? Reminders that mankind is too sick to survive....

#FoxNews Blames #SamuelDuBose For His Death At Murderous Traffic Stop: http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/07/31/the-fox-news-figures-shifting-blame-onto-samuel/204706

Offers pour in from across the country to help pay killer cop Ray Tensing’s bail and legal bills
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/offers-pour-in-from-across-the-country-to-help-pay-killer-cop-ray-tensings-bail-and-legal-bills/
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KyleCincy on August 01, 2015, 10:18:38 AM
Wow. What is the f*ck is the matter with people?? Reminders that mankind is too sick to survive....

#FoxNews Blames #SamuelDuBose For His Death At Murderous Traffic Stop: http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/07/31/the-fox-news-figures-shifting-blame-onto-samuel/204706

Offers pour in from across the country to help pay killer cop Ray Tensing’s bail and legal bills
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/0ri
Wow. What is the f*ck is the matter with people?? Reminders that mankind is too sick to survive....

#FoxNews Blames #SamuelDuBose For His Death At Murderous Traffic Stop: http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/07/31/the-fox-news-figures-shifting-blame-onto-samuel/204706

Offers pour in from across the country to help pay killer cop Ray Tensing’s bail and legal bills
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/offers-pour-in-from-across-the-country-to-help-pay-killer-cop-ray-tensings-bail-and-legal-bills/
7/offers-pour-in-from-across-the-country-to-help-pay-killer-cop-ray-tensings-bail-and-legal-bills/

Nowhere in the quotes on "media matters" did fox people blame Dubose. They are correct, as much as possible one should comply.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: unusualfire on August 01, 2015, 02:25:32 PM
He was not under arrest. What is fox talking about?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 01, 2015, 06:17:22 PM
Cincinnati Killer Cop Caught On Video Harassing Black Motorists
 http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/08/2014-officer-ray-tensing-video-cincinnati/
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: X on August 01, 2015, 09:36:18 PM
I see an officer being poised in the face of two -ssholes who are tauting him.  I think that website is run by people counting on nobody watching the video and everybody just taking their word for it.  In fact, the site outright lies about the "supervisor acknowledging the illegality of the stop", he in fact lets them know that the officer is going to write them a citation for an unroadworthy vehicle and they can challenge it in court if they see fit.

I'd be pretty embarrassed if I had posted something from this source as trustworthy fact.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: StapHanger on August 01, 2015, 10:08:27 PM
^I didn't see any taunting. It's impossible to know if there's missing context to the video, but if the officer really pulled them over only for a cracked bumper, pretty sure the passenger isn't under any legal obligation to identify himself to the officer (Ohio Code Section 2921.29 limits that obligation). So unless there's missing context, I don't think it's far off to call the cop's reaction ("if you refuse to identify yourself we have a charge..." to the passenger) harassment.

EDIT: Though just to be clear, I think orders to step out of a car are legal orders. In this case, it just seemed like the order was retaliation for the passenger's refusal to give the officer all the info he asked for (and was not legally entitled to receive).

And some of the legal assertions in that blog post seem pretty dubious.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: X on August 01, 2015, 10:35:44 PM
"Cracked", or as the officer says, "dragging on the ground".  Of course, the website is already lying about what is on the video they've actually provided for us to watch, so I don't trust what they're saying.  Orders to step out of the car are legal orders, because they are for the safety of the officer and/or person being stopped.  If someone is being uncooperative, I don't think it is harassing for them to order someone out of the car.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: StapHanger on August 01, 2015, 10:57:07 PM
^ I don't think threatening charges for non-criminal behavior really constitutes "poise."  Unless there's more context, I'd consider it scummy policing that tends to erode public trust.  YMMV.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KJP on August 02, 2015, 07:49:27 AM
And this is only going to increase the tension out there. So much fear and distrust. So many guns. Just add anger. Stir vigorously.....

CNN Breaking News ‏@cnnbrk  8h8 hours ago
A police officer was fatally shot during a traffic stop Saturday night in Memphis, Tennessee, authorities said.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Ram23 on August 03, 2015, 01:04:47 PM
NPR: A Lawyer's Advice For Black Men At Traffic Stops: 'Comply Now, Contest Later' (http://www.npr.org/2015/08/01/428420359/a-lawyers-advice-for-black-men-at-traffic-stops-comply-now-contest-later)

A good excerpt from the interview:

Quote
So I tell people to turn on the lights, put your hands on the steering wheel. And then inform the officer of every move you're going to make. "Officer, I'm reaching for my wallet in my back-right pocket. Officer, my insurance card is in my glove box. Do you mind if I retrieve it?"

And then, you know, no sudden moves or anything that would trigger a response, perhaps from training, for the officer.

I always thought this was common sense, and I vaguely remember it was actually taught during drivers education courses everyone gets as a teenager. It is not as complex as having respect for authority vs. standing up to injustice – it’s just having decent manners and social skills.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: X on August 03, 2015, 01:09:31 PM
Indeed, this is how I was taught to act when stopped by police.  It should be titled "A Lawyer's Advice for Anyone at Traffic Stops".
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KyleCincy on August 03, 2015, 01:16:38 PM
NPR: A Lawyer's Advice For Black Men At Traffic Stops: 'Comply Now, Contest Later' (http://www.npr.org/2015/08/01/428420359/a-lawyers-advice-for-black-men-at-traffic-stops-comply-now-contest-later)

A good excerpt from the interview:

Quote
So I tell people to turn on the lights, put your hands on the steering wheel. And then inform the officer of every move you're going to make. "Officer, I'm reaching for my wallet in my back-right pocket. Officer, my insurance card is in my glove box. Do you mind if I retrieve it?"

And then, you know, no sudden moves or anything that would trigger a response, perhaps from training, for the officer.

I always thought this was common sense, and I vaguely remember it was actually taught during drivers education courses everyone gets as a teenager. It is not as complex as having respect for authority vs. standing up to injustice – it’s just having decent manners and social skills.

I roll down the window, and have license and insurance card in left hand. only pulled over 1 time in last 10 years.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: X on August 03, 2015, 01:21:30 PM
^ I don't think threatening charges for non-criminal behavior really constitutes "poise."  Unless there's more context, I'd consider it scummy policing that tends to erode public trust.  YMMV.

My understanding of the law is that the police do have the right to demand ID from passengers in a stopped motor vehicle in Ohio, but only if they have some sort of reasonable suspicion that the passenger was involved in a crime or witnessed a felony.  So you may be right that he was in the wrong to threaten a charge on that (though he would have been allowed to ask for it voluntarily), unless he did have some reasonable suspicion that the duo was involved in something.  If the car's bumper was dragging on the ground as the officer said, I would think there would be reasonable suspicion for a "hit-skip".  Either way the officer didn't pursue it.

Any of our lawyers want to chime in?
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hootenany on August 03, 2015, 01:40:18 PM
NPR: A Lawyer's Advice For Black Men At Traffic Stops: 'Comply Now, Contest Later' (http://www.npr.org/2015/08/01/428420359/a-lawyers-advice-for-black-men-at-traffic-stops-comply-now-contest-later)

A good excerpt from the interview:

Quote
So I tell people to turn on the lights, put your hands on the steering wheel. And then inform the officer of every move you're going to make. "Officer, I'm reaching for my wallet in my back-right pocket. Officer, my insurance card is in my glove box. Do you mind if I retrieve it?"

And then, you know, no sudden moves or anything that would trigger a response, perhaps from training, for the officer.

I always thought this was common sense, and I vaguely remember it was actually taught during drivers education courses everyone gets as a teenager. It is not as complex as having respect for authority vs. standing up to injustice – it’s just having decent manners and social skills.

I roll down the window, and have license and insurance card in left hand. only pulled over 1 time in last 10 years.

I do the same thing, but I wonder if my experience would be different if I were black man.  I mean, reaching for my wallet and in the glove box for the insurance card while the officer is walking up to the vehicle is probably something I shouldn't do, but for some reason I've gotten away with it the 3 or 4 times I've been pulled over.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 03, 2015, 01:41:56 PM
^^You are correct that ID checks are allowed with reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (not sure about being a witness to a felony).  For those who don't appreciate the 'show me your papers' approach, you can make the following inquiries to make sure your rights are not being violated.  Ask the cop if you are being detained or if you are free to go.  He/she may try to spin that question, but it is really a straightforward question and deserves a straightforward answer.  If you are being detained, then ask the cop to articulate the reasons why.  Too often, people allow the cops to construct the reasons in the report well after they have detained you to, perhaps, match whatever findings they made (a bag of weed in your pocket = they smelled pot...... or a gun = saw a bulge).  Once a cop has said you are being detained and articulated the reasons why, then he/she has the right to pat you down (not a full search) and/or check your ID.  The pat down or the ID check may lead to probable cause, which would allow for a more invasive search and seizure.

^Right or wrong, black men get very nervous and are very suspicious with the police.  Fear and anxiety can cause anyone to act out of the norm.  That's the way I read the Dubose situation.  He was very nervous.  That type of behavior probably leads to the great majority of incidents, not the more commonly thought of 'F the police' approach.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KyleCincy on August 03, 2015, 01:49:14 PM
NPR: A Lawyer's Advice For Black Men At Traffic Stops: 'Comply Now, Contest Later' (http://www.npr.org/2015/08/01/428420359/a-lawyers-advice-for-black-men-at-traffic-stops-comply-now-contest-later)

A good excerpt from the interview:

Quote
So I tell people to turn on the lights, put your hands on the steering wheel. And then inform the officer of every move you're going to make. "Officer, I'm reaching for my wallet in my back-right pocket. Officer, my insurance card is in my glove box. Do you mind if I retrieve it?"

And then, you know, no sudden moves or anything that would trigger a response, perhaps from training, for the officer.

I always thought this was common sense, and I vaguely remember it was actually taught during drivers education courses everyone gets as a teenager. It is not as complex as having respect for authority vs. standing up to injustice – it’s just having decent manners and social skills.

I roll down the window, and have license and insurance card in left hand. only pulled over 1 time in last 10 years.

I do the same thing, but I wonder if my experience would be different if I were black man.  I mean, reaching for my wallet and in the glove box for the insurance card while the officer is walking up to the vehicle is probably something I shouldn't do, but for some reason I've gotten away with it the 3 or 4 times I've been pulled over.

One usually has plenty of time to secure license and Insurance card. Officer always runs your plates first. That takes a few minutes.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: StapHanger on August 03, 2015, 01:57:38 PM
^ I don't think threatening charges for non-criminal behavior really constitutes "poise."  Unless there's more context, I'd consider it scummy policing that tends to erode public trust.  YMMV.

My understanding of the law is that the police do have the right to demand ID from passengers in a stopped motor vehicle in Ohio, but only if they have some sort of reasonable suspicion that the passenger was involved in a crime or witnessed a felony.  So you may be right that he was in the wrong to threaten a charge on that (though he would have been allowed to ask for it voluntarily), unless he did have some reasonable suspicion that the duo was involved in something.  If the car's bumper was dragging on the ground as the officer said, I would think there would be reasonable suspicion for a "hit-skip".  Either way the officer didn't pursue it.

Any of our lawyers want to chime in?

Below is the code section I cited above (from http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29). The key to that video is that it's the passenger refusing to divulge his full name, DOB, address.  The driver clearly has provided his info already- that's how the cops can write out the ticket, as instructed at the end.  I don't see how a dragging bumper implicates the passenger for a crime, but maybe that's enough for a court.

To me, this looked like vanilla dragnetting. Run someone's stuff through the computer in case they have a warrant, because you have them there in front of you. The officer is well in his right to make the request and the citizen is in his right to decline. Maybe UC officers always ask people to get out of their car as a matter of course, but the audio made it sound like retaliation.  In any case, I would never advise people to disobey police orders, unless their personal safety is imminently threatened.

2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.
(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person's name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.

(2) The person witnessed any of the following:

(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;

(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;

(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;

(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one's personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.

(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person's age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: KyleCincy on August 03, 2015, 02:25:37 PM
It's dragnetting. Which is why Tensing also opened the door, without permission, so he could look inside for booze/drugs or something he could arrest them for.
He could have written the violation up quickly and then cut them loose.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: Hts121 on August 03, 2015, 02:30:12 PM
One usually has plenty of time to secure license and Insurance card. Officer always runs your plates first. That takes a few minutes.

This is a good example of different realities when dealing with police.  I am not so sure that a black man wants to be shuffling around in his glove box and whatnot while a cop is running his plates.  Best to keep his hands visible at all times.

For anyone, of whatever race, you should do your best to make the cop feel safe.  I have a knife on my visor and, if pulled over, I mention it immediately to the cop and ask what he wants to do with it while he is conducting the stop.  I think I have been pulled over twice since I started keeping it there and both times the cop let me off with a warning after thanking me for the consideration of telling him about the knife.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: X on August 03, 2015, 10:12:27 PM
^ Again, not just a black man, anyone.  When stopped, I pull over as soon as I can to someplace safe for myself and the officer.  I put the car in park, roll down the window, shut off my engine, then leave my hands on the wheel.  I only move them to get things (registration or wallet) the officer has requested, answer their questions and otherwise shut the hell up.
Title: Re: Police Use of Force
Post by: surfohio on August 03, 2015, 11:10:43 PM