Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrayingSeraph wrote:
In the example you provided with a perpetrator carving "all white men must die" in a head of a white victim, the perpetrator should be judged purely by the actions they took, such as murder and mutilation of corpse, not their ideology. Their ideology is not, nor should not be illegal. It's horrid yes from our perspective, but freedom of speech and thought is the foundation of all freedom. Otherwise a society starts to become Orwellian.

Inciting violence is not mere speech, and it is not Orwellian to punish people who do it. "White men are evil" is an ideology that must be protected, and saying it is (and should be) protected speech. "Kill this white man" is not.

The Supreme Court case of Brandenburg vs Ohio ruled that only imminent incitement of violence aka "Imminent Lawless Action" is not protected under the first amendment, but that mere advocacy of violence in general is protected. The vague term "Imminent" was later clarified in Hess vs Indiana that Hess's words "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time" and was thus protected under freedom of speech.

So there is a difference between someone saying "Tonight I will go this black persons house and murder them" and "All black people should die".

I am not a fan of law trying to make a criminal act "worse" due to "intent" than just dealing with the physical act.
A crime against a rich white guy or a survivor of the holocaust should carry the same penalty (as well as the status of the person who performed the crime).

I think where we get into trouble (especially in the USA) is idea of "hate speech".
First Amendment has much to say about being able to speak you mind, possibly hurt feelings and not get arrested for it.
Inciting or threatening illegal acts in narrow ways are not protected by the first amendment.
Libel is another, making slanderous statements about a group with no evidence is not allowable.

Threatening to hurt an officer is sufficient grounds for the officer to make an arrest.

It is a rather slippery slope to allow "suppression" of what can be said and be enforced by a government.
I feel it needs the same or more protection from change than "the right to bear arms" to protect against the government as some would point out.

The chance of rehabilitating the one that tortures the victim is a lot lower than the other one.

 skyth wrote:
The chance of rehabilitating the one that tortures the victim is a lot lower than the other one.

We don't punish people based on the odds of their possible rehabilitation we punish them based on the criminal acts they commit. Other than determining the classification of murder 1st/2nd/3rd all murders should be punished equally as they all equally deprive their victims of their lives, equally deprive society of the victims existence/contributions and all of those victims are valued equally by society and the law.

Actually we do punish people based on circumstances and how likely they are going to commit a crime again. The goal of punishment is not simply to retaliate. An eye for an eye just leaves the whole world blind.

 godardc wrote:
Maybe I didn't understand, maybe I read too quickly but: how is this bad to arrest people giving a policeman the finger / insulting them ?
I think it is ok to arrest people attacking the Police, even if just verbally.
What did I miss ?

This is nothing new.


In the past, in some jurisdictions, you could be charged with verbal assault on a law enforcement officer/public official. Usually, when the officer in question was in performance of their duties.


To name an example, interaction between a LEO and somebody pulled over for speeding. The offender then launches into a tirade laced with profanity, and threats against the officer. In my opinion, that is a justifiable reason to arrest somebody disturbing the peace/obstructing a LEO by running their big mouths, and being a bastard about getting a citation.


Here in North Carolina, threatening a "public official" verbally (and it doesn't have to be death threats) can get you arrested. I've hauled many a punk/redneck/hood rat to County during my LE career because they were talking , refusing to obey lawful instructions from a law enforcement officer, and threatening to "kick my ass".


As for this "blue lives matter" legislation, I have no real opinion on it, except that I see it as a response to all of this unrest and attacks on police of late. Mostly incited by these so-called "activists" of #BlackLivesMatter and their fellow travelers. You bite somebody, don't expect them not to bite back.

 skyth wrote:
Actually we do punish people based on circumstances and how likely they are going to commit a crime again. The goal of punishment is not simply to retaliate. An eye for an eye just leaves the whole world blind.

We didnt pass federal hate crime legislation to lower recidivism rates or to add additional harsher sentencing guidelines based on crimanls' motivations. We passed federal hate crime legislation in 1968 to support 6 specific federal rights enumerated in the 1964 civil rights act and then we later passed additional hate crime legislation in 1994 and 2009 to give the federal govt jurisdiction over crimes that were previously prosecuted at the local and state level alon with granting harsher federal sentencing for those crimes based upon the demographics of the victim.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Maybe I didn't understand, maybe I read too quickly but: how is this bad to arrest people giving a policeman the finger / insulting them ?
I think it is ok to arrest people attacking the Police, even if just verbally.
What did I miss ?

This is nothing new.


In the past, in some jurisdictions, you could be charged with verbal assault on a law enforcement officer/public official. Usually, when the officer in question was in performance of their duties.


To name an example, interaction between a LEO and somebody pulled over for speeding. The offender then launches into a tirade laced with profanity, and threats against the officer. In my opinion, that is a justifiable reason to arrest somebody disturbing the peace/obstructing a LEO by running their big mouths, and being a bastard about getting a citation.


Here in North Carolina, threatening a "public official" verbally (and it doesn't have to be death threats) can get you arrested. I've hauled many a punk/redneck/hood rat to County during my LE career because they were talking , refusing to obey lawful instructions from a law enforcement officer, and threatening to "kick my ass".


As for this "blue lives matter" legislation, I have no real opinion on it, except that I see it as a response to all of this unrest and attacks on police of late. Mostly incited by these so-called "activists" of #BlackLivesMatter and their fellow travelers. You bite somebody, don't expect them not to bite back.

Yes exactly, it is forbidden, I think in every country, to verbaly attack a Police Officer. However, I just saw the Original Post has those words in RED: "a felony-level hate crime", and IIRC "felony" is a big thing in the USA.
So, by insulting / threatening a policeman, because of this law, people suffer heavier punishments ?

Felony convictions have a ton of very harsh penalties.

Fundamentally a felony is anything where you can be sentenced to more than a year in prison.

After that, as a convicted felon you lose the right to vote, own a firearm, hold security clearances (so you can't work in certain jobs at all), it effectively kills any sort of career as background checks will show a felony conviction, disbarment from doing business with the government, can't serve on a jury, can't serve in the armed forces, can't get certain kinds of licenses, loss of certain types of benefits, etc.

Also if you're convicted of a *federal* felony, there's no parole.

 godardc wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Maybe I didn't understand, maybe I read too quickly but: how is this bad to arrest people giving a policeman the finger / insulting them ?
I think it is ok to arrest people attacking the Police, even if just verbally.
What did I miss ?

This is nothing new.


In the past, in some jurisdictions, you could be charged with verbal assault on a law enforcement officer/public official. Usually, when the officer in question was in performance of their duties.


To name an example, interaction between a LEO and somebody pulled over for speeding. The offender then launches into a tirade laced with profanity, and threats against the officer. In my opinion, that is a justifiable reason to arrest somebody disturbing the peace/obstructing a LEO by running their big mouths, and being a bastard about getting a citation.


Here in North Carolina, threatening a "public official" verbally (and it doesn't have to be death threats) can get you arrested. I've hauled many a punk/redneck/hood rat to County during my LE career because they were talking , refusing to obey lawful instructions from a law enforcement officer, and threatening to "kick my ass".


As for this "blue lives matter" legislation, I have no real opinion on it, except that I see it as a response to all of this unrest and attacks on police of late. Mostly incited by these so-called "activists" of #BlackLivesMatter and their fellow travelers. You bite somebody, don't expect them not to bite back.

Yes exactly, it is forbidden, I think in every country, to verbaly attack a Police Officer. However, I just saw the Original Post has those words in RED: "a felony-level hate crime", and IIRC "felony" is a big thing in the USA.
So, by insulting / threatening a policeman, because of this law, people suffer heavier punishments ?

Calling a cop an asshat or a prick? My answer is a resounding "No"

Minor threats, like threatening to kick a cop's ass? My answer would be that a misdemeanor charge would be sufficient. Along with all that "yummy" OC pepper, and "stimulating" taser current, such a dumbass is likely to get the message that doing such has repercussions that are NOT pleasant.

Threatening a cop or his/her family with serious violence? My answer is a resounding "Yes". They should do felony time if they directly threaten a public official in such a manner.

Police being a public official should have nothing to do with it, especially for an unelected position, it should apply to everyone or no one, as otherwise it's open to potential abuse.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Police being a public official should have nothing to do with it, especially for an unelected position, it should apply to everyone or no one, as otherwise it's open to potential abuse.

I disagree. There is a reason for such laws. And laws such as these have been on the books across all fifty States for decades, and I'm not aware of any widespread abuse because of those laws (not to say that there haven't been, just that I'm not aware of widespread abuse in recent times).


And for the record, there is no "equal" penalties when it comes to assaults and threats across the board. In most States, there are varying levels of severity of classifications and punishments for various groups. Public officials are not unique in this regard.

I guess I would have to ask what makes a police officer's family more special than yours or mine that they deserve extra legal protection, particularly the elevation to a felony?

There are lots of laws on the books for this kind of thing and I disagree with most, but especially when it comes to police officers, as they have such an insanely wide discretion in the use of the powers of their office, and charges like "assault on an officer", with a potential penalty of several years in prison can be something as absurdly minor as spitting on their shoes, or an instance in Pennsylvania where a man was hit with such a charge when an officer broke there's fist punching the dude in the face. Stuff like that, while not necessarily daily occurrences, happens often enough to make me extremely wary of such extra perks for police, when often something said in the heat of an intense moment could get someone a felony conviction record.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

I disagree. There is a reason for such laws. And laws such as these have been on the books across all fifty States for decades, and I'm not aware of any widespread abuse because of those laws (not to say that there haven't been, just that I'm not aware of widespread abuse in recent times).


And for the record, there is no "equal" penalties when it comes to assaults and threats across the board. In most States, there are varying levels of severity of classifications and punishments for various groups. Public officials are not unique in this regard.

What's being referring to ITT, is the additional "hate crime" that was written in this jurisdiction. You are probably correct that there are anti-verbal assault laws on the books in regards to public officials in all 50 states.... What is new, is this felony charge for a hate crime that is being tacked on. THAT is the part that I am disagreeing with.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The govt has no business determining that the murder of one person is more egregious than the murder of a different person when society and the law values both people equally.

I think you're misunderstanding how hate crime laws work. They don't assign different people different values as victims. The mere fact that a victim of a crime is a member of a protected class does not make it a hate crime. For example, if a white guy shoots a black guy in an argument over a drug deal that's just plain murder, it isn't a hate crime. It's only a hate crime if the criminal act is used to send a message ("you're next", etc) to a class of people. IOW, it's the action of the crime being punished more harshly, not the victim.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Minor threats, like threatening to kick a cop's ass? My answer would be that a misdemeanor charge would be sufficient. Along with all that "yummy" OC pepper, and "stimulating" taser current, such a dumbass is likely to get the message that doing such has repercussions that are NOT pleasant.

So, you're willing to endorse the use of violence to punish someone for saying something you don't like? And, as you seem to be implying, use violence yourself because someone said something you don't like? I believe we have a term for that: abuse of power. If this is more than just empty "internet tough guy" bragging then you should be facing criminal charges (and, given the fact that you proudly brag about the crime, spending some time in prison).

 Peregrine wrote:


So, you're willing to endorse the use of violence to punish someone for saying something you don't like? And, as you seem to be implying, use violence yourself because someone said something you don't like? I believe we have a term for that: abuse of power. If this is more than just empty "internet tough guy" bragging then you should be facing criminal charges (and, given the fact that you proudly brag about the crime, spending some time in prison).

Nice try, sunshine.


First off, I was being sarcastic and engaging in a bit of dark humor (which I will admit doesn't translate very well over a text only message). So, spare me your self-righteous platitudes. It's doesn't phase or impress me in the slightest.


Allow me to educate you a bit about how things work in the real world. There are varying levels of force. From what is known as "soft hands", all the way up to "deadly force". The methods that you describe erroneously, in typical leftist fashion, as straight-up "violence", is known as "forced compliance". In other words, non-lethal (or less-lethal) means of subduing a combative or unhinged perp, in order to minimize risk to the arresting officer(s), any bystanders, and the suspect(s). If it gets to the point where somebody is getting out of hand, they refuse lawful instructions from a law enforcement officer (which can lead to arrest and restraints), and/or get combative (spitting, threats, behaving in an aggressive manner toward the officer(s), then yes, I advocate use of compliance measures. Hypothetical situation: If I give you lawful instructions to be quiet (because you are raising hell and cussing up a storm), and you keep taking gak, then I would be well within my authority to place you under arrest and take your ass to the jailhouse, so you'll cool your heels. You refuse to submit to restraints when I place you under arrest, or physically resist, then I would use OC or a taser, after ONE WARNING that I will use such measures, to force your compliance, and take you to jail.


That's not "abuse of power", Cap'n. That is SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) in most agencies around the United States of America. And it wouldn't have a thing to do with what I personally like or dislike. It called "doing your job". The job that taxpayers pay you to do. The fact that when I was a cop, the fact that I got some satisfaction out of locking up repeat troublemakers from time to time, is immaterial.


So, before you type, use that organ that God placed between your ears. And before you accuse me of being an "internet tough guy", a criminal, and saying I should be locked up, you better know what the you are talking about. Which, obviously, you don't.

Rule 1 isn't optional. At all. This thread is on a topic bound to bring out the worst in some people, so ensure that your responses are polite, even if you disagree

 PrayingSeraph wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrayingSeraph wrote:
In the example you provided with a perpetrator carving "all white men must die" in a head of a white victim, the perpetrator should be judged purely by the actions they took, such as murder and mutilation of corpse, not their ideology. Their ideology is not, nor should not be illegal. It's horrid yes from our perspective, but freedom of speech and thought is the foundation of all freedom. Otherwise a society starts to become Orwellian.

Inciting violence is not mere speech, and it is not Orwellian to punish people who do it. "White men are evil" is an ideology that must be protected, and saying it is (and should be) protected speech. "Kill this white man" is not.

The Supreme Court case of Brandenburg vs Ohio ruled that only imminent incitement of violence aka "Imminent Lawless Action" is not protected under the first amendment, but that mere advocacy of violence in general is protected. The vague term "Imminent" was later clarified in Hess vs Indiana that Hess's words "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time" and was thus protected under freedom of speech.

So there is a difference between someone saying "Tonight I will go this black persons house and murder them" and "All black people should die".

Citing rulings does not an ethical discussion make. For example, under our own Criminal Code, speech is much more easily construed as incitement, even when the speech is directed only at the eventual victim and never results in harm.

Speech is rarely just speech. One's theory of language and Law ought to be more sophisticated than that.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
First off, I was being sarcastic and engaging in a bit of dark humor (which I will admit doesn't translate very well over a text only message).

Then maybe in the future you should include a /sarcasm tag or something to indicate that you're making a joke, especially when police abuse and excessive violence is a major concern right now.

In other words, non-lethal (or less-lethal) means of subduing a combative or unhinged perp, in order to minimize risk to the arresting officer(s), any bystanders, and the suspect(s).

Allow me to quote your own words:

Minor threats, like threatening to kick a cop's ass? My answer would be that a misdemeanor charge would be sufficient. Along with all that "yummy" OC pepper, and "stimulating" taser current, such a dumbass is likely to get the message that doing such has repercussions that are NOT pleasant.

That is not the use of force to prevent someone from harming others, it's, in your own words, using violence to give someone a message about appropriate behavior. And that is not acceptable.

You refuse to submit to restraints when I place you under arrest, or physically resist, then I would use OC or a taser, after ONE WARNING that I will use such measures, to force your compliance, and take you to jail.

Using violence to "force compliance" may be legal, but that sure doesn't make it right. You're talking about a situation where there is no immediate threat that requires the use of force to protect an innocent victim, the only reason is that you really want them to obey you and don't want to deal with them resisting. This kind of stuff is why people have a bad opinion of the police.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Citing rulings does not an ethical discussion make. For example, under our own Criminal Code, speech is much more easily construed as incitement, even when the speech is directed only at the eventual victim and never results in harm.

Speech is rarely just speech. One's theory of language and Law ought to be more sophisticated than that.

Exactly. Whether or not US law considers a particular form of speech illegal is an entirely separate question from whether or not banning that speech is "Orwellian". There's a pretty big difference between "{group}s are evil, I hate them so much" and "{group}s are evil, kill them all", even if both of them are legal under US law. Banning speech calling for criminal actions does not in any way automatically lead to banning unpopular opinions.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


So, you're willing to endorse the use of violence to punish someone for saying something you don't like? And, as you seem to be implying, use violence yourself because someone said something you don't like? I believe we have a term for that: abuse of power. If this is more than just empty "internet tough guy" bragging then you should be facing criminal charges (and, given the fact that you proudly brag about the crime, spending some time in prison).

Nice try, sunshine.


First off, I was being sarcastic and engaging in a bit of dark humor (which I will admit doesn't translate very well over a text only message). So, spare me your self-righteous platitudes. It's doesn't phase or impress me in the slightest.


Allow me to educate you a bit about how things work in the real world. There are varying levels of force. From what is known as "soft hands", all the way up to "deadly force". The methods that you describe erroneously, in typical leftist fashion, as straight-up "violence", is known as "forced compliance". In other words, non-lethal (or less-lethal) means of subduing a combative or unhinged perp, in order to minimize risk to the arresting officer(s), any bystanders, and the suspect(s). If it gets to the point where somebody is getting out of hand, they refuse lawful instructions from a law enforcement officer (which can lead to arrest and restraints), and/or get combative (spitting, threats, behaving in an aggressive manner toward the officer(s), then yes, I advocate use of compliance measures. Hypothetical situation: If I give you lawful instructions to be quiet (because you are raising hell and cussing up a storm), and you keep taking gak, then I would be well within my authority to place you under arrest and take your ass to the jailhouse, so you'll cool your heels. You refuse to submit to restraints when I place you under arrest, or physically resist, then I would use OC or a taser, after ONE WARNING that I will use such measures, to force your compliance, and take you to jail.


That's not "abuse of power", Cap'n. That is SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) in most agencies around the United States of America. And it wouldn't have a thing to do with what I personally like or dislike. It called "doing your job". The job that taxpayers pay you to do. The fact that when I was a cop, the fact that I got some satisfaction out of locking up repeat troublemakers from time to time, is immaterial.


So, before you type, use that organ that God placed between your ears. And before you accuse me of being an "internet tough guy", a criminal, and saying I should be locked up, you better know what the you are talking about. Which, obviously, you don't.

This is also why Freddie Gray is dead. Because him standing there lamenting that he doesn't want to go back to jail for selling loose cigarettes and passively refusing to submit to arrest is treated as resisting just as if he was assaulting cops so the cops call for back up (Gray was a big dude) and forcibly subdue him because we can't take the time resolve the situation peacefully, that might give other people the idea that they don't have suddenly and completely obediently submit to a cop's commands. Then Gray days of an Athens attack while bein forcibly arrested and while it's his own fault for choosing to commit a crime and not cooperate he also wasn't hurting anyone or losing a threat to anyone but still got dog piled by cops to an extent that it triggered a health condition and killed him because cops felt that his shenanigans were wasting too much of their time. Gotta keep that tax revenue flowing to the man.

Prestor Jon wrote:


This is also why Freddie Gray is dead. Because him standing there lamenting that he doesn't want to go back to jail for selling loose cigarettes and passively refusing to submit to arrest is treated as resisting just as if he was assaulting cops so the cops call for back up (Gray was a big dude) and forcibly subdue him because we can't take the time resolve the situation peacefully, that might give other people the idea that they don't have suddenly and completely obediently submit to a cop's commands. Then Gray days of an Athens attack while bein forcibly arrested and while it's his own fault for choosing to commit a crime and not cooperate he also wasn't hurting anyone or losing a threat to anyone but still got dog piled by cops to an extent that it triggered a health condition and killed him because cops felt that his shenanigans were wasting too much of their time. Gotta keep that tax revenue flowing to the man.

It wasn't Freddie Gray. Freddie was the kid killed in Baltimore.

You are thinking of Eric Garner. And yes both of those incidents were abuse of power.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


This is also why Freddie Gray is dead. Because him standing there lamenting that he doesn't want to go back to jail for selling loose cigarettes and passively refusing to submit to arrest is treated as resisting just as if he was assaulting cops so the cops call for back up (Gray was a big dude) and forcibly subdue him because we can't take the time resolve the situation peacefully, that might give other people the idea that they don't have suddenly and completely obediently submit to a cop's commands. Then Gray days of an Athens attack while bein forcibly arrested and while it's his own fault for choosing to commit a crime and not cooperate he also wasn't hurting anyone or losing a threat to anyone but still got dog piled by cops to an extent that it triggered a health condition and killed him because cops felt that his shenanigans were wasting too much of their time. Gotta keep that tax revenue flowing to the man.

It wasn't Freddie Gray. Freddie was the kid killed in Baltimore.

You are thinking of Eric Garner. And yes both of those incidents were abuse of power.

GG

Well, dang, that's an embarrassing faux pas. Oh well, it's the price I pay for getting rid of cable tv.

Heck, you want to talk about police overstepping their bounds... Just look up the homeowner in Indianapolis that was shot by police.

What's being reported right now, is that the homeowner called police on his wife's behalf, because she had gotten robbed just outside their home. A little while later, he hears noises/rustling outside, so he steps out to investigate and BLAM! shot right in the gut.


Now... he's in hospital, and the story he's telling is that he stepped out, and the police simply shot... no questions, no speaking to him nothing at all to de-escalate the situation, or even investigate who he was. He was just a black man exiting a home, so he must be a criminal, right?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Heck, you want to talk about police overstepping their bounds... Just look up the homeowner in Indianapolis that was shot by police.

What's being reported right now, is that the homeowner called police on his wife's behalf, because she had gotten robbed just outside their home. A little while later, he hears noises/rustling outside, so he steps out to investigate and BLAM! shot right in the gut.


Now... he's in hospital, and the story he's telling is that he stepped out, and the police simply shot... no questions, no speaking to him nothing at all to de-escalate the situation, or even investigate who he was. He was just a black man exiting a home, so he must be a criminal, right?

There is a disturbing recent trend with police being told that the populace poses much more of a threat to them than any actual data would suggest and that's exactly the kind of mindset police should try to avoid so that situations like that don't happen.

Prestor Jon wrote:
There is a disturbing recent trend with police being told that the populace poses much more of a threat to them than any actual data would suggest and that's exactly the kind of mindset police should try to avoid so that situations like that don't happen.

What seems so doubly wrong is, and I'm pissed that I can't remember where I saw it... but, there was a video posted either here on Dakka somewhere, or it was on my FB feed where a group of US cops went to the UK to observe Met officers conducting a drill that dealt with armed assailants.... It's funny because in both the training demonstrations, as well as recordings from live events, none of the cops had so much as a taser, but were table to take down and arrest armed suspects without injury to any party. To me, the most fethed up part were the comments being made by the US based officers watching.... It was all stuff like, "ohh, he'da been shot right there" or, "yep, he's dead right there"

Prestor Jon wrote:


This is also why Freddie Gray is dead. Because him standing there lamenting that he doesn't want to go back to jail for selling loose cigarettes and passively refusing to submit to arrest is treated as resisting just as if he was assaulting cops so the cops call for back up (Gray was a big dude) and forcibly subdue him because we can't take the time resolve the situation peacefully, that might give other people the idea that they don't have suddenly and completely obediently submit to a cop's commands. Then Gray days of an Athens attack while bein forcibly arrested and while it's his own fault for choosing to commit a crime and not cooperate he also wasn't hurting anyone or losing a threat to anyone but still got dog piled by cops to an extent that it triggered a health condition and killed him because cops felt that his shenanigans were wasting too much of their time. Gotta keep that tax revenue flowing to the man.

Wrong case. As somebody pointed out earlier, that was Eric Garner.


Eric Garner was engaging in illegal activity. Selling loose cigarettes without a license and tax stamp is illegal under New York State law. IN FACT, Garner was out on bail at the time for the exact same offense, in addition to the charges of driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation. And Garner had been arrested multiple times before for the exact same charge. Garner had been arrested by the NYPD 30 times since 1980, and had a history of assault and resisting arrest.


I watched the video taken by a bystander. The accusation that the cop choked him to death in a "choke hold" was complete horse . The police did try to talk to him, but he was pacing around in an agitated state and arguing with the officers. When the officer made contact with Garner to place cuffs on him, he batted the officer's arm away. That's not "passive resistance". And when they went to restrain him, he fought back. That's not "passive resistance" either. And they "dogpiled" him, as you put it, because of his size and strength, in order to quickly restrain him, and gain control of the situation so nobody got seriously injured in a struggle..

Also, in that video, the cops did everything right, including turning him on his side to prevent asphyxiation, something I was trained to do in both law enforcement and corrections basic training.


The police were doing their jobs and following SOP. The problem is that knee-jerk cop-haters expect the police to have been psychic, and have been able to tell that Garner had some sort of underlying health issue. Hell, Garner himself probably didn't know he had a potentially life threatening condition. Garner's death wasn't the result of police brutality. The police had lawful probable cause to arrest Garner, he resisted, the cops took him down, and his health issue killed him. It was one of those incidents where Mr. Murphy sneaked up and injected his two-cents worth into the incident.




@generalgrog

It wasn't Freddie Gray. Freddie was the kid killed in Baltimore.

You are thinking of Eric Garner. And yes both of those incidents were abuse of power.

The police had probable cause to arrest Gray. He fled on foot unprovoked after making eye contact with a bike cop, which indicated that he was either up to something, or had done something. And he was was busted with a spring-assisted knife, which was illegal to possess in Baltimore, under city weapons ordinances. So, it wasn't "abuse of power" to arrest him.


The issue here is that whoever was responsible for securing Gray in the police van didn't follow SOP and endangered Gray's safety during transport. He suffered an injury, one that led to his death. That's criminal negligence, and whoever was involved should've faced prison time.


Oh, and by the way, Grey wasn't some innocent, young boy. Gray was 25 years old (as in "not a kid"), and was another "frequent flyer", having been involved in 20 criminal cases. Five of those cases were still active, and was due in court on a possession charge. He was a convicted felon, pulling five years before parole, and then arrested again violating said parole. And he pulled a month in County before being released in 2013. But that's still no excuse for the officer(s) not securing him properly in the vehicle.



@Ensis Ferrae

Heck, you want to talk about police overstepping their bounds... Just look up the homeowner in Indianapolis that was shot by police.

What's being reported right now, is that the homeowner called police on his wife's behalf, because she had gotten robbed just outside their home. A little while later, he hears noises/rustling outside, so he steps out to investigate and BLAM! shot right in the gut.


Now... he's in hospital, and the story he's telling is that he stepped out, and the police simply shot... no questions, no speaking to him nothing at all to de-escalate the situation, or even investigate who he was. He was just a black man exiting a home, so he must be a criminal, right?

That was a case of some high-strung idiots not I.D.ing the individual via proper commands. You don't just go guns blazing at the first person you see. The officer (or officers) that dropped the hammer on him without issuing commands, should be fired and face charges for doing so if that was the case. Weapons drawn and issuing firm, easily understood commands is what they should have done upon seeing him, not knowing if the assailant(s) were still in the area, and whether of not he was involved or just a bystander.

What seems so doubly wrong is, and I'm pissed that I can't remember where I saw it... but, there was a video posted either here on Dakka somewhere, or it was on my FB feed where a group of US cops went to the UK to observe Met officers conducting a drill that dealt with armed assailants.... It's funny because in both the training demonstrations, as well as recordings from live events, none of the cops had so much as a taser, but were table to take down and arrest armed suspects without injury to any party. To me, the most fethed up part were the comments being made by the US based officers watching.... It was all stuff like, "ohh, he'da been shot right there" or, "yep, he's dead right there"

First off, I wouldn't be using Britain's finest as a means of making my point. Especially, since they are afraid of doing their jobs because they are afraid of being labeled "racist" or "politically incorrect". Just ask the 1400 young girls who were victims of Pakistani grooming gangs in Rochdale, Rotherham, Derby, and Oxford over a period of ten years, and the victim's families. Or the fact that London Metro does little, if anything, to stop the so-called "Sharia patrols" in North London, or won't put a stop to Sharia courts operating in the UK because of fears of running them underground. Or the harassment of ex-EDL leader Tommy Robinson at a pub in Cambridge, with his kids watching a soccer match. The Commissioner's claims that the officers were just trying prevent trouble between fans of rival teams doesn't hold water, when the woman running the pub, and her security staff, clearly told the officers that nobody was getting rowdy, and nobody was causing problems. Nor does it hold water when after Robinson left the pub per instructions by the officers, they followed him, and scared the hell out of his kids.


I will agree though with the officers' comments being out of line. Even if they were engaging in banter, it was setting a bad example and reflected poorly on their respective agencies.


As for the rest, training and the street are two different animals. Training is a simulation. The street is real. You are not going to diffuse every situation with talk. And as somebody that has wrestled with more than a few perps/inmates over the course of a police and corrections career, you are not going to be able to subdue them physically, with no assistance from compliance gear, everytime like they do on the mats in the gym.

 PrayingSeraph wrote:
I disagree. There is a clear difference between intention to contrast manslaughter from murder and the law punishing individuals for any ideological backings they held which may or may not have been a part of why they did their crime.

Yes, there is a clear difference between the two... and it is a difference defined entirely by the operation of the mind. Which should then make it clear that the law already uses the operation of the mind in criminal law, which makes the complaint about hate crime being some kind of unique 'thought crime' to be utter tosh.

In the example you provided with a perpetrator carving "all white men must die" in a head of a white victim, the perpetrator should be judged purely by the actions they took, such as murder and mutilation of corpse, not their ideology. Their ideology is not, nor should not be illegal. It's horrid yes from our perspective, but freedom of speech and thought is the foundation of all freedom. Otherwise a society starts to become Orwellian.

Please don't wander off in to that place of dramatic sounding nonsense like 'Orwellian', if only because of how pissed it would make Orwell to think of people using such vague dramatic terms instead of constructing clear arguments through correct use of language.

Anyhow, the argument that there is some kind of free speech element to carving racial attacks in to the corpses of one's victims is really quite funny.

In terms of fear some act may cause in a community, I find that utterly irrelevant and the law should not be based on emotion from any community.

That's nice. Many people find a minority community living in fear of violence to be very relevant and very serious and very definitely something that should have legal protections where possible.

And do remember that we aren't talking purely about fear, but about fear caused by criminal acts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
There's no point to adding hate crime laws on top of that scenario at all. Person murders another person. The state should charge the murderer with murder, prosecute the murderer and hopefully get a conviction and appropriate sentence.

You're getting caught up in the details of my example, and ignoring the underlying logic. I had hoped by making the example obviously exaggerated and silly that people wouldn't worry about the case itself, and just understand the principle.

Creating additional federal laws beyond the existing state laws to single out some specific types of murder as being extra special bad is a divisive waste of time. The sentence for a murderer should be justifiably severe because of the fact that a murder was committed whether it was a "hate crime" or not. What purpose does the distinction and greater sentence serve?

First up, most murders will get you limited duration sentences. There isn't that much murder 1 stuff.

Second up, there's a whole host of crimes that aren't murder that can have hate crime motives and effects. The classic example is breaking in to a synagogue and spray painting a "Steve was here" as opposed to spray painting a swastika. The second is simple a very different thing, with a very different impact on the community.

Now, we can have a long an interesting conversation about the difficulty of establishing hate crime laws, and the many failings of the current hate crime laws. But the argument that appears to be getting made by many people is that there is no distinction, or that the law cannot make a distinction between spray painting "Steve was here" on the synagogue, and spray painting a swastika. And that's just a straight up terrible position for anyone to take.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
We don't punish people based on the odds of their possible rehabilitation we punish them based on the criminal acts they commit. Other than determining the classification of murder 1st/2nd/3rd all murders should be punished equally as they all equally deprive their victims of their lives, equally deprive society of the victims existence/contributions and all of those victims are valued equally by society and the law.

"Other than determining the classification of murder 1st/2nd/3rd all murders should be punished equally as they all equally deprive their victims of their lives".

Do you realise that basically reads as "other than making distinctions we shouldn't make distinctions." This is not a coherent position.

There is a debate to be had on what distinctions are good, possible and practical. But to simply arbitrarily say that other than these distinctions that you accept there should be no distinctions is a bad argument.

 sebster wrote:

 PrayingSeraph wrote:
I disagree. There is a clear difference between intention to contrast manslaughter from murder and the law punishing individuals for any ideological backings they held which may or may not have been a part of why they did their crime.

Yes, there is a clear difference between the two... and it is a difference defined entirely by the operation of the mind. Which should then make it clear that the law already uses the operation of the mind in criminal law, which makes the complaint about hate crime being some kind of unique 'thought crime' to be utter tosh.

In the example you provided with a perpetrator carving "all white men must die" in a head of a white victim, the perpetrator should be judged purely by the actions they took, such as murder and mutilation of corpse, not their ideology. Their ideology is not, nor should not be illegal. It's horrid yes from our perspective, but freedom of speech and thought is the foundation of all freedom. Otherwise a society starts to become Orwellian.

Please don't wander off in to that place of dramatic sounding nonsense like 'Orwellian', if only because of how pissed it would make Orwell to think of people using such vague dramatic terms instead of constructing clear arguments through correct use of language.

Anyhow, the argument that there is some kind of free speech element to carving racial attacks in to the corpses of one's victims is really quite funny.

In terms of fear some act may cause in a community, I find that utterly irrelevant and the law should not be based on emotion from any community.

That's nice. Many people find a minority community living in fear of violence to be very relevant and very serious and very definitely something that should have legal protections where possible.

And do remember that we aren't talking purely about fear, but about fear caused by criminal acts.

To rebut your first response, manslaughter is distinct from murder as it is homicide without any malice. Not many would argue that someone who is reckless and accidently kills another person deserves the same punishment as someone who killed another person as per their plan. However let us compare two scenarios of murder, one where there was no charge of a "hate crime" and another where there was.

Scenario 1: A killer willingly and premeditatedly murders a black person. Gets arrested and charged with 1st degree murder.

Scenario 2: A killer willingly and premeditatedly murders a black person. Gets arrested and charged with 1st degree murder while also later charged with hate crime because said killer was known to be racist towards black people from statements he said or social media content he liked.

The crime is the same in both scenarios, however in the latter scenario the killer is persecuted afterwards his initial murder charge for his beliefs and speech. The latter was persecuted for his thoughts and his speech, meaning they were not protected. His actions were fairly charged, it is illegal to murder another person after all and so it should be. But he was not just charged for his actions, he was charged for his beliefs. Sorry but hate laws are against freedom of speech and thought. If you want to argue that thoughts, ideologies, and speech should be restricted and not free, then fair enough. But do not claim to be for freedom of speech and thought only to then advocate for laws that would punish others for said things.


In regards to your second response....you honestly just choose to make an utterly pointless complaint over me using the word Orwellian? You kidding me? And are you honestly telling me that restriction of speech and thought isn't Orwellian? The man who was all for a open and free society wouldn't be against freedom of speech and thought? Because that is what my post was talking about. Clearly you and Orwell are not alike.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” - George Orwell

Also, you and I both know you deliberately took what I was saying way out of context. I never claimed that people have the right to carve any message into a corpse. Not once. I find it incredibly hard to believe you read that and thought to yourself "this guy thinks carving messages into a corpse is free speech element". Disagree? Then prove where I stated that.


In terms to your last response, those "many people" who think there should be legal protection against fear are wrong. It could be fear from criminal attacks or not. In fact, let's examine that. If a killer murders a black person out of racism and is arrested and charged, why should any other black person be fearful? Statistically they are not likely to ever meet the same unfortunate fate of the victim of said murder. Can they prove they are fearful? After all, the law should not just charge someone over someone merely claiming to be fearful. Can the state prove that the attack did indeed cause fear? How much fear would it take to be worthy of an extra charge? How many affected? Is that fear justified? Should the killer be penalized more for the irrational fear of others?





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 PrayingSeraph wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrayingSeraph wrote:
In the example you provided with a perpetrator carving "all white men must die" in a head of a white victim, the perpetrator should be judged purely by the actions they took, such as murder and mutilation of corpse, not their ideology. Their ideology is not, nor should not be illegal. It's horrid yes from our perspective, but freedom of speech and thought is the foundation of all freedom. Otherwise a society starts to become Orwellian.

Inciting violence is not mere speech, and it is not Orwellian to punish people who do it. "White men are evil" is an ideology that must be protected, and saying it is (and should be) protected speech. "Kill this white man" is not.

The Supreme Court case of Brandenburg vs Ohio ruled that only imminent incitement of violence aka "Imminent Lawless Action" is not protected under the first amendment, but that mere advocacy of violence in general is protected. The vague term "Imminent" was later clarified in Hess vs Indiana that Hess's words "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time" and was thus protected under freedom of speech.

So there is a difference between someone saying "Tonight I will go this black persons house and murder them" and "All black people should die".

Citing rulings does not an ethical discussion make. For example, under our own Criminal Code, speech is much more easily construed as incitement, even when the speech is directed only at the eventual victim and never results in harm.

Speech is rarely just speech. One's theory of language and Law ought to be more sophisticated than that.

I quoted said rulings to illustrate the following paragraph's point.

However out of curiosity, what country are you referring to? I know as a Canadian, it is very evident that freedom of speech is not guaranteed here. For example, couple months ago we saw comedian Mike Ward fined $42 000 in Quebec for a joke which referred to a disabled boy as "ugly" by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which is shamefully funded by our taxpayer dollars. Was the joke tasteless? I would definitely say so, but taste is subjective. Does he have the right to say it? Apparently not here, but he sure as hell should be able to. Honestly, could you imagine being fined $42 000 for a tasteless joke? Well in Canada, forget about imagining it.

 PrayingSeraph wrote:
The crime is the same in both scenarios, however in the latter scenario the killer is persecuted afterwards his initial murder charge for his beliefs and speech. The latter was persecuted for his thoughts and his speech, meaning they were not protected. His actions were fairly charged, it is illegal to murder another person after all and so it should be. But he was not just charged for his actions, he was charged for his beliefs. Sorry but hate laws are against freedom of speech and thought. If you want to argue that thoughts, ideologies, and speech should be restricted and not free, then fair enough. But do not claim to be for freedom of speech and thought only to then advocate for laws that would punish others for said things.

Except that's not how it works, because you're ignoring another possible scenario:

Scenario 3: a killer willingly and premeditatedly murders a black person because the black person tried to cheat him on a drug deal. Gets arrested and charged with 1st degree murder but is not charged with a hate crime because, despite the killer's racist beliefs, the motive for the crime was not racism.

Hate crime laws only apply when the motive for the crime is related to race/religion/etc. They exist to punish the "and you're next" statement such a crime is intended to send to other members of that group, not the private beliefs of the person committing the crime.

In regards to your second response....you honestly just choose to make an utterly pointless complaint over me using the word Orwellian? You kidding me? And are you honestly telling me that restriction of speech and thought isn't Orwellian? The man who was all for a open and free society wouldn't be against freedom of speech and thought? Because that is what my post was talking about. Clearly you and Orwell are not alike.

It's a reasonable response because "Orwellian" means excessive restrictions on freedom. Restricting the freedom to incite criminal actions is not anywhere near the same category as, say, restricting the ability to criticize a politician or wealthy celebrity. When you use "Orwellian" to label any restriction of freedom of speech, no matter how reasonable or justified, the word ceases to have any meaning.

If a killer murders a black person out of racism and is arrested and charged, why should any other black person be fearful?

Because crimes aren't isolated events and happen in the context of society as a whole? Because people committing crimes with an agenda behind them (as opposed to just greed or whatever) can be a source of inspiration to other people with similar beliefs? It's the reason why mass shootings are often followed by other shootings.

Does he have the right to say it?

Yes, because it falls in the category of "things that are offensive and only said by s", not "speech or actions intended to incite criminal actions against or intimidate a targeted group". But that's an example that has nothing to do with your original example of someone calling for the death of an entire class of people in the process of murdering a member of that group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Eric Garner was engaging in illegal activity. Selling loose cigarettes without a license and tax stamp is illegal under New York State law. IN FACT, Garner was out on bail at the time for the exact same offense, in addition to the charges of driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation.

Ah yes, the classic "this person was a Bad Person and deserved whatever they got" excuse for police violence. Selling cigarettes without paying taxes, driving without a license, and possessing a harmless (though illegal) drug are not violent crimes. None of those things make his arrest an immediate priority for the safety of others. There was no need to escalate the situation to violence, other than the police refusing to accept that someone could be allowed to resist them. And there was certainly no need to continue restraining him when he said "I can't breathe". At that point even allowing a suspect in a non-violent crime to walk away free (and arresting him later) would have been a better outcome than killing him.

 Peregrine wrote:

Except that's not how it works, because you're ignoring another possible scenario:

Scenario 2: a killer willingly and premeditatedly murders a black person because the black person tried to cheat him on a drug deal. Gets arrested and charged with 1st degree murder but is not charged with a hate crime because, despite the killer's racist beliefs, the motive for the crime was not racism.

Hate crime laws only apply when the motive for the crime is related to race/religion/etc. They exist to punish the "and you're next" statement such a crime is intended to send to other members of that group, not the private beliefs of the person committing the crime.

How does that scenario contradict or disprove my example? I am arguing that "hate crime" charges should not exist, and thus, shout not be applicable in any of those 3 scenarios or any others.

I know what hate crime laws are and addressed that. However my point which I explained is that by charging someone with a hate crime, you are persecuting them for their speech, ideologically and/or association. After all, that is the only way you could guess if a crime was motivated by hate or not. It also brings into question the false accusations and charges of hate crime. For example...

Scenario: Killer shoots and kills a black person. Said killer had a history of racist speech and association to racist supremacist groups but in actuality only shot the black person because he had unstable anger issues and shot the black person because said black person was rude to him. Could have shot anyone who was rude to him. He gets accused of killing the black person out of hate and is charged for it. Justice was therefore not served.

Now this is just an example. Other like scenarios could be created. But at the end of the day, you can only argue that a killer murdered someone out of hate based on their speech and association, which is protected and therefore not viable to use.

It's a reasonable response because "Orwellian" means excessive restrictions on freedom. Restricting the freedom to incite criminal actions is not anywhere near the same category as, say, restricting the ability to criticize a politician or wealthy celebrity. When you use "Orwellian" to label any restriction of freedom of speech, no matter how reasonable or justified, the word ceases to have any meaning.

Actually that is not what Orwellian means. It does not have to be excessive to Orwellian. But considering hate crime laws would be based on persecution of ideology, thought and speech, I would consider that excessive nonetheless.

Definition: "Orwellian is an adjective describing a situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society."

The quote from Orwell I provided was just an example proving my legit use of the term. Besides, if you are worried about vague words, try looking at "hate".

Because crimes aren't isolated events and happen in the context of society as a whole? Because people committing crimes with an agenda behind them (as opposed to just greed or whatever) can be a source of inspiration to other people with similar beliefs? It's the reason why mass shootings are often followed by other shootings.

Yes but if a person is locked up for murder, he cannot commit any more crimes...at least not outside prison. Could other people commit crimes? Sure, but the criminal already locked up is not responsible for their actions. A person is only responsible for their own actions. But let's take your second sentence there and examine it. If people committing crimes with an agenda behind them can be a source of inspiration for other shooters, what about people being inspired by others who merely exercised their free speech but did not go out and kill others? Are they to be charged for their speech to? It did after all inspire someone. For example:

Scenario: Racist author writes a book saying black people are subhuman and are akin to animals. The soon-to-be-criminal reads the book, is inspired and therefore thinks it's justified to go outside and shoot a black person, which he does. He gets charged with murder, hate crime, points to his inspiration being the book by said author, author gets charged for hate crime because of said inspiration and therefore has his freedom of speech violated.

Let's take that horrid real life racist 1978 novel "The Turner Diaries", in which portrays the white race being under the "oppressive control" of Jews, non whites etc. The protagonist leads a violent revolution against such groups for white supremacy which results in the extermination of all said groups. The novel suggests a race war. Said book was a very real possible inspiration of the Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh, in which he was found after the attack with pages from the book, alongside the fact the attack very much resembled the novel's scene of starting the war through the bombing of the FBI headquarters. Should the author William Luther Pierce have been charged for the inspiration? Or how about James Byrd's murder at the hands of a white supremacists in which one stated "We're going to start The Turner Diaries Early". My point? You are arguing that hate crimes are based on possible inspiration for other people committing. But with that reasoning, why stop with hate crimes related to other crimes such as murder? The inspiration can come from books, or any other speech as well. Why not make those speech and thoughts illegal? They could cost other people their life(even if statistically unlikely).

But still, statistically none of us regardless of our ethnicity, religion or sexuality are likely to be targeted and killed by hateful people. Therefore, the fear is irrational.

Yes, because it falls in the category of "things that are offensive and only said by s", not "speech or actions intended to incite criminal actions against or intimidate a targeted group".

Speech is and should be protected, and again, the action would be the crime in question. Anything else is related to speech, thought and ideology.